[Senate Hearing 111-534]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-534
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 3183/S. 1436
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Defense--Civil
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-293 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JON TESTER, Montana
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
PATTY MURRAY, Washington THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM HARKIN, Iowa GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Doug Clapp
Roger Cockrell
Franz Wuerfmannsdobler
Scott O'Malia (Minority)
Brad Fuller (Minority)
Administrative Support
Molly Barackman
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Page
Department of Energy............................................. 1
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Deparment of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration.... 51
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 91
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 106
Nondepartmental Witnesses
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 157
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 181
Department of Energy............................................. 201
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:22 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Dorgan, Murray, Feinstein, Reed, Tester,
Bennett, Cochran, and Alexander.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN CHU, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator byron l. dorgan
Senator Dorgan. I'm going to call the hearing to order.
This is a hearing of the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee. Dr. Chu, we welcome you to the
subcommittee this morning. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
We're starting a few minutes late. I think probably all three
of us were on the floor of the Senate, waiting for a 10 or
10:15 vote to occur, and we were just informed it won't occur
now, but will occur sometime in the future, either in the short
term or the longer term, any moment, or perhaps sometime today.
So that's the reason I was a bit delayed.
We have asked Secretary Chu from the Department of Energy
to come and present and discuss the 2010 budget. My expectation
is that we will be truncated a bit and probably be interrupted
with a short recess for a cloture vote. I want to note that we
will have Administrator D'Agostino before the subcommittee on
June 2, to discuss the National Nuclear Security
Administration's budget request. We're free to discuss any of
that today as well, but I simply want to remind members that
there will be further opportunity to discuss that in 2 weeks'
time.
This year's budget of $27.1 billion for the Department is
basically flat compared to 2009 appropriation numbers. A
substantial sum of money, a great deal of money, was provided--
$38.7 billion as a part of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. Those numbers, of course, were not intended
to be a substitute for the regular budget. They were intended
for the purpose of moving money around the country, getting
people to work, getting contractors working and building
projects and doing things that are of substantial value, and
creating assets for the future.
I was a bit surprised when I received the President's
budget. Because I felt that with the economy recovery funds, a
very substantial amount of money, $38.7 billion, to the
Department, that we might see a very different approach in
trying to deal with the priorities in the Department. And I'm
going to talk to you today about some of the strengths that I
see in the budget request and some of the concerns that I have.
I think there are some good stories in the funding increase
proposals. I think we have to maximize the capability of
renewable energy in our country. In order to do that, we not
only have to say, ``Here's where the country's headed,'' and
plot a map to get there, but we have to create the capability
to have an interstate transmission capability that connects all
of America. That's not easy, that's very difficult to do.
The science budget is robust. There's also a proposal for
eight new Energy Innovation Hubs, which I view as a means of
helping the Department of Energy address what normally people
call the Valley of Death, the dilemma of getting technology
transferred from basic science to applied research and then out
into the marketplace, so that it accomplishes what we intend to
accomplish in the field of energy for our country's future.
I'm going to just truncate my statement. I will, during the
questioning, have an opportunity to go through a wide range of
subjects with you, Secretary Chu. I think what I'd like to do,
with the permission of our colleagues, is call on Senator
Bennett for a brief opening statement, call on the Secretary to
make a presentation. Perhaps about that time, we'll have to go
over for the cloture vote. And then come back and have
substantial opportunity this morning to ask questions of the
Secretary.
If that is all right with my colleagues, let me call on the
ranking member, Senator Bennett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
abbreviate my opening statement. Mr. Secretary, welcome to the
subcommittee. We're glad to have you here in your first
experience in defending your budget. And having served in the
executive branch myself, I know that this isn't entirely your
budget, that the OMB has had a few suggestions, shall we say.
And you may or may not be pleased with those, but I won't call
on you to defend or comment on those.
Just a few highlights, you apply additional resources to
programs that appear to already enjoy some surpluses, but fail
to address chronic pension shortfalls that have been created by
the poor market performance. Now, I understand that these could
not be foreseen, but I don't think it's acceptable to ignore
the estimated $500 to $600 million shortfall spread across the
Department and the impact that that will have in undercutting
scientific and cleanup missions.
I continue my interest in NNSA and the labs, and would be
interested in talking to you about that and some of the
comments that you've made there. The Office of Science and
Renewable Energy has received nearly 50 percent of the stimulus
funding, and it seems unlikely that this will be spent before
the 2010 deadline. So we could talk about how that could be
shifted, it's not a matter of I don't favor this kind of thing,
but you can only shovel so much money out the door in certain
circumstances, and that's one thing that I would look at.
Funding for environmental cleanup is down $161 million.
There are two other factors that significantly increase the
deficit of this program. It fails to fully fund the pension
shortfalls that will reduce environmental cleanup by an
estimated $400 million in fiscal year 2010, and I've included
an amendment to the budget resolution to mitigate the impacts
that budgets will have on the cleanup. And I'm grateful, Mr.
Chairman, for your support in that effort.
The budget includes a $200 million tax on uranium fuel to
be paid by utilities, offsetting this to our overall budget
authority. If we don't do this--and it's frankly a little bit
of a budget gimmick--it creates a $200 million shortfall in our
bill. And this revenue isn't necessary, as there is $4.5
billion in existing balances. Those kinds of details, we would
talk through.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will leave it there and do
the best we can to move the hearing forward.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett, thank you very much. Mr.
Secretary, I know that you personally worked hard on the budget
that was presented to us, but you did so with very limited time
and also with very limited staff. I regret that a good number
of your nominations are all being held up. I have spoken to the
Senator that has the hold. It's a hold that's very Byzantine,
as far as I'm concerned, because that Senator has been promised
a hearing date, which is what he wanted. So I hope that you get
those nominations through so that you can have a full
complement of staff.
But having done what you have done, please tell us the
justification for the administration's budget proposals for the
Department of Energy. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN CHU
Secretary Chu. Okay, thank you. Chairman Dorgan, Ranking
Member Bennett, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be
before you today to present President Obama's fiscal year 2010
budget request for the Department of Energy.
The President's 2010 budget seeks to usher in a new era of
responsibility, an era in which we invest to create new jobs
and lift our economy out of recession, while laying a new
foundation for our long-term growth and prosperity.
President Obama's 2010 budget invests in clean, renewable
sources of energy, so we can reduce our dependence on oil,
address the threat of a changing climate, and become the world
leader in new, clean energy economy.
The 2010 budget request for the Department of Energy is
$26.4 billion, essentially flat compared to fiscal year 2009,
and it complements the significant energy investments in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This budget request
emphasizes science, discovery, and innovation to support the
key missions of the Department.
My written testimony includes an extensive breakdown of
this budget, and I'd like to use this time briefly to highlight
a few numbers and areas of particular importance. To promote
nuclear security in the President's ambitious non-proliferation
goals, the budget requests $9.9 billion for the National
Nuclear Security Administration.
To continue to accelerate legacy cleanup of our Nation's
nuclear weapons production, the budget requests $5.8 billion
for the Office of Environmental Management. To bolster the
Department's commitment to scientific discovery, the budget
requests $4.9 billion for the Office of Science. And fostering
the revolution in energy supply and demand while positioning
the United States to lead on a global climate change policy,
the budget includes requests for a range of energy investments,
including $882 million for the Office of Fossil Energy, $845
million for the Office of Nuclear Energy, and $2.3 billion for
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
That clean energy funding includes several notable
strategic investments, even as this budget holds the line on
spending overall. Solar power will receive $320 million, an
increase of 82 percent. Wind energy is funded at $75 million,
an increase of 36 percent. Funding for clean vehicle programs
is up 22 percent to $333 million, and funding for building
technologies is increased by 69 percent to $238 million.
Another significant increase is in the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, which received
$208 million, 52 percent more than in fiscal year 2009, as it
works to develop a new smart electric grid. The request also
includes funding to implement the Loan Guarantee Program and
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program.
With that brief overview, I want to turn to one of my top
priorities in the budget as Secretary, amplifying the Office of
Science's fundamental research with innovative approaches to
solving the Nation's energy problems. Specifically, this budget
request includes three initiatives designed to cover a spectrum
of basic to applied science to maximize our chances of energy
breakthroughs. The fiscal year 2010 budget will launch eight
Energy Innovation Hubs, while the Energy Frontier Research
Centers and the ARPA-E were launched last month.
Let me briefly explain the differences among these
initiatives and why I believe launching these hubs is so
important. The EFRCs are small-scale collaborations,
predominately universities, that focus on overcoming known
hurdles in basic science that block energy breakthroughs, not
on developing energy technologies themselves.
ARPA-E is a highly entrepreneurial funding model that
explores potentially revolutionary technologies that are too
risky for industry to fund. The proposed Energy Innovation Hubs
will take a very different approach. They will be multi-
disciplinary, highly collaborative teams, ideally working under
one roof to solve priority technology challenges, such as
artificial photosynthesis, or creating fuels from sunlight.
A few years ago, I changed the course of my scientific work
to focus on solving our energy and climate challenges because
of the urgency of this issue and because I remain optimistic
that science can offer better solutions than we can imagine
today. But those solutions will only come if we harness the
creativity and ingenuity and intellectual horsepower of our
best scientists in the right way.
I'm convinced that launching Energy Innovation Hubs is a
critical next step in this effort. Bringing together the best
scientists from different disciplines in a collaborative effort
is our best hope of achieving priority goals, such as making
solar energy cost competitive with fossil fuels, or developing
new building designs that use dramatically less energy, or
developing an economical battery that will take your car 300
miles without recharging.
These are the breakthroughs we need, and the Energy
Innovation Hubs will help us achieve them. I saw the power of
truly collaborative science like this firsthand during my time
at Bell Laboratories. I believe that to solve the energy
problem, the Department of Energy must strive to be the modern
version of Bell Laboratories in energy research, and this is
what these hubs will do. These investments will pay for
themselves many times over and enhance America's
competitiveness on the green energy jobs of tomorrow.
A final initiative in the fiscal year 2010 budget is a
comprehensive K-20+ science and engineering effort called RE-
ENERGYSE, standing for REgaining our ENERGY Science and
Engineering Edge, funded at $115 million. Through RE-ENERGYSE,
the Department will partner with the National Science
Foundation to educate thousands of students at all levels in
the fields that contribute to our fundamental understanding of
energy science and engineering systems.
PREPARED STATEMENT
It is my firm belief that the short-term impact of the
Recovery Act, combined with the long-term vision in President
Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget, will lay the necessary
groundwork for a clean economy. Both President Obama and I look
forward to working with the 111th Congress to make this vision
a reality. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you,
and I'm happy to take questions at this time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steven Chu
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Bennett, members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to be before you today to present President
Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of Energy.
The President's 2010 budget seeks to usher in a new era of
responsibility--an era in which we invest to create new jobs and lift
our economy out of recession, while laying a new foundation for our
long-term growth and prosperity.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request of $26.4 billion provides the
next critical investment in a multi-year effort to address the
interconnected challenges of economic uncertainty, U.S. dependence on
oil, and the threat of a changing climate by transforming the way our
Nation produces and consumes energy. Meeting these challenges will
require both swift action in the near-term and a sustained commitment
for the long term to build a new economy powered by clean, reliable,
affordable and secure energy. We will also train the next generation of
a technical workforce and the scientific researchers needed to maintain
the United States' preeminent position in science and technology. At
its core, this budget request emphasizes science, discovery, and
innovation to support the key missions of the Department.
I want to note at the outset that in developing the fiscal year
2010 request the Department considered that the $38.7 billion of
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) funding
received by the Department allows for the acceleration of a number of
important commitments. The Recovery Act makes investments in energy
conservation and renewable energy sources ($16.8 billion),
environmental management ($6 billion), loan guarantees for renewable
energy and electric power transmission projects ($6 billion), grid
modernization ($4.5 billion), carbon capture and sequestration ($3.4
billion), basic scientific research ($1.6 billion), and the
establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
($400 million). These investments will help jumpstart the economy, save
and create jobs, and serve as a down payment on addressing fundamental
energy challenges, while reducing carbon emissions and U.S. dependence
on oil.
INVESTING IN SCIENCE TO ACHIEVE TRANSFORMATIONAL DISCOVERIES
The fiscal year 2010 budget request supports our strategic
framework by:
--Investing in science to achieve transformational discoveries;
--Fostering the revolution in energy supply and demand while
positioning the United States to lead on global climate change
policy;
--Increasing American economic competitiveness;
--Maintaining the nuclear deterrent, reducing the risk of nuclear
proliferation, and advancing nuclear legacy cleanup; and
--Improving the management of the Department.
The President has committed to doubling Federal investment in basic
research over 10 years. The Department will support this commitment by
investing in basic and applied research, creating new incentives for
private innovation, and promoting breakthroughs in energy. Our Nation's
ability to sustain a growing economy and a rising standard of living
for all Americans depends on continued advances in science and
technology. Scientific and technological discovery and innovation are
the major engines of increasing productivity and are indispensable to
ensuring economic growth, job creation, and rising incomes for American
families in the technologically-driven 21st century.
As Secretary, one of my top priorities is to amplify the
fundamental research undertaken by the Office of Science with novel
approaches to solving the Nation's energy problems. While the
Department has made important contributions over the years, despite
almost three decades of effort, we are still confronted by the
fundamental problems of energy security and environmental degradation
from our energy use. That is why I am proposing new approaches to
solving the energy question. Specifically, this budget request includes
three initiatives designed to cover the spectrum of basic to applied
science to maximize our chances of energy breakthroughs. The fiscal
year 2010 budget will launch eight Energy Innovation Hubs, while the
Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) and ARPA-E were launched last
month.
Let me briefly explain the differences and why I believe launching
these Hubs is so important.
EFRCs are small-scale collaborations (predominantly at
universities) that focus on overcoming known hurdles in basic science
that block energy breakthroughs--not on developing energy technologies
themselves.
ARPA-E is a highly entrepreneurial funding model that explores
potentially revolutionary technologies that are too risky for industry
to fund.
The proposed Energy Innovation Hubs will take a very different
approach--they will be multi-disciplinary, highly collaborative teams
ideally working under one roof to solve priority technology challenges,
such as artificial photosynthesis (creating fuels from sunlight).
A few years ago, I changed the course of my scientific work to
focus on solving our energy and climate challenges. I did so because of
the great national and global urgency of this issue--but also because,
as a scientist, I remain optimistic that science can offer us better
solutions than we can imagine today. But those solutions won't come
easily; they will only come if we harness the creativity and ingenuity
and intellectual horsepower of our best scientists in the right way.
Having dedicated the last several years of my work to solving the
energy challenge, I'm convinced that launching Energy Innovation Hubs
is a critical next step in this effort. Bringing together the best
scientists from different disciplines in collaborative efforts is our
best hope of achieving priority goals such as making solar energy cost
competitive with fossil fuels, or developing new building designs that
use dramatically less energy, or developing an economical battery that
will take your car 300 miles without recharging.
These are the breakthroughs we need--and the Energy Innovation Hubs
will help us achieve them. I saw the power of truly collaborative
science like this firsthand during my time at Bell Laboratories. I
believe that to solve the energy problem, the Department of Energy must
strive to be the modern version of Bell Labs in energy research, and
that is what these Hubs will do.
The scientific collaboration the Hubs will foster will be unique
and indispensable, and must be backed by a meaningful and sustained
investment. These investments will pay for themselves many times over,
ensuring American leadership and American competitiveness when it comes
to the green energy jobs of tomorrow.
The following is additional information about the three
initiatives:
--Energy Innovation Hubs.--In fiscal year 2010 the Department
proposes to fund eight multi-disciplinary Energy Innovation
Hubs, at a total of $280 million. Modeled after the
Department's Bioenergy Research Centers, the work of the Hubs
will span from basic research to engineering development to
commercialization and a hand-off to industry. Each Hub will be
funded at $25 million per year, with one-time additional start-
up funding of $10 million in the first year for renovation,
equipment and instrumentation.
The Hubs will support cross-disciplinary research and development
focused on the barriers to transforming energy technologies
into commercially deployable materials, devices, and systems.
They will advance highly promising areas of energy science and
technology from their early stages of research to the point
that the risk level will be low enough for industry to deploy
them into the marketplace. While the intent is to provide a
funding stream that is more dependable than the standard
funding mechanisms, renewal after 5 years will not be
automatic. To receive renewed funding, Hubs will be expected to
be delivering exceptional scientific progress.
The research Hubs will explore the following topics: Solar
Electricity; Fuels from Sunlight; Batteries and Energy Storage;
Carbon Capture and Storage; Grid Materials, Devices, and
Systems; Energy Efficient Building Systems Design; Extreme
Materials; and Modeling and Simulation.
--Energy Frontier Research Centers.--In fiscal year 2010 the
Department of Energy will continue to support Energy Frontier
Research Centers (EFRC). Currently there are 46 EFRCs, funded
at $2 to $5 million per year. These centers enlist the talents
and skills of the very best scientists and engineers to address
current fundamental scientific roadblocks to clean energy and
energy security. Roughly one-third of the centers are supported
by Recovery Act funding. These centers, involving almost 1,800
researchers and students from universities, national labs,
industry, and non-profit organizations from 36 States and the
District of Columbia, address the full range of energy research
challenges in renewable and low-carbon energy, energy
efficiency, energy storage, and cross-cutting science. EFRC
researchers take advantage of new capabilities in
nanotechnology, light sources that are a million times brighter
than the sun, supercomputers, and other advanced
instrumentation, much of it developed in collaboration with the
Department of Energy's Office of Science.
--Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).--ARPA-E is a new
Department of Energy organization modeled after the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, created during the
Eisenhower administration in response to Sputnik. The Recovery
Act provided $400 million and the fiscal year 2010 budget
requests $10 million for ARPA-E. The purpose of ARPA-E is to
advance high-risk, high-reward energy research projects that
can yield revolutionary changes in how we produce, distribute,
and use energy. It will ensure that the United States maintains
a technological lead in developing and deploying advanced
energy technologies.
ARPA-E seeks out the best ideas and assembles teams that can move
quickly to help bring the idea to market, and funds this work
through grants that range between $500,000 and $10 million.
Most projects will be funded with seed money that sunsets after
3 years. Research teams are expected to either make
exceptionally rapid progress or bring their technology to the
point the private sector can pick it up within that time.
These initiatives will be augmented with a broad educational effort
that cuts across DOE program offices to inspire students and workers to
pursue careers in science, engineering, and entrepreneurship
specifically related to clean energy. This education effort will help
to develop the scientific and technical expertise to sustain the new
energy economy and increase American competitiveness.
--RE-ENERGYSE (REgaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge).--
As part of President Obama's recent address before the National
Academy of Sciences on reinvigorating scientific research and
innovation in the United States, the President announced a
joint education initiative between the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Energy to ``inspire tens of
thousands American students to pursue careers in science,
engineering and entrepreneurship related to clean energy.''
As part of this initiative, the Department will launch a
comprehensive K-20+ science and engineering initiative, funded
at $115 million in fiscal year 2010, to educate thousands of
students at all levels in the fields contributing to the
fundamental understanding of energy science and engineering
systems. This initiative, which complements the Department's
other education efforts, will provide graduate research
fellowships in scientific and technical fields that advance the
Department's energy mission; provide training grants to
universities that establish multidisciplinary research and
education programs related to clean energy; support
universities that dramatically expand energy-related research
opportunities for undergraduates; build partnerships between
community colleges and different segments of the clean tech
industry to develop customized curriculum for ``green collar''
jobs; and increase public awareness, particularly among young
people, about the role that science and technology can play in
responsible environmental stewardship.
Office of Science
The fiscal year 2010 budget requests $4.9 billion for the Office of
Science, a $184 million increase over fiscal year 2009. In general, the
2010 request will focus on breakthrough science while developing and
nurturing science and engineering talent. It will also increase funding
for climate science and continue America's role in international
science and energy experiments. The budget also invests in the next
generation of America's scientists by expanding graduate fellowship
programs in critical energy-related fields. This funding builds upon
the $1.6 billion provided in the Recovery Act for basic science
programs at the Department of Energy.
The Office of Science supports investigators from more than 300
academic institutions and from all of the DOE laboratories. The fiscal
year 2010 budget request will support about 25,000 Ph.D.s, graduate
students, undergraduates, engineers, and technicians. Approximately
24,000 researchers from universities, national laboratories, industry,
and international partners are expected to use the Office of Science's
scientific user facilities. The fiscal year 2010 request supports the
President's plan to increase Federal investment in the sciences and
train students and researchers in critical fields, to invest in areas
critical to our clean energy future, and to make the United States a
leader on climate change.
Two of the Department's eight Energy Innovation Hubs are requested
in the Office of Science in fiscal year 2010 ($70 million). These Hubs
will bring together teams of experts from multiple disciplines to focus
on two grand challenges in energy: the creation of fuels directly from
sunlight without the use of plants or microbes and advanced methods of
electrical energy storage.
The Office of Science supports a diverse number of research
programs including:
--High-Energy Physics ($819 million)
--Nuclear Physics ($552 million)
--Biological and Environmental Research ($604 million)
--Basic Energy Sciences ($1.7 billion)
--Advanced Scientific Computing Research ($409 million)
--Fusion Energy Sciences ($421 million)
fostering the revolution in energy supply and demand while positioning
the united states to lead on global climate change policy
U.S. dependence on oil is a national security challenge.
Furthermore, the United States has a responsibility to curb carbon
emissions to mitigate the effects of global climate change. The fiscal
year 2010 budget request will expand the use of low-carbon and
renewable energy sources and efficiency, and support the Smart Grid.
Deploying these technologies will position the United States to lead on
global climate change policy.
Energy Efficiency and Renewables
Achieving these goals requires changes to both the demand and
supply of energy. DOE is addressing both by improving the Nation's
energy efficiency to reduce energy demand and by investing in
technologies and approaches to transform energy supply and
transmission. The fiscal year 2010 budget request of $2.3 billion for
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) will
transform the Nation's energy infrastructure by investing in a variety
of renewable sources of electricity generation and deploying
technologies to reduce our dependence on oil and decrease energy use in
homes, transportation, and industry. These sources of energy will
reduce the production of GHG emissions and usher in a revitalized
economy built on the next generation of domestic production.
Investments in efficiency R&D, grants to States and weatherization
assistance will have immediately tangible benefits by reducing energy
use, lowering energy bills, and reducing GHG emissions and helping to
create jobs across the country.
This budget request for EERE provides a diverse portfolio of
solutions to our energy and environmental challenges. This starts with
improving energy efficiency, which can be one of the cheapest, cleanest
means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The budget includes
significant increases in several programs in support of the President's
efforts to promote energy efficiency, including these increases:
--Building Technology Program $238 million (+$98 million or 69
percent)
--Vehicle Technology Program $333 million (+$60 million or 22
percent); and
The budget continues the shift to clean and renewable energy,
including these increases:
--Solar Energy Program $320 million (+$145 million, or 82 percent);
--Wind Energy Program $75 million (+$20 million, or 36 percent); and
--Geothermal Program $50 million (+$6 million or 14 percent.)
The budget also has funding for:
--Fuel Cells Technology ($68.2 million)
--Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D ($235 million)
--Water Power ($30 million)
--Industrial Technologies ($100 million)
--FEMP ($32.3 million)
--Weatherization ($220 million)
--State Energy Program Grants ($75 million)
Electricity Transmission and Reliability
The Nation's ability to meet the growing demand for reliable
electricity is challenged by an aging electricity transmission and
distribution system and by vulnerabilities in the U.S. energy supply
chain. Despite increasing demand, the United States has experienced a
long period of underinvestment in power transmission and infrastructure
maintenance. The majority of the power delivery system was built on
technology developed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and is limited by
the speed with which it can respond to disturbances. This limitation
increases the vulnerability of the power system to outages that can
spread quickly and have regional effects. Deploying the next generation
of clean energy sources will require modernization of U.S. energy
infrastructure which will rely on digital network controls and
transmission, distribution and storage breakthroughs.
The proposed fiscal year 2010 Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability budget provides $208 million, an increase of 52
percent over fiscal year 2009, and builds on the ``smart grid''
investments and other activities to modernize and secure the electric
grid provided by $4.5 billion of Recovery Act funds, supporting the
following areas:
--Clean energy transmission and reliability ($42 million)
--Smart grid research and development ($67 million)
--Energy storage ($15 million)
--Cyber security for energy delivery systems ($50 million)
--Permitting, siting and analysis ($6.4 million)
--Infrastructure security and energy restoration ($6.2 million)
Fossil Energy
The fiscal year 2010 budget request of $882 million for the Office
of Fossil Energy (FE) will help ensure that the United States can
utilize traditional domestic energy resources in a clean and affordable
manner. The United States has 25 percent of the world's coal reserves,
and fossil fuels currently supply 86 percent of the Nation's energy.
Low-carbon emissions coal plants and production of methane (natural
gas) from gas hydrates will help allow fossil fuels to be used as
abundant and low-carbon emitting energy resources. In direct support of
the Department of Energy's Energy Security mission, $229 million of the
$882 million has been requested to provide operations, maintenance and
repair funding for a Strategic Petroleum Reserve program that is
environmentally responsible and fully responsive to the needs of the
Nation and the public, protecting against potential disruptions in
foreign and domestic petroleum supplies.
The Department is committed to advancing Carbon Capture and Storage
(CCS) technologies in order to promote cleaner and efficient use of
fossil fuels. The $3.4 billion in Recovery Act funds, combined with
$222 million requested in fiscal year 2010 for CCS research and
development, is the keystone of the Department's clean coal research
program which seeks to establish the capability of producing
electricity from coal with dramatically reduced atmospheric emissions
of carbon dioxide.
In fiscal year 2010, the Energy Innovation Hub for CCS will focus
on enabling fundamental advances and discovery of novel and
revolutionary capture/separation approaches to dramatically reduce the
energy penalty and cost associated with CO2 capture.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request for FE funds the following
areas:
--Coal ($403.9 million) including $179.9 million for carbon
sequestration
--Fossil energy research and development ($617.6 million)
--Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ($23.6 million)
--Strategic Petroleum Reserve ($229.1 million)
--Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ($11.3 million)
Nuclear Energy
The $845 million budget request for the Office of Nuclear Energy
(NE) recognizes that nuclear energy is a fundamental component of the
energy mix which currently supplies approximately 20 percent of the
Nation's electricity and over 70 percent of low carbon emitting
electricity.
In order to research and develop nuclear energy technologies that
could help meet non-proliferation and climate goals, and to maintain
the national nuclear technology infrastructure, the fiscal year 2010
budget request for NE funds the following areas:
--Nuclear Power 2010 ($20 million)
--Generation IV ($191 million)
--Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program ($192 million)
--Radiological Facilities Management ($77 million)
--Idaho Facilities Management ($203 million)
Loan Guarantee Program
In fiscal year 2010, the DOE will continue to accelerate the
availability of loans for innovative technologies through the Loan
Guarantee Program, while ensuring taxpayer interests are protected. The
Department requests $43.0 million in funding in fiscal year 2010 to
operate the Office and support personnel and associated costs. This
request will be offset by collections authorized under title XVII of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). Additionally, the fiscal
year 2010 budget provides $20 million for administrative costs to help
enable the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program to
support up to $25 billion in loans to automobile and automobile part
manufacturers for re-equipping, expanding, or establishing
manufacturing facilities to produce advanced technology vehicles or
qualified components.
MAINTAINING THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT, REDUCING THE RISK OF NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION, AND ADVANCING NUCLEAR LEGACY CLEAN-UP
Nuclear Security
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) continues
significant efforts to meet administration and secretarial priorities,
leveraging science to promote national security. The fiscal year 2010
President's budget request is $9.9 billion, which is $815 million more
than the fiscal year 2009 request, to meet defense and homeland
security-related objectives.
