[Senate Hearing 110-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
    ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2007

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Dorgan, Landrieu, Reed, Domenici, 
Bennett, Craig, and Allard.

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         Department of the Army

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT 
            SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

    Senator Dorgan. I'm going to call the hearing to order. 
This is the hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development and we will take testimony today on the budget 
request and justifications for the Department of the Army, Army 
Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and the 
Department of the Interior.
    My ranking member is Senator Domenici. He is, at the 
moment, in the Budget Committee. They are marking up the budget 
document. I don't know how long he will be there but it might 
take some while. So he has indicated it's fine to begin without 
him because he is busy on budget votes.
    I'm joined by my colleague, Senator Craig, and we have two 
panels today. I am going to have both panels seated together 
and I appreciate that. We have a series of six votes today that 
start at 3:45 and because of that, I think because we have six 
votes that will be sequential, they will take us probably 1\1/
2\ hours to 1 hour and 40 minutes to complete. I want to try to 
do a good hearing and a complete hearing but try to complete it 
as efficiently and effectively as we can before we start those 
votes. Because if we would have to recess and then come back 1 
hour or 1 hour-plus later, that would not be helpful to 
anybody.
    I'd like to make a brief opening statement and then I'm 
going to call on Senator Craig.
    Today the subcommittee will take testimony on the fiscal 
year 2008 budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers and 
the Bureau of Reclamation. General Strock is with us today from 
the Corps of Engineers. Sir, my understanding is that this will 
be your final hearing with us and you will soon retire from the 
Army. Let me thank you for your service to our country and 
thank you for appearing before this committee a number of times 
and we look forward to a smooth transition with your successor, 
General Van Antwerp when he is confirmed.
    Let me say that the President's budget for the Corps of 
Engineers proposes $4.87 billion. That's nearly $500 million 
below the enacted level of fiscal year 2007, $5.34 billion. The 
highlights of the fiscal year 2008 budget include general 
investigations' proposed 45 percent decrease, $90 million down 
from the current year--excuse me, proposed at $90 million, $73 
million less than the current year enacted. General 
construction is proposed at a 38 percent decrease from current 
year. We have a very substantial backlog in unconstructed 
projects. I'm very concerned about both of these 
recommendations, frankly.
    The Mississippi River and Tributaries is proposed at $260 
million, a decrease of 35 percent from the current year. The 
O&M, operations and maintenance general, is proposed at an 
increase of 25 percent. This increase is somewhat less than it 
sounds because of the $286 million shifted from the 
construction account to O&M for the sake of budget 
transparency.
    The fiscal year 2008 budget request is assembled along the 
Corps' eight business lines. I'm going to put a statement in 
the record speaking about the investigation accounts and the 
construction funding and some other thoughts about it.
    Let me just say even as I include my whole statement in the 
record that I'm disappointed by the budget because frankly, as 
I think our witnesses know and I hope the administration knows, 
we have a substantial amount of work to be done. We have 
projects that are not yet funded. We have projects underway 
that are not funded adequately and I frankly don't understand 
the budget request. I understand we have to tighten our belts 
but I also understand there is a very big difference between 
spending and investing and I think when you take a look at all 
of the appropriations requests that we receive in the Congress, 
if ever you would classify projects as investments, you would 
classify these projects as investments. These, in many cases, 
are water projects, public works projects that will provide 
dividends for years to come to this country. So I don't view 
this as typical spending. We are providing flood control, we 
are saving substantial money in flood control projects, we are 
investing in water projects that enhance our economy and 
provide opportunities that weren't otherwise provided.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    So I'm very concerned about the budgets. With respect to 
the Bureau of Reclamation, again I think we have budgets here 
that come to us probably expecting the committee to add back 
funding. Maybe that's the case. If it is, my hope will be that 
this expectation is realized because I think the Corps of 
Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation are critical to a whole 
range of things that represent the public good in our country 
and we must provide adequate funding for the things that they 
undertake on our behalf.
    I'm going to call on Senator Craig and ask that my entire 
statement be part of the record.
    [The statement follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan

    Good afternoon--the hearing will come to order.
    Today, the subcommittee will take testimony on the fiscal year 2008 
budget requests for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    The hearing will consist of two panels. The first panel will 
consist of witnesses from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    Testifying for them will be: John Paul Woodley, Principle Deputy, 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and Lieutenant General 
Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers for the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers.
    At the conclusion of this panel, we will observe a short break and 
seat the panel for the Bureau of Reclamation. Testifying for the Bureau 
of Reclamation will be: Mark Limbaugh, Assistant Secretary for Water 
and Science, Department of the Interior, and Robert Johnson, 
Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation. Mr. Woodley, General Strock, thank 
you for appearing before us today.
    General Strock, I understand that this will be your final hearing 
with us as you will soon retire from the Army. I want to thank you for 
your service to this committee and the Nation. I look forward to a 
smooth transition with your successor, General Van Antwerp, when he is 
confirmed.
    The President's budget for the Corps of Engineers proposes $4.87 
billion, which is $469 million below the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
amount of $5.34 billion.
    Several of the highlights for the fiscal year 2008 budget include:
  --General investigations is proposed at $90 million, down 45 percent 
        ($73 million) from the current year. Even if we were going to 
        consider the proposed cancellation of $50 million of fiscal 
        year 2007 funds, this account would still be 20 percent below 
        the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount.
  --Construction, general is proposed at $1.523 billion, a decrease of 
        38 percent ($813 million) from the current year which certainly 
        doesn't help to reduce the more than $40 billion backlog in 
        unconstructed projects. I am not sure whether we will be able 
        to make up the entire deficit in this account.
  --Mississippi River and Tributaries is proposed at $260 million, a 
        decrease of 35 percent ($137 million) from the current year.
  --Operation and maintenance, general is proposed at $2.471 billion, 
        an increase of about 25 percent ($496 million). I wish this is 
        as good as it sounds. However, this increase is inflated by 
        $286 million that was shifted from the construction account to 
        O&M for the sake of ``budget transparency''.

                 BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

    Your fiscal year 2008 budget request is assembled along the Corps' 
eight business lines: Emergency Management; Environment; Flood and 
Coastal Storm Damage Reduction; Hydropower; Navigation; Recreation; 
Regulatory; and Water Supply.
    In the GI account, the budget proposal arbitrarily limits funding 
to $90 million. The only justification used is that since the Corps 
civil works program already has a large backlog of ongoing construction 
work, there is no need to study and design additional projects. There 
are many reasons why this is a shortsighted budgetary view:
  --The planning program in the Corps' GI account is the entry point 
        for Federal involvement in solutions to water resource problems 
        and needs.
  --It assumes that the country will stop growing and that new 
        investment opportunities will not be present.
  --In truth, as the country grows, new investment opportunities will 
        be presented and some previously authorized projects may no 
        longer make sense or may be less competitive.
    Construction funding within the budget was prioritized primarily by 
the use of the benefit to cost ratio. While this is a more equitable 
way to compare projects than previous measures, it still does not get 
to the heart of your budgeting dilemma. That is, that your program has 
been underfunded for years.
    Your budget proposes that 16 high priority projects consume some 51 
percent of the construction budget. The remaining 52 projects that you 
recommended have to split the remaining 49 percent of the construction 
budget. This will lead to these 52 projects limping along for another 
year. Meanwhile the other 250 or so projects that are on-going from 
previous years are not even addressed in the budget.
    Our national water resource needs continue to grow as our 
population grows and shifts around the country. The American Society of 
Civil Engineers has again graded our infrastructure as a ``D''. How 
does this budget address this abysmal grade? It doesn't!
    You are budgeting in large measure as if there is a finite group of 
projects that once they are finished, investment in our national 
infrastructure will be complete. Then all that will be required is 
funding to maintain this infrastructure. You are not providing 
sufficient funding to maintain what we have, much less provide for the 
future.
    Finding a new and better prioritization system will not solve the 
problems of consistently underfunding infrastructure. Sure you may 
succeed in prioritizing your agency into irrelevance, but that does not 
help the problem nor can we allow that to happen.
    The only way to solve this problem, is for the administration to 
provide more funding for these infrastructure investments. If they 
won't then the Congress will certainly try. Note that I did not say 
spend more money, I said invest more. The funding that we provide is 
for investments not only for today but in our future.

                            BUDGET PROPOSALS

    The fiscal year 2006 budget has a number of proposals, some new for 
this year, some recycled from previous years.
    The budget has again proposed the elimination of continuing 
contracts in favor of multiple year contracting. I will have a number 
of questions for you concerning this proposal.
    The budget again proposes a beach policy that has been previously 
rejected by the Congress. I think it is safe to assume that the 
modified policy will also be rejected.
    Finally, I find it fascinating that the administration has proposed 
considerable authorizing language as a part of the budget. Perhaps you 
should consider proposing an administration WRDA bill to address these 
needed authorizing provisions.
    It is obvious from this budget proposal that the Congress has 
considerable work ahead. The President has proposed considerable 
infrastructure investments, unfortunately, they are not in our country, 
but in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    I look forward to working towards preparing a responsible budget 
for our national infrastructure.
    Our second panel will consist of witnesses from the Department of 
Interior. Testifying will be: Mark Limbaugh, Assistant Secretary for 
Water and Science, Department of the Interior, and Robert Johnson, 
Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation.
    The two major project accounts for the Department of Interior under 
the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water subcommittee are the Central 
Utah Completion Act Account and the Bureau of Reclamation.

                        THE CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

    The Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 authorized this 
element of the Colorado River Storage Project to be completed by the 
Central Utah Conservancy District.
    The Central Utah Project Completion account is proposed at $43 
million for fiscal year 2008, an increase of nearly 27 percent ($9 
million) from the current year.
    The increase in this account is primarily due to construction 
contracts planned for the project in fiscal year 2008.

                       THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

    The Bureau of Reclamation is proposed at $958.4 million for fiscal 
year 2008, a decrease of 6.5 percent ($66.6 million) from the current 
year.
    This budget includes: $816.2 million for the Water and Related 
Resources account, $51.6 million for the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund, $31.8 million for the California Bay-Delta 
Restoration account, and $58.8 million for the Policy and 
Administration account.
    Major projects funded in Water and Related Resources include: $27.2 
million for the Central Arizona Project, $124.8 million for 
California's Central Valley Project, $58 million for the Animas-La 
Plata Project in Colorado, $55 million for rural water projects, and 
$77 million for continued work to ensure the safety of dams.

                      ISSUES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

    I am concerned that funding for rural water projects is declining. 
We have people in my home State that can see Lake Sakakawea from their 
house, yet 50 years after the lake was constructed, they still have to 
haul water to their homes each and every week whether it is -35 degrees 
or 100 degrees outside. It should not be that way. Not in this country. 
The budget proposal further drags out completion of these projects and 
the delivery of fresh water to these impacted communities.
    Under Water 2025, $11 million is proposed to meet the challenge of 
preventing crises and conflicts over water in the west. Ten million 
dollars of the funds are proposed for the 50:50 challenge grant program 
which relies on local initiative and innovation to identify and 
formulate the most sensible improvements for local water systems.
    Another area of the budget that has been seriously underfunded is 
water reclamation and reuse. Water reclamation and reuse is a vital 
component of increasing near term water supplies for the West. The 
Federal share for most of these projects is about 25 percent or $20 
million whichever is less. In many cases, the few Federal dollars 
involved are the difference as to whether these projects can move 
forward or not. The Federal dollars are leveraged against other funding 
to make these projects a success. Only about $10 million was provided 
for these projects in the budget request. Congress normally provides 
$25-30 million.
    The administration has proposed $1 million to develop and 
administer the Loan Guarantee program. This new program is intended to 
address aging water infrastructure issues in the West. It was 
authorized by the Reclamation Rural Water Supply Act of 2006.
    Title I of this act requires the Secretary to establish a formal 
rural water supply program for rural water and major maintenance 
projects. The Secretary is also to establish programmatic and 
eligibility criteria along with other reporting requirements and 
criteria for appraisal and feasibility studies. I am glad to see that 
you are funding this initiative and hope that you will include rural 
water supply as a bigger part of your budget for fiscal year 2009.
    I look forward to working with you gentlemen as we prepare the 
fiscal year 2008 budget for your agencies.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

    Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I will adhere to your 
admonition about time because we do want to hear these folks 
who are before us. I must also say to the panel, a lot of what 
the Senator has said, I agree with. It's probably the result of 
him coming from the High Plains and me coming from the high 
desert. Like no one else, our States appreciate and understand 
water.
    But let me welcome, of course, Assistant Secretary Woodley 
and General Strock. Again, thank you for your service. 
Commissioner Johnson and the Assistant Secretary are in the 
back of the room and he'll be forward. Are you going to have 
everybody at the table?
    Senator Dorgan. Yes.
    Senator Craig. Then Commissioner Limbaugh, why don't you 
move down and let me ask that you go over to the right side. 
There you go. So we'll get you all at the table. There we go.
    I want to thank you all for your willingness to work with 
our offices on a variety of issues from the Corps helping 
deliver clean drinking water to many of my Idaho constituents, 
the Bureau of Reclamation storing Idaho's most precious 
resource, water. I sat through several budget hearings so far 
and one trend remains true. Declining budgets are a part of the 
current fiscal reality that we're all dealing with. I realize 
and understand you all are forced to balance priorities with 
the current fiscal constraints and I appreciate what a 
difficult task that must be.
    Now, let me turn my focused comments specifically to the 
Army Corps of Engineers. First I want to start by thanking 
members of the Corps that have served our country in Iraq. You 
will play a vital role, not only domestically but 
internationally as we pursue stable environments, both in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. We thank you for your service there.
    Second, thank you for your diligent work in my State, as I 
mentioned earlier, in drinking water, waste water 
infrastructure. Some may argue this isn't part of your core 
mission. However, you all do phenomenal work in my State and 
generally, complete projects within a reasonable timeframe, 
within budget, for which I commend you and thank you.
    The Corps also plays a vital role in operating and 
maintaining our national waterways. As has just been mentioned, 
Idaho ships a significant number of products on the Snake and 
Columbia systems. It is important that we maintain those while 
dredging has gone on. The reality of infrastructure 
maintenance, aging locks, aging gates--all of those kinds of 
things to sustain a very critical transportation system is 
important. So I am concerned about that. I'm also concerned 
about the administration's proposal that would create a lock 
tax. As you know, shippers already pay a fuel tax. I'm 
interested in hearing how this new tax will access--will be 
accessed as well as where the revenue might end up. If it's 
just a new source of revenue that gets dumped into the General 
Fund, I don't think any of our users are all that interested. 
Dedicated revenues that end up replacing used infrastructure 
makes--could make some sense.
    The Bureau of Reclamation, as you know well, Commissioner 
and Assistant Secretary--water is what makes the West what it 
is today. We have a problem with aging infrastructure and I 
appreciate your helping find long-term solutions to those 
problems. I commend the administration for acting quickly, 
setting up a guarantee loan program. Although it is only set at 
$1 million, I'm encouraged. I think it is a step clearly in the 
right direction that begins to address some of the ways we 
solve some of these problems. We need to continue looking for 
creative financing packages for our water users so they can 
rehabilitate their infrastructure in an efficient and cost 
effective way.
    We in the West are no longer at the frontier. We are a 
developed economy in an aging infrastructure and with a 
developed economy, it has resources properly leveraged that can 
assist itself when government becomes a cooperating partner and 
I'm not here nor are any of my users here to suggest that the 
government ought to be the only partner or that it ought to be 
the only supplier of resource. I've been supportive of the 2025 
Program as well as Title 16 Program and I hope to see those 
programs continue to yield results.
    One last thing--this is not only directed at your agencies 
but also at the Federal agencies that have provided budgets in 
Congress. It's been difficult to decipher which programs have 
received increases, which have received decreases and more 
specifically, what was enacted in the 2006 versus what is 
requested now. This information isn't widely available, has 
been tough not only to find areas to look at, understand and/or 
criticize. These are the realities of what we're working with 
now and I hope the administration works on this for the next 
year so that we all have a better understanding of where we 
are.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to all of your 
testimony.
    Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig, thank you very much. To my 
other colleagues, let me say that we have six votes starting at 
3:45 and so I want to try to see if we can get the witnesses to 
make their statements and I want to make sure we have ample 
opportunity at the hearing to ask questions as well. If you'd 
like to make a very brief opening statement, I'll recognize 
that but I----
    Senator Bennett. I've got a page and a half, Mr. Chairman. 
Will that be enough?
    Senator Dorgan. Why don't you proceed?

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

    Senator Bennett. Okay. I just wanted to address the Army 
Corps and thank them for their excellent work in Utah. We've 
had their quick response to devastating floods in Washington 
County and I enjoyed working with them.
    But I do have a significant issue that I want to call 
General Strock's and Secretary Woodley's attention to. The Army 
Corps has made good progress in rural Utah by providing 
financial and technical assistance for water infrastructure 
projects. Rural Utah 595 Program--you're nodding, you're 
familiar with that. It makes it possible for rural cities and 
counties to build the critical water projects that otherwise 
they couldn't afford. So the Congress has supported this 
program and I'm asking for the subcommittee's continued 
support.
    But the committee--although the committee has provided 
specific funding to the rural Utah account, on two separate 
occasions, the Army Corps has reprogrammed nearly $1.5 million 
to spend on projects in other States and these missing funds 
could complete several infrastructure projects in Utah that are 
now on hold because of the lack of funding.
    I raised this concern with the Division Commander, 
Brigadier General McMahon, last week when he came to see me and 
he assured me that the Corps was simply borrowing the money and 
the funds would be replaced. I'm not familiar with that process 
in the Federal system, how you borrow money that has been 
earmarked for one purpose and use it for another. Maybe we 
ought to be paid interest. I don't know. But I understand that 
the Corps has formulated its work plan for fiscal 2007 and in 
that work plan, it did not include funds to restore those that 
were borrowed from the rural Utah account. So I want to raise 
the issue here and have a response on the record for replacing 
the funds and would like to know when they will be replaced.
    So that's my issue, Mr. Chairman and I raise it and it's 
there to be responded to either in the question period or if 
we're all drawn away from votes, on the record. Thank you very 
much.
    Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett, thank you very much. 
Senator Landrieu.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Senator Landrieu. I'm going to waive my opening statement 
and will submit it for the record but I do need several 
questions after the testimony.
    [The statement follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu

    Thank you Chairman Dorgan and thank you Assistant Secretary Woodley 
and General Strock for appearing before this committee. Today, we are 
here to discuss the very important matter of the Corps budget and I 
appreciate the chance to share my thoughts with this committee and with 
you the leadership of the Corps.
    I find the President's budget request for the Corps for fiscal year 
2008 is once again woefully inadequate. The President's budget requests 
a mere $4.87 billion while we all know there is substantially more 
needed. Additionally, I am troubled by the continuation of the downward 
trend of investment in the country's infrastructure, specifically civil 
works projects. Specifically for Louisiana, several important projects 
have either been omitted or under funded in the President's budget 
request, such as: Morganza to the Gulf, SELA and others. While the 
Corps' regular fiscal year 2008 budget request is cause enough for 
concern, I am also concerned by the supplemental appropriations request 
the administration is asking Congress to consider.
    The piece-meal approach to hurricane recovery is still not 
sufficient. The request to reprogram, rather than appropriate $1.3 
billion to cover identified shortfalls for hurricane recovery is not a 
sustainable approach. Many Americans and most Louisianans recall the 
President's commitment from Jackson square to rebuild the devastated 
region; however the rhetoric has not matched the funding request. 
Robbing Peter to pay Paul will not provide adequate protection to 
prevent future disasters. Accordingly, I urge the Corps to deliver an 
estimate of the full cost of hurricane protection system recovery so 
Congress can develop a comprehensive path forward.
    The path forward must involve comprehensive wetland, navigation and 
flood protection planning. In the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill, this committee directed the Corps to develop a 
``full range of flood control, coastal restoration and hurricane 
protection measures exclusive of normal policy considerations'' in 
close coordination with the State of Louisiana. I remain concerned that 
the Corps will not follow Congress' intent in either presenting options 
outside of normal policy considerations or in the development of plans 
with sufficient input for Louisiana's interests. The State of Louisiana 
has developed its plan for flood control, coastal restoration and 
hurricane protection and I urge the Corps to incorporate the State's 
findings into its Cat 5 plan.
    Finally, I look forward to having some of my questions answered and 
I again thank the chair for the opportunity to speak here today.

    Senator Dorgan. General Strock and Secretary Woodley, thank 
you both for appearing on behalf of the Corps. We appreciate 
once again your willingness to be here to present statements 
and answer questions. Why don't you proceed as you wish, Mr. 
Secretary.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR.

    Mr. Woodley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief 
and I want to begin my testimony by paying tribute to my 
colleague who is retiring later this year, the 51st Chief of 
Engineers. Lieutenant General Strock will be concluding a very 
distinguished career in which he served as Chief of Engineers 
at perhaps the most challenging time in that agency's long and 
storied history. So I want to put that directly before the 
committee before I say anything else.
    Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, the committee shares your 
gratitude and the ``thank you'' that we would offer General 
Strock for his service to our country as well.
    Mr. Woodley. We have requested a 3 percent increase over 
our fiscal year 2007 request this year, providing $2.5 billion 
for the operation and maintenance account as the chairman 
noted, which represents a 9 percent increase over our request 
for fiscal year 2007.
    We have prioritized to--first of all, dam safety to 
continue to repair those projects that are in danger and to 
work on--give special priority to those projects that protect 
human health, human safety and property.
    We've also asked for an increase of funding in the 
Regulatory program to $180 million. This funding will be used 
for permit processing, enforcement and compliance, including 
our increased workload that we are anticipating because of 
recent judicial determinations by the Supreme Court.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    We will be working with stakeholders as Senator Craig 
indicated, to see what kind of solution we can reach about the 
depletion of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. That fund is very 
close to depletion because of the enormous investments that we 
are making in the Nation's waterway infrastructure and 
construction and some kind of action, we believe, should be 
taken to address the question of the depletion of that fund.
    So those are the highlights of our submission. I very much 
appreciate the opportunity to appear and address your questions 
today.
    [The statement follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. John Paul Woodley, Jr.

    Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: thank 
you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee, and to 
present the President's budget for the Civil Works program of the Army 
Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2008.

                                OVERVIEW

    The fiscal year 2008 budget for Army Civil Works provides funding 
for development and restoration of the Nation's water and related 
resources within the three main Civil Works program areas, namely, 
commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and 
aquatic ecosystem restoration. The budget also supports hydropower, 
recreation, environmental stewardship, and water supply services at 
existing water resources projects owned or operated by the Corps. 
Finally, the budget provides for protection of the Nation's regulated 
waters and wetlands; cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of the 
Nation's early efforts to develop atomic weapons; and emergency 
preparedness. The budget does not fund work that should be the 
responsibility of non-Federal interests or other Federal agencies, such 
as wastewater treatment and municipal and industrial water treatment 
and distribution.
    Total new discretionary funding in the fiscal year 2008 budget is 
$4.871 billion for fiscal year 2008, the highest amount ever in a Civil 
Works budget. Within this total, we have allocated $2.471 billion to 
activities funded in the operation and maintenance (O&M) account. This 
is the highest funding level for operation and maintenance ever 
proposed in a President's budget or enacted by the Congress. It is 9 
percent above the fiscal year 2007 budget level for the O&M account and 
$206 million above fiscal year 2006 enacted, after accounting for the 
$296 million that the budget has proposed to transfer in fiscal year 
2008 from construction to operation and maintenance.
    The budget also includes a fiscal year 2007 recommendation to re-
allocate up to $1.3 billion of emergency supplemental appropriations 
enacted in fiscal year 2006. This would enable the Corps to use 
available, unobligated funds for measures that will provide a better 
overall level of protection for the New Orleans metropolitan area in 
the near-term. This proposal is discussed further below.
    A 5-year budget development plan (FYDP) is under development and 
will be provided to the relevant committees of Congress. The FYDP 
includes two scenarios or projections: one based on the President's 
proposed fiscal year 2008 budget; and one above that level based on the 
most recently enacted appropriations (fiscal year 2006) at the time the 
budget was prepared. The projections are formula driven. They do not 
represent budget decisions or budget policy beyond fiscal year 2008, 
but they can provide perspective on the Army Civil Works program and 
budget.
    Enclosure 1 displays the current estimate for the distribution of 
new discretionary funding among eight appropriation accounts, eight 
program areas plus executive direction and management, and five sources 
including the general fund of the Treasury and trust funds. Enclosure 2 
is a crosscut between appropriation accounts and program areas.

                      PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING

    The fiscal year 2008 budget reflects a performance-based approach 
to budgeting. Competing investment opportunities for studies, design, 
construction, and operation and maintenance were evaluated using 
multiple metrics. We used objective, performance criteria to guide the 
allocation of funds among construction projects (see below).
    The budget includes initiatives leading to the development of a 
more systematic, performance-based budget and improved asset 
management. For instance, to improve investment decision making, the 
budget funds the development of economic models for navigation and 
methods for evaluating the benefits of aquatic ecosystem restoration 
efforts. To help identify, evaluate, and establish priorities for the 
maintenance and rehabilitation of existing flood and storm damage 
reduction, commercial navigation, and hydropower assets, the budget 
provides funding to develop asset management systems and risk-based 
condition indices. Finally, the budget presents information for 
operation and maintenance activities by river basin and by mission 
area, setting the stage for improved management of Civil Works assets 
and more systematic budget development in future years.
    The focus on Civil Works program performance has a number of 
foundations. First, the Civil Works Strategic Plan, which was updated 
in 2004, provides goals, objectives, and performance measures that are 
specific to program areas as well as some that are crosscutting. 
Second, each program area has been assessed using the Program 
Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Summaries of all completed civil works 
program assessments can be found on the administration's new website, 
www.ExpectMore.gov. Both the Civil Works Strategic Plan and the PART-
based program evaluations are works in progress and will continue to be 
updated.

            HIGHLIGHTS--WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS

Studies and Design
    The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $90 million for the 
Investigations account and $1 million for studies in the Mississippi 
River and Tributaries account. The budget funds the 67 most promising 
studies and preconstruction engineering and design (PED) activities. 
Performance was assessed based on the likelihood in the near-term of 
meeting the construction guidelines discussed below. For instance, 
among the projects in PED, the projects with benefit-cost ratios of 3.0 
to 1 or higher received funding.
    Within the $90 million, $13 million is for the Louisiana Coastal 
Area study and science program for coastal wetlands restoration; $22 
million is for other project-specific studies and design; $10 million 
is to continue the national inventory of flood and storm damage 
reduction projects; $17 million is for research and development; and 
$28 million is for other coordination, data collection, and study 
activities. Priorities within research and development include the 
Navigation Economic Technologies research program and the development 
of benefit evaluation methods for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Construction
    The budget provides $1.523 billion in the Construction account and 
$108 million for construction projects in the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries account.
    Many more construction projects have been authorized, initiated, 
and continued than can be constructed efficiently at any one time. The 
funding of projects with low economic and environmental returns and of 
projects that are not within Civil Works main mission areas has led to 
the postponement of benefits from the most worthy projects, and has 
significantly reduced overall program performance.
    To remedy this situation and to achieve greater value to the Nation 
from the Civil Works construction program, the budget focuses 
significant funding on the projects that yield the greatest return to 
the Nation, based upon objective performance criteria. The budget again 
proposes performance guidelines to allocate funds among construction 
projects. The most significant change is the inclusion of benefit-cost 
ratio (BCR) as a metric, rather than remaining benefit-remaining cost 
ratio. The BCR compares the total benefits to the total costs of a 
project at its inception, and provides a way to establish priorities 
among projects.
    Under the guidelines, the budget allocates funds among construction 
projects based primarily on these criteria: their BCR; their 
contribution to addressing a significant risk to human safety or to dam 
safety assurance, seepage control, or static instability correction 
concerns; and the extent to which they cost-effectively contribute to 
the restoration of nationally or regionally significant aquatic 
ecosystems that have become degraded as a result of Civil Works 
projects, or to a restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise 
uniquely well-suited. The construction guidelines are provided in 
Enclosure 3.
    The construction projects funded in the budget include 6 national 
priorities; 11 dam safety assurance, seepage control, and static 
instability correction projects; and 41 other, high-performing 
projects. The budget also funds ongoing continuing contracts, but no 
new contracts, for 11 projects with BCRs between 1.5 to 1 and 3.0 to 1.
Operation and Maintenance
    The budget proposes $2.471 billion for the Operation and 
Maintenance account and $151 million for maintenance activities in the 
Mississippi River and Tributaries account. Even after adjusting for the 
reassignment of work, discussed below, this amount is the highest 
funding level for operation and maintenance ever proposed in a 
President's budget.
    The budget emphasizes performance of existing projects by focusing 
on the maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood and storm damage 
reduction, hydropower, and other facilities. The proposed funding would 
enable the Army Corps of Engineers to carry out priority maintenance, 
repairs, and rehabilitations, and priority initiatives such as the 
development of asset management systems.
    The operation and maintenance program now includes four types of 
activities that were funded in the Construction program until last 
year. The budget transfers responsibility and funding for these 
activities--compliance with Biological Opinions at operating projects 
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, rehabilitation of existing 
projects, use of maintenance dredging material, and replacement of sand 
due to the operation and maintenance of Federal navigation projects--
because they are integrally connected to the operation and maintenance 
of Corps projects. The reassignment to the Operation and Maintenance 
program is needed to improve accountability and oversight, reflect the 
full cost of operation and maintenance, and support an integrated 
funding strategy for existing projects. The budget includes proposed 
appropriations language to cover funding for these activities in the 
Operation and Maintenance account.
    The budget proposes that Congress allocate operation and 
maintenance funding by river basin, rather than on a project-by-project 
basis. The justification materials present a current estimate for each 
basin of the distribution of proposed funding among the flood and 
coastal storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, hydropower, 
stewardship, recreation, and water supply program areas. Should 
operation and maintenance work be funded using this framework, managers 
in the field would be better able to adapt to uncertainties and better 
able to address emergencies as well as other changed conditions over 
the course of the fiscal year, consistent with congressional 
appropriations decisions. The Corps has displayed its current project-
by-project estimates for the fiscal year 2008 operation and maintenance 
program on its website.

                       HIGHLIGHTS--PROGRAM AREAS

    The Army Civil Works program includes eight program areas, plus the 
oversight/executive direction and management function. The eight 
program areas are commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage 
reduction, environment, recreation, hydropower, water supply, emergency 
management, and the regulatory program. Budget proposals for the nine 
areas are discussed below.
Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction, and Emergency Management
    The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $1.384 billion for flood and 
coastal storm damage reduction, and $45 million for emergency 
management.
    Among the 69 construction projects funded in the fiscal year 2008 
budget, 46 are for flood and coastal storm damage reduction, including 
8 dam safety and seepage control projects and 34 projects that address 
a significant risk to human safety or have high benefit-cost ratios.
    The budget emphasizes natural disaster preparedness and flood and 
coastal storm damage prevention. Specifically, the budget includes $40 
million in the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account to fund 
preparedness for flood and coastal emergencies and other disasters. 
This is a 25 percent increase for preparedness activities compared to 
the fiscal year 2007 budget, and is needed to maintain and improve our 
ability to respond to disasters. The budget also includes $20 million 
in multiple accounts to apply lessons learned from Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita (including the 12 follow-on actions identified by the Chief of 
Engineers and stepped-up cooperation with Federal Emergency Management 
Agency programs for flood plains), $10 million to continue to inventory 
and assess flood and storm damage reduction projects across the Nation, 
and $10 million to continue to assess the safety of the Corps portfolio 
of dams (including improving ordinary, but essential, inspection 
procedures).
    The budget provides funding for all work currently planned to 
remedy the most serious (Action Class I and II) dam safety, seepage, 
and static instability problems at Corps dams. The planning, design, 
and construction of these projects are funded at the maximum amount 
that the Corps estimates that it can use efficiently and effectively.
    The budget continues to support Federal participation in initial 
construction, but not in re-nourishment, at beach nourishment projects 
that provide storm damage reduction or ecosystem restoration outputs.
Commercial Navigation
    The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $2.009 billion for the 
commercial navigation program area.
    The amount budgeted for inland waterway construction projects 
(replacements and expansions in the Construction Account, and 
rehabilitations in the Operation and Maintenance account) is about $418 
million, the highest amount ever included in a President's budget. Half 
of the funding, or $209 million, would be derived from the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund. The funding in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 
will not be sufficient after fiscal year 2008 to support this level of 
investment in our principal inland waterways.
    The administration is developing and will propose legislation to 
require the barges on the inland waterways to pay a user fee. The user 
fee will address the decline in the balance in the Inland Waterways 
Trust Fund, which affects the government's ability to finance a portion 
of the continuing Federal capital investment in these waterways. The 
legislation will be offered this spring for consideration by Congress.
    The budget focuses operation and maintenance funding on those 
waterway segments and commercial harbors that support high volumes of 
commercial traffic, with emphasis on the heavily-used Mississippi, 
Ohio, and Illinois waterways. The budget also funds harbors that 
support significant commercial fishing, subsistence, public 
transportation, harbor of refuge, national security, or safety 
benefits.
    The budget continues the policy of funding beach replenishment, 
including periodic re-nourishment, where the operation and maintenance 
of Federal navigation projects is the reason for the sand loss on 
shorelines.
Environment
    The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $514 million for the 
environment program area.
    The budget includes $274 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
of which $162 million is for the Corps of Engineers share of the South 
Florida/Everglades restoration effort. Of this amount, $35 million is 
for the Modified Water Deliveries project, a key element of this effort 
that both the National Park Service and the Corps are funding. The 
budget provides $23 million for the Upper Mississippi restoration 
program and $13 million for the Louisiana Coastal Area restoration 
effort and its science program. The costs of compliance with Biological 
Opinions at existing projects are not included in the above figures. 
The budget includes these costs as part of the joint operation and 
maintenance costs of the affected projects and allocates these costs 
among the program areas served by the projects.
    The budget provides $110 million for environmental stewardship. 
Corps of Engineers-administered lands and waters cover 11 million 
acres, an area equal in size to the States of Vermont and New 
Hampshire. Funded activities include shoreline management, protection 
of natural resources, support for endangered species, continuation of 
mitigation activities, and protection of cultural and historic 
resources.
    The budget provides $130 million for the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) to clean up contamination at sites 
resulting largely from the early atomic weapons program. This funding 
will enable continued progress toward completion of remedial actions at 
a number of sites.
Regulatory Program
    The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $180 million to the Corps 
Regulatory Program to protect wetlands and other waters of the United 
States. This represents a $22 million increase over the fiscal year 
2006 enacted level of $158 million, and a $55 million increase since 
2001. The funding will be used for permit processing, for enforcement 
and compliance actions and for jurisdictional determinations, including 
additional workload necessitated by the Supreme Court's Carabell and 
Rapanos decisions.
    Investing in the Regulatory Program is a win-win proposition. The 
added funds will enable most public and private development to proceed 
with minimal delays, while ensuring that the aquatic environment is 
protected consistent with the Nation's water quality laws.
Recreation
    The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $267 million for recreation 
operations and related maintenance.
    To help finance recreation modernizations, the budget includes an 
initiative based on a promising model now used by other major Federal 
recreation providers such as the National Park Service and the Forest 
Service. The administration is re-proposing legislation for the Corps 
to generate additional revenue to help upgrade and modernize the 
recreation facilities at the sites where this money is collected. 
Specifically, the legislation includes authority for the Corps to 
charge entrance fees and other types of user fees where appropriate, 
and to cooperate with non-Federal park authorities and districts. The 
Corps would keep collections above an annual baseline amount.
Hydropower
    Hydropower is a renewable source of energy. The Civil Works program 
is the Nation's largest producer of hydroelectric energy, and provides 
3 percent of the Nation's total energy needs.
    The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $291 million for hydropower. 
This total includes $159 million for hydropower operation and 
maintenance costs, $43 million for the costs of replacements at four 
hydropower projects, and $89 million for the costs allocated to 
hydropower from multipurpose projects and programs. The replacement 
projects will help to reduce the forced outage rate, which is well 
above the industry average.
Water Supply
    On average, Civil Works projects provide 4 billion gallons of water 
per day to meet the needs of municipal and commercial users across the 
country. The budget includes $4 million for operation and maintenance 
costs allocable to water storage.
Executive Direction and Management
    The fiscal year 2008 budget provides $177 million for the Expenses 
account.
    Within this amount, $171 million is for the management and 
executive direction expenses of the Army Corps of Engineers, both at 
its Headquarters and Major Subordinate Divisions, as well as support 
organizations such as the Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, 
the Institute for Water Resources, and the Finance Center.
    In addition, the budget proposes to consolidate funding for 
activities related to oversight and general administration of the Civil 
Works program within the Expenses account, including funding for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). Of the 
$177 million for the Expenses account, $6 million is for the Office of 
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), including some 
indirect and overhead costs that previously were centrally funded by 
the Army.

                        OTHER BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

Protection of Greater New Orleans
    The fiscal year 2008 budget also recommends, as part of a fiscal 
year 2007 supplemental appropriations package, enactment of a statutory 
provision to authorize the Secretary of the Army to reallocate up to 
$1.3 billion of the emergency supplemental appropriations that were 
provided in fiscal year 2006, but that remain unobligated. The 
recommended statutory language would reallocate unobligated funds 
appropriated by Public Law 109-234 (the ``Fourth Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act of 2006'') to fund activities specified in Public 
Law 109-148 (the ``Third Emergency Supplemental Act of 2006''), and 
would reallocate unobligated funds among certain activities specified 
in the third emergency supplemental appropriations act of 2006. Within 
the total amount that would be reallocated, $270 million would be 
reallocated from the Construction account to the Flood Control and 
Coastal Emergencies account.
    The fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental appropriations were 
initially allocated based on ``rough order of magnitude'' estimates by 
the Corps of the amount of work that would be required to rebuild, 
complete, and raise the levees in New Orleans. Their estimate of the 
cost of the work necessary to accomplish these objectives is expected 
to increase greatly as a result of various engineering forensic 
investigations and assessments, a review of new storm surge data, 
increased material costs, and other factors. The earlier cost and 
schedule estimates have proven to be low, and actionable re-estimates 
will not be available until this summer. Without the reallocation of 
the fiscal year 2006 funds that were allocated in law, important work 
to increase the level of protection in some areas could not be 
completed in concert with similar work in other areas. The proposed re-
allocation would enable the Corps to best apply available funding to 
those measures that will increase in the near-term the overall level of 
protection for the New Orleans metropolitan area.
General Provisions
    The budget includes bill language to authorize continuation of 
limits on reprogramming with certain changes; replace the continuing 
contract authority of the Corps with multi-year contracting authority 
patterned after the authority available to other Federal agencies; and 
prohibit committing funds for ongoing contracts beyond the appropriated 
amounts available, including reprogramming.
    The budget also includes bill language to authorize the following: 
continuation of the national levee inventory and assessment; 
continuation of activities in Missouri River Basin to comply with the 
Endangered Species Act; completion of the two Chicago Sanitary and Ship 
Canal invasive species barriers in Illinois, subject to appropriate 
cost-sharing; and completion of the McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and 
Indiana, project.

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT PROPOSAL

    I am working with others in the administration towards the goal of 
developing a legislative framework that will reflect the 
administration's priorities for a Water Resources Development Act for 
consideration by Congress. This proposal or a subsequent legislative 
proposal will support the budget's recommendations for the Civil Works 
program as addressed in my testimony today.
    In the coming weeks I hope to be able to make a proposal that will 
help accomplish the principles, policies, and practices that have 
proven to be successful in the past, and will seek to create incentives 
for their improvement. Working together, I believe the administration 
and the Congress can make very substantial improvements in the Civil 
Works program, and I look forward to offering a proposal that I trust 
you will find helpful.

                     PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA

    The Army Civil Works program is pursuing five government-wide 
management initiatives, as are other Federal agencies, plus a sixth 
initiative on real property asset management. ``Scorecards'' for the 
Army Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies can be found at 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/agenda/scorecard.html.
    Under these initiatives, the Corps is improving its efficiency 
through recently completed public-private competitions. In addition, 
the Corps is undertaking two efforts (for Logistics Management and the 
Operation and Maintenance of Locks and Dams) to improve its performance 
through re-engineering of internal business processes, rather than 
through public-private competitions.
    The Corps has also made great progress in working with the Office 
of the Department of Defense Inspector General on the fiscal year 2006 
audit. The Corps is continuing to work towards the goal of obtaining an 
unqualified opinion, on its accounts, and has been a leader within the 
Department of Defense in this area. The Corps is committed to 
addressing any concerns that may arise during the audit.

                               CONCLUSION

    In developing this budget, the administration made explicit choices 
based on performance. The increase in O&M funding, transfer of 
activities from construction to O&M, emphasis on high-performing 
construction projects, and increase for preparedness for flood and 
hurricane emergencies and other natural disasters, for example, all 
reflect a performance-based approach.
    At $4.871 billion, the fiscal year 2008 Army Civil Works budget is 
the highest Civil Works budget in history. This budget provides the 
resources for the Civil Works program to pursue investments that will 
yield good returns for the Nation in the future. The budget represents 
the wise use of funding to advance worthy, mission-based objectives. I 
am proud to present it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for this 
opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 2008 budget for 
the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers.

  ENCLOSURE 1.--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL WORKS
                    BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2008--SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested New Appropriations by Account:
    Investigations.....................................     $90,000,000
    Construction.......................................   1,523,000,000
    Operation and Maintenance..........................   2,471,000,000
    Regulatory Program.................................     180,000,000
    Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries...     260,000,000
    Expenses...........................................     177,000,000
    Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies..............      40,000,000
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program....     130,000,000
                                                        ----------------
      TOTAL............................................   4,871,000,000
                                                        ================
Requested New Appropriations by Program Area:
    Commercial Navigation..............................   2,009,000,000
        (Inland and Intracoastal Waterways)............  (1,052,000,000)
        (Channels and Harbors).........................    (957,000,000)
    Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction...........   1,384,000,000
        (Flood Damage Reduction).......................  (1,356,000,000)
        (Coastal Storm Damage Reduction)...............     (28,000,000)
    Environment........................................     514,000,000
        (Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration)................    (274,000,000)
        (FUSRAP).......................................    (130,000,000)
        (Stewardship)..................................    (110,000,000)
    Hydropower.........................................     291,000,000
    Recreation.........................................     267,000,000
    Water Supply.......................................       4,000,000
    Emergency Management...............................      45,000,000
        (Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies)........     (40,000,000)
        (National Emergency Preparedness)..............      (5,000,000)
    Regulatory Program.................................     180,000,000
    Executive Direction and Management.................     177,000,000
                                                        ----------------
      TOTAL............................................   4,871,000,000
                                                        ================
Sources of New Appropriations:
    General Fund.......................................   3,889,000,000
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund......................     735,000,000
    Inland Waterways Trust Fund........................     209,000,000
    Special Recreation User Fees.......................      37,000,000
    Disposal Facilities User Fees......................       1,000,000
                                                        ----------------
      TOTAL............................................   4,871,000,000
                                                        ================
Additional New Resources:
    Rivers and Harbors Contributed Funds...............     445,000,000
    Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund............      81,000,000
    Permanent Appropriations...........................       9,000,000
                                                        ----------------
      TOTAL............................................     535,000,000
                                                        ----------------
      Total New Program Funding........................   5,406,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                  ENCLOSURE 2.--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL WORKS BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2008
                                                                   [CROSSCUT BETWEEN APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS AND PROGRAM AREAS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Flood/                Aq. Ec.                            Hydro-     Water      Emerg.     Regul.    Ovrsgt/
                                                           Navigation    Storm    Recreation   Restor.   Stewrdshp.    FUSRAP     Power      Supply     Mgmt.      Prog.       ED&M      TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations...........................................          19         41  ..........         30  ..........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         90
Construction.............................................         572        665  ..........        241  ..........  .........         45  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,523
Operation & Maint........................................       1,383        475         251          1         106  .........        246          4          5  .........  .........      2,471
MR&T-I...................................................  ..........          1  ..........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          1
MR&T-C...................................................          10         96  ..........          2  ..........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        108
MR&T-M...................................................          25        106          16  .........           4  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        151
FUSRAP...................................................  ..........  .........  ..........  .........  ..........        130  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        130
FC&CE....................................................  ..........  .........  ..........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........         40  .........  .........         40
Regulatory...............................................  ..........  .........  ..........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........  .........        180  .........        180
Expenses.................................................  ..........  .........  ..........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        177        177
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL..............................................       2,009      1,384         267        274         110        130        291          4         45        180        177      4,871
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Enclosure 3.--Department of the Army Corps of Engineers--Civil Works 
                        Budget, Fiscal Year 2008

                  CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES

    1. Project rankings.-- All ongoing specifically authorized 
construction projects, including projects funded in the Mississippi 
River and Tributaries account, will be assigned based upon their 
primary purpose to one of the main mission areas of the Corps (flood 
and storm damage reduction; commercial navigation; aquatic ecosystem 
restoration) or to hydropower. Flood and storm damage reduction, 
commercial navigation, and hydropower projects will be ranked by their 
total benefits divided by their total costs (BCR), calculated at a 7 
percent real discount rate. Aquatic ecosystem restoration projects will 
be ranked by the extent to which they cost-effectively contribute to 
the restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic 
ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a civil works 
project, or to a restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise 
uniquely well-suited (e.g., because the solution requires complex 
alterations to the hydrology and hydraulics of a river system).
    2. Projects funded on the basis of their economic and environmental 
returns.--Ongoing flood and storm damage reduction, commercial 
navigation, and hydropower construction projects with a BCR of 1.5 or 
higher and ongoing aquatic ecosystem restoration construction projects 
that are cost-effective in contributing to the restoration of a 
nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem that has become 
degraded as a result of a civil works project or to a restoration 
effort for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited will 
receive at least the amount needed to pay estimated contractor earnings 
required under ongoing contracts and related costs. In allocating funds 
among these projects, priority will be given to those with the highest 
economic and environmental returns.
    3. Projects funded to address significant risk to human safety.--
Flood and storm damage reduction projects that are funded to address 
significant risk to human safety will receive sufficient funding to 
support an uninterrupted effort during the budget year.
    4. Projects with low economic and environmental returns.--Ongoing 
flood and storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and hydropower 
construction projects with a BCR below 1.5 will be considered for 
deferral, except for flood and storm damage reduction projects that are 
funded to address significant risk to human safety. Likewise, ongoing 
aquatic ecosystem restoration construction projects that do not cost-
effectively contribute to the restoration of a nationally or regionally 
significant aquatic ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a 
civil works project, and do not cost-effectively address a problem for 
which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited, will be considered 
for deferral.
    5. New starts and resumptions.--The budget could include funds to 
start up new construction projects, or to resume work on ongoing 
construction projects on which the Corps has not performed any physical 
work under a construction contract during the past 3 consecutive fiscal 
years, only if the project would be ranked that year in the top 20 
percent of the ongoing construction projects in its mission area. The 
term ``physical work under a construction contract'' does not include 
activities related to project planning, engineering and design, 
relocation, or the acquisition of lands, easements, or rights-of-way. 
For non-structural flood damage reduction projects, construction begins 
in the first fiscal year in which the Corps acquires lands, easements, 
or rights-of-way primarily to relocate structures, or performs physical 
work under a construction contract for non-structural project-related 
measures. For aquatic ecosystem restoration projects, construction 
begins in the first fiscal year in which the Corps acquires lands, 
easements, or rights-of-way primarily to facilitate the restoration of 
degraded aquatic ecosystems including wetlands, riparian areas, and 
adjacent floodplains, or performs physical work under a construction 
contract to modify existing project facilities primarily to restore the 
aquatic ecosystem. For all other projects, construction begins in the 
first fiscal year in which the Corps performs physical work under a 
construction contract.
    6. Other cases.--Projects will receive the amount needed to ensure 
that they comply with treaties and with biological opinions pursuant to 
the Endangered Species Act, and meet authorized mitigation 
requirements. Dam safety assurance, seepage control, and static 
instability correction projects that are funded in the construction 
program will receive the maximum level of funding that the Corps can 
efficiently and effectively spend in each year.