The United States continues a fundamental shift in national
security strategy to address the realities of the 21st century. The
fiscal year 2004 directed reductions to the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile were completed in 2007, 5 years early. Today's nuclear
weapons stockpile is now the size envisioned for 2012, and by 2012 it
will be almost 15 percent less than that--a total that is just 25
percent of what it was at the end of the cold war. Consistent with the
administration's Nuclear Posture Review, the Department of Energy has
created a vision for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex that is
significantly more agile and responsive, and will allow further
reductions in the nuclear stockpile by providing an industrial hedge
against geopolitical or technical problems.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request for NNSA funds the following
areas:
--Weapons Activities ($6.4 billion)
--Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ($2.14 billion)
--Naval Reactors ($1.0 billion): $175 million increase from fiscal
year 2009
--Office of the Administrator ($420.8 million)
Environmental Management
The Federal Government has the dual responsibilities of addressing
the nuclear weapons production legacy of our past and providing the
necessary environmental infrastructure for today that will ensure a
clean, safe and healthy environment for future generations. To deliver
on the Department's obligations stemming from 50 years of nuclear
research and weapons production during the cold war, the Office of
Environmental Management (EM) continues to focus its resources on those
activities that will yield the greatest risk reductions, with safety as
the utmost priority. To achieve a balance of risk reduction and
environmental cleanup, the fiscal year 2010 request of $5.8 billion, a
decrease of 3 percent from fiscal year 2009, builds upon the $6 billion
in Recovery Act funding. These investments are already having an
impact. Fifty skilled new workers recently reported to work at the
Savannah River Site.
This request supports the following activities, in priority order:
--Essential activities to maintain a safe and secure posture in the
EM complex
--Radioactive tank waste stabilization, treatment, and disposal
--Spent nuclear fuel storage, receipt and disposition
--Special nuclear material consolidation, processing, and disposition
--High priority groundwater remediation
--Transuranic and mixed/low level waste disposition
--Soil and groundwater remediation
--Excess facilities deactivation & decommissioning
In developing the fiscal year 2010 budget for its environmental
cleanup efforts, the Department will focus on achieving the greatest
risk reduction, while also incorporating regulatory compliance
commitments and best business practices, to maximize cleanup progress.
In fiscal year 2010, EM is aggressively pursuing the consolidation and
disposition of surplus plutonium and other special nuclear materials to
enhance national security and to minimize the storage risks and costs
associated with these materials. In addition, EM continues to make
significant progress on the construction and operation of waste
treatment and immobilization facilities across the complex. The budget
continues shipments of remote-handled transuranic waste to the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request for EM funds the following
activities:
--Non-Defense Environmental Management ($238 million)
--Defense Environmental Management ($5.5 billion)
--UED&D Fund ($559 million)
Yucca Mountain
The fiscal year 2010 budget request of $197 million for OCRWM
implements the administration's decision to terminate the Yucca
Mountain program while developing nuclear waste disposal alternatives.
All funding for development of the Yucca Mountain facility would be
eliminated, such as further land acquisition, transportation access,
and additional engineering. The budget request includes the minimal
funding needed to explore alternatives for nuclear waste disposal
through OCRWM and to continue participation in the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) license application process, consistent with the
provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The administration intends
to convene a ``blue-ribbon'' panel of experts to evaluate alternative
approaches for meeting the Federal responsibility to manage and
ultimately dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste from both commercial and defense activities. The panel will
provide the opportunity for a meaningful dialogue on how best to
address this challenging issue and will provide recommendations for
managing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste.
IMPROVING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT
As Secretary, I am making a concerted effort to improve management
throughout the Department. The Department is committed to strengthening
its management to implement the $26.4 billion fiscal year 2010 request
and $38.7 billion of Recovery Act funds. The Department has developed
strong oversight strategies for Recovery Act implementation, including
upfront risk assessments and building specific risk management plans,
upgrading process controls, establishing personal risk assurance
accountabilities, and expanding outreach, training, and coordination
between Headquarters and field offices. The Recovery Act, however, is
only one aspect of a much larger effort to improve the Department's
management.
As part of President Obama's commitment to fiscal discipline, DOE
will focus on using its resources responsibly, transparently, and
effectively by identifying potential savings throughout the agency. The
fiscal year 2010 budget request of $182.3 million for Departmental
Administration, along with resources in individual program offices,
will continue the improvement in key functional areas such as human,
financial, project, and information technology management. These
efforts will instill management excellence and encourage the most
efficient use of the Department's resources.
The Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) will receive
$104.5 million, $33.4 million of which will go to cybersecurity and
secure communications, $9.4 million to the corporate management
information program, and $23.6 million for energy information
technology services.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer will continue its effort
in fiscal year 2010 to build and improve its integrated business
management system, iMANAGE, with the deployment of budget execution and
formulation modules such as iBUDGET. To accomplish this and other
goals, the CFO's office will receive $66 million in the fiscal year
2010 budget. A significant portion of the increase is to assume costs
previously carried by the CIO for accounting systems operations.
The Office of Management ($88.4 million) and the Office of Human
Capital Management ($29.5 million) will help ensure effective and
efficient management principles permeate from top to bottom at the
Department of Energy. The Department has been making steady progress in
improving project management and developed an action plan with concrete
steps and scheduled milestones to successfully address the root causes
of the major challenges to planning and managing Department projects.
The action plan identifies eight measures that, when fulfilled, will
result in significant, measurable, and sustainable improvements in the
Department's contract and project management performance and culture.
Primary actions include: strengthened front-end planning, optimized
staffing, improved risk management, better alignment of funding
profiles and cost baselines, strengthened cost estimating capability,
improved acquisition strategies and plans, improved oversight, and
stricter adherence to project management requirements.
The Department's human capital management efforts are focused on an
integrated approach that ensures human capital programs and policies
are linked to the Department's missions, strategies, and strategic
goals, while providing for continuous improvement in efficiency and
effectiveness. The Department is revising its human capital management
strategic plan to address future organizational needs, workforce size,
skill gaps, performance management systems and diversity. To accomplish
this goal, the Department will continue to implement strategies to
attract, motivate and retain a highly skilled and diverse workforce to
meet the future needs of the Nation in such vital areas as scientific
discovery and innovation.
CONCLUSION
It is my firm belief that the short-term impact of the Recovery Act
combined with the new approaches and long-term vision in President
Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget, will lay the groundwork necessary for
creating the new green economy. Both President Obama and I look forward
to working with the 111th Congress to make this vision a reality.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to present the
fiscal year 2010 budget proposal for the Department of Energy. I will
be happy to take any questions that the chairman and members of the
subcommittee may have at this time.
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your
testimony. I have a good many questions, so I will begin with
the first few questions, and then my colleagues will ask
questions, and I will be able to stay and ask remaining
questions.
Let me ask you about coal. I asked during, I believe it was
your confirmation hearing, about the statement, ``Coal is my
worst nightmare,'' that you made, and you described the context
of that statement, and I understand it.
This budget essentially flat funds coal research and
development. The fact is, coal is our most abundant resource by
far, not even close. If it's our most abundant resource--and I
and many others believe and I would hope you believe that we
can continue to use coal, because we can use science, research,
and technology to decarbonize coal--then how do we get there if
we flat fund research and development with respect to coal?
So can you give me a little bit of the philosophy that led
to a flat funding for that account? Given what the President
said about the substantial front-end investments for these
kinds of things, I would have expected a very substantial
recommended increase, in order for us to use coal in our
future, because it's our most abundant resource.
Secretary Chu. Well, Mr. Chairman, I agree with you, and I
have to say that this budget reflects that because it has
folded in the fact that we have received $3.4 billion,
substantial funds, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act. Many of the pilot programs for that money, $3.4 billion
that might have been funded in this section now have gone over
to that.
So in a certain sense, that incredibly large amount of
funding for these pilot programs and the investigations are
then, say, ``well, we will continue this current budget'',
certainly if it were not for the Recovery Act funds, you would
have seen a different budget.
So even though I know the philosophy of the Recovery Act
was to be seen as strictly supplemental, in the context of that
addition, I think it's reasonable.
Senator Dorgan. Well, that was the philosophy, actually.
But I think most of the stimulus funding is considered to be
demonstration projects rather than R&D. In the area of solar,
which I support, and some other areas, even though there was
substantial money in the stimulus, there's also substantial
money in R&D, but coal is flat funded.
Quickly, do you believe that we will have to continue to
use coal in our future and need to find ways to decarbonize
coal?
Secretary Chu. Yes.
HYDROGEN
Senator Dorgan. Okay. Well, we'll talk more about that. Let
me ask you about hydrogen. You have essentially zeroed out the
hydrogen program. You've moved a portion of it into a different
direction, but there are about 190 ongoing hydrogen projects
that are unfunded.
We've got about 500 jobs, 140 at universities, 150 at
national laboratories, 235 in industry, that have been working
on hydrogen. And I agree that hydrogen is not near term. But I
also agree if someone is going to look at things that are not
near term, but are essential in the longer term, who but the
Department of Energy should do that?
I'm stunned that the budget essentially just moves away
from hydrogen fuel cell research and stops projects in the
middle of these projects. I don't understand just deciding to
take projects that are half completed and say, ``You know what?
We've decided that we're not going to do those projects
anymore.'' I'm a big fan of hydrogen in fuel cells, and I
believe that they are going to be part of our future. I agree
it's not near term, but I agree also that the Energy Department
has a significant role in continuing this research, your
response?
Secretary Chu. Well, this was a tough call. I think it was
centered mostly on saying that hydrogen for vehicles is not
near term, and that we wanted to prioritize to be investing
more in things like advanced batteries, something that I could
see in the next 10, 15 years could actually be adopted on a
significant mass-deployment scale.
Hydrogen stationary fuel cells I think we will continue
funding. There are real issues that I have with transportation
vehicles. The most problematic, in my opinion, is we still have
not figured out how to store hydrogen in a compact form. So
while we can be funding more basic research and looking for
ways to do that, that is something of real significance.
The other is the infrastructure. We would have to create a
totally new infrastructure in order to have the hydrogen
vehicles be fueled. Not insignificant is the fact that the
hydrogen, if we were to deploy this within the next 10 years,
would come out of reforming natural gas, and it's a
questionable call as to whether we want to be using the
reforming of natural gas.
And so there are many issues. At a more basic research
level, I think there have been advances in fuel cells, and we
want to push on more radical approaches to these things. But I
think stationary hydrogen is going to be, in my opinion, the
first application.
Senator Dorgan. Well, in North Dakota, we're actually using
wind power to produce hydrogen from water, separating hydrogen
from--well, at any rate, my point is that I think the
Department's made a significant mistake here. And I, for one,
am not interested in shutting down these research projects, and
I'm going to do everything we can to continue them.
We're only looking at near term, the next 5 to 15 years,
but when you come around talking about cap and trade and
climate change, you're going to talk about 2040 and 2060, 2070.
So I really think this is an important area of research.
President Bush, Senator Bennett, myself, so many others
have been very involved in this, and to see these contracts
shut down in the middle of the contract on very important
research, I think is not a smart thing to do. So we'll have
more to discuss about that.
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION
Quickly, what is the status of the development of the
Nuclear Waste Blue Ribbon Commission? You recommend shutting
down Yucca Mountain as a storage site. So the question is
what's the development of the Commission, the status? What's
your evaluation of what the Energy Committee is doing? In the
energy authorizing committee, we have proposed something of
that sort. Are you considering recycling spent nuclear fuel to
reduce the volume? So give us your thoughts about what is
behind shutting down Yucca Mountain.
Secretary Chu. There's a first draft of names that are
beginning to be circulated among the White House personnel
people. We will be circulating them among Congress also for
comment. The authorization committees, Chairman Bingaman and
his committee, is I think--we're essentially in sync, in terms
of trying to develop a very measured, intelligent, deep group
of people that can actually step back and say that there are
options available to us today, and looking down in our crystal
ball and tea leaves 50 years from now, 20, 50 years from now,
we can see other options.
So now is a good opportunity to say--to charge the
committee. There are options. I personally feel that if we do
it right, we can develop ways of processing nuclear fuel to
recover much more of the inherent energy value of that stuff,
perhaps--through recycling, but we need to develop processes
that are economically viable and proliferation resistant.
So if that's true, and I think there's a reasonably good
chance we can do this in the coming decades, then we would want
to have two different types of storage--an interim type of
storage, where you can then either get back the access,
reprocess the fuel. We also want to be investing in types of
reactors that can help burn down this fuel, and especially
the--waste, so we can greatly reduce the waste.
Now, having--after you've done all that, then there comes a
point where you say you might not want to have access to, after
you've burned down a considerable amount of the energy value.
So then a permanent disposition might be called for. But these
are things that the Blue Ribbon Panel should be discussing. And
it's the hope that with their advice to both the administration
and the Congress, we can formulate a path forward that I think
could be much better than the one we're currently on.
Senator Dorgan. I'm going to reserve the remainder of my
questions until the end. Senator Bennett?
NUCLEAR POWER
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
let's continue this conversation about nuclear power. You've
testified several times, and again today, in your support of
nuclear power. And I'm delighted with that, because I'm a
strong proponent myself. The budget fails to demonstrate any
urgency, in my view, particularly deploying state-of-the-art
reactor technology. And the rest of the world is investing in
new reactors. Russia, France, India, all beginning to line up
countries to sell their reactor technologies.
Now, the United States is clearly the leader in terms of
safety. There have never been lives lost. There's never been a
problem with the American reactors. So that raises the question
of why we are not the export leader in this business, but these
other countries are.
So would you be willing to support additional funding for
the NP2010 program if it improved U.S. export competitiveness
and accelerated the deployment of new reactors domestically?
That would, I believe, create thousands of new jobs in the
United States. Is that something that you could be supportive
of, if this subcommittee moved in that direction?
Secretary Chu. Well, in terms of NP2010, there were two
reactors that we initially were supporting, the AP1000, the
Westinghouse reactor, and the GE reactor. It is my
understanding that the orders for the GE reactor have shifted,
and it's not clear. And so while that reactor is still going
forward in a much different pace--and so a decision was made
until we get strong signs from General Electric that they were
going to go ahead and push this because of the recession,
because of a shifting of orders, for example, from the GE
reactor to the Westinghouse reactor, the support of the
licensing of that reactor didn't seem to be as high a priority.
So I do want very much to restart the nuclear industry.
We're in a final review of a number of proposals for the loan
guarantees. And so that's something that has a very high
priority with me. This specific reactor, the GE reactor, and
the extension of 2010 will really depend, in large part, on
what General Electric--how aggressively they want to move
forward on it as well.
LOAN GUARANTEES
Senator Bennett. I see. Let's talk about the loan
guarantees for a minute. In the bill that left the Senate,
there was a very hefty increase in loan guarantees. It did not
survive with the conversations in the conference. Those of us--
well, I won't say those--I was subjected to some fairly heavy
criticism on the part of people who said, ``Well, the loan
guarantees should not include nuclear. The loan guarantees
should be entirely for wind and solar and that sort of thing,
and you shouldn't include nuclear in there.''
The Department's issued five solicitations under the Loan
Guarantee Program, and in four of the five, demand vastly
exceeded the available supply. Now, would you be open to having
the Congress change the law so that you could shift from one
pattern to the other, if there's one that's undersubscribed,
and make that money available to others? And do you still
support the idea that under the loan guarantees, nuclear has to
be included as renewable, in the sense that we are defining as
renewable something that is not emitting carbon?
Secretary Chu. I absolutely support the idea that within
the loan guarantees, restarting the nuclear industry should be
supported. Right now, the $18.5 billion can probably help start
three of their four applications. We're looking as to whether
there can be some cost-sharing with non-Federal loan guarantees
from abroad in order to fund four. I think that's a start. I
personally would like to see a bigger start.
Senator Bennett. Well, the request for $93 billion for the
$18.5, so there's obviously a great deal of interest in it. And
my concern is that if you have other areas under loan
guarantees where the requests are below the amount available,
that you be given the authority to shift money from that and
make it available to nuclear. Is that something you would be
supportive of?
Secretary Chu. I think in general, philosophically,
absolutely yes. But I think to balance that, there is a fear,
because the cost of nuclear is so high, that there is a fear
that if you were allowed to shift the money, that it could
easily gobble up a lot of the things of the lower cost
renewable energy projects. So there should be a balance there,
but having the flexibility to make those decisions, I would
welcome.
Senator Bennett. Okay, one last question. We've talked
about the stimulus package and the amount of money that's
available. Can you give us a path as to how quickly some of
this money can be moved out? It has not moved as rapidly as
many people thought that it should. And are those people just--
their expectations are too high, and you're moving the best you
can? Or have you run into problems? Or is there a holdup where
we can be helpful? Can you give us the timeline? Just give us
an overall view of what's happening with all of the money that
got appropriated to----
Secretary Chu. I think the progress in the loan guarantees
has been actually very good since when the new administration
took over. When I took over initially, I was told that the
first loan, which was authorized by----
Senator Bennett. Not just loan guarantees, but generally,
the President--you have $38.7 billion appropriated, and you
spent 1 percent of that.
Secretary Chu. Okay. That's right. So in many of the
programs we're doing, we're on target. We have a schedule that
we want to have allocated 70 percent of that Recovery Act money
by Labor Day. There's an issue here because in many of the
things that we do, we request for proposals. We have to review
the proposals, and then we have to make decisions.
So in order to do this, there's going to be a massive
review this summer of many of those programs. So we've gotten
clearance from OMB, apportionment of many of these things. And
so the allocations, we hope a lot of them can be made by this
Labor Day. So, so far, there has been $4 billion obligated to
date, about 10 percent.
Senator Bennett. About 10 percent. Okay. So, Labor Day is
an updated timeline when you will have, what, 70 percent of it
spent?
Secretary Chu. Well, by spent, what we're saying----
Senator Bennett. Or obligated?
Secretary Chu. Yes, we're trying to get to that obligation
period by that time. That's correct.
Senator Bennett. By Labor Day. And are there any accounts
that you see that might, in fact, lower the amount you'll have
to spend in fiscal year 2010 as a result of the normal
appropriations?
Secretary Chu. Sorry, I didn't quite get the question.
Senator Bennett. If you have the backup of stimulus funds
that you've been unable to spend and then those get spent
during fiscal year 2010, does that mean there is any fiscal
year 2010 money that can, in fact, be delayed until fiscal year
2011 because you simply can't physically spend it?
Secretary Chu. Right. Well, we're going to be trying to do
our best to satisfy the statutes of that Economic Recovery,
which is really to have it essentially obligated--100 percent
of it obligated by 2010, and a large fraction of it spent. But
as you know, there--in some of these things that we're doing,
in order to lay the foundation for a new energy economy, it's
not as though it's money instantly into supplemental check----
RECOVERY FUNDS
Senator Bennett. Oh, I understand that. But you understand
the angst that is out there among our constituents about the
amount of money in total the Federal Government is spending and
the concern that it may not be spent wisely. And if, as you
move forward in your pattern to say, ``Okay, this is the proper
timetable and the proper method of spending stimulus funds,''
and you discover that in doing that, it means that you do not
need as much of the 2010, in terms of--speaking in business
terms now--actual cash flow. I'm not talking about changing
your plans or changing your research programs or your targets
or something.
But there becomes a physical question of pushing the money
out the door. And in terms of actual cash flow in 2010, you
can't prudently do it----
Secretary Chu. Right.
Senator Bennett. Would you share with the subcommittee
those funds that might be pushed onto 2011?
Secretary Chu. Yes, I could share those concerns. But we
are looking at novel ways of addressing this. It is a--you're
quite right to say that this is a Herculean task. It more than
effectively doubles our budget. And so, for example, I have
sent a letter out to all the presidents of the major research
universities, the relevant deans, the presidents, and the
executive chairs of all the relevant professional societies, to
say that we're going to have essentially a review-fest over a
period of one week in Washington, asking them to nominate for
this summer their best people to help us review these
proposals. We cannot do this alone with our current staff. And
so we're looking at things like that in order to get this
moving.
Senator Bennett. Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett, thank you very much. I
have just been called by Senator Reed, the majority leader, to
go to the floor to negotiate an amendment that they're trying
to clear before they do final on this, in the bill that's now
pending. So I've asked Senator Murray to chair while I'm gone.
And let me call on Senator Alexander. We're recognizing
Senators in order of appearance at the hearing.
INNOVATION HUBS
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Secretary, welcome. On May 9, 2008, I made an address at Oak
Ridge Laboratory about a new Manhattan project for clean energy
independence, seven grand challenges for the next 5 years:
plug-in cars and trucks, carbon capture, solar power, nuclear
waste, advanced biofuels, green buildings, and fusion. So I
like your hubs. I think that's exactly the way to go about
these grand challenges.
I have a question about a relatively small item. In the
America Competes Act, which you had a role in developing the
recommendations for, there is a provision for distinguished
scientists who would have one foot at a university and one foot
at a national laboratory. It's worked well at Oak Ridge, for
example, with the University of Tennessee over the last 20
years.
There's authorization for up to 100, was the idea, to be
phased in over a period of time, and there's the authorization
for $30 million of spending, none of which is funded yet in
this budget. I just want to call that to your attention in case
it does get funded to suggest that moving ahead with those at
the rate of four or five a year might be one way to advance
these hubs, as you're looking to attract very talented people
to focus their attention on those. Have you noticed this?
Secretary Chu. Actually, first, let me just say I support
the idea. I think having intimate collaborations from
universities and national labs is something I'm very supportive
of. I would be encouraging--although one doesn't see it
specifically in a line item of a budget, one is beginning to
see this in the national labs, and I would be encouraging the
national labs to grow much stronger relationships with
surrounding universities. It serves both the university and the
national labs very well. It brings in a lot of young blood. It
creates a churn and intellectual excitement.
So while it doesn't have to necessarily show up in a line
item, I will be encouraging all the national labs to do just
that within their programs.
Senator Alexander. And this authority isn't earmarked to a
particular university; it's for the Secretary to compete and do
it in whatever way is right. I would like to explore the
questions that Senator Dorgan and Senator Bennett raised about
nuclear power.
The President, in his inaugural address, talked about power
from the earth, the wind, and the sun, and that's captured the
imagination of a lot of people. But it's less than 1\1/2\
percent of our electricity today, and if we double it or triple
it, we still don't have much. And even if we reach the 15 or 20
percent that some people think we might of renewable power,
that's probably it, and that still leaves a need for 80 or 85
baseload power.
I thought the President's rumored proposal today of capping
greenhouse gases from tailpipes by a low-carbon fuel standard
was a good idea. I think that it makes sense because that will
encourage switching to an existing technology, such as electric
cars. We have enough--we could plug in, Brookings says, half
our cars and trucks, without building one new power plant, if
we do it at night, we have so much unused capacity.
If we look back at the beginning of the cap-and-trade
program in 1990 and 1991, we had an existing technology then
for dealing with the acid rain. We had scrubbers that would
take care of that. Where I'm going is, as we move along in the
greenhouse gas discussion, we probably get next to coal plants,
which are 40 percent of the carbon. And we don't have an
existing technology to deal with that, except nuclear power,
and with a limited amount of experience with burying carbon
underground.
So why wouldn't we be as aggressive about expanding nuclear
power and doubling or tripling research in Manhattan project to
find a way to get rid of the carbon in existing coal plants as
we are with wind and solar and other so-called renewable
powers? They're not baseload powers. And isn't it true we have
to have some new source of clean baseload power? Why not just
put a plan in to build 100 new nuclear powerplants in the next
20 years as a start toward that and double or triple research
to take carbon from existing coal plants?
Secretary Chu. Well, as enthusiastic as I am about nuclear
power, that number, 100, would be a lot. It would be a huge
challenge to our nuclear industry. I think I've repeatedly gone
on record as saying, as you well know, that this
administration, this Department, the hopefully soon-to-be
confirmed members of my team are all enthusiastic about it.
They say it is a necessary part of our baseload power.
I agree with you, if you're going to go above 15, 20, 25
percent renewables, there are real issues having to do with the
transmission and distribution system, having to do with
storage. The storage problem is especially an unsolved problem,
but there are options, and so we'll be looking at, for example,
pumped hydro, where it's appropriate in certain regions.
But I reiterate the fact that we're blessed with a lot of
coal, and although we do not have today the technologies that
would make capture and sequestration of coal economically
competitive, I think there's a good chance that we can get
there. And so I'd prefer to take a different stand and say
let's push all of these things as hard as we can.
The nuclear industry, if you look at the capacity of their
ability to build reactors, it's not there today, and so while
we want to move aggressively ahead on that, I think we still
have to try to move aggressively as we can on developing the
technologies for capture and sequestration.
Senator Murray [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. We'll move to Senator Tester.
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
for being here, Secretary Chu. A couple of things, going back
to some previous questions, I certainly appreciate the
situation you're in and that there is a sizable sum of money
available to you to send out. But I also appreciate the fact
that you're taking the time to make sure we get the results
from this. It's just not money spent for the sake of spending
money. And I think there's a real urgency in generation and
transmission in this country, as the questions before me have
pointed out.
I want to go back a little bit to the Loan Guarantee
Program. You talked about a massive review--I don't know if it
was of that program or not. But just can you tell me where we
are as far as the decisionmaking process of that Loan Guarantee
Program, and what is the timeframe for getting some of the loan
guarantees out the door?
Secretary Chu. Okay, so we've made a provisional grant to
one company. That means that they have to find funding for the
current statute for the 20 percent. This is middle May. I think
by the end of this month, we'll be announcing a number of
others. We've greatly accelerated all the review processes and
how we do it, and we're doing many things in parallel now,
something that the Department is not used to.
And so the loan guarantees essentially are being
accelerated by about a factor of 5, maybe closer to 10. So this
is a very significant focus on making sure that these things
are reviewed, reviewed adequately, but very quickly.
Senator Tester. Okay. So you're anticipating some
announcements--because we are in the middle of May----
Secretary Chu. Right.
Senator Tester [continuing]. Any day?
Secretary Chu. Certainly within the next couple weeks to a
month, yes.
WIND ENERGY
Senator Tester. Okay, all right. We have great wind
resources, particularly in the eastern part of Montana. And
what has traditionally happened over the last 4 or 5 years is
they've built a lot of towers in a fairly small area for
purposes of maintenance and construction, cranes, all that
stuff. It looks to me like the best benefit you can get out of
wind is if you decentralize it, if you move it around for
intermittency purposes. The wind's blowing somewhere in eastern
Montana every day, all the time, and the issue is the grid.
Do you ever put forth policies or put forth direction to
electrical generation companies to encourage them, or is there
anything we can do to encourage that, or is that even a good
idea? I'm talking about decentralization of wind to reduce
intermittency and reduce the need for--go ahead.
Secretary Chu. No, that is a very good idea. In fact, a
number of Cabinet-level people have been meeting on an every-
other-week basis. The principals--meet--this is Interior, Ag,
Energy, CEQ, a number of stakeholders--to try to develop a
coherent plan where the energy resources, both solar and wind,
where are the places where it would not be--we have to be very
sensitive to environmental concern and danger species, things
like that, and trying to now develop this--FERC is also, of
course, part of this. And we're trying to then develop this and
start to work with the private sector.
Senator Tester. So you have the ability to give some
direction?
Secretary Chu. Well, we're----
Senator Tester. Or we need to do it at this level?
Secretary Chu. Well, we are trying to develop some plan
that gets buy-in from the private sector.
Senator Tester. Okay. That's the best.
Secretary Chu. The meetings have been going on for several
months.
CO2 SEQUESTRATION
Senator Tester. A few weeks ago, this subcommittee had a
hearing on beneficial use of CO2. We heard some
pretty encouraging things about algae. One that was
particularly encouraging to me was cement, making cement, not
having to separate the flue gas. It sounded to me like it was
tricked out and ready to go.
Two questions, No. 1, is that kind of specialty use of
CO2 something that you see as viable and is it
something that can happen? And then the follow-up question is,
is the beneficial reuse of CO2, is it being limited
by our study of carbon sequestration and storage?
Secretary Chu. We are certainly looking into those things--
the algae converted CO2 into lipids that can be used
for transportation fuel and cement. The verdict is not in
whether these processes work but if they could go to a scale
necessary to be significant, and so we're looking very hard
into this. I do know other countries also are looking into--for
example, I just had a discussion with some representatives of
China. They're keen on seeing whether this can actually work.
But again, we're in the process of trying to study whether
it can really go to scale or whether it will be a small, more
boutique type of thing. Cement especially is something that
goes in several stages. There are various grades of cement and
long before you can actually get into a structural cement there
are many issues having to do with structural integrity. The
economic viability is something--it's--but these are fairly new
ideas, and so we are very interested in looking and seeing if
they can really work.
Senator Tester. Do you think the budget's adequate enough
to deal with the CO2 issue, generally speaking, both
as beneficial use and as storage? Is this an adequate budget to
deal with that?
Secretary Chu. I believe it is. I think we're upping,
actually, the funding in algae, and cement, there are a couple
of companies looking at this, in terms of supporting that with
loan guarantees.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Tester. Senator
Feinstein.
DESERT PROTECTION
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Good morning, Secretary. It's good to see you here. I've tried
to obtain an appointment with you. So far, I've not been able,
so I'm going to take this opportunity to express a concern
publicly that I would have expressed privately, had I had the
opportunity.
You may not know this, but I authored the Desert Protection
Act in southern California. We created two new national parks,
Joshua Tree and Death Valley, and the Mojave Preserve. Since
that time, for about the past 7 years, we've been trying to buy
railroad inholdings to put them into conservation and have in
effect bought about 700,000 acres in a very unique public-
private partnership. The private sectors contributed $40
million, and we, about $17 million, to be able to do that.
So it was much to my consternation that I was suddenly told
that a lot of large solar facilities were going on the land
that we had just purchased with a lot of private money to
conserve. So I went down to the desert and brought the
companies involved and took a look.
And here's what I found, that I saw seven projects. They
totaled nearly 60 square miles, 60 square miles. One was 9.3
square miles. One was 7.03 square miles. One, 15 miles square,
that's BrightSource, Iberdrola, 3.09, the second Iberdrola,
another 3.09, PG&E, 6.56, and Solal, 6.25, and many of them in
this land that is due for conservation and that had been
purchased for the purpose of conservation.
Then I began to look, and I talked to Southern California
Edison, ``What's your largest solar project?'' 50 megawatts.
And I see here, we've got 914, 815 megawatts, 500, 500, 500,
800, 600, huge projects. And I asked how was this done? Well,
the national topography of the land is leveled out. The sand is
removed. A gravel surface is put in. The solar troughs are
centered. You need a large steam plant, and you need very large
transmission lines.
The question comes, for me, having tried very hard over 16
years to protect this area of the desert, now to see it all in
the main going for a huge number--now, I'm only talking about 7
out of 65 projects for the area. Those were the only ones I
saw. But the ones I saw were 60 square miles' worth of solar
troughs, huge steam plants and fences that will go around it.
Right in the middle of a desert where the desert tortoise has
some habitat, where there are other problems--bighorn sheep,
Indian petroglyphs, and so on--and we've been able to clean up
this desert over time.
The question I have is should we not cap the size of these
things? The largest that I know of is in Kramer Junction. Two
projects, one 160 megawatts and one 150. Each one is about 2
square miles. Those are the largest I know of anywhere in the
United States. And now we're talking about one of 15 square
miles. Should we not cap the size of these?
Secretary Chu. Well, I certainly would be willing to--
first, I'm a little bit surprised if you asked to see me and my
staff said no.
Senator Feinstein. Well, we just haven't gotten a response.
That's sort of the way it's done. You just don't hear.
Secretary Chu. Oh.
Senator Feinstein. But anyway.
Secretary Chu. I'm still surprised. You actually have my
private number.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I should call you at home, then.
Secretary Chu. But I'd certainly be willing to talk to you
about this. These are sensitive issues and we have to think
hard about them. I don't know--I was actually just informed
only a few days ago about this concern and I'd certainly be
willing to look into it.
I think this is one of those very delicate issues, as I was
saying to Senator Tester, as we are developing a plan moving
forward in conjunction with the other Secretaries, one of the
issues is the sensitivity to habitats of endangered species
that we're looking at, and we're trying to make sure that we
fold all those concerns into where there would be good sites
for solar and wind.
Senator Feinstein. My time is up. Let me say one more
thing. In my State, I have 47,000 abandoned mines. People came
in, they mined, they took the stuff they wanted and they walked
away from the mines. Solar technology is going to change. In
Daggett, I've looked at some photovoltaics and solar troughs.
They walked away from them. They left the steam engine there,
steam plant there. This has to be considered as well.
Everything right now is how you can do it the cheapest
possible way you can. Huge is better. But I've got to tell you,
I'm going to fight for this land to be protected. And I think
that size is a factor, and you just can't come in and build 15
miles square facilities with huge steam plants. We're willing
to do our share. I am. I understand the desert is a good place
for it. But the sky's not the limit, Mr. Secretary, and that's
what I want to say. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
WASTE CLEANUP
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Mr.
Secretary, thank you. You and I have spoken on several
occasions about the legal and moral obligation for the Federal
Government to clean up the waste that was left behind from
World War II and the cold war. We've talked about it prior to
your confirmation, at the Budget Committee hearing, and again
after the release of the 2010 budget proposal.
My position is really clear, and the administration is
going to have to expect it to remain consistent, because that's
what I want for these budgets. I want budgets that clearly meet
the obligations we have to the Nation and the States and the
communities that are home to those cleanup sites. And I want
budgets that consistently make progress toward the goal of
cleaning up that waste.
The funding highs and lows that we see just don't get us
there, and unfortunately, that's what I see in the EM budget
we've been presented with. Let me talk about the highs. In the
Office of River Protection, it's good to see an increase for
the work at the tank farm. We have seen years and years of
pushing off those infrastructure needs, and there's a lot of
work that needs to be done there. You're putting your focus
back on that work, and I do appreciate that. I expect that we
can remain consistent, and we'll look forward to that as the
new base level of funding for those tanks. That's really
important.
However, the same effort isn't evident with Richland
Operations, where there's a reduction in funding below the
fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2008 appropriated amounts.
That reduction does not represent a consistent effort for
stable and compliant budgets. We all have to remember that the
economic recovery funds were meant to make up for lost time and
to create good-paying jobs, not to make amends for this year.
The River Corridor Closure Project is up; however, the
Central Plateau is down. Reducing the active cleanup footprint
at the site is a really large task that requires consistent
budgets to fund the effort. So I encourage you to keep that in
mind when you're planning for next year's budget so we don't
get ourselves back into this position again.
As you know, Hanford is not going to be cleaned up in 5 or
10 years. It's a large project, massive in size, and we need to
manage it thoughtfully and consistently with that long-term
mission in mind. And that's why I am always saying we need
stable and consistent budget, so we can get the job done
safely, No. 1, and successfully.
I also wanted to just quickly mention to you the Hammer
Facility that is on site at Hanford. The Hammer Facility offers
incredibly wonderful training for people who take on the very,
very dangerous work of cleanup. And I'm hopeful that when you
do come out to visit the Hanford site, that you'll get the
opportunity to stop by and see Hammer, see what they're doing,
to help promote a safe working environment at a very, very
challenging place.
I'm still looking forward to your visit at some point in
the near future, where you can see progress on the site, but
also, some of the worker safety training going on at Hammer and
at PNNL and how everything works together towards cleanup.
I do have a number of detailed questions for you on support
for Hammer and the B reactor. I'll submit those for the record.
But I do have a question for you while you're here, Mr.
Secretary. I do want to say that I'm pleased at the overall
increase for energy efficiency and renewable energy. We've got
to move forward on a clean energy economy. And I think that
does help us keep on the path.
Now that you have spent some time at the Department, I'm
looking forward to hearing an update on the Water Power
Program. As you know, that program got $40 million in 2009, and
the President is now requesting a 25 percent reduction, which I
am very concerned about. I think we have to have a very strong
continued investment in existing hydro facilities that will
allow us to use those to supplement the more unpredictable
sources, like wind or solar. And I think we have to increase
our work to develop new marine and hydrokinetic technologies,
as well, that you and I have talked about before.
WATER POWER
So with my less than a minute left could you talk to me a
little bit about your vision for the Water Power Program.
Secretary Chu. I think, first, very briefly, I am very
committed to continuing the cleanup as aggressively as we can
and looking for better ways of doing that. It's not only the
money, but it's also the way it's invested and funded. And so a
lot of time is now being spent in reviewing how we deal with
the contractors, making sure that they do the job in a timely
manner.
In terms of the water projects, it's too late to start this
in 2010, but in the 2011 budget, I'm a big advocate for looking
at ways of being, let me just say friendly to the fish, but
allow us to continue hydropower, but also to look at the
possibility of actually having some pumped hydro, small amounts
of sources, so that we can actually couple the renewable energy
better. And so we're going to be looking very hard at that.
Senator Murray. Okay. I look forward to working with you on
that. I think it's extremely important. And I appreciate your
response. Senator Cochran.
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, welcome to the
subcommittee. We thank you for your cooperation and your
service as Secretary, a very important position. In the budget
request for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, roughly $50
million is included and proposed for the purchase of a new
cavern to replace an existing storage cavern that was said to
pose an extreme environmental risk. And this is for storage of
strategic petroleum reserve.
There are salt domes in my State of Mississippi which some
think are ideal sites for the storage of the petroleum reserve.
Your Assistant Secretary recently testified about legislation
to increase storage capacity, specifically for the strategic
petroleum reserve.
I'm curious to know what your thoughts are about choosing
caverns that some say are not environmentally appropriate for
storage, rather than looking into the possibility of salt domes
that are coincidentally located in southern Mississippi. I'm
just curious to know if this has reached your level for
attention and consideration.
Secretary Chu. Well, my understanding is that one cavern,
which I believe is the salt cavern--it wasn't understood that
the thickness of the salt was, in one section of it, thin
enough that it could open up the possibility of a breach and
can actually--the petroleum could leak into the environment.
And so that was discovered, in my understanding, last year,
year and a half. And so once it was discovered, it was decided
that that posed an environmental risk and we should go out and
purchase some property to put it in a place where the envelope,
if you will, would be less likely to be breached. And so that's
what we're in the process of doing, but salt caverns are
actually used for that, as you well know.
Senator Cochran. Right. Well, I was just curious to know
whether that reached your level for your personal attention. I
don't have any fixed views about which caverns are the best or
not the best, but we certainly want to be sure that they are
safe in terms of environmental consequences, and certainly in
respect to possible damage to people who live in the area.
Funding, incidentally for the strategic petroleum reserve
included $35 million for a site near Richton, Mississippi,
contingent on a report issued by the Department within 45 days.
My staff has contacted the Department about the report, and
we're just curious to know what the status of that report is,
if you know.
Secretary Chu. I don't know. I could get back to you on
that and give you the details.
Senator Cochran. We would appreciate that, and we would
like to be kept in the loop, as long as you have active
consideration of Mississippi sites. Or I know in Louisiana,
they have some salt caverns there as well. But it's of
importance. We want to be a positive contributor to the solving
of our energy problems, and we think that there are some
caverns that possibly could be suitable, and we'd like to
know--there was a report, I think, contemplated at one time to
describe and define this, so the general public would have some
better ideas of what's going on. Rumors get started, and I
would like to know what the facts are so I can pass that on to
my constituents. If you could look into that, I would
appreciate it very much.
Secretary Chu. Sure, I'd be delighted to.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
GEOTHERMAL
Senator Tester. Oh, that's entirely all right. I'll ask a
few questions here, waiting for Senator Reed to go here. Real
quick, do you think that there's any future as far as
geothermal goes in relation to baseload power, or is it
economically not going to happen?
Secretary Chu. I think there is a real potential,
especially enhanced geothermal. But we're looking--geothermal
right now is on .3 percent of our electricity generation
capacity in the United States.
Senator Tester. But we have incredible resource.
Secretary Chu. We have incredible resource. It's mostly--my
understanding, it's mostly in the ability to do enhanced
geothermal, meaning that you pump in water or carbon dioxide
that uses the heat transfer fluid. We know how to fracture rock
much better than we did before, and so this is a possibility.
We are going to be investing in research to see whether
enhanced geothermal can actually be viable. If it is viable,
there is a very large resource.
Senator Tester. How many years out do you think it is,
before the first viability?
Secretary Chu. I'm trying to think of the briefing, but
these things are issues where you're going to--it's, again,
there's--it takes time to drill. It takes time to test it. Ten
years. I don't know.
Senator Tester. Okay. Senator Reed.
WIND AND GRID INVESTMENTS
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, thank you
for joining us today. I know you are aware that my State of
Rhode Island is aggressively trying to deploy wind-powered
facilities off its coast in State waters near Block Island and
in Federal waters further out. This is not only going to
provide us with, we hope, renewable energy resources, but also
provide a stimulus to our manufacturing sector, producing the
blades to turbines and other equipment.
One of the concerns we have is that the investments that
you are leading in terms of the grid might focus the attention
away from these projects along the east coast and more toward
the center of the country. And I would just ask you to sort of
ask us how these grid improvements can help and not hinder the
development of these wind projects. And it's not just Rhode
Island. It's Delaware. It's all up and down the--Virginia, all
up and down the coast, this sector.
Secretary Chu. Well, you're raising a very important point.
The Atlantic Coast has a lot of wind resources, very close to
population centers. And we are--certainly this is part of us,
as we get out feet wet, so to speak, in finding out how to
develop the wind resources.
I think it's important to actually develop them in both
places. The more diverse the set of wind resources, not only in
Montana, but all over the United States, the better we have of
actually becoming more base load. So to have wind resources off
the shallow Atlantic Coast and having it in the Northern
Midwest, they're very important.
So in talking to power distribution companies, utility
companies, it's not clear to them what the best economic
investment is either. So we're trying to work through this. The
issue with offshore is that for shallow offshore, it's about a
factor of two more expensive initial investment. Even more so--
perhaps a factor of three or more--in the maintenance, and so
far, the maintenance is higher than expected in the European
experience. And so we are trying to work through all of these
things. Hopefully within several years, we can get the wind
turbines so that the gear boxes, the blades, are much more
robust.
But so these are all issues. Going offshore actually
complicates that.
Senator Reed. Yes, indeed. I think, though, that--and I
don't want to suggest a response, but it seems that there
should be a very explicit recognition of these offshore efforts
and coordination as you invest in the grid. It would help
either inadvertently or directly see huge investments, which
make it even more difficult to bring this power----
Secretary Chu. No, I agree with you. I think it should be a
balanced view, and how to develop the renewable resources at
large in the United States in the most balanced way. And in our
little group of secretaries and other administrators, this is
very much on the table, the balance between Atlantic offshore
and Midwest, for example.
Senator Reed. And principally FERC and the Department of
the Interior will have the principal roles of the siting, et
cetera. But I presume the Department of Energy will be an
active participant, from your comments.
Secretary Chu. Yes. But you said it correctly FERC and
Interior will have the major roles in deciding.
WEATHERIZATION
Senator Reed. Let me--I have at this time, one final topic.
And that is thanks to the efforts of Chairman Dorgan
particularly, there's been an unprecedented investment in
weatherization in the Recovery Act. And then the 2009
appropriations bill has $450 million to complement the roughly
$5 billion in the Recovery Act. But the 2010 budget has only
$220 million for weatherization. Now, I understand some of that
is because of a big spike up, and you're coming down. But there
is a concern that we're ramping up this capacity of
weatherization. We're getting people out there, particularly in
the context of recovery, those are good jobs, and then we're
going to see the funding streams diminish rapidly, leaving us
with capacity and people, but--and still with demand.
So I wonder if you could just give us the notion of what's
your long-term strategy for weatherization, Dr. Chu.
Secretary Chu. Yes, Senator, you were actually raising a
very good point. Because in the weatherization, roughly $10
billion is, in the Recovery Act, spread around several
agencies. Part of that is actually building a workforce that
can weatherize, and after 2 years or 2\1/2\ years, what do you
do with this workforce?
So I think what we are very concerned about, in trying to
design self-sustained programs beyond that. Let me give you one
example. Secretary Donovan and I are looking for ways in which,
when properties change hands, when you buy a home, that you can
have financing, additional financing, say an extra $10,000,
$15,000 that's part of your mortgage that, if done right, that
financing could actually decrease the cost of running your
house, because the money you save in lower utility bills will
be more than compensative for the additional little bit of
mortgage.
Now, when you sell your property, it's--okay, the
investments are there. And so that helps overcome the initial
hurdle of capital that is very important. This weatherization
could cost $10,000, $15,000 for middle-class homes. It also
gets the middle class into this.
We're also looking at programs where banks could be
encouraged to again for the affordability of the house, ask
that, in addition to a termite inspection, they ask for the
utility bills from the gas and heat. And in that section of the
country, this is the spread of utility bills per square foot
for average house. So just like a refrigerator label, this is
the spread--the home you're thinking of buying is here or here.
This does--first, no taxpayer money. Very little
transaction cost, but it motivates several things. You get a
more informed consumer. You actually give incentive to the
current homeowner to weatherize, to increase the resale value
of the home. And you actually--then there's an incentive. It
also helps the new home builders who are reluctant to put in
energy efficiency. One can predict the energy efficiency of
those new homes, and they look much better. And so you
stimulate in many ways, just by the simple transaction that
seems to me logical, in the sense that what a bank really cares
about is the affordability of the home. It includes the taxes.
It includes the mortgage rate. It includes the utility bills.
So there are things like that we're looking to do--and
revolving funds yet another one, so that we actually get this,
1 million or 2 million homes is just the beginning. We need to
get this self sustaining in a very deep way. So these are some
of the programs we're thinking of piloting and testing.
Senator Reed. Thanks very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS
Senator Dorgan [presiding]. Senator Reed, thank you very
much. Mr. Secretary, again, I regret that I was called over to
the Capitol, but I appreciate your answering the questions of
my colleagues. Let me go back to the issue of hydrogen. I want
to ask a number of questions then we will let you be on your
way.
The hydrogen fuel cell issue has been a part of the
Department of Energy's portfolio for well over a decade now. In
2006, the Department of Energy developed and released the
hydrogen posture plan. It laid out a 15-year strategy for
hydrogen and fuel cell research, development, demonstration,
and deployment.
Since about 2001, roughly $1.5 billion has been invested by
the Federal Government in hydrogen and fuel cells, and industry
and the States are estimated to have spent somewhere in excess
of $4 billion. My understanding, from the experts who know, is
that these programs have met their cost and their technical
goals. Research has kept pace with key milestones established
in the hydrogen posture plan.
So, again, I don't understand. Let me be more specific. Do
you come to us saying you want to shut down these research
projects in the middle of the research? Is that what the budget
is asking us to do?
Secretary Chu. Well, it is a shifting of priorities. I
would be very happy to talk to you about this and discuss this.
But certainly it was more the intent of the 2000--the concern
in the 2010 budget was focused more on the transportation
sector and whether hydrogen cars could become a reality in
let's say 20 years, and whether--or do we see it further out,
and whether we should be investing these resources in, for
example, much more efficient internal combustion engines,
especially, from my point of view, diesels, since the new
advances in diesels allow diesels to now meet California EPA
standards. They're very clean diesels, and also the plug-in
vehicles.
And so in terms of offsetting our imports of foreign oils,
getting some more oil independence, really getting these things
in the marketplace, I see those as more likely solutions in the
next 20 to 30 years.
Senator Dorgan. I don't disagree with that at all, but do
you think 50 years from now, that your hope is more efficient
internal combustion engines, more diesel engines on the road?
Or is it your hope that perhaps we do things that are
transformative? For example, continuing to work on hydrogen
fuel cells that are longer term? And if not the Department of
Energy to work on this, who?
And then finally, you didn't quite answer the question. Do
you really want us to shut down about I think 190 research
projects that are in the middle of the project? And we just
say, ``You know what? That was yesterday's money, yesterday's
Secretary, yesterday's idea. Shut them all down.'' And you
really want us to do that?
Secretary Chu. Well, I'd be happy to work with you and look
at the details of where the programs are and things of that
nature. And we can work out----
Senator Dorgan. I'm hoping to help you with the funding for
these projects, by the way, because I think--well, we may not
be around in the long term, in the long term, we're all dead.
But the fact is the near term is not the only thing that's
important to us. If we're going to be transformative, I think
you look out beyond 5, 10, and 20 years.
WIND DYNAMOMETER
Let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, about an issue, wind
dynamometer that is at NREL. My understanding is that we've
spent a lot of money to test commercial wind turbines at NREL.
I've been there. I've seen this, big investment in hardware.
I'm told that the DOE is now pursuing competitive solicitation
in the private sector for a dynamometer, rather than
capitalizing on the investment made at NREL. Are we moving away
from NREL as a center of expertise in this area, and if so,
why?
Secretary Chu. Well, actually, I'll confess I don't know
that part of it. I do know that we have this wind test facility
at NREL and there's a dynamometer. Getting the private sector
involved is something I think the Department of Energy is very
interested in. So I don't know the exact details of that.
Senator Dorgan. Would you look at that?
Secretary Chu. Sure.
Senator Dorgan. And my understanding is, there's some
interest in the Department of Energy to duplicate that
investment in the private sector up in the Northeast, and I'd
be very concerned about that. I mean, I would hope that we
would continue having NREL as the center of that research.
Secretary Chu. Oh, well, there's something else--maybe it's
this, but we are making investments in Boston, but that's a
wind test facility. That's not----
PENSIONS
Senator Dorgan. That's not what I'm thinking of. And also--
I'm going to say really nice things about you in a moment, but
I do want to ask these questions. It appears to me there's
about a $500 million to $1 billion shortfall on the pension
side.
Secretary Chu. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. And I think my colleague from Utah
mentioned that, and I didn't hear, but maybe you've answered it
since I----
Secretary Chu. No, I actually didn't get to that. This is
of great concern to us. We did scramble around for a lot of the
money. This is a serious concern. We have a lot of employees
and former employees, and we have an obligation to them. And so
there was some last-minute scrambling to find some emergency
funds. It's not completely covered yet. In the long term, this
is an obligation the Department of Energy has in the sense that
we have a liability. I don't think any other agency has this
liability. We have to figure out a way, for example, of having
our contractors move toward defined contributions rather than
defined benefits. Of course, we grandfather in all the people
that we've had obligation to. We're not talking about that. But
this overhanging liability is something serious, and because of
the stock market decrease and because of the new act that says
it has 80 percent funded, we all of the sudden got these
shortfalls.
We're aware of the problem. The long-term fix will probably
have to be something like evolving toward--as we get in new
contracts, toward defined contributions.
Senator Dorgan. Right. So we might have some unfinished
business on the budget side. I mean, it appears to us it's a
$500 million to $1 billion that's a shortfall. We'll have to
continue to work with you on that.
RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
Let me ask if you could just describe again, so that I
understand, in shorthand under what conditions would you
consider recycling spent nuclear fuel?
Secretary Chu. If we could develop proliferation
resistance, something that would be unlikely that terrorists,
if they got hold of this material, could actually work with it
as an example, if it has some soft protection, so it doesn't
create a stream of separate plutonium or something that's
easily shielded.
There's also the economic viability of the processes in
general. We want to see industry saying there's a path forward
which that we can really invest in these recycling plans. And
finally, we need to develop generation IV reactors, high-energy
neutron spectrum reactors that can burn down this waste.
I think actually all these things are solvable. It could
take decades, but I'm certainly interested in looking at it,
looking at the work. There's--if we extract a lot of the worth
of the nuclear fuel, this is a clean source of energy, baseload
energy, and I think the waste problem is solvable, and I think
there's a likelihood if we do it right and get a bunch of very
smart people on it, that we can develop these recycling
methods.
Senator Dorgan. And I would say, as you look out there,
decades out on the horizon exist not just this issue, but
hydrogen as well, in the longer term. You come from a science
laboratory, are a Nobel Prize winner, a very distinguished
person and I feel very strongly that the administration has
solicited the service of someone who's extraordinary. So I'm
very pleased you're there.
But I also know where you are. You're in the Department of
Energy, and that's a great place. You've got some great people
there. But it's also an area filled with superglue in some
areas. You just slow everything down then get it all stopped.
On the issue of loan guarantees and the things that you've come
to in this agency, an agency that in some areas, it just is
almost impossible to move. You can observe more movement in a
glacier than in the Department of Energy on some issues.
ACCELERATING LOAN GUARANTEES
So tell me about what you have discovered and what your
experience is with respect to getting some of these Loan
Guarantee Programs moving that were just dead stopped.
Secretary Chu. Well, we discovered first, that they could
be increased by a factor of 5, maybe even 10. The only way we
discovered this is actually, for example, we hired Matt Rogers,
an outstanding person from McKinsey, and by literally first
looking at other agencies in the Government, seeing how they do
their loan programs, and then looking at how we do it, but then
looking step by step at everything and how you actually go
about the business in terms of little horror stories here and
there. They said that the amount of paper required was such
that they were concerned of any loans below several hundred
million dollars. They couldn't know how people could afford to
do this because of the paperwork required, the amount of
paperwork, 500 to 1,000 pages. We're working very hard to
reduce that. The target is 50 pages. If you can't get your idea
out in 50 pages, there's something wrong with it.
In terms of vetting, many of the times, if you have a dual
vetting process, if there's a substantial financial investment
and a bank does some of the things, we can then cooperate and
do that. The idea that in helping the customers, the potential
customers, there was a strong sense that you couldn't help any
particular customer because it would be unfair, it was giving a
particular advantage to that particular applicant. And so we're
turning that around and saying there's another way to be fair--
help everyone. It's a novel thought, but we're moving ahead on
that.
And so what it really took after the first couple weeks to
say, okay. The people there need a little help in seeing that
you can actually move this considerably faster. The idea that
you go in serially and then you get to the next point and you
go again, it's like a long relay race. Every time you pass the
baton, the baton's dropped.
In actual fact, in industrial project management, in good
project managements in the Federal Government, that's not done
that way. You can start many things nearly in parallel. So we
essentially are looking at every nook and cranny and finding
that we can actually increase this considerably. And so, again,
we went from getting the first loan out in 1\1/2\ years to
getting the first loan out in 58 days from the time I took
office. And so we are very anxious to see this continue.
You made a reference to the fact that it is--the friction
in the Department of Energy is considerable. Our committee is
more that Newton was right--the body set in motion tends to
stop the next day, unless you continue to apply pressure.
But I think the good news is as we work through this and
actually give people the tools and the ideas of how to do this,
there is now beginning to be genuine excitement in the career
people.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Tester, did you have other
questions?
Senator Tester. Yes, I just had one, if I might.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just--if you might, let me finish
with my one question, then I'll recognize you for whatever you
wish.
DECARBONIZING COAL
People are coming to my office with really interesting
ideas. I had a person in some while ago who has a couple
hundred scientists working on developing synthetic microbes to
chew the coal. That's a scientific term, chew the coal, I
guess. Actually, the synthetic microbes would consume the coal,
and through the consumption of coal by these microbes, you
would produce methane, and probably even be able to do that in
situ, underground.