    Senator Dorgan. General Strock.

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL STROCK, CHIEF OF 
            ENGINEERS
    General Strock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your 
permission, I'll submit my full statement for the record.
    Senator Dorgan. Without objection.
    General Strock. I'm honored to be testifying before you 
today with Mr. Woodley and my Director of Civil Works, Major 
General Don Riley and our Director of Programs, Mr. Gary Loew 
as well as our colleagues from the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Sir, this is a performance-based budget that reflects the 
realities of a national budget that must address recent 
national disasters and the ongoing global war on terror. The 
fiscal year 2008 budget focuses construction funding on 69 
projects that will provide the highest economic and 
environmental returns on the Nation's investment.
    The 69 projects include 6 national priority projects, 11 
dam safety projects and 52 other ongoing projects. These 
projects are critical to the future success of our water 
resources and this funding will be used to improve the quality 
of our citizens' lives and to contribute to national economic 
growth and development. This budget uses objective performance 
measures to establish priorities among projects and proposes 
changes to the Corps' contracting practices to increase control 
over future costs. We believe that focusing our effort on 
funding and completing a smaller, more beneficial set of 
projects will improve overall program performance and will help 
the Nation realize the net benefits, per dollar, from its 
investment much sooner.
    The Corps has learned many lessons in the past year, since 
Hurricane Katrina struck the gulf coast in 2005. The lessons 
learned provided great insight into changes that need to be 
made with respect to parts of our organizational culture, in 
the planning, execution and life cycle management of projects 
and in how we communicate risk to the American public and our 
decision makers.
    In light of this, as an institutional response, I issued my 
12 Actions for Change in August in recognition of the need to 
continue to change our organization to better serve the Nation. 
These 12 actions also commit the Corps to ensuring the American 
public has the information necessary to fully understand and 
make decisions about risk when they live behind or near a Corps 
of Engineers project.
    The fiscal year 2008 budget includes $2.47 billion for 
operation and maintenance and $158 million under the 
Mississippi River and Tributaries Program. I can assure you 
that I will continue to do all that I can to make these 
programs as cost effective and as efficient as possible.
    Domestically, the Corps of Engineers volunteers from across 
the Nation continue to respond to the call to help construct 
and improve a comprehensive hurricane and storm damage 
protection system along our gulf coast. This critical work they 
are doing will reduce the risk of future storms to people and 
communities in the region.
    Over the past year, Corps dams, levees and reservoirs again 
provided billions of dollars in flood damage reduction and 
protected lives, homes and businesses in many parts of the 
Nation following heavy rains.
    Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues 
to support the mission to help Iraq and Afghanistan build 
foundations for democracy, freedom and prosperity. Many USACE 
civilians, each of whom is a volunteer and soldiers are 
providing engineering expertise, quality construction 
management and program and project management in those nations. 
The often unsung efforts of these patriotic men and women 
contribute daily toward this Nation's goals of restoring the 
economy, security and quality of life for all Iraqis and 
Afghans.
    In closing, sir, the Corps is committed to staying on the 
leading edge of service to the Nation. In support of that, 
we're working with others to continue to transform our Civil 
Works Program. We're committed to change that ensures an open, 
transparent and performance based Civil Works budget.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you very much 
for the honor to serve you over the last 3 years. It has been a 
wonderful experience for me. I regret that I will not be 
working with you into the future but I wish you the very best 
of luck in pursuit of a sound water resources policy for the 
Nation. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Carl Strock

    Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: I am 
honored to be testifying before your subcommittee today, along with the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Honorable John Paul 
Woodley, Jr., on the President's fiscal year 2008 budget for the United 
States Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Program.
    My statement covers the following 3 topics:
  --Summary of Fiscal Year 2008 Program Budget;
  --Construction Program; and
  --Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's Economy, and to 
        the Nation's Defense.

               SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2008 PROGRAM BUDGET

Introduction
    The fiscal year 2008 Civil Works budget is a performance-based 
budget, which reflects a focus on the projects and activities that 
provide the highest net economic and environmental returns on the 
Nation's investment or address significant risk to human safety. Direct 
Program funding totals $5.406 billion, consisting of discretionary 
funding of $4.871 billion and mandatory funding of $535 million. The 
Reimbursed Program funding is projected to involve an additional $2 
billion to $3 billion.

Direct Program
    The budget reflects the administration's commitment to continued 
sound development and management of the Nation's water and related land 
resources. It proposes to give the Corps the flexibility and 
responsibility within each major watershed to use these funds to carry 
out priority maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitations. The budget 
incorporates objective performance-based metrics for the construction 
program, funds the continued operation of commercial navigation and 
other water resource infrastructure, provides an increase in funding 
for the regulatory program to protect the Nation's waters and wetlands, 
and supports restoration of nationally and regionally significant 
aquatic ecosystems, with emphasis on the Florida Everglades and the 
Upper Mississippi River. It also would improve the quality of 
recreation services through stronger partnerships and modernization. 
Additionally, it emphasizes the need to fund emergency preparedness 
activities for the Corps as part of the regular budget process.

Reimbursed Program
    Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Services Program we 
help non-DOD Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, 
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 financed 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 2008 is projected to be $2.0 
billion to $3.0 billion. The exact amount will depend on assignments 
received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for 
hurricane disaster relief and from the Department of Homeland Security 
for border protection facilities.

                          CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

    The goal of the construction program is to produce as much value as 
possible for the Nation from available funds. The budget furthers this 
objective by giving priority to the continued construction and 
completion of those water resources projects that will provide the best 
net returns on the Nation's investment for each dollar invested 
(Federal plus non-Federal) in the Corps primary mission areas. The 
budget also gives priority to projects that address a significant risk 
to human safety, notwithstanding their economic performance. Under 
these guidelines, the Corps allocated funding to 69 construction 
projects, including 6 national priority projects; 11 other dam safety 
assurance, seepage control, and static instability correction projects; 
and 52 other ongoing projects.
    The budget uses objective performance measures to establish 
priorities among projects, and through a change in Corps contracting 
practices to increase control over future costs. The measures proposed 
include the benefit-to-cost ratios for projects with economic outputs; 
the extent to which the project cost-effectively contributes to the 
restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem 
that has become degraded as a result of a Civil Works project or to an 
aquatic ecosystem restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise 
uniquely well-suited; and giving priority to dam safety assurance, 
seepage control, static instability correction, and projects that 
address a significant risk to human safety. Resources are allocated 
based on Corps estimates to achieve the highest net economic and 
environmental returns and to address significant risk to human safety. 
This approach significantly improves the realization of benefits to the 
Nation from the Civil Works construction program and will improve 
overall program performance by bringing higher net benefits per dollar 
to the Nation sooner.

Maintenance Program
    The facilities owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the Civil 
Works Program are aging. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are 
working to ensure that its key features continue to provide an 
appropriate level of service to the Nation. Sustaining such service 
poses a technical challenge in some cases, and proper operation and 
maintenance also is becoming more expensive as this infrastructure 
ages.
    The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program for the fiscal year 
2008 budget consists of $2.471 billion in the Operation and Maintenance 
account and $158 million under the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
program, with a focus on the maintenance of key commercial navigation, 
flood and storm damage reduction, hydropower, and other facilities. 
Specifically, the operation and maintenance program supports the 
operation, maintenance, repair and security of existing commercial 
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and hydropower works 
owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the Corps of Engineers, 
including administrative buildings and laboratories. Funds are also 
included in this program for national priority efforts in the Columbia 
River Basin and Missouri River Basin to support the continued operation 
of Corps of Engineers multi-purpose projects by meeting the 
requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Other work to be 
accomplished includes dredging, repair, aquatic plant control, removal 
of sunken vessels, monitoring of completed costal projects, and 
operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in the 
various River and Harbor, Flood Control, and Water Resources 
Development Acts.

  VALUE OF THE CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM TO THE NATION'S ECONOMY AND DEFENSE

    We are privileged to be part of an organization that directly 
supports the President's priorities of winning the global war on 
terror, securing the homeland and contributing to the economy.

The National Welfare
    The way in which we manage our water resources can improve the 
quality of our citizens' lives. It has affected where and how people 
live and influenced the development of this country. The country today 
seeks economic development as well as the protection of environmental 
values.
    Domestically, USACE personnel from across the Nation continue to 
respond to the call to help re-construct and improve the hurricane and 
storm damage reduction system for southeast Louisiana. The critical 
work they are doing will reduce the risk of future storms to people and 
communities in the region.
    Over the past year, Corps dams, levees and reservoirs again 
provided billions of dollars in flood damage reduction and protected 
lives, homes and businesses in many parts of the Nation following heavy 
rains.
    Mr. Chairman, we will continue to work with you, this subcommittee, 
and other Members of Congress on the ongoing study, and the 
authorization and funding proposed by the administration, for 
modifications to the existing hurricane protection system for New 
Orleans. The budget's recommendation, as part of a fiscal year 2007 
supplemental appropriations package, to re-allocate up to $1.3 billion 
of emergency supplemental appropriations enacted in fiscal year 2006 
will enable the Corps to use available, unobligated funds for measures 
that will provide a better overall level of protection for the New 
Orleans metropolitan area in the near-term.

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
    Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to 
support the mission to help Iraq and Afghanistan build foundations for 
democracy, freedom and prosperity.
    Many USACE civilians--each of whom is a volunteer--and soldiers are 
providing engineering expertise, quality construction management, and 
program and project management in those nations. The often unsung 
efforts of these patriotic men and women contribute daily toward this 
Nation's goals of restoring the economy, security and quality of life 
for all Iraqis and Afghanis.
    In Iraq, the Gulf Region Division has overseen the initiation of 
more than 4,200 reconstruction projects valued in excess of $7.14 
billion. Of those, more than 3,200 projects have been completed.
    These projects provide employment and hope for the Iraqi people. 
They are visible signs of progress.
    In Afghanistan, the Corps is spearheading a comprehensive 
infrastructure program for the Afghan national army, and is also aiding 
in important public infrastructure projects.

                               CONCLUSION

    The Corps of Engineers is committed to staying at the leading edge 
of service to the Nation. In support of that, I have worked to 
transform our Civil Works Program. We're committed to change that 
ensures an open, transparent, and performance-based Civil Works 
Program.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This 
concludes my statement.

    Senator Dorgan. General Strock, thank you very much. Next 
we will hear from Secretary Limbaugh and Commissioner Johnson. 
Secretary Limbaugh is from the Department of the Interior and 
represents, with Mr. Johnson, the budget for the Bureau of 
Reclamation. You may proceed.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


                         Bureau of Reclamation

STATEMENT OF MARK LIMBAUGH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 
            WATER AND SCIENCE
    Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, 
distinguished members of the committee, it's an honor to be 
here today on behalf of Secretary of the Interior, Dirk 
Kempthorne, to present the 2008 budget request for the Bureau 
of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project Completion Act 
Office.
    With me here today is Commissioner Bob Johnson and Reed 
Murray, the Program Director for the Central Utah Project 
Completion Act Office.
    Interior's mission lies at the confluence of people, land 
and water and Interior employees fulfill a mission that spans 
12 times zones and stretches pole to pole and we operate in 
every single State and the U.S. Territories. So how we do our 
jobs in Interior and at the Bureau of Reclamation affects 
whether 31 million people have drinking water when they turn on 
their tap or irrigation water for farms that produce 60 percent 
of the Nation's produce.
    Our work contributes to the energy security of the Nation 
through the Hydropower produced by Reclamation projects.
    Now three themes occur in our efforts to manage the 
Interior's broad portfolio. First is pursuit of management 
excellence. Second are partnerships and third is the use of 
science that informs our decisions. Applying these themes, the 
Bureau of Reclamation has embarked on a Managing for Excellence 
Initiative to enhance transparency, accountability and 
effectiveness in its future business operations.
    Now in partnership with many of our water contractors, 
power customers and stakeholders, Reclamation manages and 
delivers water while addressing competing needs through 
adaptive management programs, endangered species recovery and 
habitat conservation programs and innovative water management 
solutions in places like the Grand Canyon, the Platte River, 
the CALFED program in California and the incredible work we've 
done in partnership with the seven basin States in the Colorado 
River Basin.
    Reclamation has also teamed up with the U.S. Geological 
Survey to update our water management predictive models by 
incorporating the latest in climatic science and data that 
reflect our constantly changing snow melt and run-off patterns.
    So in formulating the 2008 budget, the Department committed 
to ensure that our programs, including the Bureau of 
Reclamation and the Central Utah Project Completion Act, would 
maintain a high level of service to the American people and 
reach even higher levels of excellence.
    The President's 2008 budget request for the Department of 
the Interior is $10.7 billion of which $958.4 million is for 
the Bureau of Reclamation. The request for the Central Utah 
Project Completion Act is $43 million, to continue with 
planning and construction of that project in cooperation with 
our partner, the Central Utah Water Conservation District.
    Now, the 2008 budget highlights two initiatives in the 
Bureau of Reclamation. To help Reclamation's water contractors 
address the impacts of drought and the many other water supply 
challenges, the President's budget includes $11 million to 
continue our Water 2025 Competitive Grants program. Continuing 
that challenge grant program will allow Reclamation to promote 
innovative, collaborative solutions in areas of the West where 
we are now experiencing or can predict that we will be 
experiencing conflict over water, all the while leveraging a 
small Federal investment with cost-share partners. We will 
again, Mr. Chairman, send legislation to the Congress 
requesting permanent authorization for this program in order to 
keep this valuable cooperative, competitive grant program 
alive.
    Another priority is a new program that Senator Craig 
mentioned, our Loan Guarantee program. Now, we propose $1 
million to kick that program off and we're trying to help 
address the challenges of financing improvements to an aging 
Federal infrastructure. This Loan Guarantee program will allow 
our contractor water users access to capital markets that they 
probably wouldn't have without it in order to assist the Bureau 
of Reclamation in rebuilding and preparing its infrastructure 
for the future.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to highlight two long-term 
issues that we're addressing in the 2008 budget request. First, 
our 2008 budget will help launch the recovery of the San 
Joaquin River in California. Now, this restoration program, 
which has authorizing legislation before the Congress now, is a 
result of an agreement that settles litigation that has been 
spanning 18 years. We applaud the farmers and the fishermen, 
the environmentalists and the public officials who have come 
together and worked out an agreement in order to both improve 
the environment and protect the local economy in California.
    Second, the recently-initiated Platte River Recovery 
program is equally innovative, covering three States, thousands 
of farmers, hundreds of agricultural dependent-communities and 
four endangered and threatened species. In partnership with the 
Federal Government, this recovery program will permit existing 
water and power users in the Platte River Basin to continue 
operating while allowing for future growth, all in compliance 
with the Endangered Species Act.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    So Mr. Chairman, in closing, I again thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before this committee. I look forward to 
working with you and the members of the committee on issues 
related to the Bureau of Reclamation's Central Utah Project 
Completion Act and other issues that come before us and 
certainly look forward to answering any questions you may have. 
Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Mark Limbaugh

    Good morning. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the 
Secretary to discuss the President's fiscal year 2008 budget for the 
Department of the Interior and, in particular, the Bureau of 
Reclamation. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight our priorities 
and key goals.
    Developing a budget for the Department of the Interior is an 
extraordinary exercise. We have an extensive mandate that rivals just 
about any governmental agency in its breadth and diversity--and its 
importance to the everyday lives of our citizens. Our 73,000 employees 
live and work in communities across America and its territories. We 
have 2,400 field offices. We manage 145,000 assets--second only to the 
Department of Defense. Our work stretches from pole to pole from 
wildlife refuges in the Arctic to scientific research at the South 
Pole.
    Managing one in every 5 acres in the United States, we oversee land 
and resources that stretch across 12 time zones from the Caribbean to 
the Pacific Rim. The sun literally never sets on the Department of the 
Interior. We have the third largest contingent of Federal law 
enforcement officers, with 3,400 officers and agents. We oversee over 
800 dams and irrigation projects. Interior-managed lands and water 
generate one-third of the Nation's domestic energy supply. The 
Department serves American Indians, including 561 federally recognized 
Tribes, Alaska Natives, and our Nation's affiliated island communities. 
We undertake research and provide information to understand the Earth 
and assist us in the management of the Nation's water, biological and 
mineral resources, and monitor all manner of natural hazards including 
volcanoes, earthquakes, and landslides. We also work with States to 
restore abandoned mine land sites and protect communities.

                            BUDGET OVERVIEW

    Our overall 2008 request for the Department of the Interior is 
$10.7 billion. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of 
existing legislation without further action by the Congress will 
provide an additional $5.1 billion, for a total 2008 Interior budget of 
$15.8 billion.
    The budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central 
Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) programs under the purview of this 
subcommittee is $1 billion; the Bureau of Reclamation's proposed budget 
is $958.4 million and the CUPCA proposed budget is $43.0 million.
    With enactment of the fiscal year 2007 Joint Resolution, we now 
have a full year appropriation of $1.0 billion for the Bureau of 
Reclamation and $34.0 million for CUPCA. This does not include 
additional funds that are authorized and will be provided for 50 
percent of the January 2007 pay raise. Based on direction in the Joint 
Resolution we are preparing a detailed operating plan for these two 
agencies for fiscal year 2007. Once our operating plans are approved we 
will submit them to Congress on March 17. At that time we will be able 
to provide comparisons at the program level with the 2008 budget 
request.
    The comparisons in our 2008 budget are with the third 2007 
continuing resolution, which was in effect through February 15. 
Throughout this testimony the comparisons will be on that basis.
    The Department's 2008 budget is carefully crafted within the 
President's commitment to continue to fund the Nation's highest 
priorities while eliminating the deficit in 5 years. The administration 
is on track to achieve this goal.
    At the heart of Department's 2008 budget are four major initiatives 
including:
  --The National Parks Centennial Initiative to enhance National Parks 
        as we approach their 100th anniversary in 2016;
  --The Healthy Lands Initiative, which will allow access to public 
        lands for a number of uses and provide for energy for the 
        Nation while also protecting critical lands and habitat;
  --The Safe Indian Communities Initiative to combat the 
        methamphetamine crisis on Indian lands; and
  --The Improving Indian Education Initiative that will enable Indian 
        children to grow up in an environment that allows them to 
        achieve their dreams.

                THE NATIONAL PARKS CENTENNIAL INITIATIVE

    The President's 2008 parks budget totals a historic $2.4 billion. 
The park operating budget, at $2.1 billion, provides an increase of 
$290 million over the continuing resolution spending level, the largest 
increase in park operations funding ever proposed. This is $258.3 
million over the 2006 level and $230 million over the President's 2007 
budget for parks.
    Within our operating budget increase, we propose a $100 million 
Centennial Commitment over 10 years, for a total of $1 billion 
dedicated to park operations. Our Centennial Initiative will also 
inspire philanthropic organizations and partners to donate $100 million 
per year over 10 years to the National Park Service. The Centennial 
Challenge Federal Fund will match all private donations up to an amount 
of $100 million. These Federal mandatory matching funds and 
philanthropic contributions, together with the $100 million annual 
Centennial Commitment in discretionary funds for park operations, would 
infuse up to $3 billion into the park system over the next decade.

                        HEALTHY LANDS INITIATIVE

    Another priority for the Secretary is the Healthy Lands Initiative, 
which will ensure continued access to public lands for traditional uses 
and recreation, while maintaining strong environmental protections for 
wildlife and habitat.
    As activities on public land increase, we are seeing growing 
conflicts among recreation users, energy developers, hunters, ranchers, 
and others all competing to protect, access, and use these public 
lands. Several Interior bureaus will join together to identify, 
restore, and mitigate the potential impacts of increased energy 
production in wildlife-energy interface areas and potentially prevent 
the listing of certain species such as sage grouse.
    Focused on six strategic areas, these funds will transform land 
management from the current parcel by parcel approach to landscape-
scale decision making, drawing upon partnerships and new policy tools 
to provide increased access for energy and other uses, while 
simultaneously preserving important habitat corridors and sites for the 
benefit of species. In 2008, including this increase, over 400,000 
acres will be restored in partnership with Federal leaseholders, 
private landowners, State, local, and tribal governments--to benefit 
wildlife. The Healthy Lands Initiative includes $22.0 million to fund 
partnerships with local communities, conservation groups, and companies 
to rehabilitate and protect working landscapes.

              THE METHAMPHETAMINE CRISIS IN INDIAN COUNTRY

    I would like to highlight two other 2008 priorities for the 
Department of the Interior, our Safe Indian Countries and Indian 
Education Initiatives. While I recognize that the Senate Indian Affairs 
Committee has jurisdiction over these matters, I also know many of you 
represent States and tribes that are struggling with the impacts 
associated with methamphetamine.
    Methamphetamine is a highly addictive synthetic stimulant that 
creates intense euphoric highs for periods up to 24 hours. It is 
inexpensive and, unfortunately, has rapidly become the drug of choice 
for an increasing number of Americans.
    The social effects of methamphetamine use are tragic. Addicted 
mothers are giving birth to drug-addicted babies. The drug is fueling 
homicides, aggravated assaults, rape, child abuse, and other violent 
crimes. Violent crime in Indian Country is reaching crises levels at 
twice the national average.
    Our budget includes $16 million for a Safe Indian Communities 
initiative that reconfigures and tailors our focus to combat organized 
crime, break up drug trafficking, and interrupt the drug supply.

                       IMPROVING INDIAN EDUCATION

    Improving Indian education is also a priority. One of only two 
school systems operated by the Federal Government, the Bureau of Indian 
Education should oversee schools that are models of performance for the 
No Child Left Behind Act. Yet only 30 percent of the schools in the 
Bureau of Indian Education system are meeting NCLB goals.
    In recent years, we have improved school facilities by replacing 32 
schools and renovating another 39 schools. It is now time to focus on 
the classroom. Our 2008 budget proposes to invest $15.0 million to 
improve the performance of students in Indian schools. Additional 
funding will provide educational program enhancements and tools for 
lower performing schools and educational specialists to guide Indian 
schools in achieving academic success. The request also provides 
additional funding for transportation to reduce the redirection of 
education dollars to pay for buses and fuel.

                 INTERIOR PRIORITIES FOR WATER PROGRAMS

    The Department, through the Bureau of Reclamation, is the largest 
supplier and manager of water in the 17 western States. The 2008 budget 
emphasizes Reclamation's core mission of delivering water and power. 
Reclamation priorities include a focus on ensuring facility integrity 
and site security and resolving major western water challenges.
    In addition to the initiatives I described, Interior's 2008 budget 
requests resources for priority programs in the Bureau of Reclamation 
and CUPCA. The 2008 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation includes four 
major initiatives, including:
  --Improving and diversifying water supplies to prevent crises through 
        cooperative, cost sharing efforts funded by Water 2025;
  --Development of a Loan Guarantee Program that will help water 
        districts to repair aging infrastructure; and
  --The California Bay-Delta Restoration program which supports the 
        efforts of a consortium of Federal and State agencies that are 
        working to improve the health of the ecosystem and water 
        management and supplies;
  --Improvements in the safety and reliability of Bureau of Reclamation 
        facilities through the Safety of Dams Program.

              WATER 2025, PREVENTING CRISES AND CONFLICTS

    The 2008 budget includes $11.0 million for Water 2025. The 
overarching goal of Water 2025 is to meet the challenge of preventing 
crises and conflicts over water in the West. Water 2025 will achieve 
this by increasing the certainty and flexibility of water supplies, 
diversifying water supplies, and preventing crises through 
cooperatively adding environmental benefits in many watersheds, rivers, 
and streams.
    The 2008 Water 2025 request includes $10.0 million for the 50/50 
challenge grant program, which relies on local initiative and 
innovation to identify and formulate the most sensible improvements for 
local water systems. The request also includes $1.0 million for system 
optimization reviews for Reclamation to work on a 50/50 cost-share 
basis with local entities to assess the potential for water management 
improvements.
    The administration will submit legislation for the authorization 
necessary to accomplish the goals of this program.

                         LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

    The 2008 request includes $1.0 million for the Loan Guarantee 
program which is a critical component of Interior's strategy to address 
aging water infrastructure challenges in the West. The Loan Guarantee 
Program uses a business-like approach that recognizes the inability of 
many water districts to secure funds for expensive rehabilitative 
repairs without the capability to use Federal facilities as collateral 
to obtain bank financing. The program was authorized by the Reclamation 
Water Supply Act in 2006.
    The loan program will allow water districts to obtain long-term 
loans to address major rehabilitation and replacement projects, thereby 
addressing the key issue facing Reclamation's aging infrastructure. The 
$1.0 million included in the 2008 budget will be used for setting up 
the administrative components of the Loan Guarantee Program.

                    CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

    The 2008 budget includes $31.8 million for CALFED. The CALFED Bay-
Delta Authorization Act was signed into law in 2004. A Consortium of 
Federal and State agencies works collaboratively, funding and 
participating in the CALFED program. Their efforts focus on improving 
the health of the ecosystem and water management and supplies. In 
addition, CALFED addresses the issues of water supply reliability, 
aging levees, and threatened water quality.
    The Bay-Delta system is critical to California's economy because 
the two rivers that flow into the Bay-Delta provide potable water for 
two-thirds of California's homes and businesses and irrigate more than 
7 million acres of farmland on which 45 percent of the Nation's fruits 
and vegetables are grown. The Bay-Delta system also provides habitat 
for 750 plant and animal species, some listed as threatened or 
endangered.
    Funding for California Bay-Delta Restoration is requested in the 
following program areas: $7.0 million for the environmental water 
account; $8.5 million for the storage program; $5.0 million for water 
conveyance, $1.5 million for ecosystem restoration; $4.8 million for 
water quality; $3.0 million for science; and $2.0 million for 
Reclamation's oversight function to ensure program balance and 
integration.

                         SAFETY OF DAMS PROGRAM

    A total of $77.0 million is requested for the Safety of Dams 
program, an increase of $8.0 million from 2007 that is primarily for 
corrective actions at Folsom Dam. The Dam Safety program continues to 
be one of Reclamation's highest priorities. The program helps ensure 
the safety and reliability of Reclamation's dams by focusing funding 
and resources on those facilities, which pose the highest risk to the 
downstream public. The program includes: investigation, identification, 
evaluation, decision-making and risk reduction activities. The program 
accomplishes three main tasks: Safety Evaluations of Existing Dams, 
Initiating Safety of Dams Corrective Actions, and conducting the DOI 
Dam Safety program.
    By focusing on the safety and reliability of Reclamation's dams, 
the Dam Safety program plays a vital role in accomplishing the 
Department's end outcome goal of delivering water consistent with 
applicable State and Federal law in an environmentally responsible and 
cost efficient manner. The efforts of the Dam Safety program are 
currently measured by the percent of water infrastructure in fair to 
good condition as measured by the Facility Reliability Rating.

                       MAINTAINING CORE PROGRAMS

    The 2008 request for Reclamation's principal operating account is 
$816.2 million, which is an increase of $60.3 million over the 2007 
continuing resolution. The budget proposal continues to emphasize 
assuring operation and maintenance of Bureau of Reclamation facilities 
in a safe, efficient, economic, and reliable manner; ensuring systems 
and safety measures are in place to protect the public and Reclamation 
facilities; working smarter to address the water needs of a growing 
population in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner; 
and assisting States, tribes, and local entities in solving 
contemporary water resource issues. Funding for each project or program 
within Reclamation's budget request is based upon Departmental and 
bureau priorities, compliance with the Department of the Interior 
strategic plan, and performance accomplishments.
    The 2008 request includes a total of $429.5 million for water and 
energy, land, and fish and wildlife resource management development 
activities. Funding in these activities provides for planning, 
construction, water conservation activities, management of Reclamation 
lands including recreation, and actions to address the impacts of 
Reclamation projects on fish and wildlife.
    Reclamation's 2008 budget assumes enactment of two legislative 
proposals. First, a proposal for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program 
would re-allocate the repayment of capital costs of the program. Power 
customers would be responsible for repayment of all construction 
investments from which they benefit. This change would increase 
reimbursements to the Treasury from power customers by $23.0 million in 
2008. A legislative proposal will be transmitted to the appropriate 
congressional authorizing committees for consideration.
    Second, the 2008 budget also reflects the settlement of an 18-year 
legal dispute, Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers, over the 
Bureau of Reclamation's operation of Friant Dam near Fresno, 
California. Reclamation's budget presumes that implementing legislation 
will be enacted. Bills have already been introduced in the Senate and 
the House, as S. 27 and H.R. 24, which would implement the proposed 
Settlement. Consistent with this legislation, Reclamation's 2008 budget 
would redirect approximately $7.5 million per year of payments from the 
Central Valley Project Friant Division and $9.8 million from the 
Reclamation Fund into the newly-created San Joaquin Restoration Fund, 
which would be available without further appropriations to implement 
the provisions of the settlement.

                          ACHIEVING KEY GOALS

    I would like to call the attention of the subcommittee to our 
mission goals and the efforts we are making to achieve results for the 
Nation in areas that touch on the issues and programs of interest to 
the subcommittee.
    Achieving Energy Security.--In his State of the Union address, 
President Bush underscored that America must enhance energy security. 
The Department of the Interior plays a key role in advancing this goal. 
Nearly one-third of the energy produced in the United States each year 
comes from public lands and waters managed by Interior. To carry out 
the goals of the Energy Policy Act and enhance the availability of 
affordable oil, gas, and alternative energy sources, the 2008 budget 
for Interior programs includes $481.3 million for energy programs, an 
increase of $25.5 million over the 2007 continuing resolution. With 
these resources, the Department will enhance energy security through 
increased production, protect the environment, promote conservation, 
and expand the use of new technologies and renewable energy sources.
    Cooperative Conservation.--Through partnerships, Interior works 
with landowners and others to achieve conservation goals across the 
Nation and to benefit America's national parks, wildlife refuges, and 
other public lands. The 2008 budget includes $324.0 million for the 
Department's cooperative conservation programs, $34.6 million over 
2007. These programs leverage Federal funding, typically providing a 
non-Federal match of 50 percent or more. They provide a foundation for 
cooperative efforts to protect endangered and at-risk species; engage 
local communities, organizations, and citizens in conservation; foster 
innovation; and achieve conservation goals while maintaining working 
landscapes.
    Refuge Operations and Species Protection.--Targeted increases for 
the National Wildlife Refuge System and other FWS species conservation 
programs will focus new resources on conserving and restoring the 
habitat necessary to sustain endangered, threatened, and at-risk 
species and prevent additional species from being listed under the 
Endangered Species Act. A program increase of $4.7 million for refuge 
wildlife and habitat management will allow the refuge system to 
increase the number of recovery plan actions completed in 2008 by 111; 
protect or restore an additional 57,983 acres; and fill three new 
positions to manage the new Northwestern Hawaii Marine National 
Monument. The 2008 budget also includes $2.2 million in programmatic 
increases for the recovery of the gray wolf and the Yellowstone grizzly 
bear.
    Healthy Forests Initiative.--The 2008 budget for the Healthy 
Forests Initiative, a total of $307.3 million, supports the 
Department's efforts to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire and 
improve forest and rangeland health. The 2008 budget request funds the 
Hazardous Fuels Reduction program at $202.8 million, an increase of 
$3.0 million for fixed costs over the 2007 level. An additional $1.8 
million in the hazardous fuels program will be shifted from program 
support activities to on-the-ground fuel reduction to help treat high-
priority acres.
    Wildland Fire Management.--The 2008 budget proposes $801.8 million 
to support fire preparedness, suppression, fuels reduction, and burned 
area rehabilitation. This amount represents a net increase of $32.6 
million above 2007, including an increase of $37.4 million for 
suppression operations. This budget will fully fund the expected costs 
of fire suppression in 2008 at $294.4 million, based on the 10-year 
average. The 2008 Preparedness program is funded at $268.3 million, a 
net reduction of $6.5 million from the 2007 level. A significant 
portion of this reduction will be achieved by eliminating management 
and support positions and lower-priority activities. The 2008 Wildland 
Fire Management program will realign its preparedness base resources to 
better support initial attack capability, which will include the 
addition of over 250 firefighters. These actions will help maintain 
initial attack success.
    Oceans Conservation.--Interior bureaus conduct ocean and coastal 
conservation activities that significantly advance understanding of the 
processes and status of ocean and coastal resources. The 2008 
President's budget includes $929.5 million to support the President's 
Ocean Action Plan. This funding will allow Interior bureaus to continue 
their high-priority work within the U.S. Ocean Action Plan and includes 
an increase of $3.0 million for USGS. In 2008, USGS will begin to 
implement the Oceans Research Priorities Plan and Implementation 
Strategy by conducting observations, research, seafloor mapping, and 
forecast models. USGS will also begin to implement an interagency 
national water quality monitoring network. Also included is $600,000 
for three new positions to support management of the new Northwestern 
Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument.
    Indian Trust.--The 2008 request for Indian Trust programs is $489.9 
million, $17.6 million above 2007. The Indian Land Consolidation 
program is funded at $10 million, $20.7 million below 2007. The 2008 
budget also includes $4.6 million in reductions to reflect efficiencies 
and improvements in services to beneficiaries, the completion of trust 
reform tasks, the completion of project task efforts, and management 
efficiencies. The budget includes a $3.6 million increase for the 
Office of Historical Accounting to assist with the increased workload 
associated with additional tribal trust lawsuits.
    Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--PILT payments are made to local 
governments in lieu of tax payments on Federal lands within their 
boundaries and to supplement other Federal land receipts shared with 
local governments. The 2008 budget proposes $190 million for these 
payments. The 2008 request is a reduction of $8 million from the 2007 
level. This level of funding is significantly above the historical 
funding level for PILT. From the program's inception in 1977 through 
2001, the program was funded in the range of $96-$134 million.

                               CONCLUSION

    We believe that the Department's 2008 budget will--in its 
entirety--make a dramatic difference for the American people. We will 
better conserve our public lands. We will improve our national parks. 
We will protect our wildlife and its habitat. We will help craft a 
better future for Indian country and particularly for Indian children. 
We will better manage and protect water and related resources and 
produce the energy that America needs to heat our homes and run our 
businesses. This concludes my overview of the 2008 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 Dorgan. Secretary Limbaugh, thank you very much. 
Mr. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee. It's my pleasure to be here. This is my first 
opportunity to testify before this committee and I look forward 
to working with you now and in the future.
    The overall fiscal year 2008 appropriation request for 
Reclamation totals $958.4 million. This request provides 
funding for multiple priorities of the Reclamation program, 
consistent with the President's objective of achieving a 
balanced budget by 2012. I would like to, in my oral 
presentation, highlight three broad categories of activity that 
comprise the major portion of the Reclamation budget.
    First, our budget reflects the need to maintain our 
existing portfolio of projects. Reclamation has over 472 dams, 
348 reservoirs, 58 powerplants and many other water delivery 
facilities. Our infrastructure provides water to 31 million 
people and 10 million acres of irrigated farmland. We generate 
42 billion kilowatt hours of electricity annually, enough to 
provide power for a population of about 8 million.
    Our predecessors gave us a magnificent infrastructure that 
has helped meet our water needs in the American West amazingly 
well. Much of that infrastructure is 50 to 100 years old and 
its proper operation and maintenance is our top priority. 
Approximately $380 million of the Reclamation budget, about 40 
percent, is dedicated to making sure that our facilities are 
operated and maintained in a safe and reliable fashion.
    Second, we frequently find ourselves having to manage our 
projects to meet changes in social and public values that are 
embodied in the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, 
the National Environmental Protection Act and other State and 
Federal environmental laws. In many cases, meeting these 
requirements have been manifested in the development of broader 
river management and/or restoration plans. Implementation of 
these plans is becoming a significant element of the 
Reclamation program. Reclamation's involvement is almost always 
necessary to meet its obligations associated with the operation 
and maintenance of its projects.
    Reclamation is currently involved in environmental 
restoration management programs on the Colorado, Middle Rio 
Grande, Platte, Klamath, Columbia, San Joaquin, Trinity and 
Sacramento Rivers. We anticipate that our efforts on these and 
other river systems will continue to be a significant part of 
the Reclamation program well into the future. Our 2008 budget 
request includes about $150 million for these activities.
    Finally, Reclamation continues to be actively involved in 
programs to develop new water supplies and infrastructure. In 
total, these programs represent approximately $175 million of 
our 2008 request. Examples of ongoing activities in our 2008 
budget include the Animas-La Plata Project. This project is 
located in southwestern Colorado and will provide water 
supplies to settle the water right claims of the Ute Mountain 
Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes. It will provide municipal 
and industrial water to rural communities in the Four Corners 
areas of Colorado and New Mexico and it will provide water 
service to parts of the Navajo Indian Reservation.
    Second, rural water programs. The Reclamation budget 
includes funding for water systems to deliver surface water to 
Indian and non-Indian communities in the rural Great Plains. 
These projects provide good quality water to rural areas where 
existing water supplies are either non-existent or of very poor 
quality.
    Three, water re-use projects. Under title XVI of Public Law 
102-575, Reclamation continues to provide some funding for 
development of projects that re-use existing waste water 
supplies. Located primarily in southern California, these 
projects provide drought-proof supplies that we hope meet 
increasing demands for water caused by fast-growing urban 
populations.
    Fourth, Indian water distribution systems in Arizona. Under 
the authority of the Central Arizona Project, Reclamation is 
funding construction of water delivery systems to serve 
Colorado River water to Indian tribes in central Arizona. These 
systems provide new water supplies to settle Indian water right 
claims and meet economic development needs on the reservations.
    Finally, water conservation programs. Through the Water 
2025 program and our Water Conservation Field Services program, 
Reclamation provides funding for implementation of water 
conservation projects. Using a challenge grant approach, these 
programs are competitive and usually leverage non-Federal 
funding to maximize the effectiveness of the Federal 
investment. These programs have been successfully applied in 
all 17 reclamation States.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    In conclusion, our budget represents a proper balance 
between maintaining our infrastructure and meeting our 
environmental compliance obligations with river restoration 
plans and also providing money for the development of new water 
supplies.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you and I'd be happy to answer 
questions.
    [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Robert W. Johnson

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Domenici and members of the 
subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear in support of the 
President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Bureau of 
Reclamation. With me today is Bob Wolf, Director of Program and Budget.
    Since this is my first opportunity to present the President's 
budget, I would like to make two introductory comments. First, I truly 
appreciate the time and consideration this committee gives to reviewing 
and understanding Reclamation's budget and its support for the program. 
Second, while the development of an annual budget is a long and complex 
task, it is truly rewarding to see our institution work so hard to 
prioritize and define our program in a manner that serves the public 
and those who rely on Reclamation for their water and power.
    Our fiscal year 2008 request has been designed to support 
Reclamation's efforts to deliver water and generate hydropower, 
consistent with applicable State and Federal law, in an environmentally 
responsible and cost-efficient manner.
    The funding proposed is for key projects and programs that 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 address water shortage issues 
in the West, to promote water conservation and improved water 
management, and to take actions to mitigate adverse environmental 
impacts of projects.
    The fiscal year 2008 request for Reclamation totals $958.4 million 
in gross budget authority and is partially offset by discretionary 
receipts in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ($51.3 
million).

                      WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

    The fiscal year 2008 request for Water and Related Resources is 
$816.2 million. More specifically, the request for Water and Related 
Resources includes a total of $429.5 million for water and energy, 
land, and fish and wildlife resource management activities (which 
provides for construction, management of Reclamation lands, and actions 
to address the impacts of Reclamation projects on fish and wildlife), 
and $386.7 million for facility operations, maintenance, and 
rehabilitation activities.
    Providing adequate funding for facility operations, maintenance, 
and rehabilitation continues to be one of Reclamation's highest 
priorities. Reclamation continues to work closely with water users and 
other stakeholders to ensure that available funds are used effectively. 
These funds are used to allow the timely and effective delivery of 
project benefits; ensure the reliability and operational readiness of 
Reclamation's dams, reservoirs, power plants, and distribution systems; 
and identify, plan, and implement dam safety corrective actions and 
site security improvements.

Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2008 Request for Water and Related 
        Resources Include
    I would like to share with the committee several highlights of the 
Reclamation budget:
    Water 2025 ($11 million).--Water 2025 is a high priority for the 
Secretary of the Interior and will focus financial and technical 
resources on areas in the West where conflict over water either 
currently exists or is likely to occur in the coming years.
    The overarching goal of Water 2025 is to meet the challenge of 
preventing crises and conflict over water in the West. Water 2025 will 
contribute to meeting this goal by increasing certainty and flexibility 
in water supplies, diversifying water supplies, and reducing conflict 
through the use of market-based approaches and enhancing environmental 
benefits in many watershed, rivers and streams consistent with State 
and Federal laws.
    With $11 million, Water 2025 will continue to be a multifaceted 
program with projects that embody the overarching goal of preventing 
crises and conflict over water in the West. Leveraging limited Federal 
dollars through the Challenge Grant program will continue to be a major 
component of Water 2025. The Challenge Grant program will focus on 
projects that improve water management through conservation, 
efficiency, and water markets, as well as collaborative solutions to 
meet the needs of the future. Beginning with fiscal year 2007, a system 
optimization review component has been added to ensure existing water 
management systems are operated to maximize water deliveries. 
Modernization of existing systems will occur within the framework of 
existing treaties, interstate compacts, water rights, and contracts.
    In addition to the program and policy priorities reflected in the 
fiscal year 2008 budget request, the Department intends to re-submit 
permanent authorizing legislation this spring to support the Water 2025 
program.
    Loan Guarantee Program ($1 million).--The fiscal year 2008 request 
includes funding for a Loan Guarantee program, which is an important 
component of Interior's strategy to address aging water infrastructure 
challenges in the West. The loan guarantee program, which is a 
business-like approach that recognizes the inability of many water 
districts to fund expensive rehabilitative repairs without the 
capability to use Federal facilities as collateral to obtain bank 
financing, was authorized by Title II of Public Law 109-451, the Rural 
Water Supply Act of 2006.
    Klamath Project in Oregon and California ($25 million).--The fiscal 
year 2008 request will continue and increase funding for Reclamation to 
collaborate with other Federal and State agencies, tribes and the 
public to develop a basin-wide recovery plan that addresses water 
supply, water quality, fish habitat, and fish populations.
    Lower Colorado River Operations Program in California, Arizona and 
Nevada ($15.4 million).--The fiscal year 2008 request will provide 
funds for the work necessary to carry out the Secretary's 
responsibilities as water master of the lower Colorado River. The 
fiscal year 2008 request funds measures under the multi-species 
conservation program to provide long-term Endangered Species Act 
compliance for lower Colorado River operations for both Federal and 
non-Federal purposes.
    Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico ($23.2 million).--The fiscal year 
2008 request will continue funding for endangered species activities 
and Reclamation's participation in the Middle Rio Grande Endangered 
Species Act Collaborative Program as well as repair of priority river 
maintenance sites.
    Animas-La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico ($58 million).--The 
fiscal year 2008 request includes $58 million to continue construction 
of the project's major features, Ridges Basin Dam and Durango Pumping 
Plant and the Ridges Basin Inlet Conduit. The project is critical to 
implementation of the Colorado Ute Settlement Act. Funding will be 
primarily directed to these three features while other key features are 
held for future implementation.
    Savage Rapids in Oregon ($15 million).--The fiscal year 2008 
request will provide funds for continuing construction of the pumping 
facilities. Removal of this irrigation diversion dam and the 
installation of pumping facilities will allow the local farming 
community to continue irrigated agriculture and remove a migration 
barrier for the threatened Southern Oregon and Northern California coho 
salmon.
    Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and 
Washington ($15 million).--The fiscal year 2008 request will address 
the requirements in the biological opinions issues in December 2000 by 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and in November 2004 by the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries). The 
2004 biological opinion has been remanded to NOAA Fisheries and a new 
biological opinion is due in July 2007. During the remand, the 2004 
biological opinion remains in place as Reclamation continues to 
implement actions identified in the 2004 updated proposed action. These 
requirements include significantly increased regional coordination 
efforts; actions to modify the daily, weekly, and seasonal operation of 
Reclamation dams; acquisition of water for flow augmentation; tributary 
habitat activities in selected subbasins to offset hydrosystem impacts; 
and significantly increased research, monitoring, and evaluation. The 
request includes funding for the Nez Perce Water Settlement Act.
    Platte River Endangered Species Recovery Program ($9.6 million).--
The fiscal year 2008 budget request is for Federal participation in the 
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. The agreement for the 
program was signed by Secretary Kempthorne and the Governors of 
Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming in late 2006.
    Site Security ($35.5 million).--An appropriation in the amount of 
$35.5 million is requested for site security to ensure the safety and 
security of the public, Reclamation's employees and key facilities. 
This funding includes $11.7 million for physical security upgrades and 
$23.8 million to continue all aspects of Reclamation-wide security 
efforts, including law enforcement, risk and threat analysis, 
implementing security measures, undertaking security-related studies, 
and maintaining guards and patrols on the ground.
    The fiscal year 2008 budget request assumes annual costs associated 
with guard and patrol activities will be treated as project O&M costs 
subject to being reimbursed based on project cost allocations. These 
costs in fiscal year 2008 are estimated at $22.1 million of which $18.9 
million will be reimbursed. Of the funding to be reimbursed, $11.6 
million will be in direct up-front funding from power customers, while 
$7.3 million in appropriated funds will be reimbursed by irrigation 
users, M&I water users, and other customers in the year in which they 
were incurred through Reclamation's O&M allocation process. Reclamation 
will continue to treat facility fortification, studies, and anti-
terrorism management-related expenditures as non-reimbursable.
    Safety of Dams ($77 million).--Assuring the safety and reliability 
of Reclamation dams is one of the Bureau's highest priorities. The Dam 
Safety Program is critical to effectively manage risks to the 
downstream public, property, project, and natural resources. The fiscal 
year 2008 request provides for risk management activities at 361 dams 
and dikes, which would likely cause loss of life if they were to fail. 
In fiscal year 2008, large-scale, ongoing corrective action work is 
planned at Folsom Dam. Reclamation is working closely with the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers to coordinate this work with the flood control 
efforts to minimize Federal costs and duration of work.
    Rural Water ($55 million).--The fiscal year 2008 request continues 
funding for ongoing rural water projects. This includes funding for 
Municipal, Rural, and Industrial (MR&I) systems for the rural water 
components of the Pick Sloan-Missouri Basin Program--Garrison Diversion 
Unit (North Dakota), the Mni Wiconi Project (South Dakota), and the 
Lewis and Clark Project (South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota).
    On December 22, 2006, the President signed Public Law 109-451, the 
Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. Title I of the statute requires the 
Secretary to establish a formal rural water supply program for rural 
water and major maintenance projects in the 17 western States. The Act 
requires the establishment of programmatic and eligibility criteria for 
the rural water program along with other reporting requirements and 
criteria for appraisal and feasibility studies. Implementation of the 
Act will allow the Department, the administration and Congress to set 
priorities and establish clear guidelines for project development to 
help meet the water supply needs of rural communities throughout the 
West.
    Science and Technology (S&T) ($13.4 million).--The fiscal year 2008 
request includes funding for the development of new solutions and 
technologies which respond to Reclamation's mission-related needs. We 
feel our S&T work is important and will contribute to the innovative 
management, development, and protection of water and related resources. 
Of the amount requested, about $4.4 million is planned for internal 
desalination Research & Development conducted by Reclamation.

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

    The $58.8 million request in fiscal year 2008 is a slight increase 
and includes funding for labor cost increases due to cost of living 
raises and inflationary costs for non-pay activities. Funding requested 
will be used to: (1) develop, evaluate, and direct implementation of 
Reclamation-wide policy, rules, and regulations, including actions 
under the Government Performance and Results Act, and implement the 
President's Management Agenda; and (2) manage and perform functions 
that are not properly chargeable to specific projects or program 
activities covered by separate funding authority.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

    This fund was established by the Central Valley Project Improvement 
Act, title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992. The request 
of $51.6 million is expected to be offset by discretionary receipts 
totaling $51.3 million, which is the maximum amount that can be 
collected from project beneficiaries under provisions of section 
3407(d) of the Act. The discretionary receipts are adjusted on an 
annual basis to maintain payments totaling $30 million (October 1992 
price levels) on a 3-year rolling average basis. The request of $51.6 
million was reduced by $7.5 million (i.e., would have been $59.1 
million) due to a legislative proposal, which redirects $7.5 million 
collected from the Central Valley Project Friant Division water users 
to the new San Joaquin River Restoration Fund for fiscal year 2008. 
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.

        SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION FUND PROPOSED LEGISLATION

    The 2008 budget also reflects the settlement of NRDC v. Rodgers. 
The administration will submit authorizing legislation, the San Joaquin 
River Restoration Settlement Act, which includes a provision to 
establish the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. Under the settlement, 
the legislation proposes to redirect approximately $17.3 million per 
year of payments from the Central Valley Project, Friant Division water 
users into the Fund which would be available without further 
appropriations to implement the provisions of the settlement. 
Previously, $7.5 million of these funds went into the Central Valley 
Project Restoration Fund.

             CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION FUND (CALFED)

    Title I of Public Law 108-361, titled the Calfed Bay-Delta 
Authorization Act, was signed by the President on October 25, 2004. The 
act authorized $389 million in Federal appropriations over the period 
of fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2010. For fiscal year 2008, 
$31.8 million is requested to enable Reclamation to advance its 
commitments under the CALFED Record of Decision and with a focus 
towards implementation of priority activities included in the Calfed 
Bay-Delta Authorization Act that will contribute to resolving water 
resource conflicts in the CALFED solution area. Funds will specifically 
be used for the environmental water account, feasibility studies of 
projects to increase surface storage and improve water conveyance in 
the Delta, conduct critical science activities, implementation of 
projects to improve Delta water quality, ecosystem enhancements, and 
program planning and management activities.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2008 PLANNED ACTIVITIES

    Reclamation's fiscal year 2008 priority goals are directly related 
to continually fulfilling our progress in water and power contracts 
while balancing a range of competing water demands. Reclamation will 
continue to deliver water consistent with applicable State and Federal 
law, in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner. 
Reclamation will strive to deliver 28 million acre-feet of water to 
meet contractual obligations while addressing other resource needs (for 
example, fish and wildlife habitat, environmental enhancement, 
recreation, and Native American trust responsibilities). Reclamation 
will work to maintain our dams and associated facilities in fair to 
good condition to ensure the reliable delivery of water. Reclamation 
will strive to meet or beat the industry forced outage average to 
ensure reliable delivery of power. Reclamation will reduce salinity by 
preventing an additional 18,500 tons of salt from entering the water 
ways.
    Moreover, the fiscal year 2008 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. Reclamation is committed to working with its customers, 
States, tribes, and other stakeholders to find ways to balance and 
provide for the mix of water resource needs in 2008 and beyond.

                           MANAGEMENT STUDIES

    Reclamation continues to make significant advancements in its quest 
for management excellence. Reclamation's Managing for Excellence Action 
Plan reflects specific actions to realize the underlying principles of 
the President's Management Agenda. The National Academy of Sciences, at 
Reclamation's request, completed and published its study in 2006 to 
assist Reclamation in determining the appropriate organizational, 
management, and resource configurations to meet its construction and 
related infrastructure management responsibilities associated with 
fulfilling its core mission of delivering water and power for the 21st 
century.
    The Managing for Excellence action plan, developed in response to 
the Academy's report, outlines a process and timeframe for identifying 
and addressing the specific actions that can be taken to increase 
transparency, efficiency, and accountability within Reclamation. As of 
the end of January 2007, Reclamation has completed approximately 50 
percent of the 41 action items identified. Although the philosophy of 
Managing for Excellence will continue into the future, the Managing for 
Excellence Action Plan will conclude after December 2007 and 
implementation will continue as part of Reclamation's normal business.

                               CONCLUSION

    Mr. Chairman, Please allow me to express my sincere appreciation 
for the continued support that this committee has provided Reclamation. 
This completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions 
that you may have at this time.

    Senator Dorgan. Mr. Johnson, thank you very much. I'm going 
to ask a couple of questions and then turn to my colleagues. 
We've been joined by Senator Jack Reed as well. Senator Reed, 
others made a very brief statement. Would you like to make a 
comment?
    Senator Reed. I'll just put that in the record, Mr. 
Chairman.
    [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Senator Jack Reed

    Senators Dorgan and Domenici, it is an honor to serve with you 
again on the Appropriations Committee. I look forward to working with 
you on this subcommittee given the importance of energy and water 
programs to Rhode Island.
    Good afternoon, Secretary Woodley and Lieutenant General Strock, I 
look forward to hearing your testimony. I want to commend the work of 
Colonel Thalken, Bobby Byrne, and the New England District. With over 
400 miles of coastline, the Corps has a number of ongoing navigation 
and ecosystem restoration projects in Rhode Island that are extremely 
important to my State's economy and environment.
    The Corps also provides an important service in the inspection of 
our Nation's dams and levees. I am interested in your efforts to help 
local communities and States ensure that these critical infrastructure 
projects are sound and able to protect the lives and properties for 
which they were designed. I am also interested in the Corps efforts to 
restore aquatic ecosystems given the number of ongoing projects in 
Rhode Island to protect our coastal ponds.

    Senator Dorgan. All right. I'm going to ask a series of 
questions about the Missouri River System and the eighth year 
of the drought now, ninth year of the drought in Montana and 
that system. But I withhold on those questions. I'm just going 
to ask a question to, I would say, Secretary Woodley and 
General Strock, on the issue of the pumps in New Orleans, which 
I expect you would come here and expect to get a question 
about.
    I've read the reports, the Associated Press reports and so 
on and I would like to have both of you comment publicly about 
it. The story that is told in these reports is that a 
substantial amount of money was committed to rush to put in 
pumps to protect New Orleans but the pumps apparently, while 
costing $26.6 million, came from a company that the U.S. 
Justice Department had sued just 4 years ago. Those pumps 
apparently did not work. People inside the Corps of Engineers 
questioned whether the pumps should be purchased, alleged that 
they would not work. In any event, at least the stories about 
this suggest that it was a profound waste of the taxpayers' 
money, an unwise decision in contracting. I want to ask you 
what we should make of these stories and what the Corps' view 
is of what has happened there.
    Mr. Woodley. Senator, the provision of pumping capacity to 
complement the temporary closure structures on the drainage 
canals at Lake Pontchartrain, is perhaps the single aspect of 
the project that has taken more of my personal attention than 
any other. I have been very deeply involved in it and have 
followed it very closely. I can tell you that the challenges of 
that effort should not be minimized. We're not talking about 
the kind of pump that you put in your birdbath. These are very 
serious installations of enormous capacity, capacity almost 
unknown elsewhere in the Nation.
    They were accomplished in time for the beginning of the 
2006 hurricane season on a schedule of unprecedented speed and 
scope and overcoming enormous challenges of the hydraulics and 
the planning and construction by people who were extremely 
dedicated to the work. I am not familiar with the 
technicalities of it. I do not pretend technical expertise. I 
do know that a great deal of technical expertise and scrutiny 
has been given to this and I believe that at the end of the 
day, when the full story is told that it will be a rather 
different story from the impressions and implications that we 
have from the initial report.
    Senator Dorgan. Well, let me ask a specific question then. 
Is it the case that a mechanical engineer from Corps wrote a 
memo to Corps officials saying the equipment being installed 
was defective, warned that the equipment would break down 
should they be tasked to run at a normal use, as it be required 
and that when the pumps were installed, they were defective, 
have broken down sufficient so that you've had to withhold 20 
percent of the funding of the contract?
    General Strock. Sir, I should probably answer that as the 
Corps of Engineers representative here. I am not aware of a 
member of the Corps of Engineers that expressed those concerns 
but his or her concerns, I think, are valid. The fact is, as 
the Secretary has said, this is a very, very complex and large-
scale operation. I'm not sure that anything like this has ever 
been done before. In addition to focusing on the complexity, 
I'd also like to recognize that this is a tremendously 
important function, too. Our task is to keep the waters of Lake 
Pontchartrain out of the city in the event of another storm 
surge but we must do that in a way that does not interfere with 
the city's ability to pump rainwater that falls inside the 
city. So we know how important this is.
    Sir, the process that would normally be followed for a 
project of this size and complexity would take about 3 years to 
accomplish. It's been about 18 months since the Corps got this 
mission and by the end of April, we will have those pumps 
operating effectively. We know what the problems are and we 
have the solutions in place. The normal protocol is to test 
pumps in the factory. You can do that with pumps below 42 
inches in diameter. With pumps the size of these, there is no 
protocol for factory testing and we have not been able to 
identify a factory in the United States that can test these in 
the factory as the Hydraulic Institute likes to do.
    Our Engineering Research and Development Center worked with 
the Hydraulic Institute and proposed a protocol of field 
testing. That protocol was reviewed and approved by the 
Hydraulic Institute, which is the authoritative body in these 
matters and those tests have been conducted in the field. They 
did determine problems. We experienced significant vibrations 
in the pumps. We know why that occurred. We are making fixes to 
that.
    So sir, this is not unexpected. The process of 
certification and testing of the pumps, which would normally be 
done in a factory had to occur in the field in this case. We 
were faced with the challenge of running things through the 
normal process and having no pumping in place or very little 
pumping in place for the 2006 hurricane season. We chose to 
accept a calculated risk and put something in place that would 
have an effect at the beginning of the hurricane season.
    So sir, I offer no apologies for this, for the efforts of 
the Corps of Engineers. There may be some issues you touched on 
that I'm not familiar with that I will look into. The matter of 
the Department of Justice investigation, we were aware of that 
during the contract award process. Unless a contractor has been 
debarred or specifically proposed for debarment, we cannot 
prohibit a contractor--cannot deny an award to a contractor and 
that process had not occurred with the contractor.
    Senator Dorgan. General, thank you. I will have some other 
questions. Let me just point out on debarment. It's pretty hard 
to get debarred these days. That's a particular concern I have.
    General Strock. Yes sir, but as the law says, unless they 
are debarred, we cannot----
    Senator Dorgan. You cannot consider----
    General Strock. We cannot prevent them from----
    Senator Dorgan. You can't consider other issues? But my 
point is that there are a whole lot of companies, I think, out 
there of which significant questions have been raised in 
contracting that are not debarred and that I would hope we 
would think twice before contracting with again.
    But having said that, we've been joined by the ranking 
member, Senator Domenici. Senator Domenici, we have a series of 
six votes starting in 35 minutes. I'm going to start a series 
of 5-minute rounds. I apologize for that but if you have an 
opening comment, I'd be happy to recognize you for that and 
then I'm going to call on Senator Craig and we'll just use the 
early-bird rule.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

    Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a 
couple of minutes to explain where I have been. I happen to 
also be on the Budget Committee. Today, the Budget Committee 
was finishing its work, fellow Senators and that meant under 
their rules, you must be present in the room to vote. You can't 
vote by proxy. So we had a full house of Senators voting for 
the last 2\1/2\, 3 hours and that meant I could not be in two 
places. I knew that you all would be here and get the job done 
and I'm going to return it now to you, Mr. Chairman and then my 
turn will come. If it doesn't, I'll do my homework another way. 
Thank you.
    Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Senator Domenici. I did mention 
the Budget Committee responsibilities you have and I appreciate 
you being here.
    [The statement follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici

    Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a couple of moments 
and address a couple of priority issues.
    Like all of my colleagues, I continue to eagerly await the final 
decision by the Corps on which priorities they will choose to fund for 
the fiscal year 2007 budget. I sincerely hope that the Corps will not 
focus only on its priorities, but will continue to provide funding to 
the many ongoing projects and studies that were funded in fiscal year 
2006.
    As part of the fiscal year 2008 budget the administration has 
indicated that the Inland Waterway Trust Fund may go broke within a 
couple of years due to the large amount of rebuilding needs. The 
administration has indicated that they will be submitting a legislative 
proposal to replace the current 20-cent per-gallon diesel fuel tax with 
a user fee.
    As the author of this current fee, I have more than a passing 
interest as to how this matter is resolved. It is vital to our economy 
that we sustain a viable, operating inland waterway system. The 
continued effectiveness of the system will be determined if there is a 
reliable source of funding.
    The responsibility for solving this problem falls to EPW and the 
Finance Committee, but the solution will have a big impact on this 
subcommittee in the future.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to address an issue that I believe you and I 
share a similar interest--drought relief.
    As you are well aware many communities and rural areas in the West 
and Midwest are experiencing a severe drought. I believe we need to 
find solutions to address our long term water needs and we need more 
resources committed to this effort.
    Two programs that have not received sufficient attention in this 
budget are Water 2025 and the reclamation and reuse programs managed by 
the Bureau. I think everyone would agree that $11 million requested for 
Water 2025 will not provide the long term solutions we will need.
    Another area that has been seriously underfunded is water 
reclamation and reuse. This activity is a vital component of increasing 
near term water supplies for the West. The Federal dollars are 
leveraged to make these projects a success. Only about $10 million was 
requested for these activities in fiscal year 2008. I am proud of the 
fact that Congress has consistently provided between $25 million to $30 
million for this important work.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with you to bring greater 
attention to this issue and work to raise awareness among our 
colleagues. When compared to the budget priorities of this 
administration, which increasingly includes large amounts of funding 
for environmental infrastructure projects, it is not at all 
unreasonable for this subcommittee to focus more resources on 
addressing water shortages. I am certain it will pay off in the future.
    Mr. Chairman, another priority of this subcommittee has been the 
recovery of the gulf coast following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Over 
the last several supplemental requests this subcommittee has provided 
over $6 billion in rebuilding assistance to the gulf coast.
    This region was devastated by these storms, and I am proud to say 
this subcommittee worked hard to address critical infrastructure 
repairs and upgrades that are needed in this region.
    I am interested in hearing from General Strock and Assistant 
Secretary Woodley regarding the rebuilding efforts.
    I am also interested to know if the Corps has been a good steward 
of the Federal resources. I am concerned about recent press reports of 
extraordinary price inflation and poor quality work being performed in 
Louisiana. I hope our witnesses can address these concerns.
    Mr. Chairman, before I close I would like to thank General Strock 
for all his hard work during the hurricane recovery efforts. The 
General is retiring from the Army and this will be his last hearing 
before this subcommittee.
    General, I am sorry you are going, but I greatly appreciate your 
hard work and dedication to this country.
    Thank you.

    Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig.
    Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have 
several questions. I'll ask a couple of them and submit the 
rest for the record so that we can save time and everybody get 
a round.
    To the Corps, does the 2008 budget request provide 
sufficient funding to complete the Snake River Programmatic 
Sedimentation Management Plan by its 2009 due date and if not, 
how does the Corps intend to provide potential navigation 
maintenance if it is not needed prior to the completion of the 
plan?
    General Strock. Sir, I'll need to take that for the record. 
I don't have the specifics on that study in front of me.
    Senator Craig. Okay. We'll take that for the record then 
and anticipate you responding to it. To the Bureau, Mark, can 
you please describe in more detail the new Loan Guarantee 
program that you've outlined? For instance, what kind of 
strings are attached to these loans and what kind of interest 
rates and loan durations can we look forward to?
    Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Craig, thank you. Before 
I answer that, I too want to add, I was remiss in not adding my 
goodwill to General Strock. Under his leadership, we have, 
between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of 
Engineers, we've probably worked closer and better together 
than ever before. So thank you, General Strock.
    To answer your question, Senator, we are in the process of 
developing the rules and regulations for that program. It's my 
understanding in talking with the Department of Agriculture, 
who we will be working very closely with to try to administer 
this program without increasing the bureaucratic side of 
operating a program such as this. The way it works is we would 
only have to appropriate a percentage of the total loan volume 
out there as it pertains to the default rate or the possible 
estimated default rate.
    So this would allow us to be able to allow our contractors 
to obtain financing for their share of improvements to our 
system, which currently, we're just doing under the Operation 
and Maintenance contracts that we have. It's burdensome on them 
to have to come up with large amounts of money in 1 year or 2 
years from the rate payers. So this would allow a tool in the 
toolbox, if you will, in order to finance their share.
    The interest rates are generally lower than the normal 
commercial rates, from what I'm told. I have not done any 
recent analysis of those rates and what levels they are but 
they are very close to the municipal rates that are currently 
available under the tax free municipal bonds, which are also an 
opportunity for some of these contractors to use.
    But I guess the point is, Mr. Chairman and Senator Craig, 
this program is something that we don't have right now and what 
we're trying to do is take care of a problem that we see out 
there in as fiscally responsible way as possible, not to hit 
our appropriations budget as much as it would have if we did 
direct loans but also to add a tool in the toolbox that our 
contractors can use to keep these facilities viable into the 
next century.
    Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Secretary, thank 
you for those thoughts and as you work through this, keep us 
informed. You participated with me in the Center for the New 
West in looking at creative, out-of-the-box ideas that I think 
added a dynamic, like you say, a valuable tool in the process 
and Commissioner Johnson, you've been there looking at this. 
We've got a lot of work to do across the country and to be able 
to leverage resources in a way that multiples them beyond our 
capability here is, I think, a very valuable approach. So I'll 
watch this very closely to see if we can't assist you in making 
it happen sooner and enhancing it if at all possible.
    Mr. Limbaugh. We will keep you informed.
    Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Dorgan. Senator Craig, thank you very much. Senator 
Bennett.
    Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got my question 
asked in my opening statement so I won't ask it again and see 
if you remember it well enough to give me an answer.
    General Strock. Yes, Senator, we certainly do but on 
something on the detail of a program like that, we would have 
to take that for the record and get back to you. I can assure 
you that of course, any re-programming of any kind at this 
time, under the rules established by the committee would have 
to be submitted to both houses for a concurrence of some 
nature. But we will definitely be working on that. We recognize 
that prior reprogrammings have, in many cases, created an 
obligation on the part of the agency to seek repayment at the 
earliest possible time, especially when the funding could be 
usefully utilized within the program, as you indicate that it 
can be now. So we're very concerned about that and we'll 
definitely be getting back to you directly.
    Senator Bennett. Thank you. I like the phrase, the earliest 
possible time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett. 
Senator Landrieu.
    Senator Landrieu. Thank you. I want to begin by saying the 
three gentlemen representing the Corps before me have been 
personally supportive of our efforts in New Orleans and in the 
gulf coast to rebuild. I've spent many hours with you all, 
walking levees, looking at flood walls, walking through 
neighborhoods assuring people. So I want to start with a 
personal thank you to you.
    But after being close up for 18 months, I've come to the 
conclusion that you all may be stuck in an agency that is 
dysfunctional and I believe that your wholly inadequate budget 
is what this committee is discussing. I have two or three 
specific questions but for this committee, because I intend to 
stay on this committee for several years to try to fix it, I 
want to say to the chairman, I thank him for taking his time to 
ask the question about the pumps and I'll get to that in a 
minute.
    But the overall budget for this Corps, the way I'm looking 
at it, is a construction budget of all new construction for the 
whole country--for the whole country--of $1.5 billion of new 
construction, $2.4 billion for operation and maintenance, $180 
million for regulatory and then there are other things. Is this 
what is reflected in the documents that you've submitted?
    I want to show you all a chart that I had my office do 
since I couldn't get this information from anywhere. We just 
did it ourselves. This is a frightening chart. This shows the 
fall-off in appropriations of Civil Works projects in this 
country since 1929. We are funding less than one-tenth of the 
GDP of Civil Works projects in 2007 than we did in 1929.
    And in the year 2005, which is not even on this chart, I 
want the chairman and the ranking member to know, the levees in 
New Orleans broke. That is the end of the story. That's the 
only story that needs to be told. That's what happens when a 
government like ours will not fund critical infrastructure 
operation and maintenance and construction. Levees break. 
Cities and communities are ruined.
    The problem I have, Mr. Chairman, with this budget is it's 
the same budget. Nothing has changed. Nothing. Nothing has 
changed. There is no money in this budget for SELA. There is no 
money in this budget for adequate levee construction. I don't 
know how many people have to die. I don't know how many homes 
have to be lost. I don't know how many businesses have to be 
ruined to change the budget.
    Now, there is no sense in my arguing this with you because 
you all are not in charge of the budget. But I'm going to ask 
this chairman publicly to have someone from the administration 
that is in charge of the budget, appear before this committee. 
I would like to ask OMB that controls the budget to appear 
because I'm going to ask them how they justify this budget. 
Maybe pre-Katrina. You never really would know what would 
happen when levees broke so we could sort of pretend we didn't 
have to do anything. But after Katrina?
    This is my question. The chairman asked his question of 
this but the memo was written by a Corps, according to the AP, 
by Maria Garzino, a Corps mechanical engineer overseeing 
quality assurance at a MWI test site in Florida. In her memo, 
she warned that the pumps would break down should they be 
tasked to run under normal use, as would be required in the 
event of a hurricane. The pumps failed less strenuous testing 
than the original contract called for, according to the memo. 
Originally, each of the 34 pumps was supposed to be load 
tested, made to pump water. Of the eight pumps that were load 
tested, one was turned on for a few minutes. The other was run 
at a third of the operating pressure. Three of the other load 
test pumps experienced catastrophic failure and these are the 
pumps that we have installed in the canals that flooded the 
city of New Orleans and hurricane season is 2 months away. So 
you can imagine the calls that I'm getting to my office today, 
trying to explain this and my time is up.
    So I want to say, I have many questions I'm going to 
submit. But I am going to call for a full investigation of how 
these pumps were purchased, how they were installed, why they 
don't work but more importantly, Mr. Chairman, I think we have 
to get to the bottom of a budget that is wholly inadequate, not 
just for south Louisiana but I think it is inadequate for the 
other 49 States that are represented in this Nation and I think 
it is a dangerous budget and I think people's lives are at risk 
because I've seen their lives lost because of the levees 
breaking. I could go on but nothing has changed in this budget 
and I'm going to continue to press to get more funding, more 
fuller funding and more organizational reform at the Corps of 
Engineers. Thank you.
    Senator Dorgan. Senator Landrieu, thank you very much. 
Senator Reed.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 
gentlemen, thank you. Secretary Woodley and General Strock, in 
the wake of Katrina, you've conducted a review of levee systems 
throughout the country. One of them was in Woonsocket, Rhode 
Island and you discovered some deficiencies, which the local 
officials have estimated would cost $2 million to repair and 
also, there are some indications of even more serious 
structural issues.
    My first question is, is this a one-shot sort of inspection 
or do you have a regular program to inspect the structural 
aspects of these levies?
    General Strock. Sir, this was not a one shot effort. We 
have a program entitled, Inspection of Completed Works. When 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers works in partnership and 
constructs levees, they are turned over to a local sponsor for 
operation and maintenance. It is their responsibility to 
provide 100 percent of that O&M. We have a periodic inspection 
requirement that ensures that they are performing the 
maintenance and that's important that they do that so we can 
ensure that they are maintaining the Federal specifications 
when they are in the Federal program, as the levee in 
Woonsocket is, then in the event of a compromise of that 
structure under-load, if a storm overwhelms it and it needs 
repair, then we can go in and have the authority to repair 
that.
    If they do not maintain it, then when those structures are 
damaged, we do not have the authority to go in and conduct 
repairs. So this is a periodic inspection. The difference this 
time is we learned very well in New Orleans that we had to re-
emphasize the rigor of this program and for that reason, we had 
about 120 communities that were required to show us that they 
have a plan to improve the operation and maintenance of those 
levees.
    Senator Reed. Well, it struck me that this was--if there 
was ongoing inspections, they wouldn't have quite this 
liability that they would have been corrected or at least have 
been on notice and I think a lot of the community leaders were 
surprised when the inspection took place and the extent of your 
criticism was known.
    Is this--again, you might have an inspection program on 
paper but is this done on a yearly basis? Is it done rigorously 
or is it now something?
    General Strock. Sir, it's done every 2 years and we saw a 
wide variety. We saw many cases where there were repetitive 
deficiencies noted on the levees and we simply didn't present 
an ultimatum to the community as we have now. We have just 
recognized that we have to get tough, if you will, on the 
operation and maintenance responsibilities. It's all about 
public safety. It is regrettable if we let things slip over the 
years but we have to draw the line now and that's what we're 
going to do.
    Senator Reed. Well, going forward and that's what I think 
our major objective should be is that this is one of 100-plus 
levee systems around the country in small communities. I'm 
wondering within your request of funding, will there be any 
Federal dollars requested to help these communities? And it's 
not just for Rhode Island, I would suspect it's probably every 
one of these facilities. And again, these are small communities 
who are struggling to do all sorts of things and the idea that 
within 1 year, because of your--as you described ultimatum, 
they have to put in millions of dollars of sophisticated 
engineering work without any help. Have you considered that in 
your request?
    General Strock. Sir, we don't currently have the authority 
to provide the assistance. We don't have the appropriation to 
do that and it's a policy call about whether to apply for that 
kind of capability, which we have not made at the Corps of 
Engineers.
    Senator Reed. Well, I would hope that if--it seems to me, 
the only way this is going to get done, frankly--otherwise 
you're going to have communities that just have a stark choice. 
They don't have the resources and the real consequences that 
imperil Federal flood insurance for the surrounding communities 
and that's--that leaves a too unacceptable sort of option. So 
we've got to something at every level and also local State 
level. But I would hope we could get our heads together and 
come up with something.
    General Strock. Yes, sir. And sir, I'll provide you the 
details on Woonsocket about the specifics of the progress at 
that particular level.
    Senator Reed. Colonel Thalken, by the way, your Commander, 
is an excellent district engineer and he's been very 
cooperative with us. He and his civilian colleagues should be 
complimented for the effort in New England. Please pass that on 
to him.
    General Strock. I agree, sir, and thank you.
    Senator Reed. One of the other areas that was illustrated 
in Katrina that made us all sort of sit up and take notice is 
the poor state of flood mapping. You have inundation maps, FEMA 
has flood maps. Your inundation maps will show much larger 
flooding in CAT 2 and 3 storms and many communities are living 
in sort of a never-never land where they look at 20-year-old 
FEMA maps and they think they can build in a particular where 
your inundation map shows already flooding in a serious storm.
    My time is expiring but I would hope that we could work 
together to ensure that we have a consistent mapping program 
that reflects your information and the FEMA information and do 
it in a way that all the communities know where they stand.
    General Strock. FEMA does have the lead on the Map 
Modernization program, sir, and we work very closely with them.
    Senator Reed. I have other questions, Mr. Chairman and I'll 
submit them. Thank you.
    Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much. Senator Domenici.
    Senator Domenici. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
I think it probably is best for us that I came along kind of 
late today because frankly, I've been at this so long that I am 
truly sick and tired of the kind of budgets we are getting from 
the executive branch of Government for the Corps of Engineers 
and the Bureau of Reclamation. I truly believe, Mr. Chairman, 
that we don't have enough time. If we had enough time, we could 
spend the next 6 or 7 months, this committee, just traveling 
this country to find out where--where we are not doing our job. 
It's got to be rampant.
    These little tiny budgets that you're sending up here to 
accomplish what we know is the problem is an absolute joke. 
Some people spent a lot of their time the last 15 years beating 
up on the Corps for not doing what people thought they should. 
I never was on that side. I tried my best to work with the 
Corps but I thought for the most part, they tried very hard. I 
still feel that way.
    I think you can slack off and make mistakes but I tell you, 
that one card that the Senator from Louisiana put up showing 
just one line, linear, what's happening to the projects of the 
Corps of Engineers is absolutely--it just convinces you that 
somebody doesn't care.
    To me, Mr. Chairman, you asked me a moment ago, what about 
OMB? They don't testify. What about OMB? They sit in the back 
room and there is no question they underfund this and they 
know, for most of the time--look at me. I've been chairman up 
here. They got a good sucker like me that I was both Budget 
Committee Chairman and chairman of this subcommittee and I'd go 
fight to get them an extra $3 billion or $4 billion every year. 
They knew it. I think I contributed to making it worse. They 
just come along and fund everything less, figuring somebody, 
some dodo down there in the Senate or the House will come along 
with an extra $3 billion or $4 billion. But that isn't right. 
We took it away from other programs here, the way we budget.
    So I have a whole bunch of questions here I'm going to give 
you. I want them answered, if you don't mind, to the committee. 
They are about my State. They are about drought out there and 
there will be one in there that will be directed to you, Mr. 
Chairman, seeing if you might come out there and go visit these 
drought areas one day, one time.
    But I actually don't think we can put a budget together 
that is meaningful that spends the kind of money that the White 
House has sent up here for the Bureau of Reclamation and the 
Corps of Engineers. I think it's just as well let a few kids 
get down there with crayons and let them draw some things. 
They'll do just as well as we do. Because we don't know what we 
can do with this little tiny bit of money they've given us and 
the messages have been there. Now they are falling apart and 
who is to blame? And then we just had Katrina knock us in the 
head. It's no longer cheap. This is big, big time business.
    So I've got about 10 for you and I hope you answer them. I 
know you're leaving us, General, as I understand it. I met your 
successor. He's not here today but he's going to do fine and we 
look forward to working with him. He will do a good job, trying 
to bear with it and I hope the first time we get him up here 
that we impose on his good judgment the fact that he is also 
responsible to us, not just to the OMB and executive branch. If 
they want to come up here and testify, they better not come up 
here with budgets like this because they are going to be 
insulted because all they do is infuriate us.
    I mean, nice, decent Senators see this kind of junk and 
then we say, what is happening? If we wait another 5 years 
before we get started, we'll never fix this stuff. You all know 
that. You can't do it, that's all. So I'm not even going to ask 
you a question. I'm just going to tell you, whatever your 
problems are, we can fix those. But we can't fix the problems 
of these--of all of this work that is under-funded and falling 
apart and conduct oversight hearings on whether we bought 
things from the right supplier or not, when the whole thing is 
falling down.
    You know, I was also the one that came along and put that 
tax on barges. You remember. I don't know if any of you were 
around. I was the Lone Ranger then but I did win. It was a 
terrific, exciting day on the floor when we took a vote and 
every big Senator that was from the South wanted to continue 
the way we were and I'll be darned if I didn't win and they had 
to pay a little bit of money for the Inland Waterways. But then 
you know, it doesn't get spent anyway but we should shock them 
a little more and make the program a real good one, in my 
opinion. But anyway, we'll see.
    Mr. Chairman, we've got a lot of work to do and I thank you 
for your dedication. But we can't get it done unless we hit 
them hard because it's not going to work out. It's just going 
to be us up here working and they're not going to be working.
    Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici, thank you very much.
    Senator Domenici. Thank you.
    Senator Dorgan. Senator Allard.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I do have a 
statement I'd like to have you put in the record, if you would, 
please.
    Senator Dorgan. Without objection.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard

    Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing. I 
would also like to extend a special welcome to Commissioner Johnson, as 
I believe that this is the first time he has appeared before our 
subcommittee. I am currently moving back and forth between this hearing 
and mark-up in the Budget Committee, so I appreciate the chance to be 
here.
    Those of us in the West are well aware of the important work that 
the Army Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation has done over the years. 
The projects developed by both of these entities are vital in supplying 
water to many people in rural areas of my home State of Colorado. The 
value of these projects has become even more evident during the 
prolonged drought that Colorado--and the entire West--continues to 
experience.
    Mr. Woodley, I am grateful for the work that the Army Corps has 
done and continues to do in Colorado, especially with the Fountain 
Creek and Chatfield Reallocation Studies. I must however express my 
disappointment with the fact that, although both of these studies could 
be completed with another year of funding, neither project was included 
in the President's proposed budget again this year. I will have 
questions about these projects later in this hearing.
    I would also like to bring up a concern that is emerging with 
Bureau projects throughout the West, which I will also follow-up on 
with some questions. Mr. Commissioner, as I am sure you are aware, many 
federally-owned Bureau of Reclamation projects are at or past their 
life expectancy and are in severe need of rehabilitation. While the 
cost of rehabilitation is generally one-half to one-third of the cost 
of replacing a project, this is more than many communities can afford. 
The Bureau has maintained that rehabilitation is the same as operations 
and maintenance, which in many cases was turned over to local operating 
agencies long ago.
    It seems to me, however, that these two things are not the same. No 
matter how many oil changes or tune-ups you perform on a car, it will 
eventually no longer be serviceable. The same can be said of these 
projects. Local entities have worked diligently over the years to care 
for, and make repairs to, these projects. But eventually they reach the 
end of their operational life, and more extensive help is needed. 
Especially in light of ever increasing Federal water standards and ever 
diminishing water supplies. I believe that the Federal Government 
should play a role in assisting local communities in the rehabilitation 
of federally-built, federally-owned projects.
    Again, thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I look 
forward to working with you, the Ranking Republican Member Mr. Domenici 
and our colleagues to ensure that these two important agencies are able 
to continue moving forward with the important services that they 
provide to our communities.