I have no idea whether that's just harebrained or
unbelievably interesting in the next 5 years, 25, or 50 years.
Someone comes to me with a patent that says, ``I have the
silver bullet with respect to decarbonizing coal.'' In fact, we
had a hearing on it, and the guy that comes to the hearing is
the recognized expert in the country from Stanford on cement
and concrete. And he takes all of the flue gas from a coal
plant, and through mineralization, or whatever, produces a
product that is, he says, harder than concrete and more
valuable and contains all of the CO2.
A company comes to me and says, ``We have a process by
which we separate CO2 with the flue gas, and we get
nitrogen, hydrogen, and baking soda, and baking soda contains
all the CO2.'' Those are just three, but there are
lots of them, lots of people out there doing interesting
things.
Give me your assessment. And the reason I'm asking this is
because I believe, again, we're going to continue to use coal
in the future. The question is, how effectively and at what
cost do we decarbonize coal?
Give me your assessment of those kinds of things and ideas,
and are you running into them, and do you believe they
represent great promise for the future?
Secretary Chu. I'm running into them. I think many of them
are very interesting, and we are looking at them very hard. I
think one of the things that you're seeing and the things I'm
also seeing is there's an unleashing of incredible ingenuity
and imagination. Not all these things will work. Most of them
will probably not work, but yet out of that, I think there's a
great possibility that there would be some really very good
ideas.
I'm a big fan of, at least in these early stages, where it
costs very little to explore these ideas, to explore as many of
them as possible. Now, this is actually one of the joys of
being in the job I have. We can look at these wonderful new
ideas and say, ``Is there going to be merit in this 5, 10, even
15 years out,'' of all those things, the concrete, the
conversion of coal, so most of the pollutants and the really
bad stuff is just left deep underground, and you just sip out
the natural gas.
These are potentially very good ideas. What's especially
nice about some of these ideas, especially the one on the bio
part, is that's occurring in an area where the science is
advancing very rapidly. And so the chance of a dramatic
breakthrough--because we now know how to reprogram these
microbes in completely new ways, offer real hope.
Whenever you see the science advancing most rapidly,
there's more likelihood of getting really big breakthroughs.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Tester?
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just--there are
two policies that we're wrestling with right now. One of them
is putting a value on carbon, and the other one is a renewable
portfolio standard. Assuming we put a value on carbon, is there
really a need for a renewable portfolio standard?
Secretary Chu. I think there is. Because of the way you are
going to be capping and bringing down the cap in a gradual way,
that it--and the type of legislation that is being discussed
actually has to allow the United States to make this transition
over a period of time. I mean, that's realistic. We just have
to do that.
And what our renewable portfolio standard does is it gives
you a guaranteed market, and so it can tell investors, we need
to get to let's say 15 or 20 percent. The price signal, if you
will, from the cap and trade and the decrease in the carbon
emissions is one way, but that has to be, by its very nature,
in order for the country to make a transition, a slow gradual
process, and a renewable electricity or renewable clean energy
standard, you say, now I've created a market, and so it's a
draw, so that the investment community can say, ``Yes, I can
put in my wind turbines or my photovoltaics.'' So they actually
complemented each other.
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you very much.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Dorgan. Well, Mr. Secretary, you are the first
Cabinet Secretary to use the term joy in describing your work
in all the years I have served here, but I expect that joy
reflects your background as someone who ran a science lab, and
having access to all of the interesting things that are going
on in these laboratories.
At this time I would ask the subcommittee members to please
submit any additional questions they have for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Question. The DOE currently has approximately 190 multi-year
contracts for hydrogen related research that would be terminated under
the fiscal year 2010 DOE budget request. How many of these contracts go
through fiscal year 2010? What is the amount of funding that would be
required in fiscal year 2010 to honor these existing contracts?
Answer. The refocused Fuel Cell Technologies program allows the
Department to prioritize technologies that will have a more immediate
energy impact and bring consumers advanced transportation choices
sooner. Certain projects in the areas of hydrogen production and
delivery, hydrogen storage, technology validation, systems analysis,
manufacturing, safety and codes and standards, education, and market
transformation would not be funded at the 2010 request level. If the
Department continued on the previous schedule, the 190 projects would
require approximately $105 million in fiscal year 2010. However,
project performers know that funding is subject to annual appropriation
and changing priorities.
Question. Congress set up the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Committee
(HTAC) to provide detailed analysis of the hydrogen and fuel cell
vehicle program to the Secretary. Did you consult with the HTAC before
making the decision to terminate the hydrogen and fuel cell vehicle
programs?
Answer. The Secretary considered all available information before
making the decision to re-focus research, development and demonstration
activities on fuel cell system technologies. While the HTAC
periodically submits reports, letters and other information to the
Secretary for consideration, the HTAC primarily provides valuable
technical progress information, which is only one of multiple entities
supporting DOE funding allocation decisions.
Question. The 2006 Hydrogen Posture Plan established key technical
milestones and timelines. Would you agree that the hydrogen program has
been meeting and exceeding these milestones? If this is the case, how
would the fiscal year 2010 budget request not be short-circuiting the
progress being made by this program?
Answer. The Department agrees that the program has been meeting a
number of the milestones. However, given the Nation's economic climate
and the urgency in addressing climate change and petroleum reduction,
the Department is balancing the advanced transportation technology
portfolio to fast-track lower-risk energy technologies and to bring
consumers near-term, advanced transportation choices. Technologies such
as biofuels and plug-in electric drive vehicles will achieve benefits
sooner, at less cost, and with less technology risk than hydrogen fuel
cells.
In addition, the Recovery Act provides approximately $41.9 million
for near-term benefits such as commercialization and deployment of fuel
cells and job creation in fuel cell manufacturing, installation,
maintenance, and support services that will help develop a supply base
that could eventually support automotive applications. The Department
also plans to spend up to approximately $50 million in fiscal year 2010
through the Office of Science for relevant cross-cutting basic research
(e.g. catalysis, membranes and biological/photoelectrochemical
approaches) to enable breakthroughs in hydrogen technologies and $16.4
million through the Office of Fossil Energy to continue work on
hydrogen production from coal, with carbon sequestration, due to the
importance of zero carbon approaches.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Secretary Chu, I am pleased to see an overall increase
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We've got to move forward
toward a clean energy economy and this will help keep us on that path.
And now that you have spent some time at the Department, I'm
looking forward to hearing an update on the Water Power Program. As you
know, the Program received $40 million in fiscal year 2009 and the
President is requesting a 25 percent reduction in funding, which I am
very concerned about. We must continue investment in our existing hydro
facilities to allow us to use those flexible resources to firm up
intermittent renewable resources like wind and solar. And we must also
increase our work to develop new marine and hydrokinetic technologies
that may also be able to act as base load resources in the future.
What are your priorities for the Water Power program, specifically
with regard to both marine and hydrokinetic technologies and also with
regard to conventional hydropower?
Answer. DOE is excited about the potential to develop both emerging
marine and hydrokinetic technologies as well as untapped hydropower
resources, including efficiency or capacity upgrades at existing
facilities, the construction of hydropower plants at existing non-
powered dams, and the possible construction off small or ``low-impact''
hydropower and pumped storage facilities.
The $40 million appropriated for water power in fiscal year 2009
allowed DOE to initiate aggressive action to address both marine and
hydrokinetics and conventional hydropower, and the Department is
working diligently to ensure this new increased level of funding is
spent carefully and wisely. The Department's current priorities for
marine and hydrokinetic technologies (i.e. wave, tidal, in-stream,
ocean current, and ocean thermal) are to evaluate the cost and
performance of the various technology types, to determine how much
energy is available and extractable from each resource, to support the
industry in designing and testing innovative energy conversion devices,
and to predict and evaluate the possible environmental impacts of water
power technologies. As the size of these resources and the ability of
emerging technologies to capture those resources becomes clearer, the
Department will be better able to determine if higher funding levels
are necessary.
DOE also recognizes that incremental conventional hydropower
generation requires a careful second look, and is particularly
enthusiastic about its potential to provide on-demand, dispatchable
power to support grid stability and further integrate variable
generation. The Department's priorities for hydropower are to address
barriers to the development of incremental hydropower generation
(including efficiency and capacity upgrades at existing facilities and
the construction of facilities at existing non-powered dams) and to
address the development of pumped storage. DOE is undertaking a
comprehensive effort to understand existing hydropower assets and
resources, to identify undeveloped incremental hydro resources and
costs, to quantify and maximize the value of the existing hydro fleet
to support the grid, and to improve the environmental performance of
hydropower generation in the United States.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I've already reiterated my invite for you
to come out to Washington and see the DOE footprint in my State. And I
also want to encourage you--again--to visit the Marine Sciences
Laboratory in Sequim, Washington. Not only is it located on the
beautiful Olympic Peninsula, it is also the Department's only marine
sciences lab. I encourage you to use the Water Power Program to expand
the work at the lab, and utilize the expertise and knowledge there.
I am not reassured that this administration sees the value of this
potential clean energy source. Can you tell me how you plan to
integrate the Marine Sciences Laboratory into the Water Power Program?
Answer. The Department is funding a number of activities in the
Pacific Northwest, including PNNL's Marine Sciences Lab. Researchers at
the Marine Sciences Laboratory work closely with the DOE-funded
Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, a partnership among
DOE, the University of Washington, and Oregon State University. The Lab
also supports environmental assessments at two tidal energy projects in
the Puget Sound led by 2008 DOE grant recipients, Verdant Power and
Snohomish County Public Utility District, so that it can thoroughly
test and develop marine energy technology designs and launch
demonstration projects. In addition, two DOE solicitations (FOAs No.
DEFOA0000069 and 0000070) for water power projects closed on June 4,
which included environmental studies for marine energy, and for which
PNNL was eligible to apply.
Question. Secretary Chu, hydropower is an important clean energy
resource in the Pacific Northwest. Work is needed to assess potential
resources and environmental impacts, technical upgrades, integration
with renewable, and the potential of pumped storage. How do you plan to
support these conventional hydropower needs within the Water Power
program?
Answer. The Department recognizes the strong role that conventional
hydropower plays in our Nation's renewable energy portfolio and is
enthusiastic about exploring further the untapped potential of
incremental conventional hydropower. We are addressing its needs in our
Water Power Program through four strategic objectives: understanding
assets and resources, increasing incremental power generation,
improving environmental performance, and maximizing hydropower values
to the grid. A key first step is a project the Department is calling
the National Hydropower Asset Assessment. This effort will build and
analyze a unique and comprehensive database of existing Federal and
non-Federal projects, their generation outputs, and water availability
at the projects. This assessment will also provide a basis for
evaluating current technology needs and opportunities that will help
hydropower maintain its important position among renewable energy in
the United States.
The Department is also soliciting new, industry-led projects to
assess undeveloped hydropower resources at existing dams in the United
States. This opportunity is encompassed within the Advanced Water Power
Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000069), which will be
announced this summer. DOE laboratories are also engaged in providing
new engineering and environmental R&D to support the hydropower
industry.
Question. Mr. Secretary, what incentives can we put in place to
facilitate the development of new pumped storage resources and the
continued investment in our existing hydro facilities, to allow us to
use those flexible resources to firm up intermittent renewable
resources like wind and solar?
Answer. Development of new pumped storage projects in the United
States faces major challenges in two areas: financing very large
capital construction costs, and surviving a long, costly, and uncertain
regulatory process that is as complex as that associated with nuclear
power. If new pumped storage projects used renewable energy in their
pump cycle, these projects could also get consideration for inclusion
in renewable energy standards, which would provide an additional
financial incentive for development. Other policy initiatives that
would help this type of development include streamlining the regulatory
process and designing energy markets that return more reliable, long-
term benefits to developers of generation units that provide valuable
services to the Nation's electricity grid.
DOE recently issued a Notice of Intent on the $3.3 billion Smart
Grid Investment Grant Program and a draft Funding Opportunity
Announcement (FOA) for an additional $615 million for Smart Grid
Demonstrations funded by the Recovery Act. Energy storage technology
and specifically smart grid applications, including integration of
pumped hydro storage with renewable resources like wind and solar, are
within the scope of these two Recovery Act projects. The Department is
in the process of reviewing all comments received during the public
commenting period for incorporation into the final FOAs, both of which
are expected to be released in June 2009 through the FedConnect portal
at www.fedconnect.net.
Question. As DOE builds toward President Obama's clean energy
economy, how will DOE evaluate a resource's contribution to and
potential to meet these important, ambitious energy and environmental
goals? What role does DOE anticipate for hydropower in helping to meet
these objectives, especially as Congress moves to address global
warming?
Answer. DOE is actively investigating the potential role of water
power technologies, including both emerging marine and hydrokinetic
technologies as well as conventional hydropower, in meeting the
President's clean energy goals.
The Department is working to better understand the role for the
full suite of marine and hydrokinetic technologies, including wave,
tidal, ocean current, river in-stream, and ocean thermal energy, by
evaluating the cost and performance of the various technology types,
determining how much energy is available and extractable from each
resource, supporting the industry in designing and testing innovative
energy conversion devices, and predicting and evaluating the possible
environmental impacts of water power technologies. As the size of these
resources and the ability of emerging technologies to capture them
becomes clearer, the Department will better be able to assess their
true potential in contributing substantially to the national
electricity generation portfolio.
In addition, DOE is enthusiastic about the potential development of
certain untapped hydropower resources, including efficiency or capacity
upgrades at existing facilities, the construction of hydropower plants
at existing non-powered dams, and possibly the construction off small
or ``low-impact'' hydropower and pumped storage facilities. As a large-
scale, and quickly dispatchable generation source, incremental
hydropower may be able not only to provide a clean and renewable source
of electricity but also facilitate the further integration of
intermittent renewable resources.
Question. As you know, transportation emissions are a significant
source of greenhouse gas emissions. This administration is investing
considerably in alternative fuels for energy security and environmental
reasons; however, most of those are focused on personal vehicles. As
you know, air transportation is solely dependent on jet fuels at this
time. What thought has DOE given to advancing jet biofuels, including
research and development, feedstock development, technology and
infrastructure?
Answer. Traditionally, DOE has focused on ground transportation
fuels, while most air transportation work has been conducted by the
Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. However, DOE has begun
to focus on the production of heavy duty fuels including, ``green'' and
renewable diesels, and aviation fuels.
For example, the Joint BioEnergy Institute led by Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory is re-engineering microbes to produce hydrocarbon
fuels like green gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. A subset of recently
selected DOE Energy Frontiers Research Centers will focus on
fundamental research related to producing advanced biofuels, such as
bio-oils from microalgae, which are promising intermediates for the
production of advanced biofuels, including green jet fuel. The National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, and other
laboratories are also launching research into algal biofuels for the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Air Force Office of
Scientific Research. Algae-based fuels will also be eligible for both
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy and DOE Loan Guarantee funding
opportunities.
Additionally, DOE will use Recovery Act funding to support a
competitive solicitation for two research consortia aimed at
accelerating the development of cost competitive advanced fungible
biofuels, which include hydrocarbon fuels, diesel and jet fuel, and
algae based biofuels which also include jet fuel. The solicitation is
expected to be released in the summer of 2009. In order to capture
relevant technologies that are ready for deployment, a current
competitive solicitation closing on June 30, 2009 allows for pilot- and
demonstration-scale biorefineries that include jet fuel from biomass.
DOE's Office of Fossil Energy announced $70.6 million of Recovery Act
funding will be spent to facilitate the existing algae-based carbon
mitigation project at Cholla Power Plant in Holbrook, Arizona to expand
testing with a coal-based gasification system. The goal is to produce
fuels from domestic resources while reducing atmospheric CO2
emissions. DOE's Office of Fossil Energy and the National Energy
Technology Laboratory issued a Recovery Act funding opportunity on June
8 that allows conversion of to CO2 biomass (algae, for
example) and subsequent biofuels production as a mechanism of
CO2 sequestration and use.
Question. Secretary Chu, I want to ask about a section of the
hydrogen fuel cell budget, the Market Transformation program. This
subcommittee has in the past supported the Market Transformation, which
helps support fuel cell deployment in early commercial applications,
because we share your view that we ought to do now what we can do now
on fuel cells. I understand that you allocated a small part of the
stimulus dollars to fuel cell deployment this year. Can you tell me why
the President's budget proposes no funding for Market Transportation
program?
Answer. The President's budget proposes no additional funds for
market transformation activities in fiscal year 2010 because the $41.9
million of Recovery Act funding dedicated to fuel cell market
transformation activities will support 13 projects over fiscal year
2009 and fiscal year 2010. These projects will deploy more than 1,000
fuel cells and will help create jobs in fuel cell manufacturing,
installation, maintenance and support service sectors. Together with
$72.4 million of industry cost-share, the total 2-year funding for
these projects is $114.3 million.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
LOAN GUARANTEES--LOAN PROGRAM--3.5 YEARS AND NO REWARDS
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Department has taken over 3.5 years to
establish the loan guarantee program and it still has not granted a
single loan guarantee. I believe this program has tremendous potential,
but worry that it is not being implemented in a timely and effective
manner. For example:
GAO recently notified the subcommittee staff that the current
subsidy model used to establish the risk premiums paid by applicants
was suspended in February by OMB.
Finally, I understand you have also proposed several changes to the
operations of the loan guarantee program, but many of these reforms
have yet to be implemented.
How soon, will you be implementing your reforms and will any of
these changes require legislation?
Answer. The Department is continuously implementing changes in its
procedures that facilitate the loan guarantee process. The Department
of Energy has not identified any needed legislative changes.
Question. When do you expect to make final awards in light of OMB
suspending the use of the credit subsidy model?
Answer. To clarify, OMB did not suspend the credit subsidy model.
In implementing the model, the Department identified a technical issue
related to certain types of projects and OMB and DOE have resolved the
issue. The Department issued a conditional commitment for its first
loan guarantee in March and issued two additional conditional
commitments in July.
Question. Is there anything Congress can do to help?
Answer. The Department appreciates Congress's support for this
important program.
INDUSTRY LETTER
Question. I have attached a copy of the letter sent to the
President regarding specific reforms to the Loan Guarantee program.
Can you please review each of the specific recommendations and
provide a written response to the subcommittee as to your position of
each of the policy recommendations and possible impact to the program.
Answer. The Department is currently reviewing the letter.
not all science funding is equal--especially at the weapons labs
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am troubled by the disparity in funding
for applied and fundamental scientific research provided to DOE labs
verses the NNSA labs. Clearly, the cancellation of the Los Alamos
Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) Refurbishment is the most glaring
example of the selectiveness of the research funding in this budget.
The LANSCE facility is the scientific corner stone of Los Alamos,
serving both classified and unclassified work and with over 500 users
annually.
How do you explain the failure in the budget to link the DOE and
NNSA science?
Answer. Budgeting is, in the end, an exercise in priorities and
choices with limited resources. While there is certainly good science
that could be done with a refurbished LANSCE, other investments in both
NNSA and Science facilities will yield a greater and more immediate
benefit. A refurbishment could be considered in the next budget cycle.
Question. The OMB Web site lists LANSCE refurbishment as a
terminated program and specifically states one reason being that
Nuclear Energy Office doesn't support isotope production any longer.
Last year the isotope program was shifted to the Office of Science
program. Will LANSCE continue to have a roll [sic] in the Science
program?
Answer. The Isotope Production Facility (IPF) at LANSCE uses a
portion of the H+ beam extracted at 100 MeV from the
accelerator; this facility produces a variety of radioisotopes used in
medical diagnosis and treatment and for scientific research. Together
with DOE's Brookhaven and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, the IPF
provides the national supply of radioisotopes not available
commercially for both research and applications. In addition to regular
fiscal year 2009 appropriations and an fiscal year 2010 request within
the Office of Science, the IPF is currently receiving Recovery Act
funds from the Office of Science for enhanced isotope production
capabilities and R&D. The LANSCE accelerator also supplies protons to
the Lujan Center, a pulsed spallation neutron source that is used by
researchers supported by the Office of Science, NNSA, and other
agencies.
THE NEED FOR SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP WITHIN THE NNSA
Question. Mr. Secretary, in light of your budget, which fails to
adequately invest in building the science missions at the NNSA labs, I
believe we need to establish a new position within the NNSA to steward
and cultivate scientific research using the existing NNSA facilities. I
believe this position should report to Secretary, Deputy Secretary and
the NNSA Administrator. This might help raise awareness of both the
weapons science, and non-weapons science that goes on at our NNSA labs.
Certainly the grand challenge of energy security and climate change
science are of such complexity that this work can and should be shared
with all the labs.
I am considering a modification to the NNSA Act to create a new
position within the NNSA reporting directly to you to lead the NNSA
science program and to work with the rest of the Department to
integrate the national security capabilities with those in basic and
applied programs within DOE. What do you think about that?
Answer. I share your concern about sustaining science and
engineering vitality at the NNSA's laboratories at Los Alamos,
Livermore and Sandia. We are considering how to best broaden and
sustain our science underpinning of nuclear security and how to do that
appropriately for the related interests of other agencies that use
these laboratory capabilities for science and national security
missions. It is possible that a new position as you describe could be
appropriate and useful in sustaining and advancing the science and
engineering the Nation needs. At present we are focusing on basis and
needs for our nuclear security science and engineering considering both
the Department's missions and the related interests such as those in
the intelligence community, the Department of Defense and the
Department of Homeland Security. Within a few months, when I have a
clearer picture of the basis and needs for these science and
engineering skills, we will be in a better position to discuss the
change you propose.
FOSSIL ENERGY--FUTUREGEN
Question. The FutureGen project was halted due to cost escalations,
but it is my understanding that the administration is considering
resuming this project, using $1 billion in Recovery Act Funds to do so.
Can you share with us your thoughts on resuming this project?
Answer. DOE officials have been meeting with officials of the
FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc., and on June 12, Secretary Chu
announced that an agreement was established with the Alliance to move
forward with the FutureGen project pending a joint decision based on a
detailed cost estimate and fundraising activities, thereby limiting the
risk of cost increases while accomplishing the goals of the program.
Question. There is roughly $1.5 billion available for the Clean
Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) round three solicitation. This far exceeds
the initial requested amount for this solicitation, and in large part
is due to project defaults from previous rounds. This research also
mirrors the demonstration goals of building a zero-emission coal plant
as proposed by FutureGen.
Will you please explain to us why you are considering restarting
the FutureGen project, when that same type of research is available for
the CCPI round three solicitation?
Answer. The FutureGen project has already completed conceptual
design, project siting, approximately 1 year of preliminary design
activities, an extensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and an
associated risk assessment. With those activities already completed, if
the project was reinstated in the near future, the FutureGen Alliance
conceptually could complete preliminary and detailed design and, if a
decision were made to proceed, potentially could start the construction
phase in 2010. Conversely, commercial demonstration projects resulting
from the CCPI round three solicitation are at the proposal or project
definition stage of development. Accordingly, it may take those
projects considerable time to commence construction, compared to
FutureGen. Given the time-sensitive nature of both climate change and
economic recovery, the FutureGen project (if it is restarted) could
provide a demonstration of technology that could accelerate follow-on
activities such as CCPI projects (where relevant.) Also, CCPI
demonstration projects may involve different technologies and site
locations than FutureGen. We believe it is prudent to develop a
portfolio of power plant and carbon capture technologies, as well as to
compile operational experience on different regional sequestration
geologies throughout the United States.
The FutureGen Project will provide for the design, construction and
operation of a coal-fueled, integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) with pre-combustion subsystems for the capture of carbon dioxide
and geologic sequestration into a saline formation. In comparison,
CCPI-3 will provide commercial demonstration projects that may include
post-combustion capture systems or an oxy-fueled combustion process.
CCPI-3 will provide one or more sequestration options, including
beneficial reuse in enhanced oil recovery or enhanced coal bed methane
recovery options as well as the possibility of basalt formations or
stacked storage. The different approaches provided by these programs
will support an expanded portfolio providing the DOE the ability to
make progress toward capture and sequestration goals.
SCIENCE
Question. This budget includes over $300 million in new Secretarial
priority initiatives, while funding for Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy
and NNSA Science have all been reduced.
How do you reconcile this investment?
Answer. Under the Secretary's proposed initiatives the Department's
overall investment in Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and NNSA will
actually increase, with new funding going into areas with the biggest
potential pay-off for the Nation. In Nuclear Energy, the Secretary is
proposing two new Energy Innovation Hubs, one to support ``Extreme
Materials'' with the goal of achieving higher reactor efficiencies and
one to support advanced computer modeling and simulations of nuclear
processes and systems. For Fossil Energy, a Hub is envisioned to
advance Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology. And, within the
NNSA, funding shifts from construction to the transition of the
National Ignition Facility to a fully capable experimental facility in
pursuit of the first ignition campaign.
In addition, the RE-ENERGYSE program (Regaining our ENERGY Science
and Engineering Edge) is a $115 million new initiative designed to
attract and train the next generation workforce for the 21st century
energy economy. RE-ENERGYSE will support education and R&D initiatives
in all energy programs.
ARPA-E
Question. In light of the new Energy Hubs, large untapped potential
in the loan guarantee program, and substantial funding increases for
EERE and Science, I am trying to figure out the role ARPA-E at the
Department of Energy, except as another layer of bureaucracy.
Can you please provide a specific example or technology that will
benefit from ARPA-E and how is it different from the loan guarantee
program, office of science or renewable energy efforts?
Answer. ARPA-E is a highly entrepreneurial program that will fund
``creative, out-of-the-box, transformational'' energy research not
currently funded by other programs. ARPA-E seeks to accelerate
transformational advances in areas which address national energy
priorities and are too risky for industry to invest in without public
support. Transformational R&D is about creating new ways of doing
things and leading to the next generation of technology that will allow
the United States to be competitive in the global market.
ARPA-E will seek out the best ideas and move quickly to bring
selected immature energy technologies with exceptional potential beyond
the risk barriers that prevent their translation from the laboratory
bench to the marketplace. Essential aspects of this nimble and flexible
approach include:
--Technology Focus Flexibility.--ARPA-E will look for the best
opportunities to improve energy security and curb climate
change by making significant programmatic investments lasting 2
to 5 years. ARPA-E will fund transformational, high risk
technologies with the potential for 2-3 improvements in
technology performance and/or cost when compared to current
technologies. ARPA-E will then move on to the next big ideas,
shifting into and out of areas depending on the most promising
opportunities for transformational change.
--Programmatic Flexibility.--ARPA-E will have the flexibility to
forge and nurture optimized partnerships that combine unique
talents and insight from different fields. The programs can use
DOE's ``Other Transactions'' authority (Technology Investment
Agreements) to help attract organizations that traditionally do
not participate in Government RD&D programs. Also, ARPAE will
promote results-oriented programs through the use of
challenging program milestones and the discipline to end
programs that fail to perform.
--Organizational Flexibility.--ARPA-E is a lean, flat organization
that reports directly to the Secretary of Energy. ARPA-E has
very broad hiring authority to attract program managers from
universities, industry, the venture capital community and
elsewhere. Program managers will be part of the organization
for 3 year terms--not for their entire career. After having
made a successful technology impact, they will move on to other
opportunities in industry, academia, and elsewhere. ARPA-E's
structure will promote technical and programmatic agility by
ensuring that the organization has the right resources to
address the goal of enhancing the United State's economic and
energy security.
These essential aspects of ARPA-E's approach will allow scientists
and technologists to rapidly bring transformational ideas to a level of
maturity sufficient for industry to take over development and bring the
resultant technologies to market. ARPA-E's mission is to enhance the
economic and energy security of the United States by developing new
energy technologies that offer the potential for making significant
progress toward reducing imported energy; reducing energy-related
emissions, including greenhouse gases; and improving energy efficiency.