    Senator Allard. Well, I have some of the same concerns, I 
guess, that Senator Domenici raised. In the State of Colorado, 
for example, we have a Fountain Creek Water Study that we 
started in 2001 and then in the President's budget, he doesn't 
continue the study. Isn't that a waste of taxpayer dollars to 
put out some money at the first part and then you don't put any 
more and you haven't even completed the study? I don't 
understand the thinking when you get these projects. It seems 
to me that when you get a study started, you complete it and 
find out what the results are and if you decide at that point 
you didn't want to move on, you've got the basis of the study 
and that's understandable. But why stop in the middle of the 
study and run the risk of wasting taxpayer dollars on the first 
half of the study because you didn't complete the last half.
    So my question is, is how do you determine your priorities 
and some of your funding and in particular, on issues like 
that? That really is a perplexing problem for me. I don't 
understand how you set your priorities when you let things like 
that happen. Secretary Woodley?
    Mr. Woodley. Senator, I can tell you that I believe that 
would be a study funded in our General Investigations account 
and that account is the single account, I would say, which is 
under the greatest pressure in all of our budget. That is the 
most difficult thing to budget something in, in my budget 
process. I'm an advocate for a strong investigations and 
studies program because I believe that it pays enormous 
dividends for the Nation. There is a view within the 
administration that the studies have an element to them that is 
counterproductive because they tend to--they lead to new 
proposals for new projects as opposed to working on our backlog 
of existing projects.
    Senator Allard. Yes, but Secretary, why would you start a 
study and then not complete it? Not provide money to complete 
it? I mean, you really haven't answered my question. I can 
understand your frustrations. There are a lot of requests but 
it seems to me, it's even more imperative that you focus your 
resources on what you have, complete those and then take the 
next step and we're all better off if we do that.
    Mr. Woodley. I think your point is very well taken, 
Senator.
    General Strock. Senator, if I could, from the Corps' side 
on this?
    Senator Allard. Yes. I didn't hear your response, Secretary 
Woodley.
    Mr. Woodley. I said it was very well taken.
    Senator Allard. Oh.
    Mr. Woodley. I said that I believe that the Senator's point 
is very well taken, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Dorgan. So his proposition that withdrawing funding 
in the middle of a study is not the right thing to do?
    Senator Allard. Yes, that's--can we change the budget 
proposal?
    Mr. Woodley. That's what I said, Senator. Except to the 
extent that of course, that the President's budget is totally 
without flaw.
    Senator Allard. Lieutenant General.
    General Strock. Yes, sir. I certainly agree with what 
Secretary Woodley has said here. Where the Corps is concerned, 
though, we do have some flexibility in this current fiscal year 
work plan and studies like this, which are underway, are being 
considered in the development of that work plan. We do not want 
to stop a study if we don't have to. Unfortunately, that work 
plan has not been approved and I can't share with you where 
Fountain Creek is going to fall out in that. But I can assure 
you we understand the importance of this study and in putting 
together our work plan, we took that into consideration.
    Senator Allard. You know, we have flooding problems on that 
creek. We have discharge problems in that creek. We have a lot 
of things that are happening in regard to that creek and I have 
a hard time understanding, if we're really interested in water 
quality and being able to manage our river and waterways, why 
more attention isn't paid to that particular project and it 
affects more than just the Fountain Creek. You've got the 
downstream aspect of it, which the Arkansas River and a lot of 
interest there that are very keen, all the way down to the 
gulf, as to what is happening on that little creek because it 
drains out of such a large metropolitan area, which is Colorado 
Springs.
    General Strock. And that is absolutely consistent with our 
new approach, doing things on a more watershed and basin wide 
basis to understand the cumulative benefits and impacts that 
works within the watersheds. So absolutely, Fountain Creek is a 
great example of that.
    Senator Allard. Well, you know, I guess we're a little 
unique in the State of Colorado. We're head waters some six, 
seven major drainage systems. We have four--we're broken down 
into four districts and so I guess our interests get kind of 
divided out. The other thing that I want you to take a look at 
is the Chatfield Reallocation Study. It's one of those projects 
that is just an emerging problem. We've got some farmers who 
are going to be without water because of some water management 
issues in the State of Colorado and it seems like we have 
plenty of storage capacity, more than what we need for flood 
control, considering all the other resources we have on there 
but if we could just have a study again, I think it would help 
us on that. So I hope you can take a look at it. I've got a 
number of other questions that I'd like to raise with you but 
the fact that I'm running out of time and we're getting ready 
to have a vote here, we'll send those to you and if you could 
give us a response, I'd appreciate it.
    General Strock. Yes, sir.
    Senator Allard. Thank you.
    Senator Dorgan. Senator Allard, thank you.
    Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, could I say one more thing 
before I leave and I really appreciate again, you using your 
time for the questions but I want the record to reflect, I'm 
also very concerned about the recommendation to move $1.3 
billion--$1.3 million--billion; thank you, Roger--$1.3 billion 
from one set of levee projects, flood control, to another. I'm 
going to oppose that. I understand that in the past, it's been 
done but I'm not going by the past anymore.
    If there was enough money in the pot, I could understand 
moving it around, based on what you're ready to fund. But when 
the pot is only one-fourth or less filled, moving money around, 
once it has been allocated, only makes it that much harder for 
those of us that have to fight to get it for you. So I am 
opposed to it. The chairman knows that and I hope it is not 
reflected in the budget that we submit to the full committee.
    Mr. Woodley. Senator, in response to that, the important 
thing is that the money be made available to the effort that 
must go forward. We are now in a state where we need additional 
money. If you can find a better source for that----
    Senator Landrieu. Well, then go get--let me suggest where 
you can get it from. You can go to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and 
you can ask the President for an additional $1.3 billion. You 
will not get it from this Senator or this committee. Thank you.
    Mr. Woodley. In that event, Senator, there will be delays 
in the process and the program.
    Senator Dorgan. Well, we have a vote that is starting but I 
have about--well, I have time so I'm going to ask you all some 
questions as well and let me say this. Senator Domenici and I 
think Senator Allard and Senator Landrieu all expressed 
concerns I have.
    You're all up here representing the President's budget. I 
understand that. On the other hand, I cannot believe that you 
are satisfied to be here representing, for example, in the 
Construction account, a very substantial decrease for the 
Corps. A 38 percent decrease given what Senator Landrieu showed 
you on that chart. I mean, I can't believe you're here thinking 
that makes a lot of sense.
    So you, I guess, are tied to saying to me you support the 
President's budget. We can't get the Director of OMB up here 
but everyone in this room, I would think, understands that, 
given what we have to do, cutting the construction budget of 
the Corps of Engineers by 38 percent makes no sense at all.
    My understanding is that in the Corps budget you proposed 
67 projects for construction. Now we have about 300 projects 
that we fund. That means about 230 projects you're proposing 
that we not fund. Are you saying to us you don't support those 
projects? You don't want--I guess what you're saying to us is 
that you don't want those projects funded. Is that what you're 
saying to the country? And if so, why? Why would you say that?
    Mr. Woodley. We're saying that within the constraints of 
the amounts that we've been allocated, that the projects we're 
recommending are the highest priorities but generally, we agree 
completely that this budget does not fund all of the good 
things that the Corps of Engineers could accomplish in fiscal 
year 2008.
    Senator Dorgan. So some of the projects that you are not 
funding do have merit you say?
    Mr. Woodley. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they certainly do.
    General Strock. Sir, if I could just chime in on that. In 
my humble opinion, all of those projects do. We have the most 
rigorous process in government to make recommendations to the 
administration and Congress on what could be done with our 
investments. We have a $1.3 billion backlog in O&M right now 
that should be done but we also have a--if you'd look just at 
those budgeted projects, we have about a $9 billion backlog in 
construction and with the full suite of projects, it's about a 
$50 billion backlog.
    So clearly, there is a need there and there is 
justification. Having said that, sir, I do understand the 
context in which we're working and I know that the funds are 
not unlimited, either to the Congress or the President. So we 
just make our level effort to have a process in which we can 
prioritize using performance based metrics where the money 
should be sent, where these investments should be made to 
produce the highest returns. It is tough but we think we have 
done about as well as we can, given those constraints on the 
availability of funds.
    Senator Dorgan. Yes, but because you're confronted with a 
Hobson's choice doesn't justify making the wrong choice, 
consistently the wrong choice and it seems to me, although I 
understand your point, that your point is that you're saying to 
me there are 230 other projects that have merit but we won't go 
ahead and complete them. We won't work on them this year at 
all. I mean, is that Byzantine, as my colleagues, Senator 
Allard suggests? We have 240, roughly 230 ongoing projects that 
are underway and you say, ``Sorry.'' Tell everybody in the 
country that is looking at these projects, expecting these 
projects, that they are not the priority that you thought they 
were. We're not going to do it.
    General Strock. Sir, the challenge we have on that is that 
for years, we--as we encountered this situation, we spread the 
available budget thinner and thinner and thinner and it got to 
the point that no project was receiving sufficient funds to 
complete anything. So we decided, with the administration, to 
try to concentrate the available funding into projects that 
could be completed and begin to return on those investments. 
And we've attempted to do that, sir, to pick out those high 
performing projects that will do that for us. And it is 
regrettable. They are clearly--all of our projects that I 
recommend to you will have a 1 to 1 return on investment as a 
minimum or higher.
    Senator Dorgan. Or higher?
    General Strock. Higher, yes sir. Today, in order to reach 
the funding cutoffs, they had to have at least a 1.5 benefit-
to-cost ratio for us, where economics are concerned.
    Senator Dorgan. You all can't, I guess, express publicly 
the frustration I express. I understand what has happened to 
our fiscal policy. We were told, and I did not support it, 
``Katy, bar the door. Let's give very big tax cuts.'' That 
reduces our revenue stream and then we have people come, and by 
the way, the same people who sat at these tables telling us 
that we're going to have future expected budget surpluses--
people representing the President, who knows whether they felt 
that was the right thing or not, to the table representing the 
President and say, ``We're out of money'' so therefore these 
projects, that have merit and invest in the infrastructure of 
this country, we can't possibly do them. Why? Well, we gave the 
store in tax cuts and it didn't quite work out. We had a 
recession. We had a terrorist attack and two wars. So we pump 
up $500 billion, $450 billion, none of which we pay for. I 
mean, it's unbelievable to me. So I know you're here speaking 
for others and I know that if I ask you a question and ask you 
to be completely candid about your personal feelings, you will 
not do that because you're here representing the President's 
budget.
    I'm telling you, I agree with a couple of my colleagues 
here. This makes no sense and I've just taken over the 
chairmanship of this committee. I don't have the foggiest idea 
how we put this together but I'll guarantee this--when we make 
choices about this, we're not going to take a look at 240 
projects and say, yes, those projects are underway. Yes, they 
have merit. But this country really thinks that it doesn't 
matter and we'll just stop them. That is not what this 
committee is going to do.
    Now let me just say this. I've seen the Corps of Engineers 
walking the dikes in Grand Forks. I saw the dikes fail. I 
watched the Corps of Engineers people working 24 hours a day in 
a heroic struggle to fight a flood after an entire American 
city, the largest since the Civil War, was evacuated into big 
hangers on an Air Force base. I watched all that. I have 
enormous admiration for the Corps of Engineers and the men and 
women who work there. By the same token, I am the most 
frustrated person in the world about the Corps of Engineers for 
other reasons and General, you know that. I've said that 
before.
    I've watched the Bureau of Reclamation people, over 
Thanksgiving weekend, work 24 hours a day to try to get water 
back into the Fort Yates Standing Rock Indian community because 
the water was gone. The intake silted in because of the 
Missouri River problems. I watched these people from the Bureau 
of Reclamation work right through, around the clock. I have 
great admiration for their dedication and what they've done.
    And yet, I have to tell you, I also am very, very 
frustrated by the Bureau of Reclamation, which brings me to 
this question of the Missouri River. And it's probably a proxy 
for a lot of other frustrations and concerns around this 
country but let me describe it and then I'm going to ask you a 
couple of questions.
    The Missouri River System division built some dams on that 
river. We didn't go ask somebody if you could build a dam in 
North Dakota and flood 500,000 acres, the size of Rhode Island, 
permanently. We didn't go say, ``Let's give away 500,000 acres 
of our State. We'll take a flood that comes and stays so they 
can play softball in the spring in St. Louis.'' We didn't do 
that. The Federal Government came to us and said, you know 
what? You're a sparsely populated State. You've got the 
Missouri River. Can you put a dam and create a big old flood 
there that stays there forever, the size of Rhode Island and if 
you do that, we'll give you something. So that's the cost. We 
got the cost. We got the flood that comes and stays and we'll 
give you Reclamation, we'll give you a whole irrigation, a 
whole series of things, rural water and so we got this flood 
that comes and stays. Then we didn't get the benefits, as you 
know. We got a miniscule portion of the benefits and 
incidentally, this budget that is being proposed will continue 
to diminish the opportunities for us to get the full benefits.
    But having said all that, now we have a reservoir, a big 
reservoir up there that goes up and down like a cork. Now we're 
in the eighth year of a drought, ninth year for Montana. We 
should have 55 million acre feet of water in that Missouri 
River System. There is about 34 million acre feet. Already 
there should have been sirens going off and bells and whistles 
and people saying, ``Wait a second. We've got a huge drought, a 
big problem.'' That has not been the case. There have been a 
few minor adjustments here and there but we still release 
gushing water to support a minimum of an industry down south at 
the expense of a major industry up north.
    Having said all that, we're in a situation now, I mentioned 
the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, where we're out of water 
over the Thanksgiving Day holiday. The city of Parshall is up 
there currently trying to figure out, if they are going to have 
water. Walhalla will be out of water in August.
    So I asked the question of the Corps and the Bureau: How 
are you going to help us deal with this? I know you can't 
control how much water is in the snow pack and how much is 
going to come into the system. But the fact is, if it's going 
to be 20 or 30 percent less again this year, let's deal with 
these things. Let's not tell the communities, ``we're sorry, 
you're on your own.''
    Now I noticed that neither of your budgets have any money 
in it, at least that I can see, for drought issues, to be able 
to give your agencies the opportunity to deal with the drought 
issues on the Missouri River, as an example. To Mr. Johnson and 
Secretary Limbaugh, is there any money in your budget request 
for drought issues on the Missouri?
    Mr. Johnson. A small amount for administration. I think it 
is a little less than $500,000.
    Senator Dorgan. Five hundred thousand dollars?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, around that ballpark.
    Senator Dorgan. For administration?
    Mr. Johnson. Well, yes, for----
    Senator Dorgan. That's not drought. There may be a drought 
in administration from here to there but I'm talking about 
drought relief money. There's nothing really requested.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, the drought--we do--we have two parts to 
our Drought Act. One is emergency response and the other one is 
contingency planning.
    Senator Dorgan. Let me ask about the emergency----
    Mr. Johnson. Doing drought planning. So the money would be 
for helping do drought plans.
    Senator Dorgan. You do have an emergency account for 
drought but there is no money in it and no money requested?
    Mr. Johnson. That's correct, yes.
    Senator Dorgan. All right. And why would that be the case 
if we're in the eighth year of a drought in our region, in the 
Missouri River System? Why has there not been a request?
    Mr. Johnson. Well, I think particularly on the Missouri 
River Basin, the Dakota Resources Act provides us the ability 
to deal with the tribes there and the problems that we're 
having on the Missouri River. So we have another source of 
funding there to try to deal with that. One of the problems we 
have--
    Senator Dorgan. But you are limited to that because you 
don't have other drought money?
    Mr. Johnson. Right. We don't have other money but we do 
have those funds to help and we have plans in place to address 
the problems on the reservations if they occur.
    Senator Dorgan. All right. General Strock or Secretary 
Woodley, have you requested money for drought issues on the 
Missouri River?
    General Strock. Very much like the Bureau, sir, minimal 
amounts in the funding but we do have the authorities when the 
emergencies exist, to move money to that account, much like we 
do in flood control and coastal emergencies. We have those 
authorities, we have used those in the Upper Missouri and we 
are watching very closely Walhalla and Parshall. We know there 
is a danger there. The current projections for snow pack tell 
us we probably won't have a problem this year but if we do, we 
have the authorities to go in and help, as we have in the past.
    Senator Dorgan. Wouldn't it have made more sense though, 
for both of your agencies to suggest we put a little money in 
the accounts? And I'm going to help you, no matter what your 
response is, I'm going to try to help you this year do that.
    General Strock. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dorgan. But again, I'm perplexed why we would not 
get a budget request that reflects reality.
    General Strock. That is the approach we take in our flood 
control. We have some money in the account, ready to use if we 
need it. But I assure you, sir, if there is an emergency, we 
will be there to do what needs to be done.
    Senator Dorgan. Yes but General, I'm telling you, I have 
meetings out there with all these folks. I just had a meeting 
1\1/2\ weeks ago, 60 to 80 people come from all the communities 
up and down and the Bureau and the Corps is there, wonderful 
people. But you know what they say to me? They say, well, we 
don't have money in these accounts. That's what they say. And 
then I come to a budget hearing and realize you're not asking 
for money in the accounts. That's why there is no money in the 
accounts.
    General Strock. Sir, we'll look into that. The implication 
is, therefore we cannot help and I'll make sure that they 
understand what our authorities are and what we can do to help. 
But thank you, sir.
    Mr. Woodley. Senator, we would address that with the $40 
million that we have requested for the flood control and 
coastal emergencies account on the water intake issue. So there 
is not--it is not specific to North Dakota but it is a flood 
control and coastal emergencies account request of $40 million 
to have on hand if the emergency develops, which we all are 
obviously concerned that it will.
    Senator Dorgan. But with due respect, my understanding is 
that account is not considered overfunded. If anything, it is 
considered dramatically underfunded, even at $40 million. And 
we're not exactly a coastal state, as you know.
    Mr. Woodley. But that is the funding that would be 
available. It is underfunded today because it was not funded in 
fiscal year 2006 and I believe that the request in fiscal year 
2006 was not supported by the committee and therefore, it is 
not available for funding under the continuing resolution.
    Senator Dorgan. Let me--I guess the vote has started and I 
will have to depart in a bit. But let me again express to you 
that none of this is to diminish your service. You come here in 
good faith, representing a budget from the administration but 
you understand, I hope, that this has not been one side of the 
political aisle ragging away at this budget. Almost all of 
those you have heard from say, this isn't a real request. This 
must have been knifed badly by the Office of Management and 
Budget. I know you can't answer the question but I still want 
to ask the question. I assume that you asked for considerably 
more money than this budget request comes to us with. I mean, I 
assume that the budget that you sent up the road in this budget 
process in the administration requests significantly more, 
would that be correct, Secretary Woodley?
    Mr. Woodley. Let me answer that by saying, Senator, that 
this program offers substantial opportunities for worthwhile 
investments in water resources that are not reflected in the 
budget and that is, I think, not a controversial statement. 
That is something that anyone could demonstrate with a very 
minimal knowledge and study of the program.
    General Strock. And sir, where the Corps is concerned, we 
have expressed a capability to do more if more funding were 
available and expressed what we would do with that money.
    Senator Dorgan. I want to make a final point. We, in the 
upper reaches of the Missouri, and I'm going to be parochial 
about the Missouri River system, feel aggrieved, as you know, 
by the management of this system. The river system has had a 
change in management planning and I did not think that change 
was particularly constructive because it still flushes far too 
much water downstream for a very miniscule industry. The barge 
industry has now shrunk to just a minnow of an industry and 
yet, instead of during drought retaining water in the upstream 
reservoir which you would normally do, well you'd easily 
conclude that during a drought, you try to conserve to the 
extent you can. Instead of doing that, we're still pursing an 
antiquated management plan that is almost unbelievable.
    You may say that's the fault of Congress. We've got some 
work to do and I tell you what, I'm determined to make a change 
there. But I also think that the Corps of Engineers should have 
long ago decided that you shouldn't have to get down to 31,000 
million acre feet before you take the kind of measures you 
ought to take to retain water in the upper reservoirs. We're at 
34,000 million acre feet now. That should long ago have 
triggered the response that I would have expected from the 
Corps, General Strock.
    General Strock. Sir, if I might point out, what triggered 
the revision of the Master Manual was the drought of the 1980's 
and at that time, the trigger for navigation preclude was 20 
million acre feet. So this revised Master Manual raises that by 
10 million acre feet and I think we've tried to accommodate the 
best we can. And sir, it is not about navigation versus 
recreation. We're also under a mandate to abide by a biological 
opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service that found our 
operations to be jeopardizing several threatened and endangered 
species. We have hydropower to consider, sir. All the mission 
areas of the Corps are involved in the Missouri River and it is 
one of the largest challenges I've ever dealt with and I've 
personally dealt with its challenges, you know, sir. We tried 
to do the best we could to strike the right balance between all 
the competing problems. The basic challenge for us is that we 
are in a drought and we're in the business of distributing 
shortages so no one is happy right now.
    Senator Dorgan. The fact is, the President went to Missouri 
during a campaign and said, I'm with you. With respect to the 
Missouri River system, the reason we've not made the changes 
that we should make is because there was a heavy dose of 
politics involved in it. Now you run the Corps. I know you're 
not involved in politics. I'm not alleging that but the fact 
is, the way that Missouri River system has been managed has 
been much to the detriment of the upstream States. I believe 
that the change that was made, was made because of substantial 
pressure over a long period of time and it took 12\1/2\ years, 
even then, 12\1/2\ years to revise the Master Manual and even 
that revision didn't get what I thought was a fair result for 
the upstream States.
    General Strock. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dorgan. General Strock, I didn't mean to make your 
last day here an unpleasant one.
    General Strock. Sir, it was not at all unpleasant.
    Senator Dorgan. But I want to be honest about our feeling 
about things. I hope that I conveyed to you, you've got men and 
women in the Bureau and the Corps that we admire. I want to 
work with your agencies. I want this committee to provide the 
kind of funding that is necessary to address these serious 
issues.

                     ADDITIONAL PREPARED STATEMENT

    The subcommittee has received a statement from Reed R. 
Murray, Program Director, Central Utah Project Completion Act 
Office, Department of the Interior which will be included for 
the record.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Reed R. Murray

    My name is Reed Murray. I serve as the Program Director of the 
Central Utah Project Completion Act Office under the Assistant 
Secretary--Water and Science in the Department of the Interior. I am 
pleased to provide the following information about the President's 
fiscal year 2008 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 (CUP) 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 Rights Settlement.
    The act provides that the Secretary may not delegate his 
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 Mitigation Commission, and the Ute Indian Tribe, and to 
assist in administering the responsibilities of the Secretary under the 
act.
    The 2008 request for the Central Utah Project Completion Account 
provides $43 million for use by the District, the Mitigation 
Commission, and the Department to implement titles II-IV of the act, 
which is $8.9 million more than 2007. This funding level, if maintained 
in the out years, will allow the project to be completed by the 
scheduled date of 2021.
    The request for the District includes $39.6 million to fund the 
designs, specifications, land acquisition, and construction of the Utah 
Lake System ($23.6 million); to continue construction on the Uinta 
Basin Replacement Project ($9.5 million); to implement water 
conservation measures ($5 million); and to implement groundwater 
conjunctive use projects ($1.5 million).
    The request includes $976,000 for the Mitigation Commission to 
implement the fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and 
conservation projects authorized in title III ($715,000) and to 
complete mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992 Bureau of 
Reclamation planning documents ($261,000).
    Finally, the request includes $2.4 million for the Program Office 
for operation and maintenance costs associated with instream flows and 
fish hatchery facilities ($789,000) and for program administration 
($1.6 million).
    In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to testify before the 
committee and would be happy to respond to any questions.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Senator Dorgan. Additional questions will be submitted for 
the record.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Departments for response subsequent to 
the hearing:]

             Questions Submitted to John Paul Woodley, Jr.

             Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                 THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES LAND TRANSFER

    Question. Secretary Woodley, can you update us on the transfer of 
lands at Lake Sakakawea to the Three Affiliated Tribes?
    Answer. The Corps of Engineers continues to research and develop 
responses to comments that were received on the draft Effects Report, 
released in June 2006. All responses will be integrated into the final 
Effects Report.
    Question. What are the remaining steps?
    Answer. The Corps is following a three step process. Phase I is 
called Determination of Authority and will determine if the Corps has 
been given the authority to declare lands no longer needed for 
construction, maintenance, and operation as lands to be held in trust 
for the benefit of the Three Affiliated Tribes. Phase II is called 
Development and will be where criteria, restrictions, land 
determination, and agreements will be discussed and determined. Phase 
III, called Implementation, will be where the decisions made in Phase 
II will be implemented.
    Question. Is there any time schedule for completing the transfer?
    Answer. If and when a decision is made to transfer the proposed 
24,000 acres it will take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete 
real estate transfer packages.

                      ESA COMPLIANCE ISSUES IN O&M

    Question. For fiscal year 2008, your budget has again proposed that 
environmental compliance activities on the Columbia/Snake and Missouri 
River systems be funded as a part for the individual projects that make 
up the system in O&M rather than in the construction account which is 
the tradition.
    Secretary Woodley, What is the rational for this change? How does 
this make your budget more transparent? Wouldn't you agree that 
including these items in the O&M projects and then aggregating the O&M 
projects into a region, actually makes the budget more opaque?
    Answer. We have made this change to improve accountability and 
oversight in their appropriate business line categories, reflect the 
full cost of operating and maintaining the existing projects, and 
support an integrated investment strategy for work at operating 
projects. These are activities, in most part, that are conducted to 
comply with the Endangered Species Act at operating projects. In 
addition, their costs are allocated among project purposes rather than 
to Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration. This explains much of the shift in 
costs among business programs. The full list and specific reasons are 
as follows:
    Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion compliance at operating 
projects.--These projects are Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Chief 
Joseph Dam modifications, Howard Hanson Dam modifications, Willamette 
River Temperature Control, and Missouri River Fish and Wildlife 
Recovery.
    Renourishment to restore sand lost to shorelines from Federal 
navigation operation and maintenance.--This includes the specifically 
authorized Assateague, Maryland, Lower Cape May Meadows, New Jersey, 
and about eight projects for storm damage reduction. This also includes 
the section 111 (Mitigation of Shore Damages) CAP program. The funds 
for this work would be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Disposal of material from maintenance dredging.--This includes the 
program for Dredged Material Disposal Facilities at operating projects, 
plus the Indiana Harbor disposal facility project. Funds for dredged 
material disposal facilities will be derived from the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Rehabilitation Projects.--These are projects that maintain and 
restore levels of service, but for which the extent of the work is not 
large enough to constitute a capital replacement. For fiscal year 2008, 
the ongoing work at Locks and Dams 11, 19, and 24 migrates to the O&M 
account. Previously unfunded rehabilitation projects at Locks and Dam 
27 and Markland Locks and Dam will be initiated in O&M.
    Beneficial use of material from maintenance dredging.--For fiscal 
year 2008, this includes Poplar Island, Maryland. In the future, 
Houston-Galveston and Hamilton Wetlands island projects will migrate; 
section 204 (Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material) and section 145 
(Placement of Dredged Material on Shores) CAP Programs.
    While the placement of funds for these activities have shifted from 
Construction to O&M the accountability for their performance continues 
to be monitored on a specific item by item basis through the Project 
Management review process at their respective Districts. The ESA 
compliance activities in particular are done to meet very specific 
milestones and targets for habitat and species improvements as required 
in BiOp and the law and therefore these specific items must be followed 
closely or risk failing their checkpoints, regardless in what account 
they are funded.
    Question. What assurance do we have that ESA compliance activity 
funds provided on these O&M projects won't be siphoned off to fund 
other maintenance needs at the individual projects?
    Answer. The amount proposed in the President's budget is adequate 
to do both ESA and O&M activities. The O&M program has strict rules and 
regulations regarding the movement of funds. In addition, any funding 
reductions would lead to a reprioritization of the ESA and O&M regional 
needs.

                      MAJOR REHABILITATIONS IN O&M

    Question. Your budget has proposed moving major rehabilitation 
projects from CG to O&M. As I understand the major rehab projects 
generally consist of work on aging locks, or power plants where the 
result may be a project that is operationally improved from its pre-
rehab state. Major rehabs do not include constructing additional lock 
chambers or other major work or simple maintenance.
    History has obviously been ignored in this decision. Note that many 
years ago, major rehabilitations were funded in O&M. Work, at that 
time, included no operational improvements, just rehabbing the 
structure as it existed. It was funded with 100 percent O&M funding.
    However, due to O&M funding shortages, major rehabs were becoming 
backlogged. In an effort to resolve this situation, Congress and the 
administration agreed that major rehabs could be undertaken to not only 
modernize facilities such as locks, but to provide operational 
improvements as well.
    To help fund navigation rehabs, the administration and Congress 
agreed that these major rehabs would be funded in the Construction 
Account, and that half the costs would come from the Inland Waterways 
Trust Fund. The caveat in this agreement was that these would be 
considered new investment decisions for the country, and would 
therefore be considered new construction starts, having to compete with 
other new starts in the budget. This in not an unreasonable position, 
considering the rehabbed project would be operationally better than 
what was originally constructed.
    Now we have come full circle, there is a backlog of major rehabs. 
Your budget proposal recommends moving these projects back to O&M.
    Secretary Woodley, what is the basis for this recommendation? Why 
is O&M a better choice than CG?
    Answer. The administration is proposing that rehabilitations be 
funded out of the Operation & Maintenance, General appropriation when 
the rehabilitations are limited to work that will repair and restore 
the capability of a project and will not change the authorized project 
purpose or operational capability. Since this work is more closely 
aligned with the existing project authorizations, and the magnitude of 
the work is less than that of a replacement, the work was moved to the 
O&M appropriation. Rehabilitations that will result in replacements of 
locks or improved operational capability will continue to be funded out 
of the Construction appropriation due to the larger magnitude of the 
work and change in project outputs.
    Another issue that accompanies this for navigation major rehabs is 
funding. The administration also proposes that the Corps be allowed to 
use funds from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) in the O&M 
account. Currently, the IWTF can only be used in the Construction 
Account. The IWTF was established to pay half the cost of construction 
projects in the Construction Account. Access to the IWTF is needed in 
O&M for rehab projects to continue to cost share these projects.
    Question. Secretary Woodley, the budget proposal indicates that the 
administration is concerned that the IWTF may go bankrupt within a few 
years. How does this proposal improve the situation?
    Answer. Section 1405 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
makes amounts in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund available for 
construction and rehabilitation expenditures for navigation projects on 
the inland and coastal waterways of the United States. The Corps is not 
proposing to use the IWTF to fund routine operations and maintenance 
activities. Changing rehabilitations from one appropriation to another 
(Construction or Operations & Maintenance) would not impact the balance 
within the IWTF. The amount withdrawn from the IWTF would be the same 
regardless of what appropriation is used since rehabilitations are 
eligible for cost sharing from the IWTF whether they are funded from 
the Construction or the O&M appropriations so the proposal is neutral 
in that regard.
    Question. Secretary Woodley, the administration has committed to 
proposing legislation to replace the IWTF diesel tax with a user fee 
later this year. How will this fee be assessed as well as collected? 
Will there be tollbooths on the inland waterways? Are you going to 
propose the IWTF to be taken off budget?
    Answer. The administration is finalizing the details of its 
proposal for a new lock user fee and expects to submit its proposal to 
the Congress in 2008. The Department of the Treasury will be 
responsible for promulgating regulations for the assessment and 
collection of the user fee.

                         REGIONAL O&M BUDGETING

    Question. Secretary Woodley, could you explain this concept of 
Regional O&M budgeting to me? It appears to me that you assigned region 
numbers to projects and then added the projects together to establish 
the region amount.
    Secretary Woodley, how does aggregating projects in that manner 
improve O&M budgeting?
    Answer. Aggregating Operation & Maintenance, General appropriation 
(O&M) funding by regions or systems adheres to the principles of 
managing by watersheds or basins. It will allow O&M needs to be 
assessed within the regional goals and the resource within a particular 
region to then be directed to the most critical needs, including those 
that arise outside the normal budgeting and appropriation cycle. It 
could also allow more flexibility to address critical needs.
    Question. Secretary Woodley, wouldn't you agree that regional 
budgeting tends to make you lose sight of the unique individual project 
issues that a project by project budget makes you examine?
    Answer. I would respectfully disagree. Although the O&M 
requirements are developed and then presented on a regional basis, the 
basic O&M requirements, start at the individual project level as viewed 
within the control of the required goals and objectives. Thus each 
project's unique characteristics are the foundation of the budget 
development and so considered within the larger parameters of the 
region or system.
    Question. Secretary Woodley, why not propose a single river basin 
as a demonstration and then develop the fiscal year 2009 budget from 
its inception for this basin as a system?
    Answer. We are considering that in the development of the fiscal 
year 2009 budget. We are thinking about organizing the O&M program by 
``systems'' that better matches our watershed management principles, 
operational objectives and performance goals with the budget. We are 
also considering developing an infrastructure management plan for each 
system as well that will establish a 5 year plan for that system into 
the future.
    Question. Secretary Woodley wouldn't funding O&M by regions as 
proposed, limit your flexibility rather than enhance it? As it 
currently stands you have reprogramming authority for each line item at 
50 percent of the appropriated amount or $2 million, whichever is less. 
Under the proposed reprogramming guidance that changes to a flat $3 
million for everything but studies. That appears to limit you to $3 
million per region were we to appropriate by region. What are your 
thoughts on this?
    Answer. Budgeting by regions as the administration prepares, would 
allow more flexibility to address needs. Within a region or system, the 
overall funding can be better allocated to individual projects based on 
current needs, once O&M funds are appropriated. A better match of 
current critical needs to current funding within the region or system 
can be made during allocations. It would reduce reprogramming actions.

           CONTINUING CONTRACTS, CARRYOVER AND REPROGRAMMING

    Question. Secretary Woodley, the administration has proposed 
revisions to current Corps construction contracting authorities. Will 
you explain the contracting language that your budget proposes?
    Answer. In section 103 of the General Provisions of the Budget 
Appendix, the administration proposes amending section 2306c of title 
10, U.S.C. by replacing continuing contracts with multiyear contract 
authority. The proposal also requires authorization for contracts over 
$100 million and notification for contracts with contingent liability 
over $20 million. The advantages to this approach are that the Congress 
through its oversight, and the agency, through its more intensive 
management of such large contracts, would have greater control over 
expenditures. The multiyear contract authority expands an existing 
multiyear funding authority codified in title 10, United States Code 
and available within the Department of Defense. It also applies to the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Coast Guard.
    The proposed legislation would repeal the Corps existing continuing 
contract authority, effective October 1, 2008. It also would amend an 
existing title 10 authority for multi-year services contracting to 
include multi-year civil works contracting. Under this amended 
provision, the head of an agency may enter into contracts for 
``services associated with the Civil Works program'' and obligate only 
the amount needed each year plus the amount of expected termination 
costs. The Corps would need specific statutory authority to use the 
multi-year contract authority for any contract over $100 million. 
Furthermore, the Corps would need to notify the specified committees at 
least 30 days prior to awarding any contract with a contingent 
liability (i.e., expected termination cost) exceeding $20 million.
    The Secretary of the Army must also ensure that the Corps limits 
the duration of each multi-year contract to the term needed to achieve 
a substantial reduction of costs on the margin. By law, multiyear 
contracts under this authority are limited to 5 years, but, the 
Secretary of the Army may approve a contract period of greater than 5 
years if he determines that a period of longer than 5 years is 
necessary to achieve the substantial cost reduction and if he notifies 
specified congressional committees at least 30 days prior to contract 
award.
    Question. Secretary Woodley, How much funding did the Corps 
carryover from fiscal year 2006 due to the limitations imposed by 
Congress in the fiscal year 2006 E&W Bill? I am not addressing 
emergency funds, only those provided in regular appropriations bills.
    Answer. The Corps carried over a total of $2,445 million, not 
including Emergency Supplemental funds, from fiscal year 2006 in the 
four accounts most sensitive to the limitations, i.e. Investigations, 
Construction, Operation and Maintenance and Flood Control, Mississippi 
River and Tributaries. Of this amount $1,006 million was obligated and 
$1,439 million was unobligated. This compares with a total carryover 
averaging $550 million over the previous 10 years and with $798 from 
fiscal year 2005 into fiscal year 2006.
    Question. In your view, how much of that was due to reprogramming 
restrictions and how much too contracting restrictions? No matter how 
you divide it, that is a lot of money. You are basically saying that 
you were unable to execute nearly 25 percent of your program in fiscal 
year 2006 due to legislative restrictions. Will this new language 
improve project execution so that we won't see a repeat of that large 
of a carryover into fiscal year 2009? How?
    Answer. By virtue of the significant increase in carryover compared 
to other years, the legislative restrictions were a major factor in 
underutilization of available funds in fiscal year 2006; however, our 
records are not sufficiently detailed to quantify exactly how much is 
attributable to the new rules versus other factors. The new language 
proposed by the administration, if enacted, is expected to allow more 
realistic scheduling with multi-year contracts as well as provide more 
flexibility in management of available funds while addressing 
congressional priorities. Much carryover is a function of funds being 
in the wrong place plus a need for more careful scheduling and an 
emphasis on meeting commitments. In addition to the new reprogramming 
and contracting language proposed by the administration, the Corps has 
aggressively taken positive steps to write up-to-date guidance and 
provide increased training for program development, defense and 
execution. Furthermore, a command emphasis has been placed on meeting 
commitments, that is, carrying out the schedules upon which the 
provided funds are based.
    Question. Secretary Woodley, Do you believe that the reprogramming 
language proposed in your budget will improve the ability of the Corps 
to utilize scarce funds? If so, how?
    Answer. Once funds are appropriated; there are physical variables 
that are unknown until a program, project or activity (PPA) is 
underway. The O&M program, in particular, is subject to weather-related 
emergencies, major accidents and structural failures that require 
immediate action without administrative delays to obtain committee 
concurrence. The reprogramming language proposed as sections 101a(4) 
and (5) under General Provisions in the Budget Appendix provide more 
flexibility to address these unknowns by raising the thresholds from $2 
million to $3 million. Section 101a(6) recognizes the urgency of taking 
action to respond to a flood, hurricane, or other natural disaster.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

    Question. The Office of Management and Budget's fiscal year 2008 
cross-cut budget for the California Bay-Delta Restoration Program 
(CalFed) shows a total of $32.6 million in Army Corps of Engineers 
CalFed-related spending. This is a significant decrease from $76.6 
million in the fiscal year 2007 budget and $80.7 million in fiscal year 
2006 obligated funding. This represents a 60 percent decline in Corps 
CalFed-related spending in just 2 years. Why has the Corps CalFed-
related spending declined so sharply?
    Answer. The main reason for the sharp decline in the CalFed-related 
budget in fiscal year 2008 is mainly due to the major decrease in the 
Santa Ana River portion of this funding. Previous year budgets for the 
Santa Ana River project ranged from $22 to $57 million; in fiscal year 
2008 this has dropped to $7.5 million. This decrease was mainly due to 
the development of new budget criteria which limited the types of work 
that we could actually include in the budget. Another contributing 
factor to this decline were the new rules on the Continuing Authority 
Program including the moratorium on signing agreements, and limits set 
by Congress on starting new phases or starting anything not named.
    Question. The 2004 CalFed authorization (Public Law 108-361) 
authorized $90 million for the Corps to improve the stability of the 
highly vulnerable levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In its 
May 2006 Report to Congress on the CalFed Levee Stability Program, the 
Corps described a so-called ``Strategy for Action'' that proposed $18 
million for levee stability funding and several million more in 
additional feasibility studies for fiscal year 2008.
    Nevertheless; despite this major, bipartisan authorization by 
Congress, and detailed proposals from the Corps on funding, the 
President's budget proposes no funding for Delta levee stability 
projects. Why is there no funding proposed in fiscal year 2008 for this 
major priority?
    Answer. Senator, there was a 180 day report that was prepared but 
contained no specific project details. The report laid out a strategy 
but was not a decision document per se nor contained specifics about 
projects to construct. Without any specific details or an 
administration approved report, the project did not fit into any of the 
construction guidelines that the administration used in prioritizing 
projects for this years budget.
    Question. Isn't there a similarity here to the Army Corps of 
Engineers' failure to heed warnings of a potential flood control 
disaster in New Orleans, given the widespread recognition of the high 
risk for levee failure that would cut off the drinking water supply for 
over 20 million people?
    Answer. In evaluating this as well as other projects within the 
universe of those eligible for inclusion in the budget, the guidelines 
allow for strong consideration of significant impacts to people in 
terms of risk to life. The Corps conducts a full screening of the 
factors involved in this metric such as the velocity and depth of 
potential flows during a flood event, the warning times for escape, the 
population at risk within the floodplain. This project did not fit into 
that guideline category, either for inclusion in the budget.
    Question. The Napa River Flood Protection project is a 100-year 
flood protection project coupled with recreation and the restoration of 
over 730 acres of San Francisco Bay estuary. The Corps recently 
analyzed these wetlands and rated them at the highest possible level of 
ecosystem restoration under Corps guidance.
    Upper Newport Bay is one of the last remaining coastal wetlands in 
Southern California. The Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration 
project undertaken by the Corps increases the quality of wetlands 
habitat, which supports federally endangered species, and improves 
water quality.
    While multipurpose projects such as these are encouraged in the 
Corps planning process, there is no budget guidance that recognizes the 
array of project benefits for such projects. Would you consider 
changing the budgeting process to recognize a project's full array of 
benefits?
    Answer. Evaluating multi-output projects continues to be a 
challenge and the Corps is advancing the evaluation process for such 
projects. In particular, they are refining the Environmental benefits 
evaluation process to incorporate the many facets of environmental 
project outputs and then combining them with other project outputs to 
make a comprehensive analysis for the budget prioritization process.

           SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT

    Question. Funds are needed in fiscal year 2007 to make progress on 
addressing two outstanding obligations associated with the Sacramento 
River, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Gradient Facility project: an 
outstanding obligation associated with a revegetation/mitigation 
contract of approximately $115,000 and settling a dispute with 
neighboring Butte County over damages incurred to Butte County roads 
during the construction process, an obligation that could exceed 
$300,000. While no funds were appropriated for this project 
specifically in fiscal year 2006, this is an on-going project and these 
two project obligations were incurred prior to fiscal year 2006. 
Therefore, funding these two pre-existing project obligations 
represents an eligible use of fiscal year 2007 funds. Do you agree, 
and, if not, why not?
    Is it your intent to address both of these pre-existing obligations 
using funds provided to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2007?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2007 work plan guidelines prevented us from 
providing fiscal year 2007 funds to GCID. We were able to reprogram 
carried over fiscal year 2006 funding from Hamilton Wetlands to GCID to 
make the outstanding contract payment. Regarding the dispute/claim, a 
hearing was held in front of the Armed Services Board of Contract 
Appeals in February 2007, and we are still awaiting their decision.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

                       BACKLOG OF AUTHORIZED WORK

    Question. The Corps has a backlog of authorized projects that are 
slowly being constructed or have not even started with construction. 
Currently, this backlog is $40 billion to $45 billion. Additionally, 
the next WRDA bill will likely authorize another $12 billion of 
projects. Therefore, a conservative estimate of the backlog after the 
WRDA bill will be at least $50 billion. The administration has 
requested about $1.5 billion for construction in fiscal year 2008.
    Based on your current budget request and your 5 year plan, how long 
will it take for us to catch up on the backlog?
    Answer. The administration is proposing to reduce the backlog by 
the amount in the budget, which is a little over $1.6 billion. Our 
five-year development plan indicates that, under either of the two 
scenarios, the funding requirements for projects in the fiscal year 
2008 budget will tail off over time, and hundreds of millions of 
dollars will become available through fiscal year 2011 to finance 
additional work. Likewise, the requirements of projects in the fiscal 
year 2008 budget for studies and Preconstruction Engineering and Design 
tail off, leaving tens of millions of dollars for additional planning 
and design work to prepare projects for construction.

              DECLINING INVESTMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP

    Question. As a percentage of GDP, our current investment in civil 
works is less than one-tenth of what it was in the mid 1930s and less 
than one-sixth of what it was in the early 1960s.
    This budget puts our Nation at risk. What is your plan for dealing 
with this gross under-investment in civil works?
    Answer. The budget reflects the appropriate level of investment for 
the Corps Civil Works program. It focuses resources on completing 
ongoing projects and maintaining our existing investments. The 
discretionary part of the budget is under extreme pressure due to the 
many other competing investment needs. The administration believes it 
must reduce the backlog of ongoing construction projects before we can 
provide for additional studies. With the funding that is available, we 
attempt to fund the highest performing projects. Overall, my vision 
plan is reflected in the Civil Works Strategic Plan, dated March 2004 
with the goals being:
  --Provide sustainable development and integrated management of the 
        Nation's water resources.
  --Repair past environmental degradation and prevent future 
        environmental losses.
  --Ensure that operating projects perform to meet authorized purposes 
        and evolving conditions.
  --Reduce vulnerabilities and losses to the Nation and the Army from 
        natural and man-made disasters, including terrorism.
  --Be a world-class public engineering organization.
    The 5-Year Development Plan supports the Strategic Plan by 
continuing our focus during fiscal year 2008-2012 on the ongoing 
construction projects and activities that provide the highest net 
economic and environmental returns on the Nation's investment, as well 
as on the most productive operation, maintenance, and repair 
activities, and on activities in the FUSRAP program, the Regulatory 
Program, and Emergency Management that contribute to performance goals.

                              BEACH POLICY

    Question. Storm damage reduction projects along our coasts provide 
tremendous benefits to our national economy. Beaches are the leading 
tourist destination in the United States. California beaches alone 
receive nearly 600 million tourist visits annually. This is more 
tourist visits than to all of the lands controlled by the National Park 
Service and the Bureau of Land Management combined. Beach tourists 
contribute $260 billion to the U.S. economy and $60 billion in Federal 
taxes. People from over 400 congressional districts throughout the 
United States own property in the Bogue Banks Area of North Carolina. 
Similar ownership is true in other coastal communities demonstrating 
the national implications of these projects.
    Also, these projects are justified on the basis that they provide 
storm damage reduction benefits. As these are National Economic 
Development benefits within one of your prime mission areas of flood 
control it puzzles me as to why both yours and prior administrations 
refuse to budget for these projects. As more and more of our population 
migrate towards the coasts, it will become imperative to provide 
protection to these areas. The only other option is to continue paying 
disaster payments when these communities are impacted.
    Secretary Woodley, with this major impact on our national economy, 
what is the administration's justification for the proposed change in 
beach policy? A change, I would note, that Congress has consistently 
rejected.
    What would you recommend to make these projects more competitive in 
the budget process?
    Answer. The administration's budget policy is to put beach 
nourishment projects on the same footing as other projects, in that the 
Federal Government would participate financially in initial 
construction but non-Federal interests would be responsible for follow-
on costs, in this case renourishment costs, except where a Federal 
navigation project has caused the erosion. This policy is a component 
of the administration's overall efforts to direct Civil Works funds to 
the most productive uses.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

               FUNDING FOR THE INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND

    Question. Secretary Woodley, the budget proposal indicates that the 
administration is concerned that the Inland Waterway Trust Fund may go 
bankrupt within a few years. As a solution, the administration has 
committed to proposing legislation to replace the existing diesel tax 
with a user fee later this year.
    How will this fee be assessed as well as collected and will this 
change the way the funds are allocated in the future?
    Answer. The details of the nature of the user fee, and how it will 
be assessed, collected, and allocated have not been developed. The 
details of the proposal will be developed over the next several months 
through a process that will include consultation with other interested 
Federal agencies, the users of the system, and other stakeholders.
    Question. Will this proposal seeks to take the waterway trust fund 
off budget?
    Answer. The decision on whether to recommend taking the waterway 
trust fund off budget has not been made. That issue will be considered 
as the details of the proposal are developed.

                       MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECTS

    Question. Secretary Woodley, since you have held this position, I 
have been working on four critical projects along the Rio Grande 
corridor that include the following four elements.
  --Bosque Restoration Project.--This project would provide a workable 
        open space for the city of Albuquerque and river habitat 
        restoration.
  --Middle Rio Grande Flood Protection.--The Corps is currently 
        evaluating the levees to determine if they have reached their 
        design lifetime and to provide assistance in rehabilitation of 
        levees where necessary.
  --Bosque Wildfire Rehabilitation.--This element provides recovery 
        from a damaging series of fires between Bernalillo and Belen 
        that pose a grave threat to human health, and to construct 
        access points to the river for fire fighting.
  --Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program.--A 
        partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation to manage water 
        flows on the Rio Grande and provide endangered species 
        protection and recovery.
    Unfortunately the President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal only 
provides $311,000 for only one of the four elements. The fiscal year 
2006 budget provided $5,847,000 to support the management of all four 
elements.
    Please explain how the Corps plans to meet all four critical 
obligations with the funding proposed in the fiscal year 2008 budget?
    Answer. Sir, funds to complete the feasibility study for the Bosque 
Restoration Project are in the President's budget for fiscal year 2008. 
No funds are in the 2008 budget for the Middle Rio Grande Flood 
Protection Project or the Bosque Wildfire Rehabilitation Project. Work 
will stop on those projects once fiscal year 2007 funds have been 
expended. Funds for the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species 
Collaborative Program are provided through the Bureau of Reclamation's 
appropriation.
    Question. Although the Corps has proposed a systems management 
approach to managing major O&M responsibilities, why can't the Corps 
seem to integrate these activities along middle Rio Grande?
    Answer. Sir, the Corps of Engineers is moving towards a systems/
watershed approach for preparing our annual budget request and planning 
and executing work. But, the budget supports only that work that is 
high-performing and contributes to the Corps main water resources 
development missions, namely commercial navigation, flood and coastal 
storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
    Question. Additionally, what role can the Corps undertake in 
reformulating the current Biological Assessment for the Rio Grande to 
bring the management of the river back to a more balanced condition?
    Answer. Sir, I believe that the Corps of Engineers, with its 
expertise in flood control, ecosystem restoration, and water resources 
planning can greatly contribute to reformulating the Biological 
Assessment. How the Biological Opinion is reformulated will impact 
virtually all of the Corps studies, designs, and projects on the Rio 
Grande. The Bureau of Reclamation is currently the lead agency for the 
Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program. The 
Corps is actively participating in efforts to reformulate the 
Biological Assessment and is providing technical and management 
support. Funding for these activities performed by the Corps is 
provided by the Bureau of Reclamation.