Each of the other existing DOE organizations has a unique role that
ARPA-E complements.
--The Office of Science (SC) is charged with discovery and knowledge
generation. SC is focused on the fundamentals of energy-related
science, generating new discoveries and a base of knowledge
which are used to create future energy technologies and improve
existing ones.
--The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and the
other Applied Programs at DOE are focused on applied R&D as
well as demonstration and deployment activities in specific,
targeted, program areas which address national energy
priorities and in collaboration with industry. Both EERE and
ARPA-E focus on high pay-off technology development. However,
EERE supports a more focused suite of technologies through a
longer gestation period. Such longer-term support may include
commercial viability demonstration projects which are often
necessary before market acceptance of capital-intensive energy
technologies as well as activities which address other
information, market, and regulatory barriers to technology
adoption. The commercial demonstration projects involve large
scale engineering and process integration work and require
specialized management and oversight.
--The Energy Innovation Hubs, modeled on the Department's successful
Bioenergy Research Centers, will focus significant R&D
resources within SC, EERE and other Applied Programs on a
sustained development approach to basic and applied R&D on our
most critical energy science and technology challenges. This is
to be contrasted with the opportunistic style of ARPA-E, which
is designed to push an area rapidly forward and then move on to
another priority. Each Hub will be comprised of a highly
collaborative team spanning many disciplines and drawn from the
full spectrum of R&D practitioners--including universities,
private industry, non-profits, and national laboratories--and
each Hub is expected to become a world leader for R&D in its
topical area. The Hubs will support cross-disciplinary R&D
focused on the barriers to transforming energy technologies
into commercially deployable materials, devices, and systems.
Each Hub has proposed funding at $25 million per year, for a 5-
year term, with additional start-up funding of $10 million in
the first year for renovation (but not ``bricks and mortar''),
equipment, and instrumentation.
--The Loan Guarantee Program is for a later stage of technology
development, guaranteeing loans to support early commercial use
of advanced technologies (and for a limited time commercial
technologies under the Recovery Act). The Loan Guarantee
Program is targeted at early commercial use, not energy
research, development, and demonstration programs.
Each of the organizations has a unique contribution for creating,
developing, and deploying the energy technologies this Nation needs.
ARPA-E was formed this spring and has released its first solicitation,
but has not yet selected nor funded any projects. ARPA-E is organized
to manage high risk R&D projects proactively. Many years of experience
in scientific research and technology development have shown that
different stages of the science and technology enterprise need
different management styles and organization. ARPA-E complements the
existing DOE organizations by adding one specifically organized and
focused on high-risk transformational technologies.
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Question. Will the United States continue to play a role in the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership international discussions and
contribute actively to these meetings and support international
research and best practices regarding nuclear safety, security and
nonproliferation? Will the Department of Energy continue to send staff
to participate in these meetings?
Answer. Yes, the United States continues to support the objectives
of the international component of GNEP and the use of civil nuclear
energy in ways that advance safety, security and nonproliferation. The
Department continues to participate in the GNEP international meetings
while the subject of how best to achieve GNEP-international objectives
is undergoing an interagency review. We believe that proliferation
issues should be a top priority in any discussions about the expanded
use of civil nuclear energy and, in particular, in discussions that
relate to development, deployment and operation of fuel cycle
technologies. Thus, it is important for the Department to remain
engaged in international meetings and activities that are developing
strategies to ensure reliable nuclear fuel services and to provide
management options for spent fuel in a manner that minimizes
proliferation concerns.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Question. Nuclear power will be critical to reaching our energy
independence and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Yet, with the
termination of Yucca Mountain in this budget, we still have no clear
strategy on how to deal with nuclear waste.
Exactly what is the Department's strategy to deal with spent fuel?
Answer. The administration intends to convene a ``blue-ribbon''
panel of experts to evaluate alternative approaches for meeting the
Federal responsibility to manage and ultimately dispose of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from both commercial and
defense activities.
Question. Why should the ratepayers, who have paid $20 billion in
fees, be forced to continue to store on site and not be entitled to a
refund of these fees?
Answer. We remain committed to meeting our obligations for managing
and ultimately disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste. The administration intends to convene a ``blue-
ribbon'' panel of experts to evaluate alternative approaches for
meeting the Federal responsibility to manage and ultimately dispose of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from both
commercial and defense activities. The administration looks forward to
ongoing dialogue with members of Congress, interested stakeholders, and
others as we review these alternative approaches in the months ahead.
Question. You have announced that you intend to appoint a Blue
Ribbon Commission to consider all the options for addressing our spent
fuel needs.
When do you intend to appoint this commission and what will they
specifically be asked to consider?
Answer. The ``blue-ribbon'' panel will provide the opportunity for
a full public dialogue on how best to address this challenging issue
and will provide recommendations that may form the basis for working
with Congress to revise the statutory framework for managing and
disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. As we
go forward with convening the panel, I will keep Congress informed of
our progress.
IDAHO NATIONAL LAB--NEXT GENERATION NUCLEAR PLANT (NGNP)
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Idaho laboratory has aggressively
pursued the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project. The Energy
Policy Act of 2005 authorized the construction of this reactor at the
Idaho National Lab.
The fiscal year 2010 budget documents make no mention of this
plant. In fact, rather than prioritizing research on two advanced
technology reactors which were down selected last year, this budget
proposes to expand research back to 6 types of advanced reactors.
Can you please explain the justification for expanding the
Department's research priorities? Where is this program headed and what
does it mean for the NGNP reactor at Idaho?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget request of $191 million
represents a firm commitment to move forward with needed long term
research and development on underlying technologies supporting
Generation IV reactor concepts, including high temperature gas reactors
under consideration for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The
request also includes $35 million for a modeling and simulation Energy
Innovation Hub. The Department is currently evaluating its long-term
plans for the NGNP project, which would rely on the private sector
entering into a cost-sharing partnership with the Department. This
budget request reflects the Department's commitment to be a strong
partner in support of gas reactor technology.
PENSIONS
Question. Understanding that the pension funding shortfalls
continue to shift on a daily basis; will the Department please provide
written quarterly updates regarding the estimated pension shortfalls
and programmatic impacts?
I think every member of this subcommittee would classify
Environmental Cleanup as a priority, and you can see this in the
funding provided in the Recovery Act. However, your request decreases
the funding from fiscal year 2009 based on funding in the Recovery Act.
EERE and Science also received large sums of money in the Recovery Act,
but both of those programs are increased in your budget request.
How can you justify cutting cleanup because of Recovery Act funds,
when you have a $400 million pension shortfall in this program?
Answer. The Department closely monitors the funding obligations
associated with DOE contractor sponsored defined-benefit (DB) pension
plans. Each contractor that sponsors a DB pension plan collects
information to determine a plan's funded status as of the end of each
pension plan year (that for most plans is December 31) that is then
certified by a plan's actuary as of April 1. This funded status is the
basis for determining what level of funding the contractor must
contribute to a DB pension plan to ensure that as of the end of a plan
year the plan is funded in accordance with applicable law (e.g., the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act) and Departmental direction.
Evaluations of a plan's funded status at interim points during the
pension plan year would not change the level of funding required for
that pension plan year or provide any certainty about what level of
funding will be needed for the next pension plan year. Therefore,
quarterly updates on the funded status of a plan would not provide
information that would be useful in determining the amount of funds
that will be needed to meet annual funding requirements. However, the
Department is prepared to brief your staff on this issue at any time.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Environmental
Management program supports the Department's mission and allows
contractors to make all required pension payments to their DB pension
plans.
Question. Do you foresee any layoffs at any of the cleanup sites as
a result of unfunded pension obligations?
Answer. The Department closely monitors the funding obligations
associated with DOE contractor sponsored defined-benefit (DB) pension
plans. Each contractor that sponsors a DB pension plan collects
information to determine a plan's funded status as of the end of each
pension plan year (that for most plans is December 31) that is then
certified by a plan's actuary as of April 1. This funded status is the
basis for determining what level of funding the contractor must
contribute to a DB pension plan to ensure that as of the end of a plan
year the plan is funded in accordance with applicable law (e.g., the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act) and Departmental direction.
Evaluations of a plan's funded status at interim points during the
pension plan year would not change the level of funding required for
that pension plan year or provide any certainty about what level of
funding will be needed for the next pension plan year. Therefore,
quarterly updates on the funded status of a plan would not provide
information that would be useful in determining the amount of funds
that will be needed to meet annual funding requirements. However, the
Department is prepared to brief your staff on this issue at any time.
The Department does not anticipate impacts to the EM contractor
workforce during fiscal year 2010 due to contractor funding of DB
pension plans.
ENERGY INNOVATION HUBS
Question. Mr. Secretary, this budget provides $280 million to
establish eight energy hubs, a personal priority of yours. These eight
centers of excellence will attack energy related problems in a
collaborative manner.
Why did the budget recommend establishing a hub for extreme
materials research within the Office of Nuclear Energy and at the same
time cancel the refurbishment of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center,
which supports a similar mission and also has computing capabilities?
Answer. The Energy Innovation Hub for Extreme Materials will be
competitively chosen. Its mission will be to support cross-disciplinary
research and development focused on the barriers to transforming energy
technologies into commercially deployable materials, devices and
systems. Since the location and specific work scope of the Energy
Innovation Hub for Extreme Materials will be decided through a
competitive procurement process, it must be independent of the
refurbishment of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center.
While there is certainly good science that could be done with a
refurbished LANSCE, DOE believes that other investments in other
facilities will yield a greater and more immediate benefit.
The eight Energy Innovation Hubs will advance highly promising
areas of energy science and technology from their early research
concept stage to the point where the risk level is low enough for
industry to deploy them into the marketplace. The work of the Hubs will
encompass the full span from basic research to engineering development
to commercialization and hand-off to industry.
Question. Did the Department give any thought to establishing a hub
to focus on environmental cleanup? What about a hub to defeat the cyber
security threat?
Answer. The Department deliberated at length on the optimum number
and topics for the Energy Innovation Hubs. The goal for the Hubs is to
make significant progress in overcoming current barriers to the United
States' becoming a global leader in new energy technologies. The focus
of the Hubs is on development and commercialization of clean, economic,
sustainable energy technologies.
Neither the Environmental Management program nor Cyber Security
efforts in the Department fall within this ``energy technologies''
focus of the Hubs. And, in fact, each of these efforts is already well
defined and supported. That said, the concept of establishing a Hub for
either Environmental Management or Cyber Security could be considered
in the future if such an idea seemed advisable.
WEATHERIZATION
Question. The weatherization assistance program has over $5 billion
available from the ARRA, Continuing Resolution, and fiscal year 2009. I
am told that the Department will be spending that money over the next 3
years.
How can you justify another $220 million request when you cannot
spend it this fiscal year?
Answer. To achieve the increases in the numbers of homes
weatherized, State and local agencies are in the process of hiring and
training thousands of workers. In addition to increased hiring, State
and local agencies will be making a substantial capital investment in
procuring vehicles and equipment to outfit these new weatherization
crews. However, the ``ramp-up'' in the number of weatherized homes per
month enabled by Recovery Act funds will not be fully realized until
the hiring, training, and acquisition process is completed. DOE expects
that the weatherization network should be close to its target rate of
22,000 homes weatherized per month by the end of the year. As a result,
DOE expects that weatherization activities enabled by the Recovery Act
should continue into 2011.
Additional funds in fiscal year 2010 are required to maintain the
pace of hiring, training and expansion enabled by the Recovery Act in
order to build the capacity needed to realize the President's goal of
weatherizing 1 million homes annually. Without this continued
investment, new hires could be lost at the end of 3 years and local
agencies could be saddled with excess vehicles, equipment, and costs
associated with lay-offs of their work forces.
CYBER SECURITY
Question. Mr. Secretary, the largest increase in the budget of the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Reliability is for cyber security.
No doubt, this is in response to the press reports that foreign hackers
can gain access to our electrical grid.
However, NNSA cyber security staff has briefed the subcommittee
regarding a large and sustained increase in cyber attacks against
Department systems this year. Unfortunately, the budget for NNSA cyber
security fails to provide any increase to combat these cyber attacks on
our national security infrastructure.
How do you rationalize an increase in the Office of Electricity,
but no increase for the NNSA?
Answer. NNSA's cyber security budget was not increased because NNSA
has sufficient resources to address the threats.
Question. Do you believe you have the threats to the NNSA
classified and national security information contained?
Answer. The threats to the national security information and
classified system within the NNSA computing environment are constantly
changing and represent risks to our operations. However, with the
technology enhancement (i.e. EnCase Enterprise) and process
improvements (NNSA Policy (NAP)) NNSA has invested in over the past 2
years, I believe that we have minimized the threats to the classified
environment and national security information and are operating at an
acceptable level of risk. The Department and NNSA senior leadership
will continue to monitor the threats to our classified information
technology assets along with the accompanying risks in order to make
necessary changes and provide an appropriate level of protection.
URANIUM TAXES
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget proposes a $200 million/year
tax on nuclear power utilities to be applied to the Uranium Enrichment
Decommission and Decontamination Fund. This account currently enjoys a
surplus of $4.7 billion and can sustain the ongoing cleanup for 7 years
at current spending rates. Since these funds are not needed immediately
and haven't been reauthorized by Congress I have to assume this is
nothing more than a gimmick used to offset deficit spending or meet
budget shortfalls.
Mr. Secretary, the GAO did a study last year and found that the
Department had a very valuable amount of unrecovered uranium sitting in
storage at the very sites you want to cleanup. The value of these
depleted uranium tails easily exceed the revenue raised by the tax and
cleanup an existing liability on the Department's books.
Will you consider the sale of the depleted uranium tails stored in
Kentucky and Ohio as an alternative to raising taxes on utilities who
use nuclear power and have already paid $1.5 billion in taxes already?
Answer. The Department continues to monitor the uranium market as
it manages various inventories of uranium declared excess to the
Nation's national security needs. Any proceeds from any sale of the
Department's uranium inventory will be deposited in the U.S. Treasury
as required by the Miscellaneous Receipts Act (31 U.S.C. 3302);
therefore, the proceeds cannot be applied toward cleanup of the gaseous
diffusion plants.
CLEAN UP FUNDING
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget tells two distinctly different
stories regarding the stimulus funds. When it comes to environmental
cleanup, you justify a reduction in the fiscal year 2010 budget request
due available stimulus funds. [sic] However, when it comes to renewable
energy projects you have provided additional increases despite that
program enjoying $17 billion in additional Stimulus funding.
Can you please explain why this budget tells two completely
different stories regarding the impact of stimulus funding on the
budget?
Answer. The total funding requests provided in the fiscal year 2010
budget, in conjunction with Recovery Act funds, were carefully
considered so as to make the biggest impact, given the status of the
science and technology in each area.
The fiscal year 2010 budget was formulated in light of the
significant funding provided in the Recovery Act. Recovery funding
enabled the Department to accelerate a number of important commitments
in the areas of renewable energy, environmental management, grid
modernization, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and basic science
research.
In building the fiscal year 2010 request, the administration
adopted a thoughtful approach that considered not only whether a
program had received Recovery Act funding, but also how those funds fit
within our overall policy goals and priorities.
In some cases, the Recovery Act investments are so significant that
they amount to several years of base funding. This allowed the
Department to make prudent use of our resources to address other high
priorities. In other instances, like Environmental Management, the
Recovery funding is being used on projects that meet the objectives of
economic stimulus, but which may not ordinarily compete well against
projects aimed at addressing the clean up of higher-risk sites. Our
fiscal year 2010 request for EM continues to focus on high risk sites.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. Mr. Secretary, in your budget for the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, you propose roughly $50 million for the purchase of a new
cavern to replace an existing storage cavern that was said to pose ``an
extreme environmental risk.'' My staff was informed that the Department
purchased this cavern instead of taking advantage of salt domes already
owned by the Department of Energy for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Expansion. Why?
Answer. The Department has not purchased any new caverns for the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The cavern that has been identified for
decommissioning, Cavern 20, is located at the Bayou Choctaw site and is
in very close proximity to the edge of the salt dome. After use during
Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Cavern 20 experienced preferential leaching
towards the edge of the salt dome. Continued use of the cavern presents
a risk of major environmental danger. The fiscal year 2010 request
proposes funding for the purchase of an existing commercial storage
cavern that is located adjacent to the Bayou Choctaw site to replace
the unsound cavern. It is vital for the Department to maintain its
current inventory level and drawdown response capabilities at the Bayou
Choctaw site because this site is the only Strategic Petroleum Reserve
site that directly serves the refiners on the lower Mississippi River
and refiners in the Midwest served by the Capline Distribution System.
Crude oil releases from this site were instrumental in keeping the
Capline system refiners supplied after the hurricanes in 2005 and 2008.
Question. Your acting assistant Secretary for the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve testified before the Environment and Public Works
Committee recently about legislation sponsored by Senator Bingaman to
create new storage for refined oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
As you know, salt domes in my State of Mississippi were identified by
the last administration as a possible location for the expansion of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Although funds were not included for
expansion activities in your budget, your staff expressed interest in
the idea of new refined oil storage capacity. The Department of Energy
owns salt caverns in Mississippi, which could hold both refined and
crude oil. Will Mississippi be considered as the site for this plan,
likely to be included in the Energy package Senator Bingaman is
planning to move through the Senate this summer?
Answer. Although the Department has identified land for site
development for 1 billion barrel expansion of the SPR at Richton,
Mississippi, the Department has not acquired the land. Rather, DOE has
completed prerequisite activities to include salt dome seismic
analyses, site environmental surveys, and title work in preparation for
the site acquisition. DOE has recently concluded studies for
preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to
find more environmentally suitable locations for the water intake
system, the offshore brine disposal and the marine terminal in
Pascagoula.
The Department is currently evaluating the situation involving the
land acquisition and the additional $31.5 million appropriated in
fiscal year 2009 for new site expansion activities, beyond land
acquisition.
Question. Funding for fiscal year 2009 for the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve included $35 million for the Richton, Mississippi site,
contingent on a report issued by the Department within 45 days. My
staff has contacted yours about the report. What is the status of this
report?
Answer. Pursuant to the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act
(Public Law 111-8), a draft report assessing the effects of expansion
of the Reserve on the domestic petroleum market is undergoing internal
review. We will publish and submit the final report to Congress as soon
as the review process has been completed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich
Question. Over the last several years, the Department of Energy has
greatly increased its oversight of the contractors responsible for
managing and operating (M&O) the national laboratories under M&O
contracts through prescriptive directives and requirements administered
by overlapping and often redundant oversight organizations. Currently,
the DOE's oversight organizations employ thousands of Federal staff
with annual budgets of $500 million. Given that no other agency expends
this amount of resources to oversee contractors who were supposedly
engaged to apply best private-sector practices to operations, do you
think the level of regulatory oversight at the Department's national
laboratories has gotten out of control and hampers their ability to
provide solutions to our Nation's pressing energy needs?
Answer. As Secretary of Energy, I am firmly committed to improving
efficiency at our Laboratories. There is much that the Department can
and will do to enhance our laboratories' ability to deliver on the DOE
missions. Significant improvement can be made with a concerted effort.
Further, we will also review the use of independent certifications (ISO
9000 and 14000, DOE Voluntary Protection Programs, etc.) as part of our
expectations and our strategy for overseeing our contractors' business
and operations systems and processes. Finally, we will consider the
circumstances under which external regulation may be appropriate.
Question. The Government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) model
for laboratory management was originally designed to bring the best
possible scientific and management talent to the laboratories and to
allow them to apply the best private-sector business practices, thus
maximizing their flexibility and efficiency. However, as laboratory
resources are increasingly being redirected from performing R&D to
demonstrating compliance with extremely prescriptive DOE work
requirements, the argument for rethinking DOE's GOCO model is
strengthened. What is your vision of the GOCO management relationship
between DOE and its contractors?
Answer. In my view, the proper relationship between the Department
and its M&O contractors is one that focuses on clear definitions of
performance expectations and outcomes and on holding our contractors
accountable for achieving those outcomes.
The success of the relationship between DOE and its M&O contractors
depends on a clear and consistently-applied understanding of the roles
and responsibilities of each party. The Department should specify what
goals and requirements the contractors must meet and then hold the
contractors accountable for meeting these goals. The contractors should
determine how to meet those contract goals and requirements and apply
best business practices.
Question. How do you explain the current role of the local DOE
site/field offices, and do you see this role changing over time?
Answer. The current role of the local DOE site/field offices is to
provide contractual support and oversight of the Department's national
laboratories and other facilities that are Government-owned and
contractor operated (GOCO). As you know, I am committed to improving
the overall management of the Department, to make it more efficient,
responsive, and economic in meeting our missions and better serving the
American people. Toward this end I have already begun the process of
reviewing the Department's current management structures, processes,
and procedures, and would expect this to continue for some time.
Question. In terms of execution of civilian R&D programs, how would
you categorize the differences between the DOE Office of Science,
National Science Foundation, and National Institute of Health?
Answer. DOE is a mission agency with responsibilities in energy,
environment, national security, and discovery science. The DOE Office
of Science supports scientific research within this mission at over 300
universities and the national laboratories. The Office of Science also
plans, builds, and operates scientific user facilities for the
scientific community. These facilities are a significant pillar of the
U.S. scientific enterprise. The DOE Office of Science is the steward
for 10 national laboratories, and it is the primary Federal supporter
of basic research in service of the energy mission. The programs of the
Office of Science are carefully planned and focused in areas of
importance to advance the DOE mission.
NIH is the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting
medical research. It is part of the Department of Health and Human
Services, the principal agency for protecting the health of all
Americans and providing essential human services. NIH employs
intramural researchers and also funds extramural researchers. The DOE
Office of Science generally does not directly fund medical science and
does not have Federal intramural researchers.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) aims ``to promote the
progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and
welfare; to secure the national defense. . . .'' The NSF supports all
fields of fundamental science and engineering, except for medical
sciences, and also supports the social sciences.
NSF is proposal-driven and funds science independent of the field
or application of that science; in contrast the DOE Office of Science
is mission-driven, supporting science serving the DOE missions of
energy, environment, and national security.
A cornerstone of Office of Science funding is a rigorous peer
review process, much like NIH and NSF.
Question. Although our national laboratory system includes what may
be the largest and most impressive collection of scientific facilities
and talent in the world, the American tax payer does not receive the
maximum benefit from these investments because current DOE policy
prevents labs from partnering with private companies on research
proposals from Federal agencies. Would you support a change in current
DOE policy to authorize national laboratories, on a non-exclusive
basis, to partner with private industry on research request for
proposals (RFPs)?
Answer. Senator Voinovich, you raise an interesting issue as to how
to best utilize our national laboratories, which for the most part are
Government-owned contractor-operated and are Federally Funded Research
and Development Centers (FFRDCs). Our national laboratories partner
extensively with private industry through, for example, the Work for
Others program, Cooperative Research and Development Agreements,
licensing arrangements and user agreements. With respect to responding
to RFPs, however, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which applies on
a Government-wide basis, requires that agencies sponsoring FFRDCs
include in the sponsoring agreement a prohibition against the FFRDC's
competing with any non-FFRDC concern in response to a Federal agency
RFP. DOE's implementation of that requirement is set out in DOE Order
481.1C stating that FFRDCs may not respond to RFPs that involve head-
to-head competition. This preclusion is based partly on the sanctioned
special access to Government information that FFRDCs have that could
put commercial competitors at a disadvantage. The Order goes on to
permit, under certain circumstances, FFRDCs to respond to Broad Agency
Announcements, financial assistance solicitations, Program Research and
Development Announcements, and similar solicitations which do not
result in head-to-head competition. I believe that the DOE should look
carefully at improving opportunities for private industry to partner
with DOE national laboratories.
Question. Has the Department of Energy determined which energy
sources will provide the most electricity with the lowest carbon-
emissions and smallest lifecycle footprint on the environment as a
whole, including raw materials and land usage? Has the DOE done a
comprehensive study to determine the effectiveness of U.S. energy
subsidies, and if not, has the DOE determined which energy subsidies,
if any, would result in the best return on investment for tax payers
while meeting the President's GHG emissions targets?
Answer. No, but the Department of Energy is continuing to develop
and evaluate a portfolio of technologies with the lowest life-cycle
costs and carbon footprint to meet the Nation's growing electricity
demand.
Numerous Federal programs operate today to help accelerate the
deployment of greenhouse gas intensity-reducing technologies by
providing various financial incentives, including direct subsidies.
While these financial incentives are expected to reduce GHG emissions,
they also incur costs to the U.S. Government. DOE is evaluating the
economic and environmental effectiveness of energy subsidies. The
Energy Information Administration did recently complete a study,
``Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets,''
but this study does not calculate the return on investment in terms of
GHG emissions reduction. The executive summary is available at: http://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf.
Question. What is the Department of Energy doing to help expand the
number of nuclear power plants we have in the United States and reduce
our dependence on foreign energy sources? Will additional loan
guarantee authority be given to allow industry to move forward?
Answer. The Nuclear Power 2010 (NP2010) program was established to
address the issues limiting deployment of new nuclear plants in the
United States. The primary goal of the NP2010 program was to
demonstrate the streamlined Federal regulatory processes governing the
siting and construction of new, standardized nuclear plant designs. The
NP2010 program has successfully met its objectives, and we await
industry decisions to build the first new nuclear plants in more than
30 years. The NP2010 program is requesting $20.0 million in fiscal year
2010 to complete support of the NuStart New Nuclear Plant Licensing
Demonstration project. This industry cost-shared project includes
interactions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to obtain the
NuStart Construction and Operating License for the AP1000 advanced
light water reactor design including meetings with the Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safety, issuance of Final Safety Evaluation
Reports and Final Environmental Impact Statements and initiation of
hearings by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
Taken together, the NP2010 program and loan guarantees for nuclear
power projects are designed to address the technical, regulatory and
financial risks associated with deploying new nuclear plants. DOE is
not seeking additional loan guarantee authority or additional
appropriations for credit subsidy costs in fiscal year 2010.
Question. What initiatives and programs is the Department of Energy
planning to ensure we have the technical workforce required to
maintain, build and service our Nation's nuclear power plants in a safe
and efficient manner?
Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy will provide $2.9 million in
undergraduate scholarships and graduate fellowships to high-quality
undergraduate and graduate students going into nuclear science and
engineering disciplines at universities and colleges located in the
United States. The Office of Nuclear Energy also has recommended that
29 universities and colleges receive a total of $6 million in grants
for new equipment and instrumentation for their existing research
reactors, for other specialized nuclear science and engineering
facilities, and to establish classrooms and laboratories. These grants
are designed to enhance the universities' and colleges' nuclear energy
research and development capabilities to educate the next generation of
nuclear engineers and scientists.
Working with industry, the Office of Nuclear Energy will soon begin
activities to more thoroughly analyze total workforce needs to support
continued safe and reliable operation of the existing nuclear fleet and
construction and operation of the next generation of nuclear power
plants in the United States. Finally, the Department will continue to
look for partnership opportunities with industry groups, academia, and
other Government agencies to ensure an adequate, highly skilled
workforce is available to ensure continued safe and reliable nuclear
power operations.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Dorgan. Thank you for being with us this morning.
Our subcommittee will want to work closely with you and with
your staff in the Department of Energy as we work through the
markup of an appropriations bill going forward in the coming
fiscal year. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., Tuesday, May 19, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:18 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senator Dorgan, Feinstein, and Bennett.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO, UNDER SECRETARY
FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY AND ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
BRIGADIER GENERAL GARRETT HARENCAK, PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR FOR MILITARY APPLICATION, OFFICE OF DEFENSE
PROGRAMS
KEN BAKER, PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. We will call the hearing to order. This is
the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development.