                       ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM

    Question. Secretary Woodley, the Acequias Irrigation System Program 
was established to help small irrigation districts with historic 
significance to maintain their irrigation facilities. This program also 
helps mitigate downstream flooding. The Corps has resolved several 
significant operational issues with the State of New Mexico over the 
last 5 years. However the President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal 
does not include any funding for this critical program.
    Please explain how the Corps of Engineers will continue to support 
these historic irrigation systems without financial resources?
    Answer. Sir, the Corps would not be able to support these historic 
irrigation systems without financial resources. The project was a low 
priority for funding under the fiscal year 2008 budget construction 
guidelines. Any additional reconnaissance studies the local sponsor has 
identified for future rehabilitation may similarly not be a funding 
priority.

                     CONTINUING AUTHORITIES BUDGET

    Question. The Corps of Engineers has several continuing authority 
programs. These programs provide the flexibility needed to address 
relatively small projects throughout the country. I was unsettled to 
see that the Presidents fiscal year 2008 budget proposal decreased the 
funding over the 2006 enacted levels by more than 65 percent.
    Is the President's budget proposal an attempt to eliminate these 
programs?
    Answer. No Senator, the administration does not intend to eliminate 
these continuing program authorities. The fiscal year 2008 budget 
proposes to use available funding to continue ongoing phases for the 
highest performing projects.
    Question. Does the Corps believe that the flexibility provided by 
these continuing authorities is no longer necessary or important to the 
Nation?
    Answer. No, we value these programs as they have the potential to 
solve many of our domestic infrastructure and environmental needs. The 
projects can be implemented in a short period of time and at little 
cost to address water resources problems.
    Question. How can the Corps attempt to meet the anticipated needs 
of the projects within these programs with the proposed budget?
    Answer. The projects in the continuing authority's universe 
competed for funding using objective metrics that were very similar to 
those used for specifically authorized projects. The highest performing 
projects were funded for the phase continuing from the fiscal year 2007 
budget.
                                 ______
                                 
          Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

                     HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

    Question. My State of Texas has some of the Nation's largest ports 
and they pay a significant portion of the funds that go into Harbor 
Maintenance Fund. However, I continue to hear from my ports that the 
fund is idle. Can you tell me the status of the Harbor Maintenance 
Fund?
    Answer. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) was established by 
the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986. The WRDA of 1986 
provides for a Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) to be collected on the 
value of cargo imported, moved into a foreign trade zone or moved 
domestically. The HMT is also assessed on the value of passenger 
tickets. HMT revenues are collected by the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection and deposited into the U.S. Treasury. The Department of the 
Treasury maintains accountability for the fund and transfers money out 
of the fund to reimburse authorized expenditures. The U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers (USACE) does not receive direct appropriations from the 
HMTF and therefore USACE expenditures for navigation projects are 
limited to Congressional appropriations.
    Question. How much does the fund contain today?
    Answer. The estimated balance in the HMTF, after anticipated 
transfers to the U.S. Treasury for fiscal year 2007 expenditures by 
USACE and other agencies, is approximately $4 billion.
    Question. What are the requirements for using funds in the Harbor 
Maintenance Fund?
    Answer. The HMT is used to recover 100 percent of the USACE 
eligible operations and maintenance (O&M) expenditures for commercial 
navigation, along with 100 percent of the O&M cost of the St. Lawrence 
Seaway by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. Section 201 
of WRDA 96 authorizes the recovery of Federal expenditures for 
construction of confined disposal facilities required for operation and 
maintenance of any harbor or inland harbor; dredging and disposal of 
contaminated sediments that are in or that affect the maintenance of 
Federal navigation channels; mitigation of operation and maintenance 
impacts, and operation and maintenance of dredged material disposal 
facilities. During the 103rd Congress, legislation was enacted which 
allows the Department of the Treasury, the USACE, and the Department of 
Commerce to share a maximum total of $5 million per year for expenses 
incurred in the administration of the HMT.
    Question. How do you prioritize projects for funding?
    Answer. There continues to be keen competition for limited 
Congressional appropriations to perform USACE's navigation mission. 
USACE therefore prioritizes navigation projects for inclusion in the 
President's budget in order to reduce the risk of failure and increase 
the reliability of our projects, and maximize public benefits for the 
investment. Factors such as volume and value of cargo moved, benefits 
of the project, criticality of work to be performed, anticipated 
impacts of not performing the work, legal mandates, safety issues, 
environmental compliance, etc. are used to prioritize projects.
    Question. How much has been paid out of the fund annually over the 
past 5 years?
    Answer. The following table reflects HMT receipts and HMTF 
transfers to the U.S. Treasury, in thousands of dollars, for fiscal 
years 2002 through 2006:

             HMT RECEIPTS AND HMTF TRANSFERS TO THE U.S. TREASURY FOR FISCAL YEARS 2002 THROUGH 2006
                                            [in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Harbor
                   Fiscal Year                      Maintenance        USACE       Other Agency        Total
                                                   Tax Receipts      Transfers       Transfers       Transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................           652.9           639.9            16.3           656.2
2003............................................           758.0           568.9            17.0           585.9
2004............................................           869.7           630.9            17.3           648.2
2005............................................         1,047.9           687.2            18.7           706.0
2006............................................         1,206.5           779.0            19.0           798.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. If funds have not been expended out of the fund, why is 
that the case?
    Answer. Annual reimbursements from the HMTF are limited to 
congressional appropriations. Annual HMT revenue has consistently 
exceeded annual expenditures resulting in a growing HMTF balance.
                                 ______
                                 
               Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard

    Question. Please share how the Army Corps set its priorities for 
its budget request this year. I am specifically looking for information 
that would lead me to understand why funding for the completion of the 
Fountain Creek Watershed study and funding for the Chatfield 
Reallocation Study were not included?
    Answer. Chatfield was not in the Corps' 2008 budget as it was not 
in the 2007 budget the initial criteria under the guidelines. Funding 
priority is given to studies funded in the previous year.
                                 ______
                                 
         Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Carl Strock
             Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

    Question. How will we easily be able to tell how much we are 
investing in these endangered species recovery efforts?
    Answer. To assist us in capturing this information, we will develop 
a new system to closely monitor and track funds expended for recovery 
efforts and will make that information available upon request.
    Question. General Strock, How have the reprogramming restrictions 
imposed by the fiscal year 2006 E&W Act affected your ability to 
effectively and efficiently manage the Civil Works program?
    Answer. The reprogramming and contracting guidance contained in the 
fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act and/or 
subsequent delays in obtaining approvals have adversely impacted 
performance rates so that, in some cases, weather or environmental 
windows were missed, contract options could not be taken advantage of 
and a larger carryover of unobligated or unexpended funds occurred with 
work still not accomplished. On the other hand, these restrictions have 
resulted in greater discipline at all management levels in preparing 
cost estimates, expressing capabilities and applying available funds as 
intended by the Congress.
    Question. General Strock, You are soon to retire so I'll ask you an 
unfair question that I know Secretary Woodley would have to avoid or be 
very careful to answer--as the outgoing Chief, what changes would you 
recommend to Corps contracting and reprogramming guidance in order to 
give your successor the flexibility needed to manage the Civil Works 
program?
    Answer. As mentioned earlier, the reprogramming and contracting 
guidance contained in the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act has effectively brought about greater care in 
estimating, expressing capabilities and managing funds on hand; 
however, more flexibility is needed to efficiently utilize available 
funds for the purposes intended by the Congress. I believe the proposed 
contracting and reprogramming language set forth in the President's 
budget, if adopted, provides that flexibility.

                             MISSOURI RIVER

    Question. Gentlemen, it should come as no surprise to you that we 
are suffering through our eighth year of drought in North Dakota. What 
is the situation and outlook for Missouri River runoff this year?
    Answer. Drought continues to persist in the Missouri River Basin. 
Moderate to severe drought exists in much of Montana and Wyoming and 
the western portions of the Dakotas and Nebraska. The remainder of the 
basin is essentially drought free. Current storage in the Missouri 
River Mainstem Reservoir System is 37.3 MAF, 17.5 MAF below normal, but 
2.6 MAF higher than one year ago. The 2007 runoff forecast above Sioux 
City, Iowa is for 21.2 MAF, 84 percent of normal.
    Question. How will this impact operation of the Missouri River?
    Answer. Service to all of the congressionally authorized project 
purposes is reduced due to the ongoing drought, currently in its eighth 
year. The upper three reservoirs are drawn down 24 to 34 feet and 
releases from all projects are much below normal. Due to excellent 
runoff below the reservoir system, releases from Gavins Point were at 
record low levels during March, April and May of 2007, and were well 
below normal the remainder of the year. Power production at the Corps 
hydropower facilities in 2007 is expected to be a record low 5.0 
billion kWh, only half of normal. Lower reservoirs and releases have 
reduced access at many boat ramps and marinas throughout the region, 
and have made access for municipal and industrial water supply more 
difficult. None the less, all municipal water intakes have remained 
operational throughout 2007, and are expected to remain viable in 2008. 
Although the Corps made significant efforts on behalf of fish and 
wildlife during 2007, the drought continues to reduce the benefits of 
those efforts. All three of the upper reservoirs rose significantly 
during the forage fish spawn; however reports from the North Dakota 
Game and Fish Department indicated that the smelt spawn in Garrison was 
poor due to the lack of proper substrate at the current reservoir 
level. Efforts to conserve cold water habitat in Garrison reservoir 
were expanded this year, saving an estimated 800,000 acre-feet of cold 
water in the reservoir. Fledge ratios for both the interior least tern 
and piping plover were below the fledge ratio goals outlined in the 
2003 Biological Opinion, however there were a record number of terns 
present in the region during the nesting season. Spring pulses from 
Gavins Point dam for the benefit of the endangered pallid sturgeon were 
not implemented in 2007 due to the low system storage.
    Question. Do you anticipate a normal navigation season?
    Answer. The 2007 navigation season was shortened 35 days and 
minimum service flow support was provided throughout the shortened 
season. The 2008 navigation season will start on the normal opening 
date of April 1 at the mouth with minimum service flow support. The 
season length will be determined based on the July 1 storage check, but 
is estimated to range from 17 to 60 days based on studies provided in 
the draft Annual Operating Plan.
    Question. How much more should I expect the level of Lake Sakakawea 
to drop under the operations of the Master Manual for fiscal year 2008?
    Answer. If runoff in 2008 is near lower quartile levels, conditions 
at Garrison are expected to be similar to those experienced in 2007. 
With runoff above lower quartile, reservoir levels will improve, 
averaging about 7 feet higher than in 2007 for median runoff 
conditions, to as much as 15 to 20 feet higher with upper decile runoff 
conditions. However, if the drought deepens and runoff declines to 
lower decile conditions, the reservoir could be 5 feet lower in 2008 
than it was in 2007, and could fall below the record low pool of 
1,805.8 feet msl by early 2009.
    Question. How will this continued fall of Lake Sakakawea affect the 
Snake Creek Embankment? Will we have to draw down Lake Audubon further 
than we already have?
    Answer. Lake Audubon is historically maintained by the Bureau of 
Reclamation at a near constant elevation of 1,847.2 feet from spring 
through Labor Day. After Labor Day, the lake level is lowered to 
1,845.0 feet and held constant at this elevation throughout the ice 
fishing season. Lake Audubon reached its annual winter target elevation 
of 1,845.0 feet the first week of November 2007. The recently completed 
draw down was conducted in accordance with normal lake operation and no 
further drawdown is planned at this time.
    The Corps of Engineers implemented a 43 foot maximum water level 
difference between Lake Audubon and Lake Sakakawea in March 2007 based 
on the results of an underseepage evaluation. This restriction will 
remain in effect until additional data is obtained and can be evaluated 
under more severe lake and reservoir fluctuations.
    As of November 6, 2007 Lake Sakakawea was at elevation 1,813.1 feet 
and Lake Audubon was at elevation 1,845.0 feet, resulting in a water 
level difference of 31.9 feet. Current forecasts indicate that Lake 
Sakakawea will continue to slowly recede until the latter part of 
February 2008 and then rise to its peak elevation around mid-summer. 
Under the November 1, 2007 basic and lower basic simulations, Lake 
Sakakawea is projected to recede to 1,809.1 feet and 1,808.0 feet, 
respectively, by the end of February 2008. Utilizing the lower basic 
simulation, the projected maximum water level difference at the end of 
February will be 37.0 feet, which is well below the allowable 43 feet 
maximum difference.
    Question. How will the continued drop in water levels on Lake 
Sakakawea impact various water intakes that draw from the lake as well 
as those that draw from the river?
    Answer. Under all runoff conditions simulated in the 2007-2008 
Annual Operating Plan, all of the water intakes on Garrison reservoir 
remain operational throughout 2008. Releases from Garrison will be 
scheduled at a level sufficient for the intakes below the dam to remain 
operational throughout the year.
    Question. Why have you not proposed at least a token amount of 
funding for drought in your budget, when you know that the west has 
been suffering an extended drought?
    Answer. The Corps has proposed funding for control of noxious weeds 
associated with lower reservoir levels resulting from the drought. The 
Corps also provides significant funding for cultural resources within 
the basin which may be impacted by drought conditions.
    Question. What is your funding capability for drought emergency 
assistance?
    Answer. Emergency assistance due to drought is generally requested 
due to the loss of water meant for human consumption within a 
community. Under Public Law 84-99 the Corps is authorized to provide 
technical assistance to a local community facing an emergency. The 
Corps may also provide temporary emergency water assistance for human 
consumption/usage to a drought distressed area to meet minimum public 
health and welfare requirements. Corps assistance is supplemental to 
State and local efforts. Corps assistance under this authority may 
include transport of water to local water points, distribution of 
bottled water, temporary connection of a new supply to the existing 
distribution system, and installation of temporary filtration. Several 
areas are considered in determining the amount of Federal direct 
assistance; such as economic impact to the community, environmental 
issues, weather impacts, other water sources (wells), long term lake 
level projections, and good engineering judgment.

                              A-76 AND HPO

    Question. In 2001 and 2002, OMB imposed arbitrary numerical 
privatization quotas on agencies. The practice was prohibited by 
Congress in February 2003, unless there was ``considered research and 
sound analysis of past activities (that) is consistent with the stated 
mission of the executive agency.'' In July 2003, OMB repudiated the use 
of government-wide quotas. Nevertheless, the Corps of Engineers (CoE) 
appears to be following the arbitrary quota imposed by OMB in 2002, 
according to CoE documents. Why did the Congressional prohibition and 
the OMB repudiation have no affect on CoE's numerical privatization 
quota? Was there any of the legally required ``considered research and 
sound analysis of past activities (that) is consistent with the stated 
mission of the executive agency'' done in connection with this? How 
many additional Federal employees are CoE obligated to OMB to review 
for privatization under OMB Circular A-76?
    Answer. The Corps is not pursuing any privatization activities.
    Question. CoE's decision to attempt to review the locks and dams 
personnel for privatization generated strong bipartisan, bicameral 
opposition. Even CoE management conceded that at least part of the 
workload performed by locks and dams personnel is inherently 
governmental. Would CoE have begun this OMB Circular A-76 privatization 
review if it had not had a ``commitment'' to OMB to review for 
privatization at least 7,500 jobs? Are there actions that CoE can 
undertake on its own to increase the efficiency of locks and dams 
operations or operations generally? Do CoE managers believe that they 
are obligated to strive to generate efficiencies? If there were no A-76 
quota for CoE to fulfill, could taxpayers and lawmakers on this 
subcommittee count on CoE management to always strive to make the 
agency's operations more efficient?
    Answer. The Corps is not studying the locks and dams personnel for 
A-76 competition. Rather, the Corps has initiated an internal study of 
business processes to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the 
Nation's inland waterway system. Any resulting changes will be 
implemented over a period of 5 years. We do not anticipate any adverse 
impact on the workforce.
    Question. How many months old is the A-76 privatization review of 
information technology and how many employees are involved? According 
to an October 12, 2006, GovExec.com story, ``Information technology 
management at the Army Corps of Engineers is being stressed to the 
breaking point by staff shortages resulting from a stalled public-
private job competition, according to senior Corps officials. I have 
been informed that an early September meeting of senior IT leaders at 
the agency reflected concern that IT services are suffering from 
significant attrition at ``virtually every Corps [information 
management] office,'' according to a summary of the meeting at  distributed by the agency's Chief 
Information Officer, Wilbert Berrios. Some have lost as much as 35 
percent of their workforce since the inception of a competitive 
sourcing process more than 2 years ago. ``We are one missed signal away 
from a train wreck,'' officials warned at the September 6 meeting in 
Jekyll Island, GA., according to the summary, with staffing levels only 
``one person deep in several critical areas.'' Do you agree with that 
account? If not, why not?
    Answer. The Information Management/Information Technology (IM/IT) 
competition resulted in a win by the in-house team (called the Most 
Efficient Organization (MEO)). MEO was issued the formal notice in 
April 2007 and began the transition in May 2007. Currently the MEO are 
recruiting from the existing IM/IT employees and are well underway to 
assume full responsibility for IM/IT service delivery by May 2008. We 
do not foresee any disruption of service during the transition period.
    Question. While not quite as long as the infamous Walter Reed 
privatization review, the CoE information technology A-76 is certainly 
one of the longest reviews since the circular was revised in May 2003, 
is it not? And like Walter Reed, if this GovExec.com count is to be 
believed, the affected workforce has been significantly disrupted. With 
respect to CoE's information technology privatization review, assume 
that the contractor's appeal will not prevail. After taking into 
account the dangerous levels of workforce disruption caused by the 
privatization review, the costs of carrying out the privatization 
review, and the costs of transitioning the workforce into the new 
organization, how much will there be left in unverified, projected 
savings? Please state each component in detail.
    Answer. The court case was settled and, as mentioned above, the MEO 
started the transition in May 2007. Projected savings is about $500 
million over a 6-year period. The savings are based on the MEO's bid 
and derived from the MEO's technical solution using the best business 
processes.
    Question. How many jobs and what sort of jobs will be reviewed 
under the new HPO? I understand that the HPO will involve 3,500 
employees in the locks and dams, maintenance fleets, and district 
offices, as opposed to 2,000 employees in the locks and dams? Will the 
HPO be far more wide-ranging than the A-76 review?
    Answer. Under the HPO initiative, the Corps is studying the 
business processes rather than reviewing jobs. There are approximately 
3,000 positions engaged in the operations and maintenance of navigation 
locks and dams. The Corps does not anticipate any negative impact on 
employees.
    Question. What guidelines are you working under regarding the HPO? 
I understand that the guidelines from OMB can all fit on one side of a 
single piece of paper. Would CoE need legislation or for the Congress 
to undertake any action to plan for or to implement the HPO?
    Answer. The Corps is using accepted practices for internal business 
process re-engineering such as Lean Six Sigma. No legislation is 
required for studying an HPO. However, before implementing the 
resulting organization, congressional approval may be required.
    Question. Will the HPO involve privatization, job loss, or forced 
reapplications for employment for the in-house workforce? Is the HPO 
based on any budget assumptions? If so, what are they?
    Answer. HPO will not involve privatization, job loss, or forced 
reapplication. No budget assumptions or targets are driving this 
initiative.
    Question. Has the HPO team begun work? When will the HPO team 
finish work? How long will it take before the HPO plan is implemented? 
How will the team incorporate the views of non-management employees? 
How many non-management employees will be on the HPO team? How many 
union members will be on the HPO team?
    Answer. The HPO team for locks and dams started the study in 
January 2007 and is scheduled to complete its work in July 2008. After 
that, there is a 5-year transition to attain the end-state 
configuration. The team is made up of a typical cross section of the 
locks and dams personnel, including lock masters, operations managers, 
and other district employees, The HPO team is totally independent of 
the Corps management and empowered to do the study without any 
interference. Team members have been visiting project sites, meeting 
with employees, and soliciting input by various means from all 
employees.
    Question. It seems that an extraordinary number of important issues 
could be dealt with by the HPO team, but it is unclear what they might 
consider or how broad the mandate is. For example, it appears that the 
HPO plan could propose reducing hours at some locks and dams, reducing 
capabilities at some CoE district offices, or using one CoE district's 
maintenance fleet in another CoE district even if that means the first 
CoE district's maintenance backlog might be ignored. Will such issues 
or similar issues be seriously considered? Is there any limitation on 
the consideration of such or similar issues? If so, what are they?
    Answer. The main thrust of the HPO study is to provide a safe, 
reliable, efficient and effective operations and maintenance for the 
U.S. Inland Marine Transportation System. It is not intended to cut 
corners or reduce capabilities.

                     CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

    Question. I realize that the Continuing Authorities Program is a 
sideline to your major mission areas. We annually fund about $150 
million to this program, where you usually budget less than $50 
million. However, you need to understand that it is a program that is 
very important to my colleagues and hundreds of local communities 
across the country. The Congress has been concerned about the 
management of this program. We recognize that we have contributed to 
some of the management issues by recommending more projects that 
funding was available for. In fiscal year 2006 and continuing in fiscal 
year 2007 there is a moratorium on projects within the CAP program from 
advancing to the next stage of project development.
    What measures have we put in place to more effectively manage the 
program?
    Answer. The following actions have been taken to improve management 
for CAP.
    In February 2006 we established a national Program Manager for CAP 
to manage and analyze large and complex data and this has greatly 
improved the overall management of CAP.
    In June 2006, we provided Congress with a 5 Year Program Management 
Plan (PMP) for CAP. The intent is to review and update the PMP 
annually. Implementation of the PMP will be an improvement action.
    Beginning with the fiscal year 2008 budget, we've implemented a 
performance based method for development of the CAP budget. This is a 
new approach for CAP budget development. It should help improve CAP by 
providing a clear and consistent method analyzing CAP for budgetary 
purposes.
    For the fiscal year 2007 program we developed a ranking methodology 
using appropriate criteria for determining fiscal year 2007 
allocations. The method helped improve CAP by providing a clear method 
for allocating fiscal year 2007 funds.
    Question. What is the outlook for fiscal year 2007?
    Answer. For fiscal year 2007 CAP funding requests exceeded 
available funds by $33,069,000. Therefore we developed a ranking 
methodology using appropriate criteria that was implemented to 
prioritize requests and optimize use of available funds. CAP funds for 
fiscal year 2007 are fenced by section. In addition, the moratorium on 
execution of new FCSA's and PCA's continues in fiscal year 2007. The 
fencing and moratorium restrictions create challenges in optimal 
management of CAP funding.
    Question. Will all funding provided in each section of the program 
be utilized in current project development phases and will some 
projects be ready to move to the next phase?
    Answer. The CAP Fiscal Year 2007 Work Plan funds $124,616,000 at 
this time with a reserve of $13,786,000. The plan provides $89,104,000 
to complete 163 project phases, $28,721,000 for continuing work, and 
$6,791,000 to initiate new phases.
    Under the current PCA moratorium, we are only able to move projects 
into construction if full funding is available to fund the entire 
construction. This significantly limits the number of CAP projects that 
can move into construction during fiscal year 2007.
    Under the current FCSA moratorium, we are required to limit Federal 
funding for feasibility work at $100,000. This restriction has caused 
numerous CAP projects to cease or postpone feasibility work.
    Question. Will we propose a package of projects to move forward? 
When?
    Answer. We provided detailed lists of active CAP projects to 
Congress in June 2006. Those reports showed FCSA and PCA execution 
status, allocation history, obligation capabilities through fiscal year 
2011, and estimated Federal costs. The June 2006 reports did not make 
specific recommendations regarding which projects should be considered 
for moving forward. It would be a better management approach if 
decisions regarding selection of CAP projects to forward were made 
using the performance based budgeting method and the fiscal year 2007 
allocation methods mentioned earlier. The nature of CAP is that these 
are smaller projects with less certainty regarding costs, scope, and 
sponsor commitments. Flexibility of management is highly desirable due 
to the nature of the program.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

                    LATEST $1.3 BILLION FUNDING NEED

    Question. Secretary Woodley, your testimony referred to the 
administration's request for reprogramming $1.3 billion in emergency 
supplemental appropriations from last year to cover shortfalls in 
hurricane protection projects in Louisiana. The Corps is developing 
estimates of future funding shortfalls with a goal of having complete 
estimates this summer.
    Does the administration intend to request supplemental 
appropriations when the future shortfalls are identified?
    Answer. Emergency authority and funding was provided by Congress 
and we are executing this mission in that manner. The Corps of 
Engineers is working with the resources provided to restore and improve 
the Hurricane Protection System as authorized and funded in fiscal year 
2006. This is the number one domestic priority of the Corps of 
Engineers, and we are committed to executing this mission in the most 
efficient and expeditious manner possible. The Corps continues to 
develop new information and incorporate it into our planning process, 
constantly working to improve the reliability of our cost estimates and 
construction schedule estimates. We are committed to developing and 
communicating these estimates in a transparent manner. We will ensure 
that the Congress and the administration have the information that they 
require in order to identify an appropriate vehicle for funding the 
completion of the 100-year system.
    Sufficient unobligated funds exist in the 4th supplemental 
appropriation to cover immediate work on those measures that will 
reduce the risk for the New Orleans metropolitan area with the proposed 
$1.3 billion reprogramming. This work includes floodwalls and levees 
that are ready for contract award. Fiscal Year 2006 4th Supplemental 
funds proposed for reallocation are not required until later in the 
year when designs and required environmental documentation are 
complete. The Corps is currently updating cost-estimates for the 
remaining work, and it would be premature to request additional funding 
until the Corps finishes these revisions. Funds reappropriated from the 
4th Supplemental will need to be replenished by additional 
appropriations at some future date, possibly in the fall of 2007.

                        CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

    Question. On March 8, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff 
agreed with me that levees should be categorized as critical 
infrastructure.
    I would like to ask the Corps to begin the appropriate 
conversations and collaboration with the Department of Homeland 
Security to expedite the inclusion of levees as critical infrastructure 
and report back to me within 6 weeks on your progress. Can the Corps do 
this?
    Answer. Yes, Senator we can do this. Levees are already included 
within the framework of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan 
(NIPP). As established in the Dams Sector Specific Plan released in May 
2007: ``The Dams Sector is comprised of the assets, systems, networks, 
and functions related to dam projects, navigation locks, levees, 
hurricane barriers, mine tailings impoundments, or other similar water 
retention and/or control facilities.'' It is important to highlight 
that ``levees'' is used in this context to designate flood damage 
reduction systems (dikes, embankments, levees, floodwalls, pumping 
stations, etc.); also including conventional dams that perform critical 
functions as part of flood damage reduction systems. Therefore levees 
are clearly part of the Dams Sector as one of the 17 Critical 
Infrastructure and Key Resources (CI/KR) sectors established by the 
NIPP. The Dams Sector is currently pursuing the formal establishment of 
a Levee Sub-Sector which will include the creation of the corresponding 
Levee Sector-Coordination Council.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye

                KIKIAOLA HARBOR, ISLAND OF KAUAI, HAWAII

    Question. Please provide me with a status of the project.
    Answer. Sir, funding for the project is being considered during 
development of the Civil Works Fiscal Year 2007 Work Plan. The Honolulu 
District is updating the plans, specifications, and permits in 
preparation for advertisement and award of a construction contract.
    Question. My records indicate that there were five reprogramming 
actions taken on the project beginning in 1980, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 
2005, and totaling $10,045,000. What are the chances of the Corps 
restoring these funds for the Kikiaola project? If so, does the Corps 
have a time table as to when these funds can be restored?
    Answer. Sir, any funds included for the project in the Corps of 
Engineers Fiscal Year 2007 Work Plan would be applied toward the Corps' 
commitment to restore previously reprogrammed funds. The Work Plan will 
be provided to the Committees shortly.
    Question. I understand that $15,000,000 in construction funds is 
needed in fiscal year 2008. Does this amount take into account the 
$10,045,000 that was reprogrammed by the Corps since 1980? Please 
explain how, if any, would the Corps factor in any reprogrammed 
amounts.
    Answer. Sir, whether a project has experienced previous net 
revocations is a consideration in development of the fiscal year 2007 
Work Plan. Any funds allocated to the project would be applied toward 
the commitment to restore previously revoked funds.
    Question. Would the $15,000,000 be sufficient to complete the 
Kikiaola Light Draft Harbor project?
    Answer. Yes, sir. The $15,000,000 would be sufficient to complete 
the project based on our current cost estimates.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed

                             BUDGET REQUEST

    Question. The Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007 
included a provision directing the Corps to assume responsibility for 
the annual operations and maintenance of the Fox Point Hurricane 
Barrier in Providence, Rhode Island. The Corps is to assume 
responsibility within 2 years after the date of the enactment of the 
Act, which I believe is October 17, 2008. Could you tell me where the 
Corps is in the process of taking over operations and control of the 
hurricane barrier? The Corps did not request funding for this project 
in the fiscal year 2008 budget, is not funding needed at this time? Do 
you plan to request funding in the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2009?
    Answer. We have not received any funding to date for this effort. 
We have met with the city of Providence to develop a strategy; however, 
we have not initiated this work because of funding delays and at this 
time it is unlikely that we will be able to perform all of the tasks 
necessary to take over operation and maintenance of the project by 17 
October 2008. We have Construction funds currently available; however, 
these funds are for the purpose of reimbursing the city of Providence 
for the Federal share of their costs in making eligible repairs to the 
Fox Point Hurricane Barrier. We are not authorized to use these funds 
for the purpose of completing tasks necessary to take over operation 
and maintenance of the project. The fiscal year 2009 budget to be 
released in February 2008 and as of yet have not made any decisions for 
that budget.
    Question. The Corps has a number of ongoing projects in Rhode 
Island to assist with navigation and aquatic ecosystem restoration. 
These projects are funded under the Continuing Authorities Programs; 
yet, there is no funding request in the fiscal year 2008 budget for 
these projects. Could you tell me why the administration's budget 
request does not provide a list of these ongoing projects in each State 
and the amount of funding needed for their completion? Could you 
provide a national list of projects currently funded under the Corps' 
Continuing Authorities Program and the cost to complete work on these 
projects? Also, why does the administration not provide specific 
funding requests for these projects in its budget?
    Answer. Yes, sir the list requested is attached. Competition for 
Constructions funds is very keen and the budget presented the best 
allocation of funds among all the competing interest.

                    FIVE YEAR CAPABILITIES FOR CAP PROJECT PHASES IN FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET
                                            [in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Cost to
                Project Name                  CAP Section No.          MSC              DISTRICT        Complete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KWETHLUK, AK................................              14   POD...............  POA...............        100
TALLAHATCHIE RIVER, SITE 3, TALLAHATCHIE                  14   MVD...............  MVK...............        621
 COUNTY, MS.
14 OLD FORT NIAGARA, YOUNGSTOWN, NY.........              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
27TH STREET BRIDGE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO....              14   SPD...............  SPA...............        322
ALDEN SEWER DISTRICT NO. 2..................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
ARGOSY ROAD BRIDGE, RIVERSIDE, MO...........              14   NWD...............  NWK...............        650
BARNES CO., KATHRYN, ND.....................              14   MVD...............  MVP...............        300
BATESVILLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, WHITE              14   SWD...............  SWL...............        477
 RIVER, AR.
BEAR CREEK, ROLAND, STORY CO., IA...........              14   MVD...............  MVR...............         90
BEAVER CK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT,                     14   LRD...............  LRL...............        100
 GREENE, CO.
BELLE ISLE, DETROIT, MI.....................              14   LRD...............  LRE...............         50
BELPRE, OH SEWER AND WATERLINE PROTECTION...              14   LRD...............  LRH...............         80
BIG SISTER CREEK, N. COLLINS................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
BLACK RIVER, RIVER DRIVE....................              14   MVD...............  MVP...............        500
BLANCHARD RIVER, OTTAWA, OH.................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
BRITTON ROAD BRIDGE, JONES, OK..............              14   SWD...............  SWT...............         40
CANADAWAY SEWERLINE.........................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        250
CASS LAKE, LEECH LAKE TRIBE.................              14   MVD...............  MVP...............        225
CAULKS CREEK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO..........              14   MVD...............  MVS...............        421
CHAGRIN RIVER, GATES MILLS, OH..............              14   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
CITY OF BLUFFTON, WELLS CO (SEC. 14)........              14   LRD...............  LRL...............        100
COAL CREEK, ALBIA, MONROE CO., IA...........              14   MVD...............  MVR...............        125
COAL CREEK, ALBIA, MONROE CO., IA...........              14   MVD...............  MVR...............         38
CONWAY, CROWS RUN, PA.......................              14   LRD...............  LRP...............        126
CROOKED CREEK, MADISON, IN..................              14   LRD...............  LRL...............        220
CUYAHOGA RIVER, BATH ROAD...................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
CUYAHOGA RIVER, VAUGHN RD...................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP, WARREN CO...............              14   LRD...............  LRL...............        100
DELAWARE CANAL, PAUNNACUSSING CREEK, BUCKS                14   NAD...............  NAP...............        750
 COUNTY, PA.
DES MOINES RVR, KEOSAUGUA, VAN BURNE CO., IA              14   MVD...............  MVR...............         90
DUNKARD CREEK, BLACKVILLE, PA...............              14   LRD...............  LRP...............         39
EAST FORK BIG CREEK, BETHANY, MO............              14   NWD...............  NWK...............         69
EAST LIVERPOOL, OH..........................              14   LRD...............  LRP...............        129
EAST POINT, NJ..............................              14   NAD...............  NAP...............        360
EAST VALLEY CREEK, ANDOVER..................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK, NEWFANE.................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK, NORTH CREEK RD..........              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
ELIZABETH RIVER, VALLEYVIEW ROAD, HILLSIDE,               14   NAD...............  NAN...............        800
 NJ.
ELK RIVER, SHERBURNE CO.....................              14   MVD...............  MVP...............        600
ELLICOTT CREEK, NORTH FOREST RD., AMHERST...              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
ERIE BASIN MARINA, BUFFALO, NY..............              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
FT. ABERCROMBIE, ND.........................              14   MVD...............  MVP...............        960
FT. ABERCROMBIE, ND.........................              14   MVD...............  MVP...............         40
GRAND RIVER (NOWS), GRAND HAVEN, MI.........              14   LRD...............  LRE...............         50
GRAND RIVER, PAINESVILLE, OH, SR84 BRIDGE...              14   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
GRAYCLIFF HOUSE, EVANS, NY..................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............         80
GREEN HILL RD., ASHTABULA RIVER, PLYMOUTH                 14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
 TOWNSHIP.
HANLOCK RD., ASHTABULA RIVER, PLYMOUTH                    14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
 TOWNSHIP.
HIGHWAY A, TURKEY CREEK, MO.................              14   MVD...............  MVS...............         35
HODGENVILLE, KY.............................              14   LRD...............  LRL...............        200
HOLMES BAY [STATE HIGHWAY RTE 191], WHITING,              14   NAD...............  NAE...............        675
 ME.
HURON RIVER, S.R. 99........................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
IA RVR, IA CITY, JOHNSON CO., IA............              14   MVD...............  MVR...............         90
IA RVR, SAC & FOX SETTLEMENT, TAMA COUNTY,                14   MVD...............  MVR...............        348
 IA.
KANAWHA RIVER, CHARLESTON, WV (MAGIC ISLAND               14   LRD...............  LRH...............        960
 TO PATRICK STREET).
KENOSHA HARBOR, RETAINING WALL, KENOSHA, WI.              14   LRD...............  LRE...............        700
KEUKA LAKE, HAMMONDSPORT....................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
KINNICKINNIC RIVER STORM SEWER, MILWAUKEE                 14   LRD...............  LRE...............        130
 COUNTY, WI.
MIDDLE BASS ISLAND, OH, DEIST ROAD..........              14   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
MONONGAHELA RIVER, W. ELIZABETH, PA.........              14   LRD...............  LRP...............         70
MT. PLEASANT AVE., MALAPARDIS BROOK,                      14   NAD...............  NAN...............        650
 HANOVER, NJ.
NOKOMIS RD, TEN MILE CREEK, LANCASTER, TX...              14   SWD...............  SWF...............        516
NORTH PARK..................................              14   LRD...............  LRC...............      1,300
NORTH SHORE DRIVE, SOUTH BEND, IN...........              14   LRD...............  LRE...............         65
OAKLAND SEWAGE FACILITY, TN.................              14   MVD...............  MVM...............         46
OHIO RIVER, HUNTINGTON, WV SEVENTH STREET                 14   LRD...............  LRH...............        380
 WEST SEC. 14.
OHIO RIVER, HUNTINGTON, WV SEVENTH STREET                 14   LRD...............  LRH...............         40
 WEST SEC. 14.
OHIO RIVER, HUNTINGTON, WV STAUNTON AVENUE                14   LRD...............  LRH...............        140
 SEC. 14.
OHIO RIVER, HUNTINGTON, WV STAUNTON AVENUE                14   LRD...............  LRH...............         40
 SEC. 14.
OLD CHAPPELL HILL ROAD, DAVIS CREEK,                      14   SWD...............  SWF...............        180
 WASHINGTON COUNTY, TX.
OUACHITA RIVER, CITY OF MONROE, LA..........              14   MVD...............  MVK...............         60
PARTRIDGE BROOK, WESTMORELAND, NH...........              14   NAD...............  NAE...............        381
PATUXENT RIVER, PATUXENT BEACH ROAD, MD.....              14   NAD...............  NAB...............        700
PEPPER'S FERRY RWTR, RADFORD, VA SEC. 14....              14   LRD...............  LRH...............         40
PIPE CREEK, HAYES HOLLOW RD.................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
PLATTE CITY SEWER, PLATTE CITY, MO..........              14   NWD...............  NWK...............        260
PLATTE RIVER BRIDGE, CONCEPTION, MO.........              14   NWD...............  NWK...............        227
POWERS BLVD, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO...........              14   SPD...............  SPA...............        441
QUODDY NARROWS, SOUTH LUBEC ROAD, LUBEC, ME.              14   NAD...............  NAE...............        202
RANSOM CREEK, HOPKINS ROAD, AMHERST, NY.....              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        730
RED DUCK--NINETH STREET, KY., NO. 14........              14   MVD...............  MVM...............        595
RED LAKE RIVER, MN..........................              14   MVD...............  MVP...............        960
RED LAKE RIVER, MN..........................              14   MVD...............  MVP...............         40
ROCKPORT, IN................................              14   LRD...............  LRL...............        200
ROUTE YY, WORTH COUNTY, MO..................              14   NWD...............  NWK...............        227
ROUTE YY, WORTH COUNTY, MO..................              14   NWD...............  NWK...............         99
SALAMANCA, NY...............................              14   LRD...............  LRP...............         70
SAND COVE PARK, SACRAMENTO RIVER, CA........              14   SPD...............  SPK...............         59
SAND HILL BRIDGE, MEDICINE CREEK, GRUNDY                  14   NWD...............  NWK...............        305
 CO., MO.
SAND HILL BRIDGE, MEDICINE CREEK, GRUNDY                  14   NWD...............  NWK...............         79
 CO., MO.
SARTELL, MN.................................              14   MVD...............  MVP...............        500
SEC. 14 LINCOLN BOROUGH, PA.................              14   LRD...............  LRP...............         70
SHOTWELL CREEK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO........              14   MVD...............  MVS...............        203
SIX-MILE CREEK, ITHACA, NY..................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
SOUTH BRANCH, RAHWAY RIVER, WOODBRIDGE, NJ..              14   NAD...............  NAN...............        550
SOUTH FORK CLEAR CREEK, ROUTE FF, MARYVILLE,              14   NWD...............  NWK...............        189
 MO.
SOUTH HARRISON COUNTY, IN...................              14   LRD...............  LRL...............        200
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, CAMPUS ROAD, BATON                   14   MVD...............  MVN...............        204
 ROUGE, LA.
SPRINGDALE CREEK SPRINGDALE CEMETARY PEORIA,              14   MVD...............  MVR...............         90
 IL.
ST JOHNS LANDFILL, OR.......................              14   NWD...............  NWP...............        809
STRANGER CREEK AT K-32, KS..................              14   NWD...............  NWK...............        428
STRANGER CREEK AT K-32, KS..................              14   NWD...............  NWK...............         73
STURGEON RIVER, HOUGHTON COUNTY, MI.........              14   LRD...............  LRE...............        280
THIEME DRIVE, FORT WAYNE, IN................              14   LRD...............  LRE...............         60
TONAWANDA CREEK, LOCKWOOD, NIAGARA COUNTY...              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
TONAWANDA CREEK, NEWSTEAD...................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
TONAWANDA CREEK, RIDDLE ROAD, NY............              14   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
TONAWANDA CREEK, TONAWANDA CREEK RD.,                     14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
 AMHERST.
TOWN OF PORTER..............................              14   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
TOWN OF WELLS, NY...........................              14   NAD...............  NAN...............        500
TUCKER ROAD, COMITE RIVER, LA...............              14   MVD...............  MVN...............        200
TUSCARAWAS CO., RD. 1, (JOHNSON HILL), OH...              14   LRD...............  LRH...............        295
U.S. HIGHWAY 71 BRIDGE, RED RIVER, OGDEN, AR              14   SWD...............  SWL...............        465
WALKER LANE, WASHINGTON, WV, SECTION 14.....              14   LRD...............  LRH...............         80
WALNUT BOTTOM RUN, ING-RICH ROAD, BEAVER                  14   LRD...............  LRP...............         77
 FALLS, PA.
WEST FORK MEDICINE CREEK, GALT BRIDGE, MO...              14   NWD...............  NWK...............        119
WEST FORK MEDICINE CREEK, GALT BRIDGE, MO...              14   NWD...............  NWK...............         11
WESTFIELD RIVER, AGAWAM, MA.................              14   NAD...............  NAE...............        155
WESTFIELD RIVER, OLD RTE. 9, CUMMINGTON, MA.              14   NAD...............  NAE...............        188
WESTON, WV (US RT 19 S).....................              14   LRD...............  LRP...............         90
WHITE RIVER, AUGUSTA, AR....................              14   SWD...............  SWL...............        100
WHORTON BEND ROAD, ETOWAH CO., AL...........              14   SAD...............  SAM...............        524
UNALAKLEET STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION,                       103   POD...............  POA...............        400
 UNALAKLEET, AK.
BAYOU TECHE-CHITIMACHA......................             103   MVD...............  MVN...............        200
COMMERCIAL PORT ROAD, GUAM 000..............             103   POD...............  POH...............      1,977
F-1 FUEL PIER, GUAM.........................             103   POD...............  POH...............        550
FORT SAN GERONIMO, PR.......................             103   SAD...............  SAJ...............        300
GOLETA BEACH, CITY OF GOLETA, CA............             103   SPD...............  SPL...............      2,015
GOLETA BEACH, CITY OF GOLETA, CA............             103   SPD...............  SPL...............        300
INDIAN RIVER INLET, SUSSEX COUNTY, DE.......             103   NAD...............  NAP...............        544
LAKE ERIE AT PAINESVILLE....................             103   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
LAKE ERIE ATHOL SPRINGS, NY.................             103   LRD...............  LRB...............      1,050
LAKEVIEW PARK...............................             103   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
LASALLE PARK, BUFFALO, NY...................             103   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
LELOALOA SHORE PROTECTION, AMERICAN SAMOA...             103   POD...............  POH...............      1,663
NANTASKET BEACH, HULL, MA...................             103   NAD...............  NAE...............         81
PHILADELPHIA SHIPYARD, PA...................             103   NAD...............  NAP...............      2,802
PLEASURE ISLAND, BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD.......             103   NAD...............  NAB...............        300
PORTER COMMUNITY PARK.......................             103   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
PUERTO NUEVO BCH, PR........................             103   SAD...............  SAJ...............         73
TARPON SPRINGS, FL..........................             103   SAD...............  SAJ...............        922
VETERAN'S DRIVE SHORELINE, ST. THOMAS,                   103   SAD...............  SAJ...............        281
 U.S.V.I..
KAHO'OLAWE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, HI............             107   POD...............  POH...............        494
MACKINAC ISLAND HARBOR BREAKWATER, MI.......             107   LRD...............  LRE...............        200
APRA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, GUAM................             107   POD...............  POH...............        620
ARKANSAS RIVER, RUSSELLVILLE HARBOR, AR.....             107   SWD...............  SWL...............      2,746
BASS HARBOR, TREMONT, ME....................             107   NAD...............  NAE...............        144
BLACKWATER RIVER, HAMPTON HARBOR, NH........             107   NAD...............  NAE...............        144
BLYTHEVILLE HARBOR, AR......................             107   MVD...............  MVM...............      3,280
BUCKS HARBOR, MACHIASPORT, ME...............             107   NAD...............  NAE...............         42
BUFFALO INNER HARBOR, NY....................             107   LRD...............  LRB...............      3,600
CHARLESTOWN BREACHWAY & NINIGRET POND,                   107   NAD...............  NAE...............        301
 CHARLESTOWN, RI.
CHEFORNAK NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS,                       107   POD...............  POA...............        400
 CHEFORNAK, AK.
CLEVELAND LAKEFRONT STATE PARK, OH..........             107   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
COLD BAY NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS............             107   POD...............  POA...............        400
COOLEY CREEK, OH............................             107   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
DOUGLAS HARBOR, AK..........................             107   POD...............  POA...............      2,778
EAST BOAT BASIN, SANDWICH, MA...............             107   NAD...............  NAE...............        100
EAST TWO RIVER, TOWER, MN...................             107   MVD...............  MVP...............        350
ELIM NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, ELIM, AK......             107   POD...............  POA...............        400
ESCANABA, MI................................             107   LRD...............  LRE...............        309
FISHERMANS COVE, NORFOLK, VA................             107   NAD...............  NAO...............        252
GALVESTON ISLAND HARBOR, GALVESTON, TX......             107   SWD...............  SWG...............        599
GRAND MARAIS, MN............................             107   LRD...............  LRE...............        200
GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MN....................             107   LRD...............  LRE...............        130
GUSTAVUS NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AK........             107   POD...............  POA...............        250
IGIUGIG NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, IGIUGIG, AK             107   POD...............  POA...............        400
KNIFE HARBOR, MN............................             107   LRD...............  LRE...............        100
KOKHANOK HARBOR, AK.........................             107   POD...............  POA...............        400
NANTICOKE HARBOR, MD........................             107   NAD...............  NAB...............        300
NANWALEK NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AK........             107   POD...............  POA...............        250
NASSAWADOX CREEK, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VA....             107   NAD...............  NAO...............        608
NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW CO., NC.............             107   SAD...............  SAW...............         80
NFTA BOAT HARBOR............................             107   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
NORTH KOHALA NAVIGATION, HI.................             107   POD...............  POH...............        520
NORTHERN MICHIGAN COLLEGE, TRAVERSE CITY, MI             107   LRD...............  LRE...............      1,314
NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, LAKE                107   MVD...............  MVM...............      3,110
 COUNTY, TN.
OAK BLUFFS HARBOR, OAK BLUFFS, MA...........             107   NAD...............  NAE...............        360
OHIO RIVER, PROCTORVILLE, OH., SEC. 107.....             107   LRD...............  LRH...............        200
OLCOTT HARBOR, NEWFANE, NY..................             107   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
ONTONAGON RIVER, MI.........................             107   LRD...............  LRE...............        125
OUTER COVE MARINA, CNMI.....................             107   POD...............  POH...............        570
OYSTER POINT MARINA.........................             107   SPD...............  SPN...............        650
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL.......................             107   SAD...............  SAJ...............        250
POINT JUDITH HARBOR, NARRAGANSETT, RI.......             107   NAD...............  NAE...............        100
PORT FOURCHON EXTENSION, LAFOURCHE PARISH,               107   MVD...............  MVN...............        500
 LA.
PORT GRAHAM NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, PORT                107   POD...............  POA...............        160
 GRAHAM, AK.
PORT HUENEME, CA............................             107   SPD...............  SPL...............      4,000
RHODES POINT, MD............................             107   NAD...............  NAB...............      3,600
ROUGE RIVER, MI.............................             107   LRD...............  LRE...............        320
ROUND POND HARBOR, BRISTOL, ME..............             107   NAD...............  NAE...............         80
SEWARD MARINE INDUSTRIAL CENTER NAVIGATION               107   POD...............  POA...............        400
 IMPROVEMENT, AK.
SHALLOTTE RIVER, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NC.......             107   SAD...............  SAW...............         49
SMALL NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, ILIAMNA, AK..             107   POD...............  POA...............        290
ST LAWRENCE, AK.............................             107   POD...............  POA...............      9,600
ST. JEROME CREEK, ST. MARY'S COUNTY, MD.....             107   NAD...............  NAB...............        300
ST. JEROME CREEK, ST. MARY'S COUNTY, MD.....             107   NAD...............  NAB...............        100
TATITLEK, AK................................             107   POD...............  POA...............      3,105
TATITLEK, AK................................             107   POD...............  POA...............        294
TELLER NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, TELLER, AK..             107   POD...............  POA...............        200
TWO HARBORS, MN.............................             107   LRD...............  LRE...............        212
WALNUT CREEK ACCESS AREA, ERIE COUNTY, PA...             107   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
WALTER SLOUGH, DARE COUNTY, NC..............             107   SAD...............  SAW...............        448
WESTPORT, MA................................             107   NAD...............  NAE...............        531
WOODS HOLE GREAT HARBOR, FALMOUTH, MA.......             107   NAD...............  NAE...............        150
WURTLAND, KY (NAVIGATION CHANNEL                         107   LRD...............  LRH...............      7,300
 IMPROVEMENT).
WURTLAND, KY (NAVIGATION CHANNEL                         107   LRD...............  LRH...............         50
 IMPROVEMENT).
111 FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH.....................             111   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
111 VERMILLION, OH..........................             111   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
AGUADILLA COASTLINE, PR.....................             111   SAD...............  SAJ...............      3,250
CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE.....................             111   NAD...............  NAE...............        247
LORAIN HARBOR, OH...........................             111   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY........................             111   NAD...............  NAN...............        300
MOBILE PASS, AL.............................             111   SAD...............  SAM...............        777
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC., SECTION 933......             145   SAD...............  SAW...............      4,100
21ST AVE WEST CHANNEL, DULUTH, MN...........             204   LRD...............  LRE...............         20
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, MILE 6.0-0.0,                    204   MVD...............  MVN...............        100
 PLAQUEMINES PH, LA.
BLACKHAWK BOTTOMS, DES MOINES COUNTY, IA....             204   MVD...............  MVR...............        306
CALCASIEU RIVER, MILE 5.0-14.0, CAMERON                  204   MVD...............  MVN...............      1,125
 PARISH, LA.
ISLE AUX HERBES.............................             204   SAD...............  SAM...............        250
MAUMEE BAY HABITAT RESTORATION, OH..........             204   LRD...............  LRB...............      1,500
MRGO MILE -3 TO -9 MARSH RESTORATION,                    204   MVD...............  MVN...............      1,071
 (2001), PLAQUEMINES PH.
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION, NC..             204   SAD...............  SAW...............         20
WYNN ROAD, OREGON, OH.......................             204   LRD...............  LRB...............        600
DAUPHIN ISLAND PARKWAY, AL..................             204   SAD...............  SAM...............        450
HELEN WOOD PARK, AL.........................             204   SAD...............  SAM...............      1,600
OTTAWA RIVER, OH............................             204   LRD...............  LRB...............        600
RESTORATION OF THE CAT ISLANDS CHAIN, WI....             204   LRD...............  LRE...............        205
BEAVER CREEK & TRIBS, BRISTOL, TN...........             205   LRD...............  LRN...............        800
CHIPPEWA RIVER AT MONTEVIDEO, MN............             205   MVD...............  MVP...............      3,472
EAST PEORIA, IL.............................             205   MVD...............  MVR...............        100
FARGO, RIDGEWOOD ADDITION, ND...............             205   MVD...............  MVP...............      2,035
HEACOCK CHANNEL, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,                       205   SPD...............  SPL...............      5,300
 RIVERSIDE, CA.
205 LIMESTONE CREEK, FAYETTEVILLE, NY.......             205   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
ABERJONA RIVER, WINCHESTER, MA..............             205   NAD...............  NAE...............        150
AITKIN, MN..................................             205   MVD...............  MVP...............      5,673
AITKIN, MN..................................             205   MVD...............  MVP...............        216
AMBERLEY CREEK, CINCINNATI, OH..............             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        350
ARCHEY FORK CREEK, CLINTON, AR..............             205   SWD...............  SWL...............        108
ARROYO, PR (205)............................             205   SAD...............  SAJ...............        271
ATHENS, OH RICHLAND AVE. CORRIDOR...........             205   LRD...............  LRH...............        200
BALDWIN CREEK, NORTH ROYALTON, OH...........             205   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
BANLICK CREEK, KENTON CO., KY...............             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        200
BAYOU CHOUPIQUE CAP 205.....................             205   MVD...............  MVN...............        200
BAYOU QUEUE DE TORTUE, VERMILION PARISH, LA.             205   MVD...............  MVN...............        125
BEAVER CREEK, FRENCHBURG, KY................             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        150
BEML MILL BROOK HIGHLAND PARK, NJ...........             205   NAD...............  NAN...............        300
BEN HILL COUNTY, GA.........................             205   SAD...............  SAS...............      1,200
BEPJ POPLAR BROOK...........................             205   NAD...............  NAN...............        850
BIG SISTER CREEK, ANGOLA....................             205   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
BLACK ROCKS CREEK, SALISBURY, MA............             205   NAD...............  NAE...............        250
BLACKSNAKE CREEK, ST. JOSEPH, MO............             205   NWD...............  NWK...............      3,639
BLACKSNAKE CREEK, ST. JOSEPH, MO............             205   NWD...............  NWK...............          6
BLASDELL STP................................             205   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
BOCA DE CACHETA, PR.........................             205   SAD...............  SAJ...............        250
BREAKNECK CREEK, FRANKLIN...................             205   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
BRUSH CREEK, GLADY FORK, PRINCETON, WV......             205   LRD...............  LRH...............         50
BUCKEYE LAKE, OH............................             205   LRD...............  LRH...............        858
BUCKEYE LAKE, OH............................             205   LRD...............  LRH...............         75
BYRUM CREEK, ANDERSON COUNTY, SC............             205   SAD...............  SAS...............        275
CANE BEND, BOSSIER PARISH, LA...............             205   MVD...............  MVK...............        150
CANISTEO MINE PIT LAKE, MN..................             205   MVD...............  MVP...............      2,300
CANISTEO MINE PIT LAKE, MN..................             205   MVD...............  MVP...............        275
CASHIE RIVER, WINDSOR, NC...................             205   SAD...............  SAW...............         70
CAZENOVIA CREEK, STEVENSON STREET, BUFFALO..             205   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
CEDAR RIVER, CEDAR FALLS UTILITIES, CEDAR                205   MVD...............  MVR...............        350
 FALLS , IA.
CEDAR RUN, PA...............................             205   NAD...............  NAB...............        200
CITY OF BLUFFTON, WELLS CO (SEC 205)........             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        200
CITY OF DELPHI, CARROLL CO (DEER CK LEVEE)..             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        200
CITY OF FLEMING-NEON, LETCHER, CO...........             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        200
CITY OF WHITTIER, CA........................             205   SPD...............  SPL...............      1,200
CONCORDIA, KS...............................             205   NWD...............  NWK...............        125
COSGROVE CREEK FLOOD CONTROL, CALAVERAS                  205   SPD...............  SPK...............        750
 COUNTY.
COUSHATTA INDIAN RESERVATION FDR PROJECT,                205   MVD...............  MVN...............        125
 ALLEN PARISH, LA.
COWSKIN CREEK, WICHITA, KS..................             205   SWD...............  SWT...............      1,100
CROWN POINT BASIN, JEFFERSON PARISH, LA.....             205   MVD...............  MVN...............        350
DAM BREAK EARLY WARNING SYSTEM, SILVERTON,               205   NWD...............  NWP...............        425
 OR.
DETROIT BEACH, LAKE ERIE, FRENCHTOWN                     205   LRD...............  LRE...............      1,380
 TOWNSHIP, MI.
DETROIT BEACH, LAKE ERIE, FRENCHTOWN                     205   LRD...............  LRE...............         50
 TOWNSHIP, MI.
DRY CREEK, CHEYENNE, WY.....................             205   NWD...............  NWO...............         32
DUCK CREEK, OH FWS..........................             205   LRD...............  LRH...............        200
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK, BOSTON..................             205   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
EIGHTEENMILE CREEK, HAMBURG.................             205   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
ELIZABETHTOWN, KY...........................             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        150
ELKTON, MD..................................             205   NAD...............  NAB...............        300
EST LA GRANGE ST. CROIX.....................             205   SAD...............  SAJ...............        350
EUREKA CREEK, MANHATTAN, KS.................             205   NWD...............  NWK...............      3,123
FARMERS BRANCH, TARRANT COUNTY, TX..........             205   SWD...............  SWF...............      7,189
FISH CREEK/CUYAHOGA RIVER, KENT.............             205   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
FORT YUKON FLOOD CONTROL, FORT YUKON, AK....             205   POD...............  POA...............         75
FRED CREEK, TULSA, OK.......................             205   SWD...............  SWT...............        350
FULMER CREEK, VILLAGE OF MOHAWK, NY.........             205   NAD...............  NAN...............      1,112
GOOSE CREEK, JACKSON, MO....................             205   MVD...............  MVS...............        109
GRAND RIVER, HARPERSFIELD DAM...............             205   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS, OH.......................             205   LRD...............  LRH...............        200
H0ODS CREEK, BOYD COUNTY, KY................             205   LRD...............  LRH...............         37
HAIKEY CREEK, BIXBY, OK.....................             205   SWD...............  SWT...............      4,125
HATCH, NM...................................             205   SPD...............  SPA...............        400
HEBER SPRINGS, CLEBURNE CO., AR.............             205   SWD...............  SWL...............         50
HESHBON TO HEPBURNVILLE, LOWER LYCOMING                  205   NAD...............  NAB...............        600
 CREEK.
HESTER, ADAMSON & HEARTSILL CREEKS,                      205   SWD...............  SWL...............        166
 GREENWOOD, AR.
HIDDEN VALLEY, NEEDMORE BRANCH, GREENE                   205   SWD...............  SWL...............        150
 COUNTY, MO.
HIGH SCHOOL BRANCH, NEOSHO, MISSOURI........             205   SWD...............  SWL...............        100
HIGHWAY 164 BRIDGE, LITTLE PINEY,                        205   SWD...............  SWL...............         70
 HARGARVILLE, AR.
HINKSTON CREEK, MT STERLING, KY.............             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        200
HOMINY SWAMP, WILSON, NC....................             205   SAD...............  SAW...............        100
HOWELL CREEK, WEST PLAINS, MO...............             205   SWD...............  SWL...............        100
HUBBLE CREEK, JACKSON, MO...................             205   MVD...............  MVS...............        106
HUGHES CREEK, KANAWHA COUNTY, WV., SEC. 205.             205   LRD...............  LRH...............        200
INDIAN CREEK, CEDAR RVR, CEDAR RAPIDS, IA...             205   MVD...............  MVR...............        408
IRONDEQUOIT CREEK, PENFIELD, NY.............             205   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
JACKSON BROOK, MORRIS CITY, NJ..............             205   NAD...............  NAN...............        800
JAM UP CREEK, MOUNTAIN VIEW, MO.............             205   SWD...............  SWL...............        100
JEAN LAFITTE, FISHER SCHOOL BASIN, LA.......             205   MVD...............  MVN...............      1,851
JORDAN, MN..................................             205   MVD...............  MVP...............        243
KEOPU-HIENALOLI STREAM, ISLAND OF HAWAII, HI             205   POD...............  POH...............      6,110
KESHEQUA CREEK, NUNDA.......................             205   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
KINGS POINT, WARREN COUNTY, MS..............             205   MVD...............  MVK...............        135
KNOX COUNTY, KELSO CREEK, IN................             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        302
KULIOUOU STREAM, OAHU, HI...................             205   POD...............  POH...............        397
LAC QUI PARLE RIVER, DAWSON, MN.............             205   MVD...............  MVP...............        869
LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA........................             205   MVD...............  MVN...............        800
LAMOTTE CREEK, PALESTINE, IL................             205   LRD...............  LRL...............         95
LEWIS CREEK, BULVERDE, TX...................             205   SWD...............  SWF...............        290
LINE CREEK, CHICKASHA, OK...................             205   SWD...............  SWT...............        350
LITTLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX.....................             205   SWD...............  SWF...............      3,500
LITTLE DUCK CREEK, OH.......................             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        350
LITTLE FOSSIL CREEK, HALTOM CITY, TX........             205   SWD...............  SWF...............      4,762
LITTLE RIVER DIVERSION, DUTCHTOWN, MO.......             205   MVD...............  MVM...............        709
LOCKPORT TO LA ROSE, LAFOURCHE PARISH, LA...             205   MVD...............  MVN...............      2,011
LONG HILL TOWNSHIP..........................             205   NAD...............  NAN...............      3,115
LOUISIANA, MO...............................             205   MVD...............  MVS...............        113
LOVINGTON, IL...............................             205   MVD...............  MVS...............        166
MACOMB COUNTY, MI...........................             205   LRD...............  LRE...............        361
MAD CREEK, MUSCATINE, IA....................             205   MVD...............  MVR...............      3,492
MAGAZINE BRANCH, ELK RIVER, CHARLESTON, WV..             205   LRD...............  LRH...............         75
MAGAZINE BRANCH, ELK RIVER, CHARLESTON, WV..             205   LRD...............  LRH...............        302
MAGPIE & DON JULIO CREEKS, SACRAMENTO,                   205   SPD...............  SPK...............      1,585
 CALIFORNIA.
MASCATATUCK RIVER LOG JAM, SCOTT CO, IN.....             205   LRD...............  LRL...............         40
MCKINNEY BAYOU, TUNICA COUNTY, MS...........             205   MVD...............  MVK...............      3,445
MEREDOSIA, IL...............................             205   MVD...............  MVS...............         87
MILL CREEK, GARFIELD HEIGHTS................             205   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
MILLWOOD, GRASSY LAKE, AR, SECTION 1135.....             205   SWD...............  SWL...............          5
MINNESOTA RIVER, GRANITE FALLS, MN..........             205   MVD...............  MVP...............      6,578
MONTOURSVILLE, LYCOMING COUNTY, PA..........             205   NAD...............  NAB...............        600
MORRIS CREEK, KANAWHA AND FAYETTE COUNTIES,              205   LRD...............  LRH...............        200
 WV., SEC. 205.
MOYER CREEK, VILLAGE OF FRANKFURT, NY.......             205   NAD...............  NAN...............        890
NEWPORT, MN.................................             205   MVD...............  MVP...............      2,250
NORTH RIVER, PEABODY, MA....................             205   NAD...............  NAE...............        100
OAK CREEK FLORENCE CO BE710.................             205   SPD...............  SPA...............        500
ONONDAGA CREEK, SYRACUSE....................             205   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
PAILET BASIN, JEFFERSON PARISH, LA..........             205   MVD...............  MVN...............        300
PALAI STREAM, HAWAII, HI....................             205   POD...............  POH...............      4,859
PALAI STREAM, HAWAII, HI....................             205   POD...............  POH...............         62
PALO DURO, CANYON, TX (LOCAL FLOOD                       205   SWD...............  SWT...............        350
 PROTECTION PROJECT).
PECAN CREEK, GAINESVILLE, TX................             205   SWD...............  SWF...............      4,091
PLATTE RIVER, FREMONT, NE...................             205   NWD...............  NWO...............        190
PLATTE RIVER, SCHUYLER, NE..................             205   NWD...............  NWO...............        320
PLEASANT CREEK, GREENWOOD, IN...............             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        300
POST OAK CREEK, CORSICANA, TX...............             205   SWD...............  SWF...............        323
PRAIRIE CREEK, RUSSELLVILLE, AR.............             205   SWD...............  SWL...............        155
RANDOLPH, NE................................             205   NWD...............  NWO...............        224
RED DUCK CREEK, KY., NO. 205................             205   MVD...............  MVM...............        476
RED OAK, IOWA...............................             205   NWD...............  NWO...............        276
RICHLAND CREEK, NASHVILLE, TN...............             205   LRD...............  LRN...............        300
RIO CULEBRINAS-AG205........................             205   SAD...............  SAJ...............        230
RIO DESCALABRADO (205)......................             205   SAD...............  SAJ...............        216
RIO EL OJO DE AGUA, PR., BER................             205   SAD...............  SAJ...............      5,519
RIO GRANDE AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY, EAGLE                  205   SWD...............  SWF...............        432
 PASS, TX.
RIO GUAMANI, GUAYANA, PR., BEGUM............             205   SAD...............  SAJ...............        200
RIO JACAQUAS, PR (205)......................             205   SAD...............  SAJ...............        300
RIO LOCO, GUANICA, PR.......................             205   SAD...............  SAJ...............        268
RIO OROCOVIS, PR (205)......................             205   SAD...............  SAJ...............        303
RIO PATILLAS, PR (205)......................             205   SAD...............  SAJ...............        185
ROCKFORD, MN................................             205   MVD...............  MVP...............        200
ROSETHORNE BASIN, JEAN LAFITTE, LA..........             205   MVD...............  MVN...............      2,000
ROSSVILLE, KS., SEC. 205....................             205   NWD...............  NWK...............        100
SALCHA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, SALCHA, AK...             205   POD...............  POA...............        150
SANDY CREEK, TN., NO. 205...................             205   MVD...............  MVM...............      8,130
SAUGATUCK RIVER, WESTPORT, CT...............             205   NAD...............  NAE...............         71
SCOTTS CREEK, SC., CAP 205..................             205   SAD...............  SAC...............        156
SEDGEWICK, KS, LITTLE ARK RIVER WATERSHED...             205   SWD...............  SWT...............        350
SIX MILE CREEK, ITHACA......................             205   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
SNOQUALMIE RIVER, WA (BESNQ)................             205   NWD...............  NWS...............         75
SOUTH SUBURBAN AREA OF CHICAGO, IL..........             205   LRD...............  LRC...............        300
ST. MARY'S RIVER, FORT WAYNE, IN............             205   LRD...............  LRE...............         50
STEELE CREEK, VILLAGE OF ILION, NY..........             205   NAD...............  NAN...............        500
STONY CREEK, ROCKY MOUNT, NC................             205   SAD...............  SAW...............         70
SUN VALLEY, EL PASO, TX.....................             205   SPD...............  SPA...............        265
TONGUE & YELLOWSTONE RVRS, MILES CITY, MT...             205   NWD...............  NWO...............        400
TOOKANY CREEK, CHURCH ROAD, PA..............             205   NAD...............  NAP...............      4,804
TOOKANY CREEK, GLENSIDE ROAD, PA............             205   NAD...............  NAP...............      4,828
TOWN BRANCH, CORSICANA, TX..................             205   SWD...............  SWF...............        268
TOWN BRANCH, NEWARK, AR.....................             205   SWD...............  SWL...............         50
TOWN OF CARENCRO, LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA......             205   MVD...............  MVN...............      6,000
TUSCARAWAS CO BEAVERDAM CREEK...............             205   LRD...............  LRH...............        200
VILLAGE OF RUSSELLS POINT, LOGAN CO.........             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        200
WAIAHOLE-WAIAKANE VALLEY, OAHU, HI..........             205   POD...............  POH...............        650
WAIAKEA STREAM, HAWAII, HI..................             205   POD...............  POH...............        666
WAILELE STREAM, OAHU, HI....................             205   POD...............  POH...............        961
WEST VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM             205   LRD...............  LRH...............      2,015
WHITE RIVER, ANDERSON, IN...................             205   LRD...............  LRL...............        340
WHITE SLOUGH BE608..........................             205   SPD...............  SPN...............      1,648
WHITEWATER RIVER, AUGUSTA, KS...............             205   SWD...............  SWT...............        380
WILD RICE & MARSH RIVERS, ADA, MN...........             205   MVD...............  MVP...............      3,175
WILLIAMSTOWN, WV............................             205   LRD...............  LRH...............        300
WILLOWWOOD ADDITION, EDMOND, OK.............             205   SWD...............  SWT...............        270
WINNEBAGO RVR, MASON CITY, IA...............             205   MVD...............  MVR...............        225
WV RALEIGH CO., NORTH SAND BRANCH...........             205   LRD...............  LRH...............        100
WYNNE, AR NO. 205...........................             205   MVD...............  MVM...............      1,125
ZIMBER DITCH, STARK CO, OH..................             205   LRD...............  LRH...............        350
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FOR ROSE BAY,              206   SAD...............  SAJ...............      4,362
 VOLUISIA CO., FL.
ARKANSAS RIVER FISHERIES HABITAT                         206   SPD...............  SPA...............         25
 RESTORATION, PUEBLO, CO.
BOTTOMLESS LAKE STATE PARK, NM..............             206   SPD...............  SPA...............      1,452
CLEAR LAKE, IA..............................             206   MVD...............  MVR...............          2
CONFLUENCE POINT STATE PARK, MO.............             206   MVD...............  MVS...............        186
EUGENE DELTA PONDS, OR......................             206   NWD...............  NWP...............      1,485
GOOSE CREEK, CO.............................             206   NWD...............  NWO...............         27
JACKSON CREEK, GWINETT CO., GA..............             206   SAD...............  SAS...............        600
LYNCHES RIVER, LAKE CITY, SC................             206   SAD...............  SAC...............        350
ORLAND PARK, IL.............................             206   LRD...............  LRC...............      2,800
ST. HELEN-NAPA RIVER RESTORATION............             206   SPD...............  SPN...............        150
STORM LAKE, IA..............................             206   MVD...............  MVR...............         10
WWTP, STEPHENVILLE, TX......................             206   SWD...............  SWF...............      1,508
5TH AVE DAM REMOVAL, COLUMBUS, OH...........             206   LRD...............  LRH...............      2,250
ALLATOONA CREEK, COBB CO., GA...............             206   SAD...............  SAM...............        300
ALLEN CREEK, HALL CNTY, GA..................             206   SAD...............  SAS...............        275
ARCOLA CREEK, MADISON, OH...................             206   LRD...............  LRB...............        600
ARKANSAS RIVER, ARK CITY, KS................             206   SWD...............  SWT...............      1,120
ARROWHEAD CREEK AT WILSONVILLE, OR..........             206   NWD...............  NWP...............      1,313
ARROYO LAS POSITAS, CA......................             206   SPD...............  SPN...............        161
BAYOU GROSSE TETE RESTORATION, IBERVILLE                 206   MVD...............  MVN...............        125
 PARISH, LA.
BEARGRASS CREEK, LOUISVILLE, KY., WETLANDS &             206   LRD...............  LRL...............        350
 REPARIAN RESTORATION.
BEAVER RUIN CREEK, GWINETT CO., GA..........             206   SAD...............  SAS...............        345
BELLE ISLE PIERS, DETROIT, MI...............             206   LRD...............  LRE...............         50
BELLE ISLE STATE PARK, LANCASTER COUNTY, VA.             206   NAD...............  NAO...............        754
BIG COTTON INDIAN CREEK, GA.................             206   SAD...............  SAS...............        275
BIG FISHWIER CREEK, FL......................             206   SAD...............  SAJ...............        163
BIRD ISLAND RESTORATION, MARION, MA.........             206   NAD...............  NAE...............      2,270
BLACK LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION............             206   POD...............  POA...............      3,460
BLACK LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION............             206   POD...............  POA...............      3,460
BLOOMINGTON, IN, WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT.......             206   LRD...............  LRL...............        150
BLUE HOLE LAKE, NM..........................             206   SPD...............  SPA...............        224
BLUE RIVER, CO (SEC. 206)...................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............        213
BOOTHEEL CREEK, FL..........................             206   SAD...............  SAJ...............        200
BOQUERON REFUGE, PR.........................             206   SAD...............  SAJ...............        345
BRIGHTWOOD LAKE, CONCORD....................             206   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
BROWNSVILLE BRANCH, LONOKE CO, AR...........             206   MVD...............  MVM...............        239
BRUSH NECK COVE, WARWICK, RI................             206   NAD...............  NAE...............        180
BUTLER CREEK, GA............................             206   SAD...............  SAM...............      3,700
C-1 REDIVERSION/LAGOON RESTORATION, BREVARD              206   SAD...............  SAJ...............        200
 COUNTY, FL.
CABIN CREEK, SPALDING CNTY..................             206   SAD...............  SAS...............        275
CABIN CREEK, WEST VIRGINIA..................             206   LRD...............  LRH...............        213
CAMP CREEK, ZUMWALT PRAIRIE PRESERVE, OR....             206   NWD...............  NWW...............        531
CANOA RANCH AQUATIC RESTORATION, AZ.........             206   SPD...............  SPL...............        362
CANONSBURG LAKE, PA.........................             206   LRD...............  LRP...............        300
CARPENTER CREEK, WASHINGTON.................             206   NWD...............  NWS...............      1,754
CARPINTERIA CREEK PARK, CA..................             206   SPD...............  SPL...............        140
CARSON RIVER CITY, NV.......................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............        500
CASS RIVER, CITY OF VASSAR, MI..............             206   LRD...............  LRE...............         73
CEDAR LAKE, IN..............................             206   LRD...............  LRC...............      7,560
CHAPEL BRANCH, SC...........................             206   SAD...............  SAC...............        340
CHAPEL BRANCH, SC...........................             206   SAD...............  SAC...............        167
CHARITON RIVER/RATHBUN LAKE WATERSHED, IA...             206   NWD...............  NWK...............      4,171
CHATTACHOOCHIE RIVER DAM REMOVAL, GA........             206   SAD...............  SAM...............      2,000
CHENANGO LAKE, NY...........................             206   NAD...............  NAB...............        200
CHEROKEE CREEK AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM                         206   SWD...............  SWT...............        195
 RESTORATION, OK.
CHINO CREEK, CA.............................             206   SPD...............  SPL...............        292
CHIPPOKES STATE PARK, SURRY COUNTY, VA......             206   NAD...............  NAO...............      1,177
CHRISTINE AND HICKSON DAMS..................             206   MVD...............  MVP...............        230
CIENEGA CREEK AQUATIC RESTORATION, AZ.......             206   SPD...............  SPL...............        100
CITY CREEK, UT..............................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............        225
CITY CREEK, UT..............................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............        145
CLEAR LAKE, IA..............................             206   MVD...............  MVR...............      2,467
CLEARWATER LAKE, GOGEBIC COUNTY, MI.........             206   LRD...............  LRE...............         75
CODORUS CREEK, PA...........................             206   NAD...............  NAB...............      1,200
COFFEE LAKE AT WILSONVILLE, OR..............             206   NWD...............  NWP...............        250
CONCORD STREAMS RESTORTION, CONCORD, NC.....             206   SAD...............  SAW...............      1,030
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY, WI....................             206   LRD...............  LRE...............        341
CONFLUENCE GREENWAY.........................             206   MVD...............  MVS...............        244
COTTONWOOD CREEK, ARLINGTON, TX.............             206   SWD...............  SWF...............        150
CROW CREEK AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,                206   SWD...............  SWT...............        195
 TULSA, OK.
CRUTCHO CREEK, OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OK.,                     206   SWD...............  SWT...............        250
 (ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PR).
CUYAHOGA RIVER STREAM PROJECT, AKRON, OH....             206   LRD...............  LRB...............         40
DAVIS LAKE RESTORATION......................             206   SAD...............  SAJ...............        300
DEEP RUN/TIBER HUDSON, MD...................             206   NAD...............  NAB...............        400
DENTS RUN, MD...............................             206   NAD...............  NAB...............      1,500
DETROIT RIVER, CITY OF TRENTON, MI..........             206   LRD...............  LRE...............        325
DOWAGIAC RIVER, CASSOPOLIS, MI..............             206   LRD...............  LRE...............        909
DRAYTON DAM.................................             206   MVD...............  MVP...............        300
DRY BRANCH CK, CITY OF LAWRENCE, MARION, CO.             206   LRD...............  LRL...............        100
DUCK CREEK/FAIRMOUNT PARK WETLAND RESTOR                 206   MVD...............  MVR...............        516
 SCOTT COUNTY, IA.
DUCK CREEK/FAIRMOUNT PARK WETLAND RESTOR                 206   MVD...............  MVR...............         78
 SCOTT COUNTY, IA.
EAST FORK WHITE RIVER, COLUMBUS, IN.........             206   LRD...............  LRL...............         80
EKLUTNA, AK.................................             206   POD...............  POA...............        200
EL PASO, RIO BOSQUE WETLANDS RESTORATION, TX             206   SPD...............  SPA...............        175
ELIZ RIVER, GRANDY VILLAGE, NORFOLK, VA.....             206   NAD...............  NAO...............        956
ELIZ RIVER, OLD DOMINION UNI DRAINAGE CANAL,             206   NAD...............  NAO...............        195
 NORFOLK, VA.
ELIZ RIVER, SCUFFLETOWN CREEK, CHESAPEAKE,               206   NAD...............  NAO...............        101
 VA.
ELIZ RIVER, WOODSTOCK PARK, VIRGINIA BEACH,              206   NAD...............  NAO...............        621
 VA.
EMIQUON FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION..............             206   MVD...............  MVR...............      4,644
ENGLISH CREEK...............................             206   SPD...............  SPL...............      1,122
EUGENE FIELD, IL............................             206   LRD...............  LRC...............        600
FAIRMOUNT PARK AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM                         206   SPD...............  SPL...............        297
 RESTORATION, CA.
FALL BROOK, PA..............................             206   NAD...............  NAB...............        500
FALLS RUN, WHEELING CREEK, BELMONT, OH......             206   LRD...............  LRP...............        119
FILBIN CREEK, SC............................             206   SAD...............  SAC...............        257
FOREST PARK, ST. LOUIS, MO..................             206   MVD...............  MVS...............        225
FOX RIVER/TICHIGAN LAKE, WATERFORD, WI......             206   LRD...............  LRE...............         75
FREEBORN COUNTY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MN...             206   MVD...............  MVR...............        214
FREEMAN LAKE WILDLIFE REFUGE, ELIZABETHTOWN,             206   LRD...............  LRL...............        181
 KY.
GALLA CREEK, AR.............................             206   SWD...............  SWL...............        793
GALVESTON COUNTY MUD 12 EXOSYSTEM                        206   SWD...............  SWG...............        200
 RESTORATION.
GIWW-MAD ISLAND MARSH, TX...................             206   SWD...............  SWG...............      4,950
GOOSE POND/MIAMI OXBOW......................             206   LRD...............  LRL...............         98
GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER ABOVE MIAMI, OK........             206   SWD...............  SWT...............        206
GRAND MARAIS RIVER, RLWSD...................             206   MVD...............  MVP...............      1,285
GRAND MARAIS RIVER, RLWSD...................             206   MVD...............  MVP...............        200
GRASS LAKE, FOX RIVER, IL...................             206   LRD...............  LRC...............      1,435
GREEN RIVER, UT.............................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............        100
GREENBURY POINT, MD.........................             206   NAD...............  NAB...............        700
GROVER'S MILL POND, TWP OF WINDSOR, MERCER               206   NAD...............  NAP...............        800
 COUNTY, NJ.
GUM THICKET CREEK, NC.......................             206   SAD...............  SAW...............        155
HAY CREEK, ROSEAU COUNTY, MN................             206   MVD...............  MVP...............      3,666
HERON HAVEN, NE.............................             206   NWD...............  NWO...............        459
HIGGINS LAKE, MI............................             206   LRD...............  LRE...............         75
HOCKING RIVER WETLANDS, LANCASTER, OH.......             206   LRD...............  LRH...............        662
HOCKING RIVER WETLANDS, LANCASTER, OH.......             206   LRD...............  LRH...............        264
HOFFMAN DAM, IL.............................             206   LRD...............  LRC...............      5,522
HOGAN'S CREEK, FL...........................             206   SAD...............  SAJ...............        200
HOMER LAKE, ST. JOSEPH RIVER................             206   LRD...............  LRE...............        469
HORICON MARSH, WI...........................             206   MVD...............  MVR...............        300
HORSESHOE LAKE RESTORATION, ALEXANDER                    206   MVD...............  MVS...............      2,193
 COUNTY, IL.
HORSESHOE LAKE RESTORATION, ALEXANDER                    206   MVD...............  MVS...............         10
 COUNTY, IL.
HOUGHTON LAKE, ROSCOMMON CO, MI.............             206   LRD...............  LRE...............        517
HUFF RUN, BELDON SITE, OH...................             206   LRD...............  LRH...............        734
HUFF RUN, BELDON SITE, OH...................             206   LRD...............  LRH...............        309
HUNTSVILLE SPRING BRANCH, HUNTSVILLE, AL....             206   LRD...............  LRN...............        800
HURON RIVER, ROCKWOOD, MI...................             206   LRD...............  LRE...............         75
IA RVR/CLEAR CREEK, JOHNSON COUNTY, IA......             206   MVD...............  MVR...............      1,580
IA RVR/CLEAR CREEK, JOHNSON COUNTY, IA......             206   MVD...............  MVR...............         80
INCLINE & 3RD CREEKS, NV....................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............        400
INDIAN CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,                      206   NWD...............  NWW...............      3,664
 CALDWELL, ID.
ISSAQUAH CREEK, WA..........................             206   NWD...............  NWS...............        709
JACKSON FISH PASSAGE PROJECT................             206   MVD...............  MVR...............         83
JANES-WALLACE MEMORIAL DAM, SANTA ROSA, NM..             206   SPD...............  SPA...............        200
JOHNSON CREEK/SPRINGWATER, OR...............             206   NWD...............  NWP...............        608
JOHNSON POND, LYNDONVILLE, NY...............             206   LRD...............  LRB...............        279
JONESBOROUGH (206), TN......................             206   LRD...............  LRN...............        215
KANKAKEE, KANKAKEE COUNTY, IL...............             206   MVD...............  MVR...............        196
KELLOGG CREEK, OR...........................             206   NWD...............  NWP...............        357
KETTLE MORAINE WET PRAIRIE RESTORATION, WI..             206   MVD...............  MVR...............        300
KEYSTONE HERITAGE PARK WETLAND RESTORATION,              206   SPD...............  SPA...............        200
 EL PASO, TX.
KICKAPOO CREEK, CONCHO RIVER, UPPER COLORADO             206   SWD...............  SWF...............        242
 RIVER BASIN, TX.
KINNICKINNIC RIVER, WI......................             206   MVD...............  MVP...............        200
KINNICKINNIC RIVER, WI......................             206   MVD...............  MVP...............         50
KOONTZ LAKE, IN (SEC. 206)..................             206   LRD...............  LRE...............      6,302
LA STATE PEN, LAKE KILLARNEY RESTORATION, W              206   MVD...............  MVN...............      1,600
 FELICIANA PAR, LA.
LAKE ANNA, LOUISA, ORANGE AND SPOTSYLVANIA               206   NAD...............  NAO...............        347
 COUNTIES, VA.
LAKE AUSTIN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, AUSTIN,               206   SWD...............  SWF...............        170
 TX.
LAKE BELLE VIEW AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM                        206   MVD...............  MVR...............      3,798
 RESTORATION, WI.
LAKE CONNESTEE, SC..........................             206   SAD...............  SAC...............        115
LAKE CONNESTEE, SC..........................             206   SAD...............  SAC...............         27
LAKE CYPRESS SPRINGS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, TX...             206   SWD...............  SWF...............        175
LAKE LOU YAEGER RESTORATION, IL.............             206   MVD...............  MVS...............        175
LAKE MAUVAISTERRE, JACKSONVILLE, IL.........             206   MVD...............  MVS...............        202
LAKE NATOMA, CA.............................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............        437
LAKE TSALA APOPKA...........................             206   SAD...............  SAJ...............          6
LAKE VERRET RESTORATION, ASSUMPTION PARISH,              206   MVD...............  MVN...............        706
 LA.
LEMAY WETLAND RESTORATION (SECTION 206).....             206   MVD...............  MVS...............         66
LEXINGTON ROAD PARK GREENWAY--JEFFERSON                  206   LRD...............  LRL...............         84
 COUNTY.
LICKING RIVER DAM REMOVAL, FALMOUTH, KY.....             206   LRD...............  LRL...............        100
LITTLE CUYAHOGA RIVER, AKRON, OH............             206   LRD...............  LRB...............         60
LITTLE RIVER WATERSHED, HALL COUNTY, GA.....             206   SAD...............  SAM...............      3,918
LOCKPORT PRAIRIE NATURE PRESERVE, WILL                   206   LRD...............  LRC...............      1,171
 COUNTY.
LONG LAKE, IN...............................             206   LRD...............  LRC...............        900
LOWER BLACKSTONE RIVER, RI..................             206   NAD...............  NAE...............        150
LOWER BOULDER CREEK, CO.....................             206   NWD...............  NWO...............        811
LOWER HEMPSTEAD HARBOR, VILLAGE OF SEA                   206   NAD...............  NAN...............        500
 CLIFF, NY.
LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER VALLEY, MILWAUKEE, WI.             206   LRD...............  LRE...............         75
LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, PAIUTE.................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............        100
LOWER WHITE ROCK CRK, DALLAS, TX............             206   SWD...............  SWF...............        250
LYNCHES RIVER, LAKE CITY, SC................             206   SAD...............  SAC...............      1,250
MALDEN RIVER ECOSYSTEM, MA..................             206   NAD...............  NAE...............         81
MALLETT'S CREEK, WASHTENAW COUNTY, MI.......             206   LRD...............  LRE...............        388
MANHAN DAM, EASTHAMPTON, MA.................             206   NAD...............  NAE...............        410
MANHASSET BAY, TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD, NY.,             206   NAD...............  NAN...............        350
 ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
MARION MILL POND, VILLAGE OF MARION, OSCEOLA             206   LRD...............  LRE...............        414
 COUNTY, MI.
MARYVILLE, TN...............................             206   LRD...............  LRN...............        275
MENOMONEE, WI...............................             206   LRD...............  LRE...............        150
MENTOR MARSH................................             206   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
MILFORD POND, MILFORD, MA...................             206   NAD...............  NAE...............      4,300
MILL CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION............             206   SAD...............  SAW...............         25
MILL CREEK RESTORATION AT MOREA, SCHUYLKILL              206   NAD...............  NAP...............        215
 COUNTY, PA.
MILL POND RESTORATION, NASHUA, NH...........             206   NAD...............  NAE...............        150
MILL POND, LITTLETON, MA....................             206   NAD...............  NAE...............        100
MILL RIVER, STAMFORD, CT....................             206   NAD...............  NAE...............      2,988
MINERAL BAYOU, DURANT, OK...................             206   SWD...............  SWT...............        133
MISSION CREEK, CA...........................             206   SPD...............  SPL...............        406
MISSOURI STREAM RESTORATION, MO.............             206   NWD...............  NWK...............        100
MOKUHINIA/MOKUULA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,                 206   POD...............  POH...............      1,356
 MAUI, HI.
MONGAUP WATERSHED ENVIRON. RESTORTION,                   206   NAD...............  NAP...............        165
 LIBERTY, SULLIVAN, NY.
MOSES LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, TEXAS                  206   SWD...............  SWG...............         30
 CITY, TX.
MUD CREEK, GREAT SOUTH BAY, PATCHOGUE, NY...             206   NAD...............  NAN...............        250
MULBERRY PLANTATION, SC.....................             206   SAD...............  SAC...............        197
NANTICOKE CREEK, LUZERNE COUNTY, PA.........             206   NAD...............  NAB...............        830
NARROWS RIVER, NARRAGANSETT, RI.............             206   NAD...............  NAE...............        180
NASHAWANNUCK POND, EASTHAMPTON, MA..........             206   NAD...............  NAE...............        715
NC OYSTER RESTORATION, NC...................             206   SAD...............  SAW...............        130
NEPONSET RIVER, BOSTON, MA..................             206   NAD...............  NAE...............        200
NFTA OUTER HARBOR...........................             206   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
NINIGRET & CROSS MILLS PONDS, CHARLESTOWN,               206   NAD...............  NAE...............        800
 RI.
NIPPERSINK CREEK............................             206   LRD...............  LRC...............        750
NOISETTE CREEK, SC..........................             206   SAD...............  SAC...............        194
NORTH BEACH, MD.............................             206   NAD...............  NAB...............        600
NORTH FORK GUNNISON, CO (206)...............             206   SPD...............  SPK...............      3,725
NORTH OTTAWA, MN............................             206   MVD...............  MVP...............      4,597
NORTH OTTAWA, MN............................             206   MVD...............  MVP...............        100
NORTH PARK, ALLEGHENY COUNTY................             206   LRD...............  LRP...............      3,272
NORTH SATUS DRAIN, YAKIMA, WA...............             206   NWD...............  NWS...............        135
NORTHWEST BRANCH, ANACOSTIA RIVER, MD.......             206   NAD...............  NAB...............      2,500
OAKS BOTTOM, OR.............................             206   NWD...............  NWP...............        103
OHIO RIVER GARVIN BROWN NATURE PRESERVE,                 206   LRD...............  LRL...............        302
 JEFFERSON COUNTY, K.
OHIO RIVER, HAYS KENNEDY PARK, LOUISVILLE,               206   LRD...............  LRL...............        100
 KY.
OLMOS CREEK, RESTORATION, SAN ANTONIO, TX...             206   SWD...............  SWF...............        749
ORE KNOB, NC AQUATIC RESTORATION............             206   LRD...............  LRH...............        900
OSGOOD POND RESTORATION, MILFORD, NH........             206   NAD...............  NAE...............         65
OTSEGO LAKE, MI.............................             206   LRD...............  LRE...............         75
PAINT BRANCH FISH PASSAGE, MD...............             206   NAD...............  NAB...............        400
PAINTERS CREEK, MN..........................             206   MVD...............  MVP...............      2,787
PARADISE CREEK, CITY OF MOSCOW, ID..........             206   NWD...............  NWW...............      2,717
PAUL DOUGLAS WOODS, SOUTH BARRINGTON, IL....             206   LRD...............  LRC...............        597
PECK LAKE, GENEVA, IL.......................             206   LRD...............  LRC...............        475
PIGS EYE LAKE...............................             206   MVD...............  MVP...............        410
PITCHER LAKE OXBOW RESTORATION..............             206   LRD...............  LRL...............         99
POCOTALIGO RIVER AND SWAMP ECOSYSTEM                     206   SAD...............  SAC...............        494
 RESTORATION, SC.
PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WA.......................             206   NWD...............  NWS...............      4,365
PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WA.......................             206   NWD...............  NWS...............         68
POTASH BROOK, NY............................             206   NAD...............  NAN...............        500
QUINCY BAY, IL..............................             206   MVD...............  MVR...............        300
QUONOCHONTAUG POND, CHARLESTOWN, RI.........             206   NAD...............  NAE...............         70
RANSOM CREEK, AMHERST.......................             206   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
RED OAK CREEK TRIBUTARY, RED OAK, TX........             206   SWD...............  SWF...............        175
REEDY RIVER, SC.............................             206   SAD...............  SAC...............        674
REEDY RIVER, SC.............................             206   SAD...............  SAC...............        247
REEVES CREEK, CLAYTON CNTY..................             206   SAD...............  SAS...............        275
RINCON CREEK................................             206   SPD...............  SPL...............        393
RIO GRANDE, LAREDO, TX......................             206   SWD...............  SWF...............      2,277
RIO GRANDE, LAREDO, TX......................             206   SWD...............  SWF...............         61
ROSCOE'S CUT, MACINTOSH.....................             206   SAD...............  SAS...............        150
RUN POND COASTAL ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA..             206   NAD...............  NAE...............        195
SALMON RIVER, CHALLIS, ID...................             206   NWD...............  NWW...............      3,315
SALT RIVER RESTORATON, CA...................             206   SPD...............  SPN...............        350
SAN MARCOS RIVER, SAN MARCOS, TX............             206   SWD...............  SWF...............        439
SAV HARBOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION............             206   SAD...............  SAS...............        275
SAXIS ISLAND, ACCOMACK COUNTY, VA...........             206   NAD...............  NAO...............      1,503
SAXMAN RUN..................................             206   LRD...............  LRP...............        188
SECORD AND SMALLWOOD LAKES, GLADWIN COUNTY,              206   LRD...............  LRE...............        381
 MI.
SHAMROCK LAKE, CITY OF CLARE, MI............             206   LRD...............  LRE...............         75
SHERADEN PARK & CHARTIERS CR, PA............             206   LRD...............  LRP...............        500
SHIREY BAY/RAINEY BRAKE WMA.................             206   SWD...............  SWL...............         50
SOUNDVIEW PARK, CITY OF BRONX, NY...........             206   NAD...............  NAN...............        400
SOUTH FORK NOOKSACK RIVER, WA...............             206   NWD...............  NWS...............         82
SOUTH NEWPORT RIVER 207.....................             206   SAD...............  SAS...............        300
SOUTH PARK LAKE.............................             206   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
SOUTHAMPTON CREEK, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION             206   NAD...............  NAP...............        139
SPRING CREEK, NY............................             206   NAD...............  NAN...............        350
SPRING LAKE, MI.............................             206   LRD...............  LRE...............         75
SPRING LAKE, SAN MARCOS, TX.................             206   SWD...............  SWF...............      1,241
SPRINGFIELD MILLRACE, OR....................             206   NWD...............  NWP...............      3,134
SQAW CREEK, IL..............................             206   LRD...............  LRC...............      2,947
SQUAK VALLEY PARK RESTORATION, WA...........             206   NWD...............  NWS...............        619
STEVENSON CREEK, CLEARWATER, FL.............             206   SAD...............  SAJ...............      2,867
STORM LAKE, IA..............................             206   MVD...............  MVR...............      2,172
SULPHUR CREEK AQUATIC RESTORATION, LAGUNA                206   SPD...............  SPL...............      1,200
 NIGUEL, CA.
SWEETWATER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA........             206   SPD...............  SPL...............      1,585
SWEETWATER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA........             206   SPD...............  SPL...............        285
SYRACUSE LAKEFRONT, ONONDAGA, NY............             206   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
TAMARISK ERADICATION, CO....................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............        304
TEN MILE RIVER, RI..........................             206   NAD...............  NAE...............        935
THOMPSON CREEK RESTORATION..................             206   SPD...............  SPN...............        400
THREE CREEKS ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, OH..             206   LRD...............  LRH...............        902
THREE CREEKS ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, OH..             206   LRD...............  LRH...............        412
TIDAL MIDDLE BRANCH, MD.....................             206   NAD...............  NAB...............        500
TILLAMOOK BAY & ESTUARY, OR.................             206   NWD...............  NWP...............        150
TOLEDO BEND RESERVOIR, TX & LA..............             206   SWD...............  SWF...............        300
TREATS POND, COHASSET, MA...................             206   NAD...............  NAE...............        700
TURKEY CREEK REST., FL......................             206   SAD...............  SAJ...............        320
TURTLE BAY, CA..............................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............        250
UNDERWOOD CREEK, WAUWATOSA, WI..............             206   LRD...............  LRE...............        295
UNIVERSITY LAKES RESTORATION, EAST BATON                 206   MVD...............  MVN...............      1,000
 ROUGE PARISH, LA.
UPPER JORDAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, UT             206   SPD...............  SPK...............      3,270
UPPER YORK CREEK DAM REMOVAL, CA............             206   SPD...............  SPN...............        550
VALLEY CREEK PARK WETLAND RESTORATION, EL                206   SPD...............  SPA...............        175
 PASO, TX.
VERMILLION RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,                  206   MVD...............  MVN...............      1,000
 LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA.
WALNUT BRANCH, SEGUIN, TX (SEC. 206)........             206   SWD...............  SWF...............      1,488
WANAMAKER WETLANDS, KS......................             206   NWD...............  NWK...............        150
WATAUGA, NC, AQUATIC RESTORATION............             206   LRD...............  LRH...............      2,240
WATAUGA, NC, AQUATIC RESTORATION............             206   LRD...............  LRH...............        230
WATKINS CREEK, ST. LOUIS, MO................             206   MVD...............  MVS...............        200
WEBER RIVER, UT (SEC. 206)..................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............        100
WEST JORDAN RIVER, UT.......................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............        480
WEST JORDAN RIVER, UT.......................             206   SPD...............  SPK...............          7
WESTERN BRANCH, PATUXENT, MD................             206   NAD...............  NAB...............      1,200
WESTERN CARY STREAMS RESTORATION, CARY, NC..             206   SAD...............  SAW...............         30
WESTMORELAND PARK, OR.......................             206   NWD...............  NWP...............      1,661
WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL                     206   SPD...............  SPK...............        200
 FACILITY, LODI, CA.
WHITEBREAST WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,             206   MVD...............  MVR...............      3,945
 IA.
WHITEBREAST WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,             206   MVD...............  MVR...............        121
 IA.
WILSON BAY RESTORATION, JACKSONVILLE, NC....             206   SAD...............  SAW...............      2,356
WILSON BRANCH, SC...........................             206   SAD...............  SAC...............         44
WILSON PARK CREEK, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI.....             206   LRD...............  LRE...............         75
WINDOM FISH PASSAGE, MN.....................             206   MVD...............  MVR...............        225
WINNAPAUG POND, WESTERLY, RI................             206   NAD...............  NAE...............      1,120
WISWALL DAM, DURHAM, NH.....................             206   NAD...............  NAE...............  .........
WOLF PEN CREEK, COLLEGE STATION, TX.........             206   SWD...............  SWF...............        300
WOOD CANYON AQUATIC RESTORATION, LAGUNA                  206   SPD...............  SPL...............        661
 NIGUEL, CA.
WOOD CANYON AQUATIC RESTORATION, LAGUNA                  206   SPD...............  SPL...............         50
 NIGUEL, CA.
WWTP, MERIDIAN, TX..........................             206   SWD...............  SWF...............        246
ZEMUARRY PARK LAKE RESTORATION, TANGIPAHOA               206   MVD...............  MVN...............        225
 PARISH, LA.
BLACKWELL LAKE, BLACKWELL, OK...............             208   SWD...............  SWT...............        310
DICKENSON COUNTY, VA., SEC. 208.............             208   LRD...............  LRH...............         60
ALLIN'S COVE, BARRINGTON, RI................            1135   NAD...............  NAE...............          5
BAYOU DESIARD, MONROE, LA...................            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............      1,707
BOYD'S SALT MARSH RESTORATION, RI...........            1135   NAD...............  NAE...............        203
DELAWARE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION, NJ.........            1135   NAD...............  NAP...............        783
ECOSYSTEM REVITALIZATION @ ROUTE 66.........            1135   SPD...............  SPA...............      3,637
KANAHA POND WILDLIFE SANCTUARY RESTORATION,             1135   POD...............  POH...............      1,690
 MAUI, HI.
LAKE ST. JOSEPH, TENSAS PARISH, LA..........            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............        142
LOWER KINGMAN ISLAND........................            1135   NAD...............  NAB...............        110
PRISON FARM SHORELINE HABITAT, ND...........            1135   NWD...............  NWO...............         74
RATHBUN LAKE HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT, IA            1135   NWD...............  NWK...............        858
BENNINGTON LAKE DIVERSION DAM, WA...........            1135   NWD...............  NWW...............        338
BLOOMINGTON AREA RESTORATION, LONG BRANCH               1135   NWD...............  NWK...............         25
 LAKE, MO.
BLUE VALLEY WETLANDS, JACKSON CO., MO.......            1135   NWD...............  NWK...............         19
FERN RIDGE LAKE MARSH RESTORATION, OR.......            1135   NWD...............  NWP...............         30
GREEN RIVER DAM, OUTLET WORKS MODIFICATIONS,            1135   LRD...............  LRL...............        200
 KY.
LOWER COLUMBIA SLOUGH, OR...................            1135   NWD...............  NWP...............      1,605
STEEP BANK CREEK, FELSENTAL NWR, AR.........            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............         59
WALLA WALLA RIVER SECTION 1135, OR..........            1135   NWD...............  NWW...............        824
ACADEMY CREEK, HALL CNTY....................            1135   SAD...............  SAS...............        275
AGUA FRIA RIVER RIPARIAN RESTORATION........            1135   SPD...............  SPL...............         96
AMITE RIVER DIVERSION SPOIL BANK GAPPING,               1135   MVD...............  MVN...............        125
 LIVINGSTON PH, LA.
AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION @ PUBLO OF SANTA            1135   SPD...............  SPA...............        335
 ANA, NM.
ARK. RVR ENV REST, LK DARDANELLE,                       1135   SWD...............  SWL...............         10
 RUSSELLVILLE & FT. SMITH, AR.
ARKANSAS RIVER, GARDEN CITY, KS.............            1135   SWD...............  SWT...............        145
ASHLEY CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, UT......            1135   SPD...............  SPK...............        259
ASSUNPINK CREEK, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION..            1135   NAD...............  NAP...............      2,976
AUGRES RIVER, ARENAC COUNTY, MI.............            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............        284
BACK RIVER, CHATHAM COUNTY, GA..............            1135   SAD...............  SAS...............        275
BATTLE ISLAND, WI...........................            1135   MVD...............  MVP...............        530
BATTLE ISLAND, WI...........................            1135   MVD...............  MVP...............         50
BAYOU MACON, E&W CARROLL & FRANKLIN                     1135   MVD...............  MVK...............      2,647
 PARISHES, LA.
BAYOU MACON, LAKE VILLAGE, AR...............            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............        600
BELHAVEN HARBOR ENVIRON, NC.................            1135   SAD...............  SAW...............        170
BELLEVIEW WETLANDS, CO......................            1135   NWD...............  NWO...............        150
BIG LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OK..........            1135   SWD...............  SWT...............        408
BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, CLARKSDALE, MS.........            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............        168
BLOOMINGTON AREA RESTORATION, LONG BRANCH               1135   NWD...............  NWK...............        150
 LAKE, MO.
BLUE VALLEY WETLANDS, JACKSON CO., MO.......            1135   NWD...............  NWK...............        941
BRAIDED REACH...............................            1135   NWD...............  NWS...............      4,765
BRAIDED REACH...............................            1135   NWD...............  NWS...............        256
BROAD MEADOWS MARSH RESTORATION, MA.........            1135   NAD...............  NAE...............      1,888
BUFFALO RIVER HABITAT.......................            1135   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
BULL CREEK CHANNEL ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA            1135   SPD...............  SPL...............      2,090
C-102/103 RESTORATION, DADE COUNTY, FL......            1135   SAD...............  SAJ...............        200
C-7 MIAMI-DADE, FL..........................            1135   SAD...............  SAJ...............        224
C-9, MIAMI-DADE, FL.........................            1135   SAD...............  SAJ...............        250
CALOOSAHATCHEE OXBO.........................            1135   SAD...............  SAJ...............        330
CANNON BRAKE/LOWER VALLIER, ARK & JEFFERSON             1135   MVD...............  MVK...............      1,157
 COUNTIES, AR.
CAYUGA LAKE INLET, ITHACA...................            1135   LRD...............  LRB...............        200
CDF NO. 3, OREGON, OH.......................            1135   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
CITY OF RICHLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA..            1135   NWD...............  NWW...............      1,327
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH.........................            1135   LRD...............  LRB...............        225
CROCKERY CREEK LAMPREY BARRIER, MI..........            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............        100
CUCAMONGA AND DEER CREEK CHANNELS ECOSYSTEM             1135   SPD...............  SPL...............        152
 RESTORATION, CA.
DADE COUNTY, FL.............................            1135   SAD...............  SAJ...............        217
DILLON LAKE, OH., SECTION 1135..............            1135   LRD...............  LRH...............        900
DUCK CREEK, STODDARD COUNTY, MO.............            1135   MVD...............  MVM...............      3,243
DUMP LAKE, YAZOO COUNTY, MS.................            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............        116
EAGLELAND HABITAT RESTORATION, SAN ANTONIO,             1135   SWD...............  SWF...............        328
 TX.
EAST HARBOR STATE PARK, WEST HARBOR, OH.....            1135   LRD...............  LRB...............         96
ESTRAL BEACH, NEWPORT, MI...................            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............         75
FAIRMOUNT DAM, PA...........................            1135   NAD...............  NAP...............      1,452
FLINT RIVER AND SWARTZ CREEK, FLINT, MI.....            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............        390
FRAZIER/WHITEHORSE OXBOW LAKE WEIR, LA......            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............      1,269
GERRITESEN CREEK, BROOKLYN, NY..............            1135   NAD...............  NAN...............      3,700
GULL POINT, PRESQUE ISLE, ERIE, PA..........            1135   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
HNC MILE 12-31.4 RESTORATION, TERREBONNE                1135   MVD...............  MVN...............      2,500
 PARISH, LA.
HOOSIC RIVER, TOWN OF ADAMS, MA.............            1135   NAD...............  NAN...............        400
HOVEY LAKE WILDLIFE AREA HABITAT                        1135   LRD...............  LRL...............        480
 DEVELOPMENT, IN.
HOYT LAKE--SCAJAQUADA CREEK, BUFFALO, NY....            1135   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
INDIAN RIDGE MARSH, CHICAGO, IL.............            1135   LRD...............  LRC...............      1,244
JOE CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION, TULSA, OK....            1135   SWD...............  SWT...............      3,775
JOPPA PRESERVE RESTORATION, TX..............            1135   SWD...............  SWF...............      3,905
KALAMAZOO RIVER, BATTLE CREEK, MI...........            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............        409
KAUNAKAKAI STREAM ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION,            1135   POD...............  POH...............        342
 MOLOKAI, HI.
KAWAINUI MARSH ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION,               1135   POD...............  POH...............      4,034
 OAHU, HI.
KEITH LAKE FISH PASS, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX..            1135   SWD...............  SWG...............        200
KIDS CREEK, TRAVERSE CITY, MI...............            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............         50
LAKE CHAMPLAIN SEA LAMPREY BARRIERS.........            1135   NAD...............  NAN...............        200
LAKE FAUSSE POINT ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, ST.            1135   MVD...............  MVN...............        250
 MARY PARISH, LA.
LAKE GEORGE RESTORATION, YAZOO COUNTY, MS...            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............      1,160
LAKE JESSUP.................................            1135   SAD...............  SAJ...............      2,862
LAKE POYGAN, WI.............................            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............        627
LAKE ST. JOSEPH, TENSAS PARISH, LA..........            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............      3,329
LAS CRUCES DAM ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION,               1135   SPD...............  SPA...............        450
 DONA ANA COUNTY, NM.
LEWISVILLE LAKE, FRISCO, TX.................            1135   SWD...............  SWF...............      1,430
LONG BRANCH LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION......            1135   NWD...............  NWK...............        174
LONGWOOD COVE WETLANDS, GAINESVILLE, GA.....            1135   SAD...............  SAM...............      2,250
LOWER CACHE RIVER, AR., 1135................            1135   MVD...............  MVM...............        750
LOWER DECATUR BEND, NE., IA.................            1135   NWD...............  NWO...............      2,392
LOWER DEER CREEK, MS........................            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............        171
LOWER OBION RIVER & VICINITY, DYER COUNTY,              1135   MVD...............  MVM...............      2,709
 TN.
LOWER ROUGE, ROTUNDA DR. AND I-94, MI.......            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............      2,710
MANISTEE RIVER LAMPREY BARRIER, MI..........            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............        100
MAPES CREEK, WA.............................            1135   NWD...............  NWS...............      1,961
MARK TWAIN LAKE FISH HABITAT, MO............            1135   MVD...............  MVS...............        150
MILLWOOD, GRASSY LAKE, AR., SECTION 1135....            1135   SWD...............  SWL...............         50
MONROE LAKE, IN, MOIST SOIL UNITS...........            1135   LRD...............  LRL...............        100
MORDECAI ISLAND COASTAL WETLANDS, NJ........            1135   NAD...............  NAP...............        750
MORGANZA FOREBAY RESTORATION, POINTE COUPEE             1135   MVD...............  MVN...............        225
 PH, LA.
MT. ETNA/MT. HOPE WETLANDS, SALAMONIE LAKE,             1135   LRD...............  LRL...............        142
 IN.
MURPHY SLOUGH, CA...........................            1135   SPD...............  SPK...............        291
NB PENTWATER RIVER LAMPREY TRAP, MI.........            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............        100
NFTA OUTER HARBOR...........................            1135   LRD...............  LRB...............        100
NMLC, BUZZARD BAY, MA.......................            1135   NAD...............  NAE...............        430
NORFORK TAILWATER RESTORATION, AR...........            1135   SWD...............  SWL...............         50
NORTH NASHUA RIVER, FITCHBURG, MA...........            1135   NAD...............  NAE...............        110
NORTHPORT HARBOR, TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, NY....            1135   NAD...............  NAN...............        350
O.C. FISHER LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, TX..            1135   SWD...............  SWF...............      3,791
OLD MAIN STEM TRINITY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,            1135   SWD...............  SWF...............        175
 DALLAS, TX.
OLD RIVER NORTH, CONCORDIA PARISH, LA.......            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............        175
OLD TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL WILDLIFE                      1135   SWD...............  SWF...............      1,949
 RESTORATION, DALLES, TX.
PALM RIVER RESORATION.......................            1135   SAD...............  SAJ...............        356
PINE MOUNT CREEK............................            1135   NAD...............  NAP...............      2,900
PONCE DE LEON AIWW..........................            1135   SAD...............  SAJ...............        109
POND CREEK, NJ..............................            1135   NAD...............  NAP...............        750
RAHWAY RIVER, CITY OF RAHWAY, NJ............            1135   NAD...............  NAN...............        300
RATHBUN SHORELINE SITE RESTORATION APPANOOSE            1135   NWD...............  NWK...............        412
 & MONROE CO., IA.
RESTORATION OF GRASS DALE, DE...............            1135   NAD...............  NAP...............      1,012
ROCHESTER HARBOR NAVIGATION CHANNEL, NY.....            1135   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
ROCK CREEK @ BOYLE PARK, LITTLE ROCK, AR....            1135   SWD...............  SWL...............        660
ROCK CREEK @ BOYLE PARK, LITTLE ROCK, AR....            1135   SWD...............  SWL...............        150
ROUGE RIVER OXBOW, WAYNE CO., MI............            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............        415
RUFFY BROOK AND CLEARWATER RIVER............            1135   MVD...............  MVP...............      1,054
SALT CEDAR INVASIVE SPECIES ERADICATION/                1135   NWD...............  NWK...............        125
 RESTORATION, NE.
SAND HILL RIVER.............................            1135   MVD...............  MVP...............        818
SARASOTA BAY RESTORATION, FL................            1135   SAD...............  SAJ...............        400
SCHMIDT CREEK, PRESQUE ISLE COUNTY, MI......            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............         50
SEA LAMPREY BARRIER, MANISTIQUE, MI.........            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............        349
SEA LAMPREY BARRIER, PAW PAW, MI............            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............        725
SHELBYVILLE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA                    1135   MVD...............  MVS...............      3,530
 RESTORATION, IL.
SHELDON'S MARSH, HURON/SANDUSKY, OH.........            1135   LRD...............  LRB...............        151
SHORTY'S ISLAND.............................            1135   NWD...............  NWS...............      4,365
SHORTY'S ISLAND.............................            1135   NWD...............  NWS...............        679
SMITHVILLE ACQUATIC PLANTINGS...............            1135   NWD...............  NWK...............        520
SMOKES CREEK, ERIE COUNTY, NY...............            1135   LRD...............  LRB...............        499
SPUNKY BOTTOMS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL....            1135   MVD...............  MVS...............         97
STEAMBOAT CREEK, WASHOE COUNTY, NV..........            1135   SPD...............  SPK...............        120
STEAMBOAT CREEK, WASHOE COUNTY, NV..........            1135   SPD...............  SPK...............        129
STEEP BANK CREEK, FELSENTAL NWR, AR.........            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............        739
SUCKER RIVER, ALGER COUNTY, MI..............            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............         87
TAPPAN LAKE, OH., SEC. 1135.................            1135   LRD...............  LRH...............        826
TAYLOR BAY, WOODRUFF COUNTY, AR.............            1135   SWD...............  SWL...............        124
TAYLORS BAYOU, PORT ARTHUR, TX..............            1135   SWD...............  SWG...............        370
TIMES BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT,                  1135   LRD...............  LRB...............  .........
 BUFFALO, NY.
TRAIL CREEK, LAPORTE COUNTY, IN.............            1135   LRD...............  LRE...............         50
TUJUNGA WASH ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA..            1135   SPD...............  SPL...............        500
UMBRELLA CREEK, CAMDEN CNTY.................            1135   SAD...............  SAS...............        200
UPPER DEER CREEK, MS. DELTA, MS.............            1135   MVD...............  MVK...............        161
UPPER ROUGE, MICHIGAN AVE. TO ROTUNDA DR.,              1135   LRD...............  LRE...............      2,710
 MI.
VIRGINIA BEACH KEY, FL (SEC. 1135)..........            1135   SAD...............  SAJ...............        300
WELLS LOCK AND DAM, ELIZABETH, WV...........            1135   LRD...............  LRH...............        250
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY......................            1135   NAD...............  NAB...............      4,300
WHITTIER NARROWS NATURE CENTER & WILDLIFE               1135   SPD...............  SPL...............      1,559
 REFUGE RESTORATION.
WHITTIER NARROWS NATURE CENTER & WILDLIFE               1135   SPD...............  SPL...............        270
 REFUGE RESTORATION.
WILLS CREEK, MASON MINE 280, OH.............            1135   LRD...............  LRH...............      1,150
WILLS CREEK, MASON MINE 280, OH.............            1135   LRD...............  LRH...............         50
WOOD DUCK MARSH, IA.........................            1135   NWD...............  NWK...............        100
WOODSON BRIDGE, CA (SEC. 1135)..............            1135   SPD...............  SPK...............        300
WOODSON BRIDGE, CA (SEC. 1135)..............            1135   SPD...............  SPK...............        150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information in the form of Budget Justification Sheets 
is posted at: http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwb/just_states/
just_states.html
    The CAP projects approved for fiscal year 2008 budgeting are listed 
under the FDR, NAV, and ENV business line sections in the 
justifications.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                       REBUILDING THE GULF COAST