We appreciate all of you being here. I apologize for being
just a bit tardy this morning.
We are here to take testimony from Administrator Thomas
D'Agostino of the Department of Energy's National Nuclear
Security Administration on the fiscal year 2010 budget request.
Joining Mr. D'Agostino at the witness table to help field
questions will be the two NNSA Principal Assistant Deputy
Administrators, Brigadier General Harencak--I hope I have that
correct, Brigadier General. Welcome to you. And Mr. Ken Baker,
Mr. Baker, welcome.
This year's budget request of $9.9 billion for the NNSA is
up $815 million, or almost 9 percent, when compared to the
fiscal year 2009 appropriation. But almost $600 million of that
increase is simply a transfer of the MOX fabrication facility
construction project to NNSA. Excluding that shift, NNSA's
budget is flat in fiscal year 2010, with only a tangible
increase in the Naval Reactors Program.
As we have seen in other parts of the Department of
Energy's budget request, there are very few positive changes in
the NNSA budget from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010. In
fact, there are numerous program areas where the exact same
number is requested in fiscal year 2010 as was requested the
previous fiscal year. Whether it is a weapons program budget or
the fossil energy program budget, it is hard to imagine that so
little is truly in need of change over the coming year, and I
assume we will talk about that this morning.
I understand that the Nuclear Posture Review is currently
underway and that this will have an impact on our stockpile and
perhaps on the complex that supports the stockpile. However, I
am not sure this is justification enough for decisions to halt
some of the projects or for the lack of actual positive changes
in the budget request. The fact is NNSA is going to have a very
active future. That is clear when looking at the wide number of
areas that we will discuss today.
Through renegotiation of the START Treaty and completion of
the NPR, we are likely to be on a path to fewer nuclear weapons
in our stockpile. This will require more dismantlement. That
requires more funding. However, we will continue to have
nuclear weapons for the near future, and that, too, requires
funding for stewardship and life extension programs.
Also, the President announced in April his goal of securing
vulnerable nuclear material around the world within 4 years.
That is a very critical issue that we must address
aggressively, and that, too, will cost some funding.
Further, whether because of new treaties or actions by
North Korea and others, proliferation and nuclear detection are
becoming much more prominent as issues and are also critical
issues and, once again, require funding. All of these areas
require resources. A flat fiscal year 2010 budget means
additional pressures, it seems to me, in the out-years, and
that is something we will discuss this morning.
I want to make one final point. The weapons program is
primarily focused on issues directly related to the stockpile.
But the fact is, a significant infrastructure funded by the
weapons programs also benefits other programs, such as science
and non-proliferation, both of which are important. The NNSA's
computing program has led this Nation to the forefront of
computing worldwide.
I know that the announcement about that, that we have
computing capabilities now that are not exceeded anywhere in
the world, was made with great pride and that was done at our
weapons lab. The program not only serves stockpile modeling,
but also climate change, non-proliferation modeling, and more.
NNSA computer modeling has contributed significantly to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their non-
proliferation program uses computer modeling to better analyze
seismic events related to detonation. This fact, I think, seems
forgotten in the budget request.
The NNSA's investment in supercomputing has dropped 7
percent since 2006. By comparison, the Department of Energy's
Office of Science computing budget has increased 79 percent
over the same period.
So we are in a political transition year. The stockpile
still requires attention. Proliferation is an ever-increasing
concern, and base capabilities still need to be maintained or
increased. A flat budget is going to make that a very
significant struggle.
I understand, Mr. D'Agostino that you are not ultimately
responsible for this budget request, but you have, nonetheless,
come here to answer questions about it. We have seen the Office
of Management and Budget passbacks that make it clear that OMB
has significant control in this area. Although this may not
reflect all of your views on all accounts, we will rely on you
to explain it today.
I have always appreciated your candor and appreciated
working with you, Mr. D'Agostino. I am going to call on Senator
Bennett for an opening comment. I do want to mention that we
apparently will have either one or two votes, starting at 11
o'clock today, and we will recess for that purpose.
Senator Bennett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And most of the items that I intended to cover in my
opening statement you have already covered. The budget is flat,
and it is flat in a number of areas that, as you have outlined,
need to be looked at and improved. It is reduced--this budget
has reduced science funding and non-proliferation R&D by
several hundred million dollars. And future funding will
continue to erode the capability over time. I find that a very
disturbing trend.
I have always been willing to fund R&D, particularly the
kind of pure science that we see in the national labs, and your
description of the computing power and other things is an
accurate portrayal of the challenge that we face.
I support sustaining the test ban moratorium. But if we are
going to do that, we have to have a significant investment in
our scientific capabilities and the people and the
infrastructure that go along to ensure those capabilities so
that we can accurately predict the status of our nuclear
deterrent. And I don't believe the budget provides adequate
funding for the scientific capabilities and falls short in the
areas you have described.
So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to try
to repair this damage that has come. And Mr. D'Agostino, I have
been sitting at the same table where you are in previous
administrations, and I know the frustrations of making a
submission to OMB and being told no less how much you are going
to defend when you get to Congress. And we don't ask you to
violate your instructions from OMB, but any degree of candor
you can share with us would be very much appreciated.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett, thank you.
We will try to get the sound system fixed here, get it
turned up just a bit so the audience can hear.
Senator Feinstein, would you like to make a brief opening
comment, and then we will go to Mr. D'Agostino?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Well, just one quick thing. I had the
great pleasure--I guess it was Friday----
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Friday, of being at
Lawrence Livermore to see the beginning--and Mr. D'Agostino was
one of the speakers. And to see the beginning of the National
Ignition Facility, which you have been helpful with, both of
you, over the years. It has been somewhat controversial, but
the conversation was so exciting, and that is that it may be
possible--``may'' is the operative word--to combine fission and
fusion to really be able to present a brand-new source of
energy, which not only would be cost effective, but would be
carbon free.
And it would appear, and I hope--the reason I wanted to
come was to ask you more about this--that this might well be
the new mission of that lab. And I will just end it. I have
watched the labs and really come to wonder if the right thing
was done in the privatization of these labs because we have
lost a lot of valued employees. And the labs are only good if
they have a mission, and the mission has changed. So I want to
talk about that a little bit later on.
But thank you very much.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Feinstein, thank you very much.
Mr. D'Agostino, I just alluded to the announcement about
the Roadrunner, I believe, at Los Alamos, the most powerful
computer in the world. We have great accomplishment at our
weapons labs, not dealing just exclusively with weapons. One of
my concerns is given the changing of the nature of the Bell
Labs over the years and so on, our national laboratories are
critically important to this country continuing its edge in
science and research and technology.
I am very worried about losing the strength of our
scientists at these laboratories. We need to continue funding,
and there are many things that can be done in the weapons labs
and the science labs that can advance this country's interests.
I worry very much about diminished funding and losing some of
our best and most capable people.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO
So let me call on you for an opening statement, and then we
will begin with questions.
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, thanks very much, Chairman Dorgan,
and Senator Bennett, Senator Feinstein.
As you know, I am Tom D'Agostino. I am the Administrator
here at the National Nuclear Security Administration. I am
accompanied by Ken Baker, who runs our non-proliferation
program, and Brigadier General Gary Harencak, who runs our
defense programs activities and is responsible for maintaining
the base capability on nuclear security for our program. And we
do appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to talk to
you about our programs and to answer your questions.
Also, in the audience, we have some members of our summer
student intern program. These are the folks, ultimately, I
wanted them to come and see the process at work, the way
Government works. These are the folks that will be leading
these types of security programs out in the future. We are
really proud, fortunate to have them here, and it is exciting
to have young folks in the organization to see what we do and
to capture, get a little bit of that vision that we saw at the
National Ignition Facility, get excited about the programs, and
take us forward. So I'm excited about that.
As you know, we believe NNSA is critical to the security of
the United States and our allies. The President's fiscal year
2010 budget request is $9.9 billion. It is an increase, as you
said, sir, of about 8.9 percent over the fiscal year 2009
appropriated level. The budget request provides funding to
enable the NNSA to leverage science, to promote U.S. national
security objectives.
NNSA programs are on the front of the lines of the
following national security endeavors: maintaining a safe,
secure, and reliable stockpile and capabilities to support that
stockpile; accelerating and expanding our efforts here and
around the world to reduce the global threat posed by nuclear
terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and unsecured materials;
providing the United States Navy with safe, militarily
effective propulsion systems; and supporting U.S. leadership in
science and technology.
As the President has initiated bold steps to put an end to
cold war thinking to lead to a new international effort to
enhance global security, the 2010 budget request for NNSA is
the first step. There are other steps, but this is the first
step towards implementation of this new strategy.
For our non-proliferation programs, funding increases are
requested to expand and respond quickly to opportunities to
reduce global nuclear threats. Increases are also requested, as
you said, sir, in the Naval Reactors Program to begin
development of reactor and propulsion systems for the next-
generation submarine, among other activities.
For the programs in our weapons activities appropriation,
the budget strategy is to maintain capabilities and activities
at the current level until the strategic direction is
established in the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review.
In President Obama's speech in Prague, he indicated his
commitment to maintaining a safe, secure, and reliable
stockpile while pursuing a vision of a world free from the
threat of nuclear weapons. The NNSA maintains the unique
knowledge and technical capabilities that are critical to
achieving both of these objectives.
Our non-proliferation programs are focused on securing the
key ingredient of nuclear weapons, in effect, the weapons
usable materials and the related equipment and technologies.
Supporting NNSA efforts include the Elimination of Weapons-
Grade Plutonium Production Program, which has been working with
Russia to shut down Russia's plutonium production reactors, and
the Fissile Material Disposition Program, which will provide a
disposition path of 34 metric tons each of U.S. and Russian
excess plutonium.
The NNSA is a recognized leader on these and other non-
proliferation initiatives to prevent proliferators or
terrorists from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This includes our
activities to secure and reduce weapons-grade nuclear materials
at sites worldwide, but also our efforts to detect and
intercept WMD-related materials in transit.
In addition, we will also work in 2010 to support the
President's call to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty,
support the International Atomic Energy Agency, and strengthen
international safeguards inspections. To implement this
comprehensive strategy, we will need to expand our cooperation
with Russia, pursue new partnerships, and work to secure
vulnerable nuclear material around the world in 4 years.
Our Global Threat Reduction Initiative and the
International Material Protection and Cooperation Programs will
have a major role in this 4-year plan.
NNSA is actively participating in a national debate over
our Nation's nuclear security and non-proliferation strategic
framework. This debate is not just about the size of the
stockpile and warheads. It includes the inescapable obligation
to transform our current cold war era nuclear weapons complex
into a 21st century nuclear security enterprise that retains
the capabilities necessary to meet emerging national security
threats.
In a future with fewer warheads, no nuclear tests, tighter
controls on materials worldwide, and effective counteraction of
nuclear terrorist threats, the science and technology
capabilities will play an increased role, not decreased role,
in addressing these challenges. We must ensure that our
evolving strategic posture and our stockpile, non-proliferation
programs, arms control, and counterterrorism programs are
melded together in an integrated, comprehensive strategy to
protect our country and our allies.
The Department of Defense, as you know, has initiated this
Nuclear Posture Review, which is scheduled to culminate in a
report later this year. I want to assure the subcommittee that
we are active members of that review and we are making sure
that science and technology that underpins essential policy
decisions is part of that review.
As you know, we have made tremendous progress in reducing
the size of our stockpile in recent years. The stockpile will
now be less than one quarter of what it was at the end of the
cold war, the smallest stockpile in 50 years. These reductions
send the right message to the rest of the world that the United
States is committed to Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, which will help create a positive momentum heading into
the 2010 NPT review conference.
Each year since the Stockpile Stewardship Program was
developed, we have been able to certify the safety, security,
and reliability of the stockpile with no need to conduct
underground tests. Since 1993, we have acquired a suite of
capabilities determined necessary to maintain an effective
stockpile.
Most recently, as Senator Feinstein has mentioned, the
National Ignition Facility has come online, and ultimately, we
are going to be--our goal in the next few years is to actually
apply these tools to address not only the national security
problems but maintain the science that we need and to look for
other opportunities to address our energy issues out into the
future.
But the challenge for stockpile stewardship in the future
ultimately is to really make full use of this suite of tools.
Following completion of the Nuclear Posture Review, we will
prepare a 5-year plan, which recapitalizes our infrastructure,
retains our scientific, technical, and engineering expertise,
and makes full use of our experiments and supercomputing
facilities.
As the subcommittee knows, numerous external reviews have
identified the fragile state of our technical expertise and
capabilities, and it ultimately resides in our people. It is
clear that our people are our most important resource. We need
to retain those skills and capabilities and develop the next
generation of scientists, engineers, and technicians needed to
perform work in non-proliferation, in counterterrorism, and in
forensics.
Of course, we need to maintain--these are the same people
that are responsible for maintaining our stockpile.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, that
concludes my statement, and I will be pleased and look forward
to taking your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas P. D'Agostino
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our vision for the
National Nuclear Security Administration. My remarks today focus on the
fiscal year 2010 President's budget request. The budget requested today
will allow the National Nuclear Security Administration to continue to
achieve the mission expected of it by the President, the Congress, and
the American people.
In a recent trip to Prague, President Obama outlined his vision of
a world without nuclear weapons. To this end, the United States will
take concrete steps towards achieving such a world by reducing the role
of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urging others
to do the same. Until that ultimate goal is achieved, however, the
United States will maintain nuclear forces sufficient to deter any
adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies. To support this
vision, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will
continue to:
--Ensure a safe, secure, reliable and effective nuclear weapons
stockpile, even if that stockpile is reduced under a START
Follow-On Treaty.
--Reduce the threat to the United States posed by the proliferation
of nuclear weapons, and related nuclear materials and
expertise.
--Provide safe, reliable, militarily-effective propulsion systems to
the U.S. Navy.
By pursuing its mission to achieve these ends, and by providing our
unique knowledge and support to our partners in national security, the
NNSA will continue to meet its current statutory responsibilities while
supporting the long-term goal of a world free from the threat of
nuclear weapons.
While the President's long-term objectives are clear, the role of
the nuclear weapons stockpile and America's deterrence policy are being
reviewed as part of the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review. Efforts are
underway in the NPR to establish the size and composition of the future
stockpile and the means for managing geopolitical or technical risk--
NNSA is fully engaged in these activities. Its role is to provide the
technical and scientific input to inform policy decisions, and then to
enable the implementation of the decisions.
NNSA is advancing our knowledge of the physical; chemical, and
materials processes that govern nuclear weapons operation and is
applying that knowledge in extending the life of existing weapons
systems. We have recently completed construction of the National
Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
to explore weapons-critical regimes of high temperature and pressure
and will begin our first ignition campaign to improve our scientific
understanding of phenomena that could previously only be explored
theoretically or in full-scale nuclear testing. The NNSA is also
conducting warhead Life Extension Programs to ensure that our country
remains secure without the production of new fissile materials, and
without conducting underground nuclear tests. On the basis of the most
recent assessment by the Directors of our national nuclear weapon
laboratories, today's nuclear stockpile remains safe, reliable, and
secure. At the same time, we are concerned about increasing challenges
in maintaining, for the long term, the safety and reliability of the
aging, finely-tuned warheads that were produced in the 1970's and
1980's and are well past their original planned service life.
I am committed to continuing to transform our national laboratories
and production plants into a smaller and more cost-effective Nuclear
Security Enterprise. However, I am mindful that our design laboratories
and production facilities are national assets that support a large
number of defense, security, and intelligence activities. As the role
of nuclear weapons in our Nation's defense evolves and the threats to
national security continue to grow, the focus of this enterprise must
also change and place its tremendous intellectual capacity and unique
facilities in the service of addressing other challenges related to
national defense. We are taking steps to move in this direction,
including functioning as a national science, technology, and systems
engineering resource to other agencies with national security
responsibilities.
The NNSA fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request will allow
continued progress in obtaining the essential goals I have outlined. It
will allow us to:
--Continue transforming into a Nuclear Security Enterprise by:
--Involving the next generation of our Nation's scientific,
engineering, and technical professionals in the broad sweep
of technical challenges;
--Operating the National Ignition Facility, allowing the use of
innovative technology to provide answers to important
scientific questions;
--Shrinking the cold war complex by preparing buildings for
decommissioning and decontamination, and replacing these
antiquated facilities with modern and efficient facilities;
as well as disposing of excess real property through
demolition, transfer and the preparation of process-
contaminated facilities for transfer to the Department of
Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) for
final disposition;
--Initiating a Site Stewardship program to ensure that NNSA
increases the use of renewable and efficient energy, and
reduces the number of locations with security Category I/II
Special Nuclear Materials, including the removal of these
materials from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
by the end of 2012; and
--Reducing security, safety and environmental risks by
consolidating and disposing of excess nuclear materials
wherever possible.
--Support the development and implementation of arms control,
nonproliferation, and civil nuclear energy agreements by:
--Providing technical and policy support to U.S. delegations
negotiating arms control, nonproliferation, and peaceful
nuclear energy cooperation agreements;
--Developing the technologies and approaches needed to verify
compliance with negotiated treaties and agreements; and
--Providing training and technical support to the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
--Support U.S. commitments through construction of the Mixed Oxide
Fuel Fabrication Facility and Waste Solidification Building to
provide a disposition pathway for excess U.S. fissile
materials, and to help Russia implement its reciprocal
commitments.
--Continue our successful programs to secure and/or eliminate
vulnerable nuclear and radioactive material in other countries,
enhance nuclear/radiological material detection capabilities at
borders, airports, and seaports, and strengthen
nonproliferation practices and standards worldwide.
--Embark on the design and development of an advanced reactor core
and propulsion plant supporting the timely replacement of the
OHIO Class Submarine.
--Overhaul of the land-based prototype reactor plant used to test
advanced materials and techniques in a realistic operating
environment prior to their inclusion in propulsion plants.
--Honor the commitments made to those who won the cold war by
ensuring their pensions are secure in times of financial
uncertainty.
Today, I'd like to testify on our efforts in Weapons Activities,
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors.
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES OVERVIEW
The NNSA will ensure that our nuclear stockpile remains safe,
secure and effective to deter any adversary, and provide a defense
umbrella to our allies. At the same time, NNSA will continue to pursue
a modern more flexible Nuclear Security Enterprise that is
significantly smaller than the Cold War complex, but is able to address
a variety of stockpile scenarios.
As I have committed to you previously, NNSA continues to retire and
dismantle nuclear weapons. By 2012 our stockpile will be one-quarter of
the size it was at the end of the cold war. As the United States
prepares for the 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, this fact alone should emphasize the commitment
we make to both our Nation and to the world.
As a full partner in the Nuclear Posture Review, the NNSA is
working with the Departments of Defense and State to establish the
plans, policies, and programs that will govern the future posture of
our nuclear forces and supporting infrastructure. The recently issued
report of the Bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic
Posture of the United States will help guide these efforts. These
reviews will assist the U.S. Congress and the administration in clearly
defining our future direction.
As the NPR proceeds, NNSA continues to carry out a number of
activities in support of the stockpile including warhead surveillance,
assessment, replacement of limited life components in existing weapon
systems, and dismantlements. We are also continuing the W76 Life
Extension Program and a feasibility study with the Air Force for a Life
Extension Program for some models of the B61 gravity bomb. There are
also activities planned in the six campaigns and the studies needed for
Annual Assessment of the stockpile.
The NNSA will also continue transforming the Nuclear Security
Enterprise into a modern, smaller, and more flexible complex. The NNSA
inherited a system of laboratories and production plants designed to
produce large volumes of weapons and designs needed to counter Soviet
aggression. We have initiated a major effort to right-size the
enterprise to meet the new, anticipated requirements. The NNSA is
consolidating Category I and II Special Nuclear Materials; removing
these items from selected sites and providing safe, secure storage for
this material.
In fiscal year 2010, we will be reducing our infrastructure
footprint through the deactivation and decommissioning of buildings
such as Buildings 9206 and 9201 at Y-12. We will also plan for the
future infrastructure through continuing design of the Uranium
Processing Facility at Y-12, the Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility at the Savannah River Site, and the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Replacement Facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory,
and begin the process of planning for an orderly migration of missions
to a smaller and more flexible facility at the Kansas City Plant.
The NNSA has received assistance in our ability to alter our
infrastructure in the form of an increase in the General Plant Projects
limit. We are pleased with the decision to increase the ceiling on
General Plant Projects from $5 million to $10 million. We believe that
this aids in the maintenance and repair of the enduring enterprise.
Following on this increase, the NNSA is submitting a legislative
proposal to similarly increase the design cost limit for these
construction projects from $600,000 to $1,500,000. We seek your support
for the proposal.
But while NNSA is reducing its footprint, and while the total
number of warheads in the stockpile continues to decline, there are
capabilities that must be preserved. Not only are these capabilities
needed to support the maintenance of any stockpile, but they are also
needed to support the Nuclear Security Enterprise's initiatives in
nonproliferation, nuclear counterterrorism, nuclear forensics, and
nuclear incident response. It's important to note that the enterprise
does not scale linearly with the size of the stockpile; and the need
for baseline functional capabilities is not eliminated with cessation
of research into new designs and the cessation of any production of new
weapons systems. These capabilities are needed whether we have a few
warheads, or a few thousand.
Although NNSA did not receive any funds directly from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we are assisting other parts of the
Department in implementing their plans for stimulus work at the NNSA
sites and stand ready to do more.
As NNSA prepares for the future, we must focus on the retention of
our scientific, technical, and engineering personnel throughout the
complex. Without experienced scientific, technical, and engineering
personnel, NNSA cannot succeed at its mission. Throughout the cold war
we were able to attract the Nation's brightest scientists, engineers,
and technical professionals by providing challenges, facilities, and
opportunities that were unique, were on the forefront of science, and
that allowed them to put their talents to work to serve their country.
Today we are transitioning our emphasis to a broader nuclear security
mission, but our need to attract the best scientists, engineers and
technical professionals remains. By developing new scientific tools
such as the National Ignition Facility, new challenges such as the
detection of smuggled uranium and plutonium, and the modernization of
facilities such as the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement
Facility, we can continue to attract bright technical minds who wish to
serve their country. We believe that our response to the spectrum of
threats to national security is not only the right steps for us to take
to make the Nation more secure, but also will provide a significant set
of technical areas that will motivate young scientists to join us in
our mission.
The challenges are huge and meeting them calls upon both basic
science and applied technology. Approximately 70 years ago, Hans Bethe
advanced the state of science with his critical work explaining the
physical processes governing the life cycles of stars. Today the
National Ignition Facility (NIF) stands on the threshold of producing
stellar conditions in the laboratory. By moving the enterprise forward
in advancing the boundaries of science, we will continue to attract our
Nation's brightest minds to our scientific endeavors. In fiscal year
2009, two significant technological milestones were achieved; crossing
the one mega joule threshold with NIF and the one petaflop threshold in
the Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION OVERVIEW
As part of the President's comprehensive strategy to address the
international nuclear threat, the President also called for
strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, accelerating our
efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world, and
increasing our work to detect, deter, and eliminate illicit trafficking
of nuclear materials. The NNSA Nuclear Security Enterprise is actively
engaged in these and other nonproliferation missions and will provide
the technical expertise to ensure they are successful.
The movement of funding for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility and the Waste Solidification Building into the Fissile
Materials Disposition budget is the largest change in the fiscal year
2010 Congressional Budget for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program.
These critical facilities provide the nonproliferation programs a
disposition pathway for at least 34 metric tons of surplus U.S. weapons
grade plutonium. I'm pleased to report that the United States and
Russia have agreed on a revised Russian program to dispose of Russia's
34 metric tons of their surplus weapons plutonium. These changes will
be codified in a Protocol that will amend the 2000 U.S.-Russian
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, and we expect to sign
the Protocol this summer. In light of President Obama's recent
statements in Prague and London, I am particularly pleased that the
U.S. and Russian plutonium disposition programs are coming together at
this time. As a result of these efforts, the United States and Russia
will ultimately dispose of enough weapons plutonium for at least 17,000
nuclear weapons.
I should note also that with this budget request, we are submitting
our last request for funding to eliminate the production of weapons-
grade plutonium production in Russia by December 2010, through the
shutdown of Russia's last weapons-grade plutonium production reactor in
Zheleznogorsk.
The NNSA directly supports President Obama's goal to accelerate
efforts to secure all vulnerable nuclear material from around the world
within 4 years, including the expansion and acceleration of our
existing efforts. The NNSA is the key agency supporting the
administration's goal of minimizing the use of highly-enriched uranium
(HEU) in the civil nuclear sector through our program to shutdown
entirely or convert HEU fueled research reactors to the use of low-
enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. In fiscal year 2010, we will direct
significant funding to the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)
mission to eliminate and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiological
materials located at civilian sites worldwide.
In fiscal year 2010, we will also improve the physical security of
nuclear material, as well as facilitate the development and
implementation of material control and accountability procedures, and
train personnel, to protect a total of 73 nuclear sites throughout
Russia and the former Soviet republics. The NNSA will fulfill the
administration's goal of securing nuclear weapons-usable material by
ensuring that the material possessed by the Russian Navy, the Russian
Ministry of Defense, Rosatom and Russian civilian sites is secured.
But improving the security of weapons-usable material at its source
is only the start. We must also develop a Second Line of Defense in
order to anticipate the possibility that nuclear weapons-usable
material could be smuggled out and transported across international
borders. And in fact, we know that illicit trafficking in nuclear and
other radioactive materials continues, especially in Eastern Europe,
the Caucasus, and Central Asia. In response to the President's charge
to do more to combat nuclear trafficking, we will install additional
radiation detection equipment at 42 foreign sites across Europe, Asia,
and North America, and provide detection equipment in 15 additional
ports where cargo is loaded for shipment to the United States.
This work started several years ago. Technology advances and
foreign personnel turnover have occurred since NNSA first began
securing sites and borders in foreign countries. Funds will be used not
only to perform new installations and train personnel at new sites, but
will also be used to upgrade older equipment at existing sites, and to
provide refresher training to foreign security professionals.
Additionally, in fiscal year 2010, NNSA will expand and accelerate
its Next Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI), adding $15 million to
revitalize the U.S. technical and human capital base necessary to
strengthen the international safeguards system and the International
Atomic Energy Agency, in line with President Obama's charge in Prague.
The NGSI complements related NNSA priorities to reduce proliferation
risks associated with growing international interest in the use of
nuclear power; to expand export control training and outreach; to
develop and implement reliable fuel services as an alternative to the
further spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities; and--
consistent with the President's call for progress towards a world
without nuclear weapons--to provide technical support for negotiations
of the START follow-on agreement, Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty, and a verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty.
NAVAL REACTORS OVERVIEW
The NNSA also contributes to national security through the Naval
Reactors Program. This program ensures that the nuclear propulsion
plants aboard our Navy's warships remain safe and reliable for their
complete service lives. Over 40 percent of the Navy's major combatants
are nuclear-powered. All of the Nation's aircraft carriers, attack
submarines, guided missile submarines, and ballistic missile submarines
enjoy the significant operational advantage afforded by nuclear power,
including speed, endurance, and enhanced combat payload. Through NNSAs
efforts, nuclear-powered warships are on station where American
interests are threatened, and ready to conduct sustained combat
operations.
For over 60 years, the Naval Reactors program has had complete
responsibility for all aspects of Naval Nuclear Propulsion. The Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program currently supports 82 active nuclear-powered
warships and 103 operating reactors. This represents 8 propulsion plant
designs, in seven classes of ships, as well as a training platform.
Naval Reactors funding supports safe and reliable operation of the
Nation's Nuclear Fleet. This includes providing rigorous oversight,
analysis of plant performance and conditions, as well as addressing
emergent operational issues and technology obsolescence for 71
submarines, 11 aircraft carriers and four research and development and
training platforms. This funding also supports new plant design
projects (i.e., reactor plant for the GERALD R. FORD-class aircraft
carrier and alternative lower-cost core for VIRGINIA-class submarines),
as well as ensuring proper storage of naval spent nuclear fuel, prudent
recapitalization of aging facilities, and remediation of environmental
liabilities.
The OHIO-class SSBNs, which are the most survivable leg of the U.S.
Strategic Forces, are approaching the end of their service lives. The
Navy recently completed studies for a follow-on replacement to the
OHIO-class and is funding the commencement of design work in fiscal
year 2010. NNSA funding in fiscal year 2010 supports reactor core and
propulsion plant design and development efforts to support this
replacement.
Since 1978, the land-based prototype reactor plant (S8G) has
provided an essential capability to test required changes or
improvements to components and systems prior to installation in
operational ships. The prototype has also provided required, high-
quality training for new sailors preparing to operate the Nation's
nuclear-powered vessels. This land-based prototype will run out of fuel
and require a refueling overhaul starting in 2018. This overhaul and
the resultant opportunity to test advanced materials and manufacturing
techniques in a caustic operating environment will significantly
mitigate risk in the OHIO Replacement reactor plant design. To support
the refueling overhaul schedule, concept studies and systems design and
development efforts will begin in 2010.
The Expended Core Facility, located at the Naval Reactors Facility
on the Idaho National Laboratory, is the central location for Naval
spent nuclear fuel receipt, inspection, dissection, packaging for dry
storage, and temporary storage, as well as detailed examination of
spent cores and irradiation specimens. Continuous, efficient operation
of this facility is vital to ensure the United States can support fuel
handling operations in our shipyards conducting construction, repair,
and restoration of nuclear ships. The existing facility and related
infrastructure is over 50 years old and requires recapitalization. The
mission need for recapitalizing this capability has been approved and
conceptual design efforts begin in 2010.
The Program continues to explore and develop potentially advanced
technologies that could deliver a compellingly better energy source for
nuclear ships. For example, using a supercritical carbon dioxide energy
conversion as a replacement for the traditional steam cycle is
envisioned to be significantly smaller for the same power output,
simpler, more automated, and more affordable. Leveraging existing
university, industry, and Nuclear Security Enterprise scientific and
engineering work in this technology, conceptual development and small-
scale testing is underway to support eventual megawatt-scale testing
and prototyping.
Acquisition of a new surface combatant (i.e., cruiser) in support
of new ballistic missile defense and anti-air warfare mission
requirements are currently under evaluation by the Navy. Based on these
mission requirements, this new ship will potentially require higher
energy capacity and output than is currently available from traditional
fossil fueled power plants. Further, the National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) for 2008 authorizes the Navy to construct all future major
combatant vessels with integrated nuclear power systems unless this
requirement is waived by the Secretary of Defense. The Navy is
currently analyzing alternative shipboard systems that will determine
final power plant requirements. Should the Navy decide to pursue a
nuclear-powered cruiser in its current long-range shipbuilding plan,
DOE-cognizant reactor core and propulsion plant design and development
will be required.
The value of nuclear power for naval propulsion is well recognized
and the demand for its inherent capabilities remains strong. By taking
every opportunity for economies in our work and business practices, we
have made a concerted effort to meet the Navy's demand for new
propulsion plant designs while assuring the safe and reliable operation
and maintenance of the existing fleet. However, the need to deal with a
formidable collection of new challenges coupled with the Program's
aging infrastructure and environmental legacies requires a fortified
level of resource commitment.
NNSA Future-Years Nuclear Security Program
The NNSA fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request is $9.9
billion, a total of $815.4 million above the fiscal year 2009
appropriations. Of the 8.9 percent increase, about 7 percent is
attributable to the re-location of funding for the Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication facility project back to NNSA in the Defense nuclear
Nonproliferation appropriation.
The NNSA budget justification contains information for 5 years as
required by section 3253 of Public Law 106-065, entitled Future-Years
Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP). The fiscal year 2010-2014 FYNSP
projects $50.4 billion for NNSA programs through 2014. The principal
increases from the fiscal year 2009-2013 FYNSP are: the transfer of
funding for the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility project
back from the Office of Nuclear Energy to NNSA; the multi-year
initiative to further enhance global nuclear nonproliferation efforts;
and some of the increase required to support the development of the new
generation submarine reactor replacement. For Weapons Activities, the
outyear projections reflect only a continuation of current
capabilities, pending upcoming strategic nuclear policy decisions. The
fiscal year 2011-2015 budget process is expected to present a fully
integrated Future Years Nuclear Security Program budget aligned with
the new strategic direction and program requirements for all of the
NNSA programs.
NNSA Budget Summary by Appropriation and Program
Weapons Activities Appropriation
The Weapons Activities appropriation funds five NNSA program
organizations. (There are six subheadings below. Combining ``Site
Stewardship'' and ``Infrastructure and Environment'' would reduce the
count to five and mirror the NNSA structure.) The fiscal year 2010
congressional budget request is $6.4 billion for Weapons Activities,
essentially level with fiscal year 2009 appropriation.
Defense Programs
The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request for Defense
Programs is $5.0 billion, a decrease of 1.1 percent from the fiscal
year 2009 appropriation that is primarily attributable to transitioning
the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility and the Waste
Solidification Building to other programs. The outyear projections for
Defense Programs reflect a continuation of current programs and
services pending further national nuclear policy direction expected
during 2009.
Within the President's Budget request level, the NNSA will continue
all programs to meet the immediate needs of the stockpile, stockpile
surveillance, annual assessment, and Life Extension Programs (LEP). As
directed by the Nuclear Weapons Council, a feasibility and cost study
was initiated in September, 2008, to investigate the replacement of
aging non-nuclear components in the family of B61 bombs, and to study
the potential incorporation of modern safety and security features in
these systems. Included in the program are efforts to complete the B61
Phase 6.2/6.2A refurbishment study evaluating end-of-life components,
aging, reliability, and surety improvement options. The decrease within
the Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) request is attributable mainly to the
relocation of the funding for the Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility (PDCF) to Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
and the Waste Solidification Building (WSB) to Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation.
The Campaign activities for Science, Engineering, Inertial
Confinement Fusion and Advanced Simulation and Computing maintain the
fiscal year 2009 funding level throughout the FYNSP. The Science
Campaign consolidates a new subprogram called ``Academic Alliances''
that encompasses the funding for university grants, alliances, and the
joint program with Science. The Engineering campaign increases emphasis
on Enhanced Surveillance and Systems Engineering Technology in the
fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request. The Inertial Confinement
Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign is requested at $437 million,
and in fiscal year 2010, the emphasis shifts away from NIF assembly and
toward Facility Operations as the program continues to refine
requirements and prepare for the first ignition experiments in 2010.
The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request for the Advanced
Simulation and Computing Campaign provides growth in physics and
engineering models as support shifts away from hardware procurements
and system software.
The Readiness Campaign funds the development and deployment of
modern manufacturing capabilities to produce materials and components
in compliance with weapon design and performance requirements and in
accordance with Life Extension Program and refurbishment schedules. In
fiscal year 2010, the Readiness Campaign will focus on supporting the
Tritium Readiness activities and high priority projects to deliver new
or enhanced processes, technologies, and capabilities to meet the
current needs of the stockpile. The reduction in Tritium Readiness was
planned, and is due to the cyclical nature of production.
The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities request is $62
million above the fiscal year 2009 appropriations. The increase is
attributable to additional funding provided to mitigate increased
pension costs at the M&O contractor sites. Within the request for
operating expenses, an increase is included for the Kansas City Plant
supporting the work for the move to a new, smaller facility. Funding
for construction projects is requested at $203 million to sustain
ongoing construction and design efforts. The location of funding for
the PDCF project has been changed from DSW to RTBF. One new
construction project is requested: the Nuclear Facilities Risk
Reduction Project at Y-12 will provide maintenance to sustain uranium
related capabilities at Building 9212.
The Secure Transportation Asset program is requested at $234.9
million, an increase of 9.6 percent over the fiscal year 2009
appropriation. The STA program plans to acquire a total of three
transport category aircraft. One 737-type aircraft will be purchased
each year--starting in fiscal year 2010, fiscal year 2011, and fiscal
year 2012 to replace the aging aircraft. In addition to the aircraft
purchases, the remaining increase will be used for training and
equipment.
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response (NCTIR)/
Emergency Operations
The NCTIR program responds to and mitigates nuclear and
radiological incidents worldwide as the U.S. Government's primary
capability for radiological and nuclear emergency response. The fiscal
year 2010 congressional budget request for these activities is $221.9
million, an increase of 3 percent over fiscal year 2009 appropriations.
The increase reflects funding growth in three specific areas of the
program--International Emergency Management and Cooperation, Emergency
Response, and Render Safe Stabilization Operations. These initiatives
support increased efforts to address serious emergency management
programs in priority countries, while continuing and completing ongoing
programs with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other
international partners and countries; scientific breakthroughs for
Render Safe Stabilization Operations and the Technical Integration
programs and continued implementation of National Technical Nuclear
Forensics for pre- and post-detonation phases and the Stabilization
aspect of nuclear emergencies through development of first generation
stabilization equipment including training and maintenance programs to
selected teams nationwide in support of better emergency response
capability.
Infrastructure and Environment
This organization is responsible for the Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, (FIRP) and the new Site
Stewardship Program which encompasses Environmental Projects and
Operations (EPO) that provides for Long-Term Stewardship (LTS) at NNSA
sites after remediation is completed by the DOE Office of Environmental
Management, Nuclear Materials Integration, Stewardship Planning which
contains a renewable energy efficiency project; and may ultimately
include deactivation and demolition activities.
The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request for FIRP is
$154.9 million, an increase of 5 percent above fiscal year 2009. This
provides funding for recapitalization, infrastructure planning and
construction. The increase supports continued progress in restoring the
condition of mission critical facilities and infrastructure across the
Nuclear Security Enterprise to an acceptable condition. The program's
original goals established in fiscal year 2003 include: elimination of
$1.2 billion of deferred maintenance, achieving a Facility Condition
Index (FCI) of 5 percent, and elimination of 3 million gsf of excess
facilities. The original $1.2 billion deferred maintenance buydown goal
is based on the requirement to meet the FIRP commitment of 5 percent
FCI for all facilities. The program's deferred maintenance goal was
adjusted in fiscal year 2007 to eliminate $900 million of deferred
maintenance by fiscal year 2013 as a result of transformation decisions
that reduced facility deferred maintenance requirements. The principle
assumption governing FIRP is that the program will be funded only
through fiscal year 2013.
The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request for Facilities
and Infrastructure Recapitalization is $154.9 million, an increase of 5
percent above fiscal year 2009. This provides funding for
recapitalization, infrastructure planning and construction. The
increase supports continued progress in restoring the condition of
mission essential facilities and infrastructure across the Nuclear
Security Enterprise to an acceptable condition.
The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request for the new GPRA
Unit, Site Stewardship, is $90.4 million. The goal of the Site
Stewardship Program is to ensure environmental compliance and energy
and operational efficiency throughout the Nuclear Security Enterprise,
while modernizing, streamlining, consolidating, and sustaining the
stewardship and vitality of the sites as they transition within NNSA's
plans for transformation. The Site Stewardship program will institute
and maintain a robust operational framework at the NNSA Government-
owned, contractor-operated sites that encompass responsibility for
achieving the NNSA mission. This new GPRA Unit will encompass
activities currently under Environmental Projects and Operations (EPO)
and will include new subprogram elements Nuclear Materials Integration
(NMI) and Stewardship Planning. In the I&E organization only EPO was
funded (as a separate GPRA unit) in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year
2009 and is reflected as such for those 2 years since this is a non-
comparable budget submission. The Environmental Programs and Operations
increases 7 percent over the fiscal year 2009 appropriation to address
ongoing and new regulatory-driven Long Term Stewardship activities at
NNSA sites where Environmental Management activities have been
completed. Nuclear Materials Integration provides focused attention on
the consolidation and disposition of specific NNSA special nuclear
materials. Current activities include the de-inventory of security
Category I and II Special Nuclear Material (SNM) from LLNL and also the
consolidation and disposal of inactive actinides at other sites. Funds
for these material consolidation and disposal activities are being
transferred from Defense Programs to Infrastructure and Environment in
fiscal year 2010.
The majority of the requested fiscal year 2010 funding increase of
$28 million is in Stewardship Planning for an operating expense-funded
project, the Pantex Renewable Energy Project (PREP) at the Pantex
Plant, that will create a more flexible, more reliable, and
environmentally friendly source of renewable energy that supports DOE/
NNSA operating goals and missions. The PREP will generate surplus
electrical energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions at local power
plants, enhance energy security, and create jobs. This modular,
operating expense-funded project will play a key role in satisfying
NNSA's renewable energy objectives consistent with DOE Order 430.2B,
Departmental Energy, Renewable Energy and Transportation Management.
Defense Nuclear Security
The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request for Defense
Nuclear Security is $749.0 million to support the base program and on
sustaining the NNSA sites 2003 Design Basis Threat baseline operations,
and begin initial steps to implement the Department's new Graded
Security Protection (GSP) policy. During fiscal year 2010, the program
will focus on eliminating or mitigating identified vulnerabilities
across the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Funding for one new
construction start is requested for the Security Improvements Project
(SIP). The SIP will install a new security system to manage and
integrate personnel security and access control systems at the Y-12
National Security Complex.
Starting in fiscal year 2009, there is no longer an ``offset'' in
this account or the Departmental Administration Appropriation for the
security charges associated with reimbursable work. In the fiscal year
2010 congressional budget request, mission-driven activities will
continue to be fully funded with direct appropriations, but security
required for Work for Others will be covered as part of full cost
recovery for these projects. Institutional security activities will
continue to be funded by indirect or general and administrative costs
at each site.
Cyber Security
The Cyber Security program will sustain the NNSA infrastructure and
upgrade elements that will counter cyber threats from external and
internal attacks using the latest available technologies.
The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request for Cyber
Security is $122.5 million, an increase of 1 percent over the fiscal
year 2009 appropriations. The Cyber Security program is in the process
of a major 5-year effort focused on revitalization, certification,
accreditation and training across the NNSA enterprise. Revitalization
enables NNSA to respond to its highest priorities and to address
current and future risks; certification and accreditation assure proper
documentation of risks and justification of associated operations for
systems at all sites; and, education and awareness provides training
for Federal and contractor personnel to meet expanding skill
requirements of NNSA cyber security and information environments.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) Appropriation
The DNN program goal is to detect, prevent, and reverse the
proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Our programs
address the threat that hostile nations or terrorist groups may acquire
weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material, dual-use
production or technology, or WMD capabilities, by securing or
eliminating vulnerable stockpiles of weapon-usable materials,
technology, and expertise in Russia and other countries of concern.
The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request for the DNN
appropriation totals $2.1 billion. The most significant fiscal year
2010 and out-year increases relate to the request to move the funding
for the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility project and the WSB back to
NNSA's DNN Programs. The NNSA has funded the MOX Fuel Fabrication
Facility project and the WSB baseline increases within the requested
funding for fiscal year 2010 and the outyears. Other increases include
International Materials Protection and Cooperation (INMP&C) and
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS), both of which
increase 38 percent over the fiscal year 2009 levels.
Funding in the INMP&C fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request
of $552.3 million is an increase of 38 percent over the fiscal year
2009 appropriated level. This increase is the first step in fulfilling
President Obama's promise during his Prague address that the United
States will expand its partnership with Russia and pursue new
partnerships to eliminate or secure vulnerable nuclear materials. This
budget provides for sustainability support to Russian warhead and
material sites with completed INMP&C upgrades, INMP&C upgrades to
areas/buildings agreed to after the Bratislava Summit and the projects
to assist the Russian Federation and other partner countries in
establishing the necessary infrastructure to sustain effective MPC&A
operations. In addition, the budget provides for the Second Line of
Defense program and the installation of radiation detection equipment
at 43 foreign sites and 15 Megaports.
The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request for the NIS
program is $207.2 million, an increase of 38 percent over the fiscal
year 2009 appropriations. This supports the Next Generation Safeguards
Initiative (NGSI), which aims to strengthen the international
safeguards system and revitalize the U.S. technical base and the human
capital that supports it; as well as nuclear disablement,
dismantlement, and verification activities in North Korea; policy and
technical support for U.S. efforts to address proliferation by Iran,
North Korea and proliferation networks; and the implementation of
nuclear arms reduction and associated agreements.
The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request for the Global
Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) is $353.5 million, a 10.5 percent
reduction from the fiscal year 2009 appropriations. Most of this
decrease results from the completion of the Kazakhstan Spent Fuel work
in CY 2010. The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request of $24.5
million for the Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium Production
(EWGPP) is the final increment of U.S. funding needed for this program.
The significant reduction in the budget reflects close-out and
completion of the construction activities for the Zheleznogorsk
Project.
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program is requested at
$297.3 million, a decrease from the fiscal year 2009 level. This
decrease reflects both an unrequested congressional addition in 2009
and NNSA's funding in 2009 of the total required in 2009 and 2010 for
the Physical Sciences building in Washington State. The $297.3 million
is sufficient to support long-term R&D leading to detection systems for
strengthening U.S. capabilities to respond to current and projected
threats to national and homeland security posed by the proliferation of
nuclear weapons and diversion of special nuclear material. Almost a
third of this funding is for production of operational nuclear
detonation detection sensors to support the Nation's operational
nuclear detonation detection and reporting infrastructure through joint
programs with DOD.
The President's Request for Fissile Materials Disposition is $701.9
million, reflecting the transfer of funding for the MOX Fuel
Fabrication Facility project and WSB projects back to this program. In
addition to these U.S. plutonium disposition activities, the program
supports three other principal elements: efforts to dispose of U.S. HEU
declared surplus to defense needs primarily by down-blending it into
low enriched uranium; technical analyses and support to negotiations
among the United States, Russia, and the International Atomic Energy
Agency on monitoring and inspection regimes required by a 2000 U.S.-
Russia plutonium disposition agreement; and limited support for the
early disposition of Russia's plutonium in that country's BN-600
reactor including U.S. technical support to oversee work in Russia for
early disposition of Russian weapon-grade plutonium in fast reactors.
The United States and Russia began negotiations on amendments to the
2000 Agreement in 2008, and expect to complete the negotiations this
summer.
Naval Reactors Appropriation
The NNSA's Naval Reactors program continues to provide the U.S.
Navy with safe, military effective nuclear propulsion plants and ensure
their continued safe and reliable operation. The fiscal year 2010
congressional budget request for Naval Reactors is $1,003.1 million, an
increase of 21 percent over the fiscal year 2009 appropriations.
This increase provides additional funding to initiate the new
mission work for the design and delivery of a new reactor core and
propulsion plant to support the next-generation submarine design, and
refueling of the S8G Prototype, one of two land-based reactor plant
prototypes that serve as a testing platform for nuclear technology.
Significant outyear funding is required for both of these activities. A
portion of the fiscal year 2010 increase will also support Naval
Reactors pension responsibilities.
Office of the Administrator Appropriation
This appropriation provides corporate direction, Federal personnel,
and resources necessary to plan, manage, and oversee the operation of
the NNSA. It provides funding for all Federal NNSA staff in
Headquarters and field locations except those supporting Naval Reactors
and the Secure Transportation Asset agents and transportation staff.
The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request of $420.8 million
reflects a decrease of $18.4 million that is attributable to
Congressionally-directed projects funded in fiscal year 2009. Staffing
increases in fiscal year 2010 by 28 full time equivalents (FTEs) from
1,942 to 1,970 reflecting functional transfers and growth to
accommodate mission program increases. The projected staffing level for
fiscal year 2010 is 1,970 and is maintained throughout the outyear
period. The Historically Black Colleges/Hispanic Serving Institutions
programs will continue through fiscal year 2010 on grants made by
appropriations provided in fiscal year 2009 and through program
funding. The fiscal year 2010 congressional budget request includes
$4.1 million for the Massie Chairs and related activities only.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. D'Agostino, thank you very much. I
appreciate very much your appearance and the appearance of
Brigadier General Harencak and Ken Baker as well.
Let me just make a quick comment first. I noted that an OMB
document earlier this year called for a study of moving the
NNSA out of the Department of Energy and into the Department of
Defense. It reminds me that bad ideas have unlimited shelf life
here in the Nation's capital, and also that bad ideas are
bipartisan.
This is a bad idea that has been debated and long ago
discarded. So if you get a chance to talk to OMB, would you
suggest that they close the cover of that book and move on?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir. I will be glad to.
FUTURE OF THE LOS ALAMOS NEUTRON SCIENCE CENTER
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.
I understand that the budget proposal that you are here to
discuss proposes eliminating funding for the refurbishing of
what is called the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, or the
LANSCE facility. We have an OMB passback calling for canceling
this project. So perhaps it was not your decision, but there is
no funding for LANSCE refurbishment in the 2010 request, though
it was provided $19 million in last year's request.
I am told that there is no other classified facility
capable of the scientific research being conducted at LANSCE. I
am told to replace the LANSCE facility or to make another
facility, such as SNS, at Oak Ridge classified would be more
expensive than refurbishment.
So, a couple of questions, do you believe that LANSCE is
important to the Stockpile Stewardship Program?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, I do, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Considering the age of the stockpile and
non-proliferation treaties, do you think keeping the LANSCE
facility operating in the future will be important for the
country?
Mr. D'Agostino. Absolutely. I think it will be useful to
help us in neutron cross-section measurement, which is what it
is doing right now, and to exploring what we call proton
radiography, which is a different way of examining what is
actually going on inside very dense materials, and to do the
nuclear science and material science work. We think the country
needs that in the future.
Senator Dorgan. Without refurbishment, how long is the
LANSCE expected to be an effective facility?
Mr. D'Agostino. That is a tough question to answer. Most of
what we are doing right now is accepting risk if we don't
refurbish the facility, risk that the accelerator pieces are
going to get to a point where they will age out. Already some
of the components are hard to replace.
So what we are in right now is a maintenance mode, keeping
it working. In fact, that is our plan out into the future--
keeping the facility working out into the future. My goal is to
revisit this discussion or revisit the question because I do
think, in the long run, what we do with LANSCE ultimately has
to be integrated with the bigger picture on science and the
technology that we need to maintain out in the future.
And so, my goal would be to essentially make sure it keeps
operating, one; keep doing the experiments that we need, two;
and three, figure out, make sure that we have an integrated
picture post NPR, once the NPR is done, that figures out how
science and technology fits in.
SCIENCE FUNDING TRENDS
Senator Dorgan. Well, at this point, we are not talking
about the Reliable Replacement Weapon, or the RRW program, but
we are talking about stockpile stewardship, which I understand
is increasingly reliant on science. So the question is, given
the heavy reliance on science for stockpile stewardship and
reliability, how do we reconcile flat funding in the area of
science?
Mr. D'Agostino. What we did, as a result of a number of
changes that have happened over the last 3 months, frankly, I
have decided that it was much more important to make sure that
we stem and stop the decrease in our science programs that was
happening, as you noted in your remarks earlier. And so, what
we did is some reallocation, quite frankly, in the last few
months, about $130 million worth to stop the decrease where
science was going, and then--what I would call stop the
bleeding, and then start getting in on the repair side.
So where are we right now, it is my plan, at least, this is
the low point on science is stopping the decrease, and then we
are going to need to be reinvesting out into the future, fiscal
year 2011 budgets and the like.
You will notice, sir, and as you have said, the numbers are
exactly the same. And you said, was that coincidence or what?
It is not--what are the chances of having an exact same out-
year number? And its chances are zero. And the reality is I
have submitted to you or to Congress--the President has
submitted to you essentially a program that says this is a 1-
year look. The administration has just come in, established
some very aggressive and some broad goals that it wants to
implement in the nuclear security arena.
And because of that, some of these programs, the idea of
securing materials worldwide in 4 years; as you mentioned, this
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty piece; fissile material cutoff
piece; the new START Treaty; the dismantlements; those require
a fair amount of detailed program planning that we are doing
right now. And we didn't have time to reflect that
appropriately in the out-year budget request. So you will see
these strange-looking numbers, and that is why.
NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
Senator Dorgan. Given what has happened in the world in
recent days, weeks, months, it seems to me that the issue of
nuclear non-proliferation is unbelievably important. It is
something people don't talk about in coffee shops. I understand
that. It is not part of the contemporary debate on talk shows.
But it is unbelievably important.
It appears that that account is flat-funded, and the
President announced his goal to secure all nuclear material
around the world by 2012. As I understand it, a team of
officials was sent to Moscow some weeks ago to begin
negotiations for replacing the START Treaty. Last week, North
Korea, we think, set off their second nuclear weapon in 3
years.
With such increased emphasis on the need for nuclear test
monitoring, verification research and those kinds of activities
in the nuclear non-proliferation budget, how is it that the
research and verification is reduced significantly? I mean does
that square with anything that I just described or with
anything that you believe?
Mr. D'Agostino. I will explain how it squares. I do believe
out into the future, you will be seeing a fairly different
program from us. But let me start off with the following, if I
could. You mentioned North Korea. And I would like, Mr. Baker,
if you could, to talk to some of the details on the research
and development program.
The intelligence analysts that this country has used over
the last--well, certainly very aggressively over the last 10
days or so, but obviously, in the previous years, that analyze
what is happening in the world, both nuclear smuggling,
proliferation of not just materials, but components, missile
technology, and the like. Most of those experts ultimately
come, as you are probably aware, from this program, and they
start off at the base. They start off in the General's program,
and they end up being supportive to the intelligence agencies
and the like.
So we know what we know because of those folks. Ken Baker
can talk about the research and development program and why the
budget changes the way it does.
Mr. Baker. I agree with you, Senator. It is a very
dangerous world out there, probably more so than ever, even
when we were back in the cold war, in my opinion.
The research and development program has been reduced. The
reason why it has been reduced this year, we had an $85 million
plus-up last year over the President's budget, and we have
finished the work at the Pacific Northwest laboratory, which
was something like $40 million. That program is down. It is
critical to us. It will be critical in the CTBT. It will be
critical in START.
It is a very important program, and again, I think you will
see in the next years, as we work this 4-year plan, that
budgets will increase in the future.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett?
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to follow up on the line of questioning
you have already begun.
IMPACT OF FLAT-FUNDING ON WEAPONS AND NON-PROLIFERATION PROGRAMS
Mr. D'Agostino, you say funding is level, but, in fact,
there are internal demands that make the amount of money that
actually--to use an analogy that we have out in the West, the
amount of water that actually gets to the end of the ditch is
smaller than the overall numbers would indicate. I am talking
about the pension shortfalls.
It is my understanding that you have to make up some of the
pension shortfalls of your contractors. Is that correct?
Mr. D'Agostino. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Bennett. All right. The numbers I have say that the
contributions paid to DOE contractors in their pension plans
from 2008--2003 to 2008 was $330 million, and you expect to pay
$1.5 billion per year over the next 5 years, with the peak
contribution years estimated to come in 2012 and 2013 at just
under $2 billion per year.
Now if you are going to deduct most of the savings out of
the operating budget and delay facility closures and preventive
maintenance and consolidation of special nuclear materials,
obviously the top-line number is deceiving. So I think the
trend is simply unsustainable. It will have a devastating
impact on the weapons and non-proliferation program, and I want
to know what the Department has considered, actions being taken
to mitigate this problem over the next 5 years.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir. You are absolutely right. With
those kinds of numbers with no changes, that is an
unsustainable path. It is an unsustainable program. But I will
tell you what the Department has done at this point. And what
the Department, I say the administration has done, quite
frankly.