    Question. General Strock, can you please provide an update on the 
progress the Corps making with regard to levee improvements, canal 
upgrades and increased pumping capacity in New Orleans?
    Answer. Sir, we are making steady progress on the environmental 
assessments, designs and initiation of levees and floodwall 
improvements throughout the Greater New Orleans area. For the hurricane 
protection system we have awarded 34 construction contracts to date for 
levees and floodwalls, and pump station repairs. We are prepared to 
award 30 more contracts within the next 60 days subject to favorable 
bids and availability of funds.
    We have completed construction of temporary gates on the outfall 
canals at Lake Pontchartrain which provide protection from hurricane 
surge. These temporary gates provide protection to the canals beginning 
this hurricane season.
    The previously installed pumps at the three outfall canals are 
being modified to achieve their full design capacity. All pumps will be 
modified, reinstalled and tested by June 1. By 1 June with the addition 
of portable pumps at 17th Street Canal, we will achieve a capacity of 
5,200 cubic feet per second at 17th Street Canal, 2,200 cubic feet per 
second at Orleans Canal, and 2,800 cubic feet per second at London 
Avenue Canal.
    Work is underway to install additional pumps at 17th Street Canal 
and London Avenue Canal. By mid-August we will achieve pumping capacity 
of 7,600 cubic feet per second at 17th Street Canal and 5,000 cubic 
feet per second at London Avenue canal.
    Question. Can you also address the issue of poor quality control by 
contractors supporting the rebuilding effort?
    Answer. Sir, any allegation of poor quality control is taken very 
seriously and immediately addressed by the Corps. For the rebuilding 
effort we have a comprehensive quality management plan for all phases 
of the ongoing work. This is the basis for assuring that we deliver the 
hurricane protection system to meet all safety, regulatory, 
environmental and legal requirements. We implemented quality control 
and quality assurance procedures from the outset. These procedures were 
thoroughly reviewed by representatives of the Army Audit Agency 
embedded with Task Force Guardian. Army Audit Agency auditors reported 
very favorably on those procedures, which continue today and will 
continue through completion of hurricane protection system.
    Question. Are you confident the Corps is doing its best to control 
costs on this massive project?
    Answer. Sir, we are aware of increases in construction costs in the 
Greater New Orleans area in the post-Katrina environment. The Corps is 
aggressively seeking ways to manage construction costs by using 
innovative acquisition strategies including ``Design-Build'' and ``Best 
Value'' approaches to encourage innovation. We are implementing value 
engineering and earned-value management, and are seeking external 
reviews by industry experts and academia to ensure we do all we can to 
deliver this system in a cost efficient manner.

                           ALBUQUERQUE LEVEES

    Question. General. Strock, the Corps of Engineers abruptly 
announced 122 levees of concern in a press event last month. This 
public event highlighted the national concern about the adequacy of 
flood control, changes in levee design requirements, and the efficacy 
of the Corps inspection of completed works program.
    For 3 years, I have supported evaluation of levees in New Mexico 
with focus on the Albuquerque system and I am anticipating completion 
of a project report outlining rehabilitation needs this summer.
    However, the lack of coordination of the Corps national 
communication approach and the New Mexico specific activities was 
disconnected and has created a great deal of local confusion.
    Please explain how the Corps proposes to approach the need for 
rehabilitation of flood control in New Mexico and the Nation as a whole 
that was highlighted by the recent levee restoration program 
announcements?
    Answer. Sir, there has been a recent surge of concern regarding the 
condition of levees throughout the Nation as a result of Hurricane 
Katrina. Following release of the listing of national levees of 
concern, the Corps has notified levee project owners/sponsors and the 
appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies of projects with 
unacceptable inspection ratings. The Corps is currently working to 
ensure maintenance requirements are being met and will permit sponsors 
to have a one-year maintenance deficiency grace period to make repairs 
and corrections before a levee is removed from the Rehabilitation and 
Inspection Program under Public Law 84-99.
    On a national and regional level, the Corps is coordinating its 
levee inventory information with the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) for its use in making decisions in the National Flood 
Insurance Program. Although these are separate programs, data from the 
levee inventory will be available to support levee certification as 
part of FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program.
    In 2005, Congress provided the Corps of Engineers with 
authorization and funding to evaluate the condition of the Albuquerque 
Levees. This evaluation, scheduled for completion in May 2007, will 
describe the existing condition of the levee system and determine the 
extent and costs of rehabilitation needed. Additional authorization and 
funding would be required to proceed with levee rehabilitation.
    Question. Please explain how the Corps will balance competing 
Federal requirements for endangered species issues and habitat 
protection and flood control along the Middle Rio Grande?
    Answer. Sir, the Corps will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS), the State of New Mexico and our numerous 
stakeholders regarding threatened and endangered species within any 
project location in relation to the Albuquerque Levees. Species 
potentially occurring within proposed project areas include the 
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Rio Grande silvery minnow Critical 
Habitat, and the Bald Eagle.
    Based on this coordination, a formal consultation with the USFWS 
and a Biological Assessment regarding these species may be required. 
Additional coordination with the USFWS for preparation of a Fish and 
Wildlife Coordination Act Report would also be required.
    The Corps would work closely with USFWS as well as other 
stakeholder agencies such as the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 
District, City of Albuquerque, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Environmental Protection Agency and local 
villages and pueblos as well as interested parties such as Tree New 
Mexico, Hawks Aloft, and others to coordinate issues and comments in 
order to protect species and their habitat while implementing proposed 
construction.
    Most of the potential construction areas would be located within 
and adjacent to the existing levee alignment. Much of the vegetation in 
these areas consists of native cottonwood, Gooding's willow and non-
native vegetation such as salt cedar, Russian olive, Siberian elm and 
Tree of Heaven. Currently, these species are not being removed while 
the levee integrity is being evaluated. If the proposed action were to 
remove trees within a certain distance of the levee, many of them would 
be non-native species but some would be the native species listed 
above. These native species, and future woody species that would have 
occupied this space, would potentially need to be mitigated for in some 
way.

   CENTRAL NM ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM (SEC 593) AND NEW 
              MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM

    Question. In what way will the Corps accelerate the resolution of 
these administrative issues so that the section 593 and 595 programs 
can proceed and be effective?
    Answer. Sir, we have recently resolved the administrative issues 
regarding the use of State grant funds for section 593 and 595 projects 
that have executed Project Cooperation Agreements (PCAs). Subject to 
the availability of funds and consistent with administration policy, a 
three party Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) can be executed for each such 
project to permit use of the State of New Mexico funding. For future 
projects, we are negotiating with the State on the use of a modified 
section 593/595 PCA format that will include the State as a limited 
participant, for purposes of reviewing and commenting on documents, and 
providing and receiving funds. This should meet the needs of both the 
State and the Government.

                                  R&D

    Question. Can you please provide my office a briefing on the 
results of these multiple demonstration programs, plans for continued 
development and propagation of these advanced decision approaches, and 
an assessment of whether additional authorities are needed to fully 
implement the program in IWR and the R&D programs?
    Answer. Yes Senator, we can arrange a briefing for you. A 
representative from my staff will contact your office in the near 
future.
    Question. Flooding, levee management, supplying water resources, 
maintaining irrigation works, reducing storage loss in reservoirs, and 
ecological restoration are all dependent on sound understanding of 
sediment movement. The Corps has an advanced program for research for 
eastern river systems. It is time to expand this program dramatically 
for rivers in the arid southwest.
    Can you please provide my office a briefing on the status of the 
Southwest Flood Damage Development and Demonstration Program, an 
overall program plan for continued research and expansion of the 
program as well as an assessment of any authorities needed to continue 
this critical work?
    Answer. Yes Senator, we can arrange a briefing for you. A 
representative from my staff will contact you office in the near 
future.
                                 ______
                                 
            Question Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett

    Question. Although the committee has provided specific funding to 
the Rural Utah  595 account, the Army Corps has on two separate 
occasions reprogrammed nearly $1.5 million dollars to spend on projects 
in other States. These missing funds could complete several 
infrastructure projects in Utah that are now on hold because of lack of 
funding for this program. The Army Corps has assured me that these 
``borrowed'' funds will be replaced, but has not given a timeline. Will 
you please provide your timeline for replacing these funds?
    Answer. Sir, due to restricted funding levels and the Army Corps' 
limited ability to reprogram funds, there is no existing timeline to 
reprogram funds to the Rural Utah & 595 account to replace funds that 
were reprogrammed out of the program in prior years. However, we are 
committed to reviewing funding opportunities in future years to 
identify possible methods for reprogramming funds back into the Rural 
Utah program. For the current fiscal year (2007), we believe that there 
are sufficient unobligated funds available within the Rural Utah 
program to support any funding needs that may arise.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig

                   SNAKE RIVER PROGRAMMATIC SEDIMENT

    Question. Does the fiscal year 2008 budget request provide 
sufficient funding to complete the Snake River Programmatic Sediment 
Management Plan by its 2009 due date? If not: How does the Corps intend 
to provide potential navigation maintenance if it is needed prior to 
completion of the plan?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2008 budget does not provide sufficient 
funding to complete the plan by the date identified in the settlement 
agreement, which was December 2009. There was no funding budgeted for 
fiscal year 2006 and the entire fiscal year 2007 was spent in a CRA. 
Walla Walla District was only able to fund some scoping activities and 
minor base-line condition evaluations during this period. However, the 
bulk of the cost and schedule for the development of the management 
plan is associated with base-line conditions data collection in the 
areas of sediment transport and deposition, aquatic habitat, and water 
quality. To date, we have not been able to initiate any of this data 
collection. It has been determined that 3-years worth of data is 
required to obtain valid information in these areas. This information 
is critical to ensure that the results of the plan are credible and 
defensible. As a result of funding limitations the past 2 years, the 
schedule for this plan has slipped 2 years. The current schedule for 
the completion of this plan is now December 2011, subject to the 
availability of funding.
    The Corps typically dredges within the Snake River navigation 
channel every 3 to 5 years, the last time was in 2006. We are aware of 
two areas in the Snake River navigation channel that are already 
experiencing some sediment deposition. As a result, we fully recognize 
that some dredging of the navigation channel may be required to 
maintain adequate navigation prior to completing the management plan in 
2011. Therefore, we are closely monitoring the areas currently 
experiencing problems, and are developing contingency plans in case 
interim dredging is necessary.
    Question. I'm curious about the Corps' position on whether or not 
intrastate waters are jurisdictional under 404?
    Answer. Some intrastate waters may be found jurisdictional under 
the Clean Water Act (CWA) where they are in accordance with the Rapanos 
decision (2006). For example, lakes that are determined to waters of 
the State (i.e., the Great Salt Lake) are jurisdictional under the CWA. 
Waters that are determined to navigable waters will also be 
jurisdictional. Where the water body (i.e., lake) flows into a 
tributary system that flows into traditional navigable water are also 
likely to be jurisdictional. Truly isolated waters, including wetlands 
that are non-navigable, intrastate and lack a link to interstate or 
foreign commerce are not jurisdictional under the CWA, as per the 
SWANCC decision (2001).
    Question. When can we expect new ``Waters of the U.S.'' guidance in 
relation to the Rapanos decision?
    Answer. The Corps and EPA have signed an implementation memo 
explaining the Rapanos decision and the new program requirements. This 
document and other supporting documents can be found at: http://
www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/cwa_guide.htm. We are 
inviting public comments on case studies and experiences applying the 
guidance during the first 6 months of implementation. Furthermore, we, 
within 9 months from the date of issuance, will reissue, revise, or 
suspend the guidance after carefully considering the public comments 
received and field experiences with implementing the guidance. We will 
determine our course of action following a review of the comments.

                       ENERGY AND WATER QUESTIONS

    Question. During the hearing were raised to suggest that upstream 
lake levels are low. Is it not true that there currently is an historic 
drought in the basin and can you describe the extent of the drought?
    Answer. The Missouri River Basin is currently experiencing its 8th 
consecutive year of drought. Total System Storage is currently 37.3 
million acre-feet (MAF). Since operation of the System began in 1967, 
the Basin has experienced two extended drought periods; the drought 
which extended from 1989-1993 and the current drought. Total System 
Storage reached a record low of 33.9 MAF on February 8, 2007. The three 
upper Mainstem reservoirs, Fort Peck, Garrison, and Oahe experienced 
record low pools levels of 2,196.2 mean sea level (msl) 1,805.8 msl, 
and 1,570.2 msl respectively.
    Question. The Corps undertook a decade-plus long process to revise 
the Master Manual. Did the Corps not modify the manual to provide 
additional water for lake storage at the expense of traditional 
downstream needs deemed priorities by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeal 
in the case of Operation of the Missouri River System Litigation (421 
F. 3d 618) decided on August 6, 2005, which the Supreme Court refused 
to consider on appeal and issued that decision on April 24, 2006?
    Answer. Following the 14-year Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir 
System Master Water Control Manual Review and Update Study, in March of 
2004 the Corps of Engineers modified the Master Water Control Manual 
(Master Manual) to include more stringent drought conservation 
measures. Since 2004 these measures have resulted in shorter navigation 
seasons and lower releases to support navigation as compared to what 
would have occurred under the provisions of the previous Master Manual. 
The shorter navigation seasons and lower releases have retained more 
water in the System since 2004 than would have been the case under the 
previous Master Manual.
    The navigation preclude level in the previous Master Manual was set 
at 21 MAF. The 2004 Master Manual revision increased that level to 31 
MAF. The water stored in the System has not fallen below the 31 MAF 
navigation precludes since the revision in 2004. Therefore that change 
to the previous Master Manual has had no effect during the current 
drought.
    The Master Manual was again revised in 2006 to include provisions 
for a ``spring pulse,'' as required by the 2003 Amended Biological 
Opinion for the Missouri River Mainstem System.
    On June 21, 2004, the United States District Court for the District 
of Minnesota issued a decision in a series of consolidated cases by 
Basin States, tribes and stakeholders challenging the 2004 Revised 
Master Manual and the 2003 Amended Biological Opinion for the Missouri 
River Mainstem System. The District Court's decision by Judge Paul A. 
Magnuson upheld both the revised Master Manual and 2003 Amended 
Biological Opinion. On August 6, 2005 the United States Court of 
Appeals in a consolidated opinion affirmed Judge Magnuson's decision. 
Subsequent petitions for certiorari were denied by the United States 
Supreme Court.
    Question. It was suggested that water releases exist to provide 
Missouri River navigation. While that is also true, can you please 
describe how releases are also provided to support endangered species 
protection, drinking water supply, hydro energy production, downstream 
energy production cooling capacity, and Mississippi River navigation . 
. . not only Missouri River navigation as suggested?
    Answer. Releases are made from the System to support numerous 
downstream economic uses and protect environmental resources. Along 
with navigation, these economic uses include river recreation, 
municipal and industrial water supply (including cooling water for 
thermal power plants); and irrigation. Access to water has been a 
challenge during the current drought due to low river levels. These low 
river levels have also raised concerns related to the ability of 
thermal power plants to meet water quality standards for cooling water 
discharges to the river. Considerable investments have been made by 
several entities to modify their intake structures to deal with these 
low water conditions. Releases are also managed to protect threatened 
and endangered bird species that nest below the System during the 
summer months. And the spring pulse is designed to benefit the 
endangered pallid sturgeon.
    Question. Are these multiple uses a reality that the Assistant 
Secretary may consider mentioning when discussing the suggestion that 
lake levels should be maximized?
    Answer. Yes, the multiple uses are a reality that the Assistant 
Secretary mentions in discussions regarding reservoir levels. The 
Assistant Secretary has not proposed that the System be operated to 
maximize reservoir levels. Rather, the System is managed to serve the 
multiple project purposes authorized by Congress.
    Question. During this drought, is it true that very significant 
reductions have imposed upon navigation, and that pain is not limited 
to recreational fishing?
    Answer. The extended drought has negatively impacted all project 
purposes throughout the Basin, with the exception of flood control, and 
many of the people that live and work in the Basin. This includes 
impacts to navigation, water supply from both the river reaches and the 
reservoirs (including irrigation), hydropower, upstream fisheries and 
recreation along the river reaches and the reservoirs.
    Question. During this drought, is it true that reductions have 
placed burdens on large urban downstream water supply and all other 
downstream needs?
    Answer. Considerable investments have been made by water supply 
entities in the lower river to modify their intake structures to deal 
with the low water conditions during drought. Water supply entities in 
St. Joseph, Missouri and in both Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, 
Kansas have modified their intakes to ensure operation at lower river 
levels.
    The thermal power, municipal and industrial water intake owners 
downstream of Gavins Point Dam identified expenditures of $18.77 
million from 2000 to 2004 to access the river at the lower drought 
operations. They estimated that by 2010 they will have invested $286.1 
million in new structures, enhancements or other measures to access 
water during critical low water conditions especially during the non 
navigation periods and also during ice periods.
                                 ______
                                 
               Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard

    Question. I appreciate that the Albuquerque District office has 
been working closely with the two communities--Grenada and Creede--who 
are likely to be facing compliance letters related to some maintenance 
issues with their levees. I would just like to request a commitment 
from you that the Corps will continue to work with those communities 
and will keep my office fully informed as this process continues to 
move along.
    I understand that the Corps' tamarisk removal project in Colorado 
has been very successful and is nearing completion. Could you please 
give me an update on that project?
    Because this project has been so successful and because tamarisk 
poses such a problem in Colorado, does the Corps have any plans to 
conduct additional removal projects in the State?
    Answer. Our section 206 Tamarisk Eradication project is in 
Feasibility phase. We anticipate completing the Detailed Project Report 
(including the Environmental Assessment, Engineering Report, and Real 
Estate Report) in December 2008. If the moratorium on new CAP phases is 
lifted by that time, SPD would then request funding to go to 100 
percent plans and specs. The PCA would also be prepared and ready for 
signatures at that time.
                                 ______
                                 
                  Question Submitted to Mark Limbaugh
             Question Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                              RURAL WATER

    Question. Secretary Limbaugh, Your budget proposes $55 million for 
rural water projects. This amount seems to go down annually. How are we 
ever going to finish any of these projects with such meager funding?
    Answer. Reclamation is making significant progress in funding rural 
water projects throughout North and South Dakota and Montana. The Mid-
Dakota rural water project was completed in fiscal year 2006. Also, 
numerous rural water projects serving nearly 150,000 people in North 
Dakota have been completed as part of the Garrison Diversion Unit.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard

    Question. Secretary Limbaugh, can you explain why drought 
assistance was given so little funding in your budget?
    Answer. Reclamation prepares its budgets 2 years in advance. 
Consequently, we are unable to forecast this kind of emergency. 
However, we make every effort to address the greatest need with the 
funds available and to put our efforts into funding on-the-ground 
activities.
    Question. What drought assistance can you offer?
    Answer. The Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 
(Public Law 102-250) as amended, authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation 
to undertake drought relief measures through emergency assistance 
(Title I) and planning activities (Title II). Title I provides for 
construction, management and conservation measures to alleviate the 
adverse impacts of drought, including the mitigation of fish and 
wildlife impacts. Title I also authorizes temporary contracts to make 
available project and nonproject water and to allow for the use of 
Reclamation facilities for the storage and conveyance of water.
    Under Title I authority, Reclamation has constructed many wells for 
drinking water for smaller financially-strapped entities (towns, 
counties, tribes) that do not have the financial capability to deal 
with the impacts of drought. In many cases, Reclamation is the ``last 
resort'' for these communities.
    Question. Are the communities suffering from drought aware of the 
assistance that you can offer?
    Answer. Each of Reclamation's regional offices and many of the area 
offices have collateral duty personnel involved with the Drought 
Program. Additionally, regional directors and area managers are in 
communication with their stakeholders to remain current on the emerging 
needs of their areas. Information about the various programs 
Reclamation has is made available for consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted to Robert W. Johnson
             Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                            MINNOW SANCTUARY

    Question. The Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives specified in the 
2003 Fish and Wild life Service's Biological Opinion on the Rio Grande 
Silvery Minnow required the construction of two minnow refugia. In 
order to comply with this mandate, I have secured funding for the 
construction of a minnow sanctuary.
    What is the status of the sanctuary's construction and when will it 
be completed?
    Answer. Reclamation awarded a contract for the third, and final, 
phase of construction in 2007, and expects to complete construction by 
the summer of 2008.
    Question. Does the USBR have sufficient funding in fiscal year 2007 
to complete construction of the Minnow Sanctuary or will additional 
fiscal year 2008 funds be required?
    Answer. Sufficient funds have been appropriated in fiscal year 2008 
to complete construction of the minnow sanctuary. A contract for the 
final phase of construction was awarded on December 6, 2007, and 
construction is expected to be completed by October 2008.
    Question. Will you please provide my office with a long-term 
operations plan for the Sanctuary?
    Answer. Yes, Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service are 
developing an operations plan and will provide it to your office once 
finalized.
    Question. Can the BOR commit to provide my office monthly reports 
on the progress of the Sanctuary construction similar to those provided 
for the Tularosa Basin Desalination Facility?
    Answer. Yes, Reclamation will provide these reports to your office.

                      CARLSBAD IRRIGATION DISTRICT

    Question. The Carlsbad Irrigation District faces significant 
rehabilitation needs on Brantley, Avalon and Sumner Dams along the 
Pecos River. The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2008 is 
only $2,891,000, a decrease of over $700,000 from the current year 
representing a decrease of 50 percent in the operations and 
rehabilitation component of the budget.
    How can these rehabilitation activities progress with decreasing 
operations and maintenance budgets?
    Answer. Rehabilitation planning and implementation on the Carlsbad 
Project is the responsibility of the Carlsbad Irrigation District with 
Reclamation as a cost-share partner. Sufficient appropriated funds have 
been requested by Reclamation for its estimated cost-share amount for 
the rehabilitation.
    Question. Can the BOR commit to transfer the funding for the Pecos 
River Basin Water Salvage program to the Carlsbad Irrigation District 
for implementation of the invasive species control activities?
    Answer. Yes, BOR transfers both Federal and State funds based on 
monthly costs submitted by the Carlsbad Irrigation District.

                   EXCESS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY ISSUES

    Question. Historically the Bureau of Reclamation allowed irrigation 
districts to access excess Government equipment to implement 
maintenance on federally managed facilities. Two years ago this policy 
was abruptly reversed. Equipment acquired this way avoids waste and 
abuse of Government resources and has been instrumental in dealing with 
southern New Mexico flooding this last summer.
    Will the BOR rectify this situation by restoring the ability of the 
irrigation districts to access the Excess Government Equipment list?
    Answer. Public Law 89-48, June 14, 1965, states in part ``. . . In 
order to encourage the assumption of irrigation districts . . . of the 
operation and maintenance or works constructed to furnish or distribute 
a water supply, the Secretary is authorized to use appropriated funds 
available for the project involved to acquire movable property for 
transfer under the terms and conditions hereinbefore provided, at the 
time operation and maintenance (O&M) is assumed.''
    The Reclamation Supplement to Federal Property Management 
Regulations further provides direction if additional equipment is 
required at the time of transfer, by allowing it to be obtained in the 
same manner and from the same sources as prescribed for the initial O&M 
requirement but with a 1-year time frame. Thus Reclamation allows the 
water user organizations to still acquire needed excess property for 1 
year after the O&M transfer to them. The provisions of this authority 
does not include the replacement or upgrade of equipment previously 
transferred to a water users' organization. The irrigation districts 
will continue to have access to the Excess Government Equipment list 
with a 1-year time frame provision, which will require irrigation 
districts to compete with other entities for acquisition of Excess 
Government Equipment.

                   CHIMAYO AND ESPANOLA WATER SYSTEMS

    Question. The two rural northern New Mexico communities of Chimayo 
and Espanola are currently developing and rehabilitating their water 
systems. Under Public Law 108-354 both communities may receive support 
from the BOR to complete their water systems. The President's fiscal 
year 2008 budget does not include funds to support these two rural 
programs.
    Can the BOR explain their approach to support this type of rural 
community and the specific decision to not provide funding in fiscal 
year 2008?
    Answer. Public Law 108-354 requires that a feasibility study be 
completed within 3 years of the legislation. Work has only just begun 
on the plan. Until the entities can provide a comprehensive plan for 
the projects including cost sharing it is felt that a request for 
Federal dollars can be delayed. The $1,000,000 already obligated to the 
City of Espanola under this authority remains unexpended.

                        ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT

    Question. Despite past claims of mismanagement and poor planning 
and oversight, the A-LP project is now proceeding at an acceptable 
rate. The President's budget calls for $58 million for the project in 
fiscal year 2008. However, some of the project beneficiaries claim that 
the project requires $75 million in fiscal year 2008 to keep it on 
schedule and to keep total project costs to a minimum.
    Do you believe that the $58 million requested is adequate to keep 
the project on schedule?
    Answer. Yes, the amount requested is adequate to maintain the 
current schedule. This schedule reflects a ``projected'' delay to the 
overall project completion of approximately 1 to 1\1/2\ years as 
compared to earlier project schedules. The most significant impact to a 
single feature is a delay of 1\3/4\ years in delivering water to The 
Navajo Nation at Shiprock, New Mexico.
    Question. What precautions are being taken to ensure that there are 
not further cost overruns with the project?
    Answer. We have refined and streamlined reporting within 
Reclamation for the A-LP. The Four Corners Construction Office is 
responsible for all matters pertaining to the construction of the 
project. This office is managed by a Project Construction Engineer who 
reports directly to the Regional Director of the Upper Colorado Region 
in Salt Lake City, Utah. The construction office continually evaluates 
ways to save costs and still maintain the project features. Cost 
tracking procedures implemented in 2004 now relate all project costs to 
the cost estimate (indexed for inflation) for early detection of 
problems. This cost information is shared with the Project Sponsors on 
a bi-monthly basis.
    Question. Will providing greater appropriations in the near-term 
keep down the total cost of the project?
    Answer. Yes. The project schedule is driven by available funds. The 
more funds that are available, the sooner the project can be completed. 
Future costs driven by inflation will be kept in check.

                             LOAN GUARANTEE

    Question. What progress have you made with respect to the Aamodt, 
Abeyta, and Navajo settlements?
    Answer. The Aamodt and Abeyta settlements both seek Federal 
contributions of water or funding to acquire water. The Bureau of 
Reclamation has completed a study of evaporation surplus at Cochiti 
reservoir to determine if additional water from that source would be 
available to supplement un-contracted San Juan Chama supplies, and we 
have met with the parties and provided draft copies of the study to 
them and asked for comments. The study showed that some surplus is 
available. At the direction of the Secretary, Counselor Bogert has met 
with the parties to both settlements in New Mexico several times since 
this spring, most recently in October 2007, to discuss water supply 
issues. The United States has presented the parties with a proposed 
level of Federal contribution in Aamod and Abeyta. In the meantime, 
consultations with the President's Office of Management and Budget and 
Department of Justice are on-going.
    With respect to the Navajo settlement, the Department has been 
working to develop information to assist in developing a possible 
solution, including a draft environmental impact statement on the 
proposed pipeline and the hydrologic determination on water 
availability in New Mexico. The Department will have an updated 
appraisal-level estimate of the costs of constructing the pipeline 
completed this year.
    Question. When do you anticipate you will complete your study to 
determine if there is additional water available from the San Juan-
Chama Project as a result of an over-estimation of evaporative loss 
from Cochiti Reservoir?
    Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation has completed a study of 
evaporation surplus at Cochiti reservoir to determine if additional 
water from that source would be available to supplement un-contracted 
San Juan Chama supplies. The Department provided copies of the study to 
the parties and asked for their comments. The study showed that some 
surplus is available.
    Question. When will you provide the parties to the Abeyta 
settlement an official administration position on their proposed 
settlement?
    Answer. The administration provided the position on this settlement 
at the beginning of September 2007.
    Question. Please explain why the San Joaquin Settlement and the 
Arizona Water Settlement received favorable treatment from OMB while 
the New Mexico Indian water rights settlements have not.
    Answer. OMB's analysis of Indian water rights settlements is 
predicated upon the ``Criteria and Procedures for the Participation of 
the Federal Government in Negotiations for the Settlement of Indian 
Water Rights Claims'' (55 FR 9223). With respect to Federal 
contributions, the Criteria and Procedures provide that Federal 
contributions to a settlement should not exceed the sum of the 
calculable legal exposure and additional costs related to Federal trust 
or programmatic responsibilities. Of particular interest to the 
administration in determining calculable legal exposure is the 
liability facing the United States if no legislative settlement is 
reached. In the case of the Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act, the 
settlement concluded a lawsuit over the financial repayment obligation 
of Arizona water users for the Central Arizona Project (CAP), with 
significant amounts of money at stake. The San Joaquin Settlement 
referred to in this question was not an Indian water rights settlement, 
but the calculable legal exposure was part of the analysis. The San 
Joaquin settlement would bring to an end a multiyear lawsuit, and 
continued litigation would expose the parties to the risk of 
significant costs. In situations where the proposed Federal 
contribution outweighs the litigation exposure, administration support 
for a settlement requires that the additional contribution be closely 
related to programmatic responsibilities.
    Question. Do you believe that your proposed budget of $34 million 
for the Indian Land and Water Claims Settlement Fund is adequate to 
settle unresolved Indian land and water claims in fiscal year 2008?
    Answer. The Indian Land and Water Claims Settlement Fund line item 
in the budget is adequate for its intended purpose of fulfilling BIA's 
commitment under enacted Indian land and water settlements. Funding for 
ongoing negotiations to settle unresolved Indian land and water claims 
is provided under several other items in the DOI budget, including 
Water Resources Management in BIA's budget.
    Question. How do you plan to secure a commitment from OMB that a 
reasonable Federal contribution will be made available for the New 
Mexico Indian water rights settlements?
    Answer. We will continue to meet within the Office of Management 
and Budget and the Department of Justice to keep them informed of 
developments in the New Mexico settlements and identify approaches to 
these settlements that are fair to taxpayers as well as the settling 
parties.

                              RURAL WATER

    Question. Fifty years after Garrison Dam was constructed and Lake 
Sakakawea was impounded, many of my constituents are still without a 
good source of drinking water. I am not talking about people far 
removed from the project; I am talking about people whose homes are 
within sight of Lake Sakakawea. These people do not have good water 
when there is a lake right in front of them that could provide for 
their needs. That was part of the bargain that we thought we made. We 
gave up land in return for water when and where we need it. We gave up 
the land, but you still haven't come through with the water.
    Costs continue to escalate on these projects. Benefits to the 
public are deferred. What do you recommend to make these projects more 
of a budget priority for Reclamation?
    Answer. Reclamation balances many priorities including funding 
ongoing construction projects such as rural water, while maintaining 
existing infrastructure and other ongoing priorities, all within the 
budget targets that have been established.
    Question. As you recall, The Fort Yates intake was silted over in 
2003 and left the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe with no water source. 
Thanks to considerable efforts of the tribe and your personnel, a 
temporary water intake was installed. It is still in use today?
    Are there plans for a permanent fix?
    Answer. The Tribe's engineering firm has studied several alternate 
plans for intakes that serve Fort Yates as well as the future needs of 
the entire Reservation.
    Question. What are they?
    Answer. As a result of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations, the 
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe water treatment plant near Wakpala, South 
Dakota will have the capacity to serve the entire reservation. 
Reclamation concurs with this decision as it provides for the intake 
location that should remain viable under nearly any lake condition and 
will also minimize operation and maintenance costs.
    Because it is estimated to take 3 years to allow enough funding and 
time to construct the new Wakpala intake, water treatment plant and 
connecting pipeline to the Fort Yates system, the existing water 
treatment plant and temporary intake that serves Fort Yates will need 
to remain in service for the same time period. Reclamation is working 
with the tribe to take some precautionary measures to ensure these 
current features at Fort Yates remain operational until such time as 
the new source of water from Wakpaka is made available.
    Question. Is there a schedule for this work?
    Answer. As a result of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations, the 
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe water treatment plant near Wakpaka, South 
Dakota will have the capacity to serve the entire reservation. 
Reclamation concurs with this decision as it provides for an intake 
location that should remain viable under nearly any lake condition and 
will also minimize operations and maintenance costs.
    Because it is estimated to take 3 years to allow enough funding and 
time to construct the new Wakpala intake, water treatment plant and 
connecting pipeline to the Fort Yates system, the existing water 
treatment plant and temporary intake that serves Fort Yates will need 
to remain in service for the same time period. Reclamation is working 
with the Tribe to take some precautionary measures to ensure these 
current features at Fort Yates remain operational until such time as 
the new source of water from Wakpaka is made available.
    Question. Lake Oahe has essentially retreated out of North Dakota, 
thanks to the mismanagement of the river by the Corps of Engineers, so 
that this intake is now a river intake, instead of the lake intake they 
had. Unfortunately, there appears to be a migrating sandbar that could 
cut-off the tribe's intake from the river.
    What measures is Reclamation prepared to take to ensure that this 
intake does not get cut-off from the river?
    Answer. Reclamation has developed and exercised contingency plans 
with the tribe in the event the existing river intake stops 
functioning. These plans include connecting portable pumps to the 
intake. Further measures include excavation and/or dredging the 
material to reconnect the intake to the river. We continue to evaluate 
additional measures that would redirect river flow towards the intake, 
preventing sandbars from forming.
    Question. Do you have sufficient funding for these measures?
    Answer. Reclamation has developed cost estimates for dredging this 
material in the event it blocks the intake. Reclamation estimates 
dredging cost to be approximately $150,000. Work would need to be 
reprioritized and funds shifted to cover this type of extraordinary 
operation and maintenance work.
    Question. On a similar note, the intake at Wakpala on the 
Reservation is in serious danger of being out of the water this year. 
Have you developed contingency plans to deal with this contingency?
    Answer. Reclamation has prepared contingency plans to address the 
loss of water supply to the Wakpala water treatment plant. Since this 
plant serves a relatively small population, the immediate response is 
to truck water from the City of Mobridge to the water treatment plant. 
Further options are being investigated including installing backup 
groundwater wells and extending the intake as the lake recedes.
    Question. What is the most likely scenario?
    Answer. The Army Corps of Engineers reservoir forecast for Lake 
Oahe through February 2008 predicts sufficient water depth over the top 
of the Wakpala Intake to sustain normal operations.
    Question. Is there a permanent solution that could solve both of 
these problems?
    Answer. The tribe's engineering firm has studied options to serve 
the entire reservations needs (including both Fort Yates and Wakpala). 
Based on these studies, the tribe's preferred long-term solution is to 
construct a new surface water intake near the Indian Memorial 
Recreation Area, south of Wakpala, and a new water treatment plant to 
serve the entire southern portion of the reservation. Their preferred 
plan also includes improvements to the existing Fort Yates intake and 
water treatment plant to serve the northern portion of the reservation. 
The Wakpala intake and water treatment plant facilities are estimated 
to cost $23.9 million and the Fort Yates intake and water treatment 
plant improvements are estimated to cost $2.3 million. The highest 
priority and first phase of the Wakpala facilities will involve 
construction of the new intake and raw water pipeline at an estimated 
cost of $4.5 million to address the immediate low water conditions. The 
Supplemental Appropriations Act signed on May 27, 2007 appropriated 
$4.5 million to begin design and construction of the new Wakpala 
Intake. Designs have been completed and the contract is expected to be 
advertised and awarded in December 2007. Construction is scheduled to 
begin in the spring of 2008 and the intake should be operational by the 
end of the year.
    Question. What is the range of costs that we would be considering 
for a permanent fix?
    Answer. The tribes preferred plan to meet the reservation-wide 
needs, as described above, is estimated to cost a total of $26.2 
million. Reclamation has advised the tribe that the Fort Yates well 
field, with a capacity to meet the needs of the northern portion of the 
reservation, may be a more reliable option and is estimated to cost 
$9.2 million. This option at Fort Yates together with the tribes 
preferred plan at Wakpala would result in a total cost to secure a 
reservation-wide water supply of $33.1 million. A new intake and water 
treatment plant to completely replace the existing Wakpala and Fort 
Yates facilities and meet the full reservation-wide needs was also 
evaluated. This alternative would consist of a new intake near the 
Indian Memorial Recreation Area, a new water treatment plant, storage 
facilities, and additional transmission pipelines to interconnect the 
southern and northern portions of the reservation-wide system. This 
alternative is estimated to cost over $50 million.
    Question. Is there work on this that could be undertaken in fiscal 
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008? Could you provide me with this 
additional funding amount?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2007, work continued on the groundwater 
investigations in the Fort Yates area. These investigations, including 
drawdown tests and pilot wells, are expected to be complete in 2008. If 
the project is found to be feasible and sufficient funds are made 
available, design and specifications for the $9.2 million project to 
serve the northern portion of the reservation could begin in fiscal 
year 2008. Construction of the well field and treatment facilities 
could start, pending the availability of funds, in the later part of 
2008 and extend into 2009. If the Tribe continues to prefer the Fort 
Yates intake improvement alternative at a cost of $2.3 million, design 
and construction could be initiated in fiscal year 2008.
    Designs and specifications for the $4.5 million replacement intake 
and raw water pipeline at Wakpala were completed in fiscal year 2007. 
Construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2008.
    Question. Could you provide me with this additional funding amount?
    Answer. Sufficient funds are currently available to complete 
construction of the new Wakpala Intake in 2008. After a final decision 
is made in early 2008 on the preferred Fort Yates water source, 
Reclamation will look at the funding needs.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

      SACRAMENTO VALLEY INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

    Question. The Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water 
Management Plan received $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2006, as well as, an 
allocation of $1,200,000 in the House reported bill and $2,000,000 in 
the Senate reported bill during the fiscal year 2007 appropriations 
process. As you know, preliminary California Department of Water 
Resources' study results suggest Sacramento Valley's groundwater 
formations may offer, as much as, several hundred thousand acre-feet in 
additional water supplies for agricultural, environmental, and 
municipal uses. The funds approved by the committees in fiscal year 
2007 are needed to continue the efforts begun in fiscal year 2006 to 
better characterize the process for groundwater recharge of and 
production from the main groundwater aquifer systems. Do you agree that 
the work underway in this initiative holds great promise for increasing 
the available water supply for agricultural, environmental and 
municipal uses?
    Answer. Yes, Reclamation believes the Stony Creek Fan/Lower Tuscan 
Investigation Project (an element of the Sacramento Valley Integrated 
Regional Water Management Plan) holds promise for increasing the 
available supply of water for agricultural, municipal and environmental 
purposes, by providing additional conjunctive use capability and by 
laying a foundation for future development of water banking capacity in 
the Sacramento Valley.
    Question. In your fiscal year 2007 work program, will the Bureau of 
Reclamation support an allocation of $2,000,000, again, the same level 
approved in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process, for the 
Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, and, if 
not, what level of funding is the Bureau of Reclamation recommending 
for this initiative?
    Answer. Reclamation would need a report from the project proponents 
showing supporting analysis and data demonstrating the potential water 
supply benefits of this project. In addition, Reclamation assumes that 
cost-sharing would be a condition of any such funding.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                                DROUGHT

    Question. When do you anticipate the remaining wells will be 
completed?
    Answer. In keeping with the work initiated in 2006, we have 
completed well drilling for the communities of Las Vegas, Ruidoso, and 
Ruidoso Downs, New Mexico. Drilling on the well for Capitan, New 
Mexico, will be completed within weeks. An equipment breakdown has 
caused a minor delay. As you know, we were not as successful with the 
well in Cloudcroft, New Mexico. Although drilling was completed, the 
quality of the water was not fit for human consumption and the yield 
was insufficient. Consequently, that well has been abandoned.
    Question. Please explain why completion of the wells has taken as 
long as it has.
    Answer. Ruidoso Downs was the only community of the five who had a 
plan in place. Consequently, it was necessary to procure the services 
of a contractor for the permitting, design, and monitoring of the 
wells, along with a well driller. Severe geologic formations, equipment 
breakdowns requiring competition with oil drillers for the same kind of 
equipment, and well conditions contributed to the time required for 
completion.
    Question. Is additional funding necessary for their completion?
    Answer. No additional funding is required. Funding for the five 
well projects has been sufficient.
    Question. What additional emergency drought activities should the 
Bureau of Reclamation undertake to address yet another year of 
devastating drought in the Southwest?
    Answer. The Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 
(Public Law 102-250) as amended, is specific in authorizing the kinds 
of activities the Bureau of Reclamation can undertake. Public Law 102-
250 authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake drought relief 
measures through emergency assistance (Title I) and planning activities 
(Title II). Title I provides for construction, management and 
conservation measures to alleviate the adverse impacts of drought, 
including the mitigation of fish and wildlife impacts. Title I also 
authorizes temporary contracts to make available project and nonproject 
water and to allow for the use of Reclamation facilities for the 
storage and conveyance of water.
    Reclamation's regional offices will identify and prioritize 
specific projects to be undertaken with drought program funding. 
Reclamation staff understands the on-the-ground impact of the drought 
conditions currently affecting parts of the West, and has the technical 
expertise to evaluate the priority of projects proposed to cope with 
those conditions. Projects will be selected for funding based on their 
priority and the availability of funds.

                               WATER 2025

    Question. Please describe Reclamation's future vision for the Water 
2025 program and any necessary authorities needed to implement the 
program.
    Answer. Reclamation envisions the Water 2025 program as a tool to 
meet the challenge of preventing crises and conflict over water in the 
West. This is being accomplished through the most effective low-cost 
options for increasing water supplies that are available, including: 
(1) water efficiency and conservation; (2) water markets; (3) 
collaboration; and (4) technology. In order to move forward, 
Reclamation needs Water 2025 program authority. On April 13, 2007, the 
administration transmitted a draft bill titled Reclamation Water 
Management Improvement Act that would authorize the Water 2025 program.
    Question. Please describe the major accomplishments of the Water 
2025 after its 4 years of existence.
    Answer. Since the inception of the program, the Water 2025 program 
has experienced many achievements that assist water managers in 
stretching scarce water supplies, thereby reducing the likelihood of 
conflicts over water.
    Over 122 Challenge Grants in 17 western States have leveraged $25.5 
million in Federal funding with local partnerships into $96 million in 
water management improvements. In 2007 alone, Secretary Kempthorne 
announced $9.2 million in Water 2025 Challenge Grants, targeting 44 new 
projects across the Nation that will conserve water resources and 
modernize water storage and delivery systems.
    The projects selected for award through the Challenge Grant program 
incorporate the following improvements:
  --Forty-two of the projects, collectively, will convert 134 miles of 
        earthen canals to pipeline.
  --Seventy-four of the projects include installation of water 
        measurement devices, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 
        (SCADA) systems and automated water delivery systems.
  --Thirty-six of the projects include water marketing plans.
  --The 122 projects, upon completion, will save approximately 400,000 
        acre-feet per year.
    In fiscal year 2008, Reclamation initiated a process to provide 
System Optimization Review grants, which are intended to fund a broad 
analysis of system-wide efficiency rather than project-specific 
planning. The final product of each grant will be a report with a plan 
of action that focuses on improving efficiency and system operations on 
a regional or basin perspective.
    Question. Specifically, how have funds that have been appropriated 
for the program reduced conflict amongst water users?
    Answer. To date, 16 projects are complete. Each Water 2025 project 
results in water better managed or saved and collaborative 
relationships developed that will reduce crisis and conflict over water 
in the west. Below are some specific examples.
  --In Lewiston, Idaho, the Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District--
        serving 18,000 customers--will save 450 acre-feet per year as a 
        result of a Water 2025 project. The saved water will reduce the 
        impact from a settlement with the Nez Perce Tribe over instream 
        flows in the Sweetwater Creek.
  --The Central Oregon Irrigation District, a fiscal year 2004 and 
        fiscal year 2006 Challenge Grant recipient, established a water 
        bank in the Deschutes Basin and formed an alliance of seven 
        irrigation districts, six cities, three tribes and the 
        Deschutes Resource Conservancy (the ``Deschutes Water 
        Alliance'' or the ``Alliance'').
  --In Utah, the Sevier River Water Users Association, a partnership of 
        canal companies and river commissioners, used their fiscal year 
        2005 Challenge Grant to enlarge the existing Supervisory 
        Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to allow for 
        expansion of real-time monitoring and control systems in a 
        five-county area.
  --A fiscal year 2005 Challenge Grant to the Yuma County Water User's 
        Association will save 8,500 acre-feet per year that benefit the 
        junior water users of the Central Arizona Project, which serves 
        fast growing metropolitan areas. The 8,500 acre-feet per year 
        is enough to serve approximately 25,000 households.

                       MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT

    Question. The USBR is tasked with providing water in order to 
comply with the Fish and Wildlife Service's 2003 Biological Opinion. 
However, it is unclear where the USBR will obtain this water once the 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority begins diverting 
its allocation of San Juan-Chama Project water. The President's fiscal 
year 2008 USBR budget proposes a 17 percent decrease to the Middle Rio 
Grande Project from fiscal year 2006 enacted levels. Additionally, the 
needs in the basin are increasing dramatically, including:
  --Repairs on high-priority irrigation system levees;
  --Meeting Endangered Species Act requirements;
  --Developing an intergraded management plan; and
  --Modernizing stream gagging.
    At the same time, the administrations fiscal year 2008 request is 
17 percent below the fiscal year 2006 budget for the Middle Rio Grande 
Project.
    How can the Bureau of Reclamation meet all these increasingly 
important obligations with a decrease in Federal spending?
    Answer. For fiscal year 2008 the request for priority site levee 
maintenance of $10,195,000 is more than what was enacted in fiscal year 
2007 ($7,382,000) and should be sufficient to continue repairs. In 
developing its budget request, Reclamation anticipated funding 
contributions from Federal partners for the non-water ESA activities of 
the Collaborative Program such as minnow rescue, species and water 
quality monitoring and research, and habitat planning, construction, 
and monitoring activities.
    Question. Does the Department of the Interior support authorization 
of the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program?
    Answer. Yes, DOI supports the authorization of the Middle Rio 
Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program. The success of the 
Program will depend on the non-Federal and other Federal partner 
contributions in addition to Reclamation.
    Question. San Juan-Chama Project water cannot be used for meeting 
the requirements of the ESA unless it is acquired by a ``willing seller 
or lessor.'' If water cannot be acquired from project contractors, 
where do you anticipate you will get the water to meet the requirements 
of the ESA in 2008?
    Answer. Some San Juan-Chama Project water will be available for 
Reclamation to lease on a voluntary basis in 2008. Most of the 
supplemental supply that will help meet Biological Opinion flow 
requirements is previously leased SJ-C water that is still in storage. 
In addition, operational flexibilities by the Middle Rio Grande 
Conservancy District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contribution to 
silvery minnow spawning/recruitment flows, and other voluntary 
contributions will collectively assist in meeting ESA requirements.
    Question. What are you doing to address this potential problem?
    Answer. Reclamation in cooperation with the Collaborative Program 
stakeholders is working on development of a sustainable biological 
opinion which will contain shared responsibilities for water management 
among all of the stakeholders.

                               TITLE XVI

    Question. Secretary Limbaugh, You requested $11 million for Water 
2025 in your budget. How do you reconcile requesting funding for this 
unauthorized program when you have so many unmet authorized needs in 
the Title XVI program?
    Answer. The Water 2025 program is a high priority program to 
address the critical need for funding to prevent crises and conflicts 
over water in the West. Through the Water 2025 program, the $11 million 
requested will result in over $40 million of water infrastructure 
investment. The Bureau of Reclamation must balance competing priorities 
for funding within the Federal Government and within Reclamation. 
Reclamation's budget reflects this balance.
    Question. How much did you provide for these projects in your 
budget?
    Answer. The overall fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Title 
XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program is $10.1 million and provides 
$9.3 million in funding for nine authorized projects, including eight 
construction projects and one desalination demonstration project. The 
funding level reflects Reclamation's balance of the many competing 
priorities for funding within the Federal Government and within 
Reclamation.
    Question. Why is this program so unpopular?
    Answer. The administration continues to support the Title XVI Water 
Recycling and Reuse Program when it is focused on using Federal funds 
to develop innovative ways to recycle or reuse water and to construct 
projects that will help alleviate water crises or shortages in the 
West. Budget requests reflect a priority of completing those projects 
that have already been authorized for construction.
    Question. Is there anything Congress can do to modify this program 
to make it more likely to be funded?
    Answer. Public Law 102-575, Title XVI, as amended, gives 
Reclamation ample authority to investigate and identify opportunities 
for reclamation and reuse of wastewater and to conduct research for the 
reclamation of wastewater and naturally impaired ground and surface 
waters. In making its budget requests, Reclamation has placed priority 
on meeting funding obligations for projects authorized in previous 
years.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig

                             LOAN GUARANTEE

    Question. Can you please describe in more detail the new loan 
guarantee program? For instance, what kinds of strings are attached to 
these loans and what kind of interest rates and loan duration?
    Answer. Title II of Public Law 109-451 provides the Secretary of 
the Interior authority to issue loan guarantees to assist in financing 
rural water supply projects; extraordinary maintenance and 
rehabilitation of Reclamation project facilities; and improvements to 
infrastructure directly related to a Reclamation project. Borrowers 
would apply for a loan from private lending institutions as defined in 
the statute. Interest rates for the guaranteed portion of the loan 
would not exceed a level that the Secretary determines to be 
appropriate with consideration of the private sector prevailing rate. 
For example, the Federal funds rate or higher. Loans may be provided 
for terms of up to 40 years. The Bureau is continuing to address the 
administrative requirements and the potential benefits of the program. 
We will keep the Committee informed of our progress.

                      MINIDOKA SPILLWAY REPLACMENT

    Question. I'm concerned with what is occurring at the Minidoka Dam 
in Idaho. This is an aging dam that wasn't built to standard. This 
project supplies water for a lot of farmers, and assessments are 
already fairly expensive. Now the Bureau wants to replace the dam 
structure, leaving the irrigation district with a $10 million plus bill 
to pay back in about 3 years. Is this a situation where the loan 
guarantee can help or is there another way we can keep from bankrupting 
these farmers?
    Answer. Minidoka dam was built to the standards of the day in 1906. 
The structure has been modified three times to provide additional 
benefits such as power generation and flood control. After over 101 
years of service, the spillway portion of the dam is in need of 
replacement. Over the past 10 years, Reclamation has endeavored to 
address these concerns including repayment options with the appropriate 
Districts. As you are aware, the Rural Water Act of 2006 (Public Law 
109-451), was enacted on December 22, 2006. Among other things, this 
law directs the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate a regulation 
prior to issuing loan guarantees. Instead of relying on a loan 
guarantee, the districts have the option of raising their water 
assessments to users, thus giving them the adequate funds to begin 
construction or acquire non-Federal funding.
                                 ______
                                 
          Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

                         DESALINATION RESEARCH

    Question. I am interested in the process and the schedule the 
administration will undertake to develop both a short and long-term 
strategy within your desalination research program for a viable R&D 
program that will enable communities to utilize saline aquifers.
    Please describe what the guiding principles/goals of the program 
would include.
    Answer. Over the past 10 years, as the demand for water quality and 
water quantity has increased, desalination technologies have improved 
and costs have been reduced. More and more western rural and larger 
communities are implementing groundwater desalination facilities to 
augment their water supplies. Reclamation believes there are 
opportunities to further reduce the hurdles that limit the wide use of 
existing technology, such as the problems of inland concentrate 
management, and high energy consumption.
    Within this setting, Reclamation's vision is to provide 
opportunities that expand water supplies in a sustainable manner for 
western rural communities, Native Americans, and the western basins 
supporting Reclamation projects. Our goal is to advance the state of 
the art in high risk, applied research and development to reduce the 
cost of treating impaired waters, consistent with the administration's 
R&D investment criteria, and to use partnerships to accelerate the 
implementation of improved technology.
    Question. Please describe which broad BOR mission areas would be 
supported by the desalination research.
    Answer. The research serves our broad mission of increasing the 
usable water supplies for Reclamation projects, rural communities, and 
Native Americans.
    Question. What portion of the funds do you intend to provide for 
in-house research vs. extramural grants?
    Answer. Reclamation's R&D request for desalination research 
conducted in-house consists of about $1 million through the Science and 
Technology Program and an additional $680,000 through the Colorado 
River Basin Salinity Control Project (Title I). Reclamation's request 
for extramural desalination research consists of about $2.3 million 
through the Desalination and Water Purification Research Program and an 
additional $500,000 through the Water Reclamation and Reuse Program 
(Title XVI).
    Question. Please describe how you intend to coordinate with other 
Federal/State/local and commercial entities within the desalination 
research program.
    Answer. Reclamation has contracted with the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) to provide a contemporary assessment of the potential 
for desalination technologies to meet current and future water supply 
needs. The NAS report will also recommend appropriate roles for the 
Federal Government, private sector, State, and local communities in 
pursuing future research.
    The report was slated for completion in December 2007. By mid-2008, 
Reclamation plans to evaluate the NAS findings and update Reclamation's 
research strategies as appropriate. We will continue to work within 
existing water research coordination forums such as the Subcommittee on 
Surface Water Availability and Quality within the White House Office of 
Science and Technology, interagency groups such as the Interagency 
Consortium for Desalination Research and the Multi-State Salinity 
Coalition, as well as research and industry associations such as the 
American Membrane Technology Association, the International 
Desalination Association, the WateReuse Foundation, and the 
International Water Association--North American Membrane Research 
Conference.

              BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--GILA RIVER SETTLEMENT

    Question. Please explain why USBR funds for participating in this 
process are not included in the fiscal year 2008 budget.
    Answer. Reclamation's fiscal year 2008 budget request does include 
$250,000 within the Colorado River Basin Project-Central Arizona 
Project item to continue collecting and evaluating necessary 
preliminary environmental data to assist the State of New Mexico in 
deciding whether to build a New Mexico Unit. Current efforts focus on 
supporting New Mexico's collaborative efforts to create a planning 
process for evaluating the best use of potential withdrawals and 
funding provided under the Central Arizona Project, as modified by the 
Arizona Water Settlement Act, for the southwestern planning region of 
New Mexico.
    Question. How do you respond to the claim that the USBR and Fish 
and Wildlife have been less than cooperative in participating in the 
development of an environmental assessment?
    Answer. Reclamation is an active participant in the state of New 
Mexico decisionmaking process and has been since the Arizona Water 
Right Settlement Act was passed. A formal environmental assessment 
under NEPA and other environmental compliance activities including 
those under the Endangered Species Act will be performed when specific 
alternatives are proposed. Based on New Mexico's process for finalizing 
their decision to the Secretary by 2014, we anticipate the evaluation 
of alternatives and associated environmental compliance activities to 
begin in approximately 2010.
    Reclamation is an active participant in the State of New Mexico's 
decisionmaking process and has been since the AWSA was passed. Both 
Reclamation and FWS signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the New 
Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, the Southwest New Mexico Water 
Planning Group, and the New Mexico Office of the Governor in March 2006 
creating the Gila-San Francisco Coordinating Committee (GSFCC) to 
collaboratively evaluate the environmental effects of potential water 
withdrawals. Reclamation is a member of the GSFCC, one of the co-chairs 
of the Technical Subcommittee, a member of the Public Involvement 
Subcommittee, a member of Sandia National Laboratories decisionmaking 
model development team to assist in regional planning efforts, and an 
active participant in other collaborative efforts including the Gila 
Science Forums.
    Question. How do you plan to improve the Department's participation 
in the development of an environmental assessment?
    Answer. Reclamation is identified as the lead agency for 
environmental compliance with New Mexico as joint lead if they so 
request. In this role, Reclamation will continue to actively 
participate in all activities associated with the New Mexico Unit of 
the Central Arizona Project under the terms of the Arizona Water 
Settlements Act, and with the Gila-San Francisco Coordinating Committee 
and other committees as appropriate as New Mexico works through the 
collaborative decisionmaking process to determine the viability of a 
New Mexico Unit and other water utilization alternatives to meet water 
supply demands in the Southwest Water Planning Region of New Mexico. 
The Fish and Wildlife Service's support of Reclamation's environmental 
compliance activities is a key element in successfully fulfilling 
Reclamation's role.

                              RURAL WATER

    Question. What is the status of the USBR development of eligibility 
criteria that are due no later than December 22, 2007?
    Answer. Public Law 109-451, the Rural Water Act of 2006 (the 
``Act''), requires Reclamation to develop three sets of criteria to 
implement the Rural Water Program, within specified timeframes. The 
criteria include eligibility and prioritization criteria, which are due 
within 1 year after enactment of the Act; criteria for the evaluation 
of appraisal investigations, due within 1 year after enactment; and 
criteria for the evaluation of feasibility studies, due within 18 
months after enactment. Based on the language in the Act, Reclamation 
has determined that it is required to follow the rulemaking process in 
the Administrative Procedures Act in developing the criteria. Instead 
of conducting three separate rulemakings, Reclamation will include all 
three sets of criteria in a single rule. We believe this is a more 
timely and efficient option than conducting multiple rulemakings. 
However, because of the specific procedural requirements associated 
with the rulemaking process--which includes a 60-day public comment 
period--Reclamation will not be able to publish the rule by December 
22, 2007. Reclamation has developed a comprehensive draft of the rule, 
which includes all three sets of criteria. The draft rule is being 
reviewed internally, and we expect to publish it as an Interim Final 
Rule in the summer of 2008.
    Question. When does the USBR anticipate initiating the assessment 
of rural water needs?
    Answer. Section 104 of Public Law 109-451 requires the Secretary, 
in consultation with several other Federal departments and agencies, to 
undertake a comprehensive assessment of rural water programs and 
activities, to be completed by December 2008. Reclamation has begun 
this effort and expects to have the Assessment completed by the 
December 2008 deadline.

                             LOAN GUARANTEE

    Question. What progress has been made in implementing the loan 
guarantee program authorized under title II?
    Answer. The Bureau is continuing to address the administrative 
requirements of the program including proposed rules and eligibility 
requirements. We will keep the Committee informed of our progress.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard

    Question. There is potential that projects will be forced to return 
O&M to Reclamation when they cannot fund necessary replacement. Should 
this happen, how will Reclamation address problems at projects that 
fail?
    Answer. Reclamation continues to proactively seek assistance for 
responsible operating entities to be able to fund necessary 
replacements of project facilities and avoid the return of facilities 
to Reclamation for operation.
    Reclamation works with the local operators of our facilities to 
provide recommendations to reduce the risk of failure and to keep those 
facilities operable. However, if such entities are unable to afford the 
full cost of operation, maintenance and replacement (OM&R) of the 
facilities, then Reclamation has a limited set of options. If the 
entity cannot meet its OM&R responsibility (to fund necessary 
rehabilitation work), as stated in the provisions of its contract, 
Reclamation would have the option of reassuming the OM&R responsibility 
of the project facilities and billing the entity for all associated 
OM&R costs. In the extreme, Reclamation could choose to stop operation 
of the facility indefinitely and minimize OM&R costs for the local 
beneficiaries.
    Question. Does it not make sense for the Bureau to assist these 
projects before failures actually occur?
    Answer. In accordance with Reclamation law and contractual 
arrangements, Reclamation cannot directly provide financial assistance 
to the responsible operating entities in the OM&R of these project 
facilities. However, through its existing oversight and administrative 
activities, Reclamation can and will continue to provide some limited 
engineering and technical support in maintaining these project 
facilities for delivery of authorized project benefits. Additionally, 
Reclamation has been actively involved in seeking financial assistance 
for these entities.
    Question. Some Bureau projects utilize an off-river reservoir which 
depends largely on ``connecting structures''--often a canal system--to 
get water in and out of the reservoir. At such projects, without the 
canals, the dam would be useless and unnecessary. Why does the Bureau 
of Reclamation seem to place lower importance on these connecting 
structures even though they are a vital part of the project itself ?
    Answer. Historically, since 1948, Reclamation has consistently 
provided formal, routine condition assessments/inspections of all such 
``connecting structures'' under Reclamation's ``Review of Operation and 
Maintenance Program.'' Reclamation is acutely aware of the operational 
importance of these canal systems and structures to convey and deliver 
project benefits, whether it is to a dam/reservoir or directly to a 
canal distribution system. However, high- and significant-hazard dams, 
which have the potential to cause loss of life or significant property 
damage should they fail, receive a deservedly higher level of condition 
assessment attention.
    Question. Given geographical and geological uniqueness and varied 
construction dates I find it difficult to believe all Bureau of 
Reclamation projects are identical. Is it the opinion of the Bureau of 
Reclamation that all repayment contracts include ``replacement'' even 
when it is not stated in the contracts?
    Answer. All Reclamation projects are indeed not identical, as you 
state. However, Reclamation laws and authorities do provide a generally 
consistent way in which to administer contracts relative to these 
projects and related O&M of these facilities. Under the terms of O&M 
contracts (not repayment contracts) with operating entities and project 
beneficiaries, replacements and rehabilitation are considered 
``maintenance.'' Within the context of managing Reclamation's 
infrastructure, the O&M of project works involves a wide range of 
activities. These O&M activities encompass those actions necessary to 
achieve continued structural integrity and operational reliability in 
delivering authorized project benefits. Maintenance tasks include major 
repairs, rehabilitation, and equipment/facility replacements and 
additions.
    Question. I would like to ask that you answer this question to my 
office in writing, as a follow-up to this hearing: What is the Bureau 
of Reclamation's official definition of ``operations and maintenance'' 
and ``operations, maintenance and replacement''?
    Answer. Within the context of managing Reclamation's water and 
power infrastructure, the operation and maintenance of project works 
involves a wide range of activities. These operations and maintenance 
activities encompass those actions necessary to achieve continued 
structural integrity and operational reliability in delivering 
authorized project benefits. Additionally, as stated in Reclamation's 
``Report to the Congress, Annual Costs of Bureau of Reclamation Project 
Operation and Maintenance for fiscal years 1993-97,'' dated September 
1998, ``the most visible maintenance tasks are the major repairs and 
rehabilitations, equipment and facility replacements, and facilities 
additions that are accomplished at every project over time.'' As such, 
the ``maintenance'' term includes ``replacements'' and, therefore, the 
definitions for both ``operations and maintenance'' and ``operations, 
maintenance, and replacement'' are considered to be synonymous. 
Similarly, for contract administration purposes within Reclamation, 
replacements have always been included as part of maintenance 
responsibilities and costs.

                                DROUGHT

    Question. Commissioner Johnson, what are the drought conditions in 
the west like today?
    Answer. All of Reclamation's 17 western States are experiencing 
some level of drought conditions ranging in intensity from abnormally 
dry to extreme. Areas of concern include the southern third of 
California through Arizona which has experienced rainfall under 50 
percent of normal over the past 60 days. In the upper portion of the 
Great Plains including portions of North and South Dakota, drought 
conditions are spreading. Much of the West is experiencing above normal 
temperatures.
    Question. Commissioner Johnson, How much funding could you utilize 
for the remainder of fiscal year 2007 and early fiscal year 2008 for 
drought assistance?
    Answer. The funding provided in the supplemental appropriations, 
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Public Law 110-28, May 25, 
2007, is sufficient for the needs of the Drought program.
    Question. Commissioner Johnson, how much funding could you utilize 
for the remainder of fiscal year 2007 and early fiscal year 2008 for 
drought assistance?
    Answer. The funding provided in the supplemental appropriations, 
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Public Law 110-28, May 25, 
2007, is sufficient for the needs of the Drought program.

                         LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

    Question. I have noticed in your budget that you are providing $1 
million to initiate implementation of the Loan Guarantee Program for 
rural water projects. As more than half of your projects are more than 
50 years old, I expect that this program has raised considerable 
interest in the West. How do you envision this program working?
    Answer. The law provides authority to issue loan guarantees for 
three categories of projects: (a) rural water supply projects; (b) 
repair and rehabilitation of Reclamation facilities; and (c) 
improvements to water infrastructure directly related to Reclamation 
projects.
    The Bureau is continuing to address the administrative requirements 
and the potential benefits of the program. We will keep the committee 
informed of our progress.
    Question. What will be the eligibility criteria?
    Answer. Eligibility criteria, developed through the formal 
rulemaking process, would include factors such as financial capability 
for repayment, engineering need and feasibility, historical diligence 
in performing routine operation and maintenance, environmental impacts, 
and efficiency opportunities.
    Question. Will this solve the recapitalization problems for many of 
the older projects in the West?
    Answer. This would not likely solve the recapitalization problems 
of older projects in the West, but will be a valuable tool to assist in 
meeting this challenge.
    Question. Will this serve the small water districts?
    Answer. Yes, smaller water districts would be an important focus of 
the program.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Dorgan. I thank all of you for being here. I'm 
sorry about the brevity but I must now go run and catch this 
vote. This hearing is recessed.
    [Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., Thursday, March 15, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]