One is when we first started this year, we were faced with
this immediate problem. So we looked in just fiscal year 2009
at areas where programs weren't spending, we didn't see the
expenditure rate, things had gotten slow to start, and we
figured out what could shift back a little bit. And we also
made some adjustments to our overhead rates to get through
fiscal year 2009. Otherwise, we would have been in the process
of sending out literally tens of thousands of letters to all of
our employees saying that their pension fund is underfunded.
So that took care of fiscal year 2009. And for fiscal year
2010, which is the current budget, we have received an
increase. The total liability is on the order of close to $300
million that we were potentially expecting in 2010. So what we
received is an increase of about $122 million in order to
address specifically the pension shortfall in our fiscal year
2010 budget. That leaves, of course, $160 million of
uncertainty.
The way the pension process works, and I apologize for
giving the long answer, is every January we go off and take a
look at where we are, kind of a snapshot look. And that sets
the trend for the upcoming year. This past January, we thought
next year would be worse, and that is why we have come up with
$122 million.
We don't know what January is going to look like. So what
we have taken is a big step in the right direction toward
addressing our 2010 shortfall with the understanding that the
financial situation will be different in January. It might be
worse. It might be better. But we wanted to at least approach
the solution with the backup plan to make some adjustments to
our indirect rates. That kind of will spread the problem a
little bit more broadly.
So it is a dynamic problem, we look at it on a monthly
basis. And this is, unfortunately, we are in a situation where
we are going to be looking at it on this regular basis out into
the future. But in the end, it is going to require, I believe,
increases to top lines if we continue to see the past
performance.
Senator Bennett. That is the point I wanted to make and
want to have clear on the record, that, at some point, the top
line has to go up, or everything else suffers from it. We are
in a fool's paradise if we say, ``Oh, we are keeping the
funding level,'' when, effectively, we are not for these
reasons.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
RESEARCH INTEGRATION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND NATIONAL
NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Senator Bennett. Now let us talk about the need for
scientific leadership within NNSA. I think we need to consider
a new position within NNSA to steward and cultivate scientific
research.
Such an individual could help raise awareness of both
weapon science and non-weapon science that goes on at the labs
and work to integrate research among the DOE and NNSA labs. And
the grand challenge of energy security and climate change
science are of such complexity that this work, I think, should
be shared with all the labs. I had reference made to that when
I was out in the labs, when you were kind enough to give that
tour.
So I am considering a modification to the NNSA Act to
create a new position within NNSA that would report directly to
you, and it would--this position would lead the NNSA science
program and work with the rest of the Department to integrate
the national security capabilities with those in basic applied
programs within DOE. Can you give me your reaction to that
idea?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir. Though not part of the NNSA Act,
I think consistent--particularly after our trip that we took
about a year and a half ago sir, we talked about the importance
of science. Dr. Dave Crandall, who used to run the Research,
Development, and Simulation Program in the weapons program, I
brought him up to advise me. He doesn't have an official role,
if you will, as you have described, from an authority
standpoint. But in effect, he is doing some of that work as a
chief scientist.
I think the idea of having a named position is a good idea.
It is very consistent with our drive to not so much focus just
on nuclear weapons science, but to focus on nuclear security
science, which will address non-proliferation,
counterterrorism, forensics, and then, more broadly, work with
the rest of the Department, the Office of Science, to draw
those links together and show how these computers and these
people can address global problems.
So I am very favorably disposed to your suggestion, sir.
Senator Bennett. All right. Well, I am glad you are using
Dr. Crandall. But he has no budget authority and no mission
responsibility.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Bennett. And so, I will be talking to you about how
we might proceed on that.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Feinstein?
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
trust this mike is not working.
Senator Dorgan. Turn it on and speak directly into it, if
you would?
Senator Feinstein. Hello? It is working.
NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW, WEAPONS TREATY NEGOTIATION, AND STOCKPILE
REDUCTION
Mr. D'Agostino, it is my understanding, and the chairman
touched on this, that you are involved in two efforts. One is
the negotiation for a new nuclear weapons treaty with Russia,
and the other is the Nuclear Posture Review that is due out the
early part of 2010.
It has been reported that this new treaty could set a new
ceiling of 1,500 operationally deployed nuclear warheads for
each nation, down from 1,700 to 2,200 under the Moscow treaty.
Is that, in effect, true?
Mr. D'Agostino. There are a lot of numbers. The short
answer is we haven't closed on the details. There are a lot of
numbers being bantered around. The President has made it very
clear that he wants a number lower than the 1,700 to 2,200
number.
Where we are right now in the Nuclear Posture Review, which
is the kind of committee of people that will be briefing the
National Security Council and, ultimately, the President, quite
frankly, in the next relatively short period of time, we are in
the discussion phase of examining the policy. What is the
policy that the Nation wants to carry forward into the future?
And what size of stockpile is needed to maintain that policy
strongly?
There is a 1,500 number floating around out there. There
are some lower numbers. There are some higher numbers, and I
would rather not try to make a commitment right now.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, all right. Well, that is fine. I am
for the lowest possible number, as you know.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. I think the buildup of huge nuclear
weapons, 90 percent of which are owned by Russia and the United
States, really endangers the world and really opens us up to
all kinds of problems. So you know my views on this subject
well.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am.
COSTS AND RESULTS OF NUCLEAR LABORATORY PRIVATIZATION
Senator Feinstein. What is the total loss of employees at
our nuclear labs since the privatization?
Mr. D'Agostino. We have lost--as I have looked at the
numbers going back in time for the last 3 or 4 years or so, the
NNSA overall has changed, if you will, about 1,500--I will get
to your answer. But overall, about 1,500 folks a year or so out
of the 32,000, which we started off with, have been coming out.
Senator Feinstein. Well, what is the total? I know it is
over 2,000 at Los Alamos alone.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, it is. The total is probably between
3,000 and 3,500, give or take. It depends if we are counting
not full-time lab employees, but temporary lab employees. But,
in essence, it is in the thousands. It is a fairly significant
number. It is a number that was about 2,500 or so last year
when we talked to you, talked to the subcommittee here last
year.
It is a number that, for the most part, the lab directors
have focused on driving these changes not with their scientists
or engineers, though they have had to get into that some. But
most of these reductions have happened as a result of
administrative personnel being more efficient, quite frankly.
And George Miller has got some good examples.
Senator Feinstein. I am not talking necessarily about any
one particular lab. I can tell you this. When I visited Los
Alamos, the most significant thing I took away from it was the
lack of people in that facility.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Feinstein. And I am concerned by it. And I remember
the budget last year and the year before when you have these
enormous fees to run these labs and those fees have been paid
by cutting employees. And I think that is just a fact.
Now the question comes, what does this do to the mission?
And I am very concerned about it because I think the mission is
subtly changing, the mission of the labs. I think the
privatization is toward pushing things into the private sector,
and the purpose of these labs is really to do some of the most
advanced work that keeps this Nation ahead of others. And I am
very worried about it and not at all sure that it is the right
thing to have done.
So let me ask you this question. Since the privatization,
what would you name as the three big achievements produced by
privatization?
Mr. D'Agostino. What I would say the first achievement is
on security. We have seen some huge improvements in security at
both of the laboratories since privatization.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, granted. And that is where the
university was weak, and that has been picked up, and the
security has improved. What else?
Mr. D'Agostino. The other area is in management systems.
Frankly, Los Alamos, for example, spread out over 43 square
miles, was, in essence, a balkanized set of smaller
laboratories, each operating slightly different procedures and
procurement processes. It was very inefficient and caused
problems.
So the new management has drawn the lab together much more
tightly and has driven----
Senator Feinstein. Okay, and a third?
Mr. D'Agostino. And has driven----
Senator Feinstein. My time is going to--it is up, so a
third?
Mr. D'Agostino. Oh, okay. The third area I would see is
focus. We have seen the kind of responsiveness to driving
change and just as you described it very clearly, mission
change. I would look at mission change to shifting from a cold
war mission focus to a future world mission focus. I have seen
movement on both of those laboratories and, in fact, working
together, the two laboratories working together on establishing
a new mission that I haven't seen in previous years.
And I have worked in this program for a number of years
and, quite frankly, am very impressed with the focus that Norm
Pattiz has driven, as the Board of Governors, into making sure
that there is responsiveness to the Government there. I
recognize that there are downsides, too, ma'am, as well, as we
talked about.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I just--in one sentence. I would
agree that there have been administrative changes, security
changes, and that is good--at a tremendous price.
And I am still--and maybe there is focus, but what I want
to see is, what is the increased productivity in terms of
benefit to the Nation? Candidly, I haven't seen it. So if it is
there, I would hope you would advise me of it as time goes on.
Mr. D'Agostino. I would like to do that, and I would
actually like to take that for the record, if I could, and then
provide that in writing?
Senator Feinstein. I would be happy if you would do that.
Senator Dorgan. Well, before the Senator from California
leaves, we have had testimony from some laboratory directors
about the substantial increased cost of the contracts to
supervise these laboratories. We have also had some testimony
about how these costs have ratcheted up, up, way up in a very
dramatic fashion, and that eats into the ability to retain the
scientists.
I would like to understand this. I understand your answer
that there have been some benefits, and I accept that security
and other things. But it is also the case, isn't it, that the
substantial increase in costs of these contracts to manage
these laboratories by the private sector have increased? Could
you send us some analysis of the weapons labs so that we can
understand what those increases have been?
Mr. D'Agostino. I would like to do that, Senator. I think
that would be great. Or I could answer it now? It depends on
how much time you have, sir.
LASER-POWERED FUSION ENERGY
Senator Dorgan. Well, I want to ask Senator Feinstein to
ask a few questions about the fission/fusion observation she
saw because I am also interested in that. If you have time and
you want to ask those questions, let me yield to you so that we
can hear that discussion.
Senator Feinstein. All right. The place is amazing. I have
never seen anything like it. It truly looks like Star Wars. And
the fact that you can get all of these lasers concentrating on
this little tiny target of hydrogen encased in this gold pellet
that goes ``boom'' and pushes out all of this energy. Now this
just in my layperson's first blush is truly amazing.
I think a purpose of the lab--or of this program,
obviously, is to see that our nuclear weapons are safe without
testing, and the assumption is that it will be able to do it.
But the promise for the future is so great in terms of nuclear
science and what nuclear science might produce as we develop
the green economy. I mean, that is kind of the way I see it,
but you may differ with that, Mr. D'Agostino?
Mr. D'Agostino. No, ma'am. You have actually characterized
it quite well. The three main purposes, first of all, the
primary purpose is to support the deterrent. And frankly, I
call it building that core group of varsity science team people
that we need to address the non-proliferation problems that the
country faces, the forensics and intelligence analysis that the
country needs. That is number one.
Number two, obviously, is advance the basic science. And
number three, you have hit on it, is this idea that there is
the opportunity to bring fusion into the picture to address a
carbon-free kind of energy environment.
So what I would say on the third element, which, of course,
is kind of nirvana in some respects, and we will describe it
that way, is the first step is to get to ignition. And we can't
get to fusion without ignition. So our focus, our eyes will be
focused in 2010 on getting a first credible ignition experiment
and then seeing where that goes.
The laboratory clearly has some proposals in that area on
what the next step might be. I love the enthusiasm of the
scientists and engineers there. It is captivating. It is
energizing. I also want them to be pragmatic and realistic
because I need to come and tell you what we believe we need in
order to have an effective program.
I believe it is time to start thinking about the next step,
but it is not time to start figuring out, start pouring
concrete because we are not quite there yet. So the first step
is to do the ignition experiments, get success on fusion here
on Earth. It has never been done before. It is a real tough
problem.
As Ed Moses said, Mother Nature is a tough person to deal
with, and that reality is there. But it is quite exciting about
what the future may hold.
Senator Feinstein. Tom Friedman visited the lab last month
and wrote a column, and he said if this thing works, it is a
``holy cow'' game changer. And that is the fusion, and I guess
eventually fission then, that is to keep the waste down, right?
Mr. D'Agostino. The idea is fusion will release a
tremendous--yes, ma'am. The fusion will release a tremendous
amount of X-rays and neutrons that can ultimately be used to
burn up, in effect, waste to these actinides and deal with what
they call a fusion/fission hybrid. It is this idea of taking--
--
Senator Dorgan. But pure fusion consumes its waste, doesn't
it?
Mr. D'Agostino. Pure fusion only generates helium, which is
the helium gas. So it is not a problem. So, in effect, it
doesn't really generate the kind of waste we see from fission,
which generates these highly radioactive wastes. But what it
does do, sir, is generate these neutrons and X-rays that can go
help us burn up these materials that we would like to get rid
of, ultimately.
Senator Dorgan. As you can tell, we have a very strong
scientific background here.
Mr. D'Agostino. You did very well, sir.
Senator Dorgan. The cloture vote just started, just an
observation. I toured a lab the other day. It reminded me when
you talked about lasers. Lasers are used for so many things. I
toured a lab the other day in which they are using
sophisticated computer technology and lasers to target female
mosquitoes. Those are the ones that bite.
Senator Feinstein. As all species.
Senator Dorgan. I couldn't have said that. But at any rate,
they can target over a 100-yard area all the mosquitoes and
target the female mosquitoes, destroy the mosquitoes with
lasers. It is pretty extraordinary, part of what they are
trying to do is deal with malaria and other issues.
At any rate, again, Mr. D'Agostino, we have a cloture vote
that has started. What I would like to do is I have other
questions, and I want to send you a list of questions and ask
that you would respond for the record as we begin to get down
the road here and evaluate what we might want to do on the
appropriations side.
I do want to say to you that I think this subcommittee has
an advantage in working with you, and we appreciate you and
your colleagues who have joined you today, the work that you
are doing. These are challenging times, and I think a lot of
the discussion has been about Earth-penetrating, bunker-buster
weapons, or RRW, or a whole ranging of things over recent
years.
Life extension programs and stockpile stewardship are
critically important, but now, especially now, the issue of
non-proliferation and nuclear intelligence and those things, we
are going to rely on your agency in a very significant way. And
we need to have the best people there. We need to have adequate
funding. In many ways, our future depends on that.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
So let me thank you and your colleagues for being here, and
we will be submitting additional questions for the record.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you, sir. And thank you, Senator
Feinstein. I appreciate it.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Question. As you know, Congress, on a clear bi-partisan basis,
eliminated all funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program in
fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009. I am pleased that the
administration has requested no funding for this program in its fiscal
year 2010 budget request. This is good news.
What factors led the administration to request no funding?
Answer. The decision to terminate the RRW program was a
Presidential decision and is fully supported by NNSA. NNSA will
continue to assess the requirements to maintain our aging nuclear
deterrent. While doing so, NNSA will ensure that all weapon activities
designed to ensure the longevity of that deterrent are properly
integrated with the overall nuclear security strategy being formulated
in the Nuclear Posture Review.
Question. In your testimony, you state: ``. . . we are concerned
about increasing challenges in maintaining, for the long term, the
safety and reliability of the aging, finely tuned warheads that were
produced in the 1970s and 1980s and are well past their original
planned service life''.
Are you leaving the door open for reviving RRW at a later date? Can
we say that the program is dead?
Answer. The RRW program has been terminated and will not be
revived. We will by necessity have to address critical stockpile
challenges through the Life Extension Program (LEP), such as the need
to enhance weapon safety and security, address aging systems that have
a low performance margin to failure, or use exotic and hazardous
materials.
Question. The administration has begun to negotiate a new nuclear
weapons treaty with Russia with the goal of concluding an agreement by
the end of the year. A new Nuclear Posture review is also due by the
end of the year and I am pleased that the National Nuclear Security
Administration is actively engaged in both efforts.
How will the Nuclear Posture Review influence the size of the
reductions in each nation's stockpile?
Answer. The NPR made it an early priority to accomplish the
analysis necessary to support the START Follow-on treaty negotiations,
which President Obama and President Medvedev directed should be
completed before START expires in December 2009. This analysis has
concluded that maintaining a nuclear triad with a bilaterally
verifiable reduced number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear
weapons and accountable strategic delivery vehicles would enhance our
national security objectives and continue to provide extended
deterrence to allies and friends. As a result, President Obama reached
a Joint Understanding with President Medvedev in July, stating that ``.
. . each party will reduce and limit strategic offensive arms so that 7
years after entry into force of the treaty and thereafter, the limits
will be in the range of 500-1,100 for strategic delivery vehicles, and
in the range of 1,500-1,675 for their associated warheads. The specific
numbers to be recorded in the treaty for these limits will be agreed
through further negotiations.'' Strategies for augmentation forces and
non-strategic weapons are still under review by the NPR team. For more
information on pre-decisional Nuclear Posture Review topics, please
contact:
Note.--Source: Dr. Bradley Roberts, Deputy Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy Co-
Director, 2009 Nuclear Posture Review.
Question. It has been reported that the new treaty could set a new
ceiling of 1,500 operationally deployed nuclear warheads for each
nation, down from 1,700 to 2,200 set by the Moscow Treaty.
Is that your understanding? Can we go lower?
Answer. NNSA will maintain the stockpile the President deems
necessary to support our national security. In July, President Obama
reached a Joint Understanding with President Medvedev, stating that ``.
. . each party will reduce and limit strategic offensive arms so that 7
years after entry into force of the treaty and thereafter, the limits
will be in the range of 500-1,100 for strategic delivery vehicles, and
in the range of 1,500-1,675 for their associated warheads. The specific
numbers to be recorded in the treaty for these limits will be agreed
through further negotiations.'' The NPR is continuing analysis of
alternative strategic approaches beyond the immediate confines of the
START Follow-on negotiations to frame options for strategic nuclear
decisions for the next 5-10 years. This analysis includes investigating
possible future security environments in which relations with Russia
dramatically improve, as well as implications if the START Follow-on
treaty does not enter into force or if reset of the U.S.-Russian
relationship does not continue.
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION EFFORTS
Question. I firmly believe that ratification of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty is critical to reclaiming U.S. leadership in the
nuclear nonproliferation field and bringing us closer to a world free
of nuclear weapons. Does the National Nuclear Security Administration
support ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?
Answer. NNSA certainly supports the administration's decision to
seek ratification of the CTBT. We are confident that the science-based
Stockpile Stewardship program, when linked with weapon system
surveillance and life extension programs, will assure weapon safety,
security, and effectiveness. The same high level of technical expertise
and relevant experience that NNSA applies to stockpile management
without underground testing also allows NNSA to play a leading role in:
(1) preventing other states from evading the Treaty; (2) supporting the
establishment, sustainment, and operation of the International
Monitoring System, the CTBT On- Site Inspection regime, and other
elements of the CTBT verification system; and (3) sustaining and
improving U.S. National Technical Means to ensure viable independent
treaty verification.
Question. I applaud your commitment to supporting President Obama's
goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials from around the world
within 4 years. What do you need from Congress to meet this goal? What
programs will be involved? What are the key challenges?
Answer. The President's April 5, 2009, Prague speech outlined an
ambitious strategy to address the international nuclear threat,
including measures to reduce and eventually eliminate existing nuclear
arsenals, halt proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states,
and prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons or materials. As
part of this strategy, the President announced a new American effort,
working with our international partners, to secure vulnerable nuclear
materials around the world within 4 years. NNSA will play a key role in
these efforts, together with our colleagues at the Departments of
State, Defense, and other key U.S. interagency and international
partners.
NNSA's Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation office already partners
with over 120 countries to address global nuclear proliferation and
nuclear terrorism threats. However, contributing fully to the
President's goal to secure all vulnerable nuclear material worldwide
within 4 years will require expanding our cooperation with Russia and
other key countries, pursuing new partnerships to secure materials, and
strengthening nuclear security standards, practices, and international
safeguards. The administration is working to identify priorities for
expanding and accelerating U.S. nonproliferation and nuclear security
efforts overseas with available resources. Key challenges in
contributing NNSA workscope to help achieve the administration's
nuclear security vision relate to obtaining the necessary agreements
from sovereign countries for this cooperation, as well as the need for
related legal agreements and, in a few cases, new technological tools.
WEAPONS LABS
Question. A few years ago, the U.S. Government privatized the DOE
weapons labs, including Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California.
Soon after, it became clear that the decision had changed the economy
situation at the lab. With a need to pay both taxes and produce a
profit, the lab made significant cutbacks in employment, from 5,872 to
5,715 employees.
Now a few years into this process, what do you see as the benefits
of privatizing this lab? Please be as specific as possible. Do you
believe these benefits still outweigh the costs?
Answer. Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) took over
management of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) from
the University of California (UC) in October, 2007. It is true that
moving from a contractor that is a non-profit educational institution
to a for-profit entity costs the Government more in taxes and
management fee. At the same time, since LLNS took over the management
of LLNL, the Laboratory's operating budget has declined. The
combination of these factors has presented the LLNS management team
with many challenges. Despite these challenges, LLNS has maintained
UC's record of outstanding performance in the mission and scientific
areas of work performed for the Government and non-Government sponsors.
At this point in the 7-year base contract term, it is still too
early to have realized significant benefits from the contract change.
However, from NNSA's first annual performance evaluation report
completed on LLNS in fiscal year 2008, we have seen some marked
improvements and accomplishments in the following areas of activity:
Mission:
--Developed 1st generation 3D energy balance model for weapons
physics
--Executed National Ignition Facility project within scope, schedule,
and budget
--Accomplished significant computing advancements
--Executed the TriPod strategy to provide a future common tri-lab
software system
--Exceeded goals for removal of special nuclear material
--Sustained world leading science despite staff reductions
--Advancements in nonproliferation and threat reduction technical
capabilities
Operations:
--Accelerated safety compliance requirement submissions for all
nuclear facilities
--Improved security protection without mission impact
Business and Institutional Management:
--Simplified the cost model and upgraded financial systems
--Successfully executed a challenging workforce restructuring plan
--Made significant progress in standing up a new contractor assurance
system --Implemented numerous cost reduction initiatives
--Contributions of Parent organizations assessments to improvements
Again, this was LLNS's first year accomplishments. We are currently
evaluating their second year performance results (fiscal year 2009) and
have observed further improvements. Based on our overall observations,
we fully expect that there will be widespread improved results
throughout the Laboratory in all areas of mission, operations and
business/institutional management as the LLNS management team fully
implements the changes it needs in order to become a more effective and
efficient organization. As this occurs, the Government should begin to
see the more significant benefits it hoped to realize from the contract
change.
Question. On May 23, 130 former employees of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory filed suit against the lab alleging age
discrimination during layoffs last May.
I understand you may not be able to comment about this case, but
what steps have you taken to ensure that labs are getting and retaining
the best people, regardless of gender, age, or ethnicity?
Answer. To entice university students to join NNSA, numerous
intern-like programs that offer extensive training and on-the-job
experiences are underway to recruit contractor employees including the
Sandia Nuclear Weapons Intern Program that provides graduate level
training in nuclear security enterprise operations and Department of
Defense interfaces, the Nonproliferation Graduate Program for practical
application in nuclear technologies and nonproliferation, and numerous
postdoctoral fellowship, grants and intern opportunities. These intern
programs educate university students about the mission of NNSA and
offer training and hands-on educational opportunities that aren't often
found in the private sector.
To retain the best employees, the NNSA National Laboratories offer
employees opportunities to participate in cutting edge science through
the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program and via the
Work for Others programs. There are also many prospects for employees
to undertake detail assignments, job swaps, perform in acting
management capacities, and education reimbursement and training
opportunities. The goal is to provide challenging, career enhancing
opportunities to entice experienced and expert employees to stay within
the NNSA to retain skill sets that take years and years to develop.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
Question. In addition to strengthening the administration's ability
to secure vulnerable nuclear stockpiles in Russia, will budget
increases for programs like the Nuclear Materials Protection and
Cooperation help secure weapons in other nations? If so, which ones and
how are the resources allocated within the agency?
Answer. Yes, the budget increases will allow our MPC&A program to
partner with countries beyond Russia to help secure vulnerable nuclear
materials. As with our work with Russia, this cooperation is tailored
to an individual country's needs and can consist of security best
practices sharing, provision of equipment, and related training. We
would be able to offer a detailed briefing, as appropriate, regarding
these other priorities.
Question. In your opinion, Administrator D'Agostino, how far do the
budget increases for securing vulnerable nuclear weapons and civilian
stockpile go to do the job? What are the long-term budget needs going
to be for the United States to help secure all of the most vulnerable
stockpiles globally?
Answer. Vulnerable nuclear fissile materials include highly
enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium whose physical protection is not
on par with international standards (e.g., the IAEA guidelines
published in INFCIRC/225/rev.4) or is otherwise judged to be at risk
due to the particular threat environment in the country. Consistent
with the President's April 5, 2009, speech in Prague, the
administration is working to identify priorities for expanding and
accelerating U.S. nonproliferation and nuclear security efforts to
address these vulnerable nuclear materials overseas. NNSA fully
supports the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for
nonproliferation and nuclear security work overseas as it allows us to
address the highest priorities in achieving the President's
unprecedented global nuclear security vision. In terms of the long-term
budget needs for addressing vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide in 4
years, the administration will continue efforts to identify remaining
priorities and requirements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
NOT ALL SCIENCE FUNDING IS EQUAL--ESPECIALLY AT THE WEAPONS LABS
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, I am troubled by the disparity in funding
for applied and fundamental scientific research provided by DOE Office
of Science labs versus the NNSA labs. Clearly, the cancellation of the
Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) Refurbishment is the most
glaring example of the selectiveness of the research funding in the
budget. The LANSCE facility is the scientific cornerstone of Los
Alamos, serving both classified and unclassified work and supporting
over 500 users annually.
How do you explain the failure in the budget to link the DOE and
NNSA science?
Answer. The DOE Office of Science budget is devoted to supporting
basic science facilities, personnel, and grants that will impact broad
missions. The NNSA budget has a technically broad but specific mission
and must balance the fundamental and applied science required for
stockpile stewardship with the equally important work required for
directly maintaining the stockpile, and all of the associated
infrastructure, security, and environmental compliance for the nuclear
weapons complex. With increasing costs and flat or decreasing budgets,
we have consequently had to balance investments in research needed to
address future concerns in order to address immediate stockpile issues
and aging infrastructure.
Question. What do you see as the scientific future for Los Alamos
LANSCE?
Answer. The principal Stockpile Stewardship (SSP) experiments at
LANSCE involve conducting measurements of nuclear data for use in
improving the accuracy of the simulation of nuclear weapon detonations
and proton radiography of high explosive driven materials. While some
of these capabilities exist, in part, at other facilities it would be
necessary to make significant investments at several facilities in
order to conduct the SSP relevant experiments currently performed at
LANSCE. The ability to perform classified experiments, experiments that
utilize high explosives, and stockpile relevant materials all in one
place is a unique aspect of LANSCE. The Office of Science continues to
use LANSCE for isotope production, neutron scattering, and materials
science and we expect this work to continue for the foreseeable future.
Question. What are your plans for conducting this work after the
accelerator is gone?
Answer. We do not plan to close the accelerator. While we plan to
continue to operate the accelerator for the foreseeable future, it
isn't really possible to know how long the accelerator will be able to
operate without refurbishment. The decision on whether to re-invest in
the infrastructure at LANSCE will be deferred until after fiscal year
2010. All of the individual components are in principle repairable
indefinitely, assuming parts are available, but in practice we expect
that the reliability of the facility will decay without further
investment. Without aspects of the refurbishment in some form yet to be
determined, we are accepting increased risk of major component failures
affecting continued operations.
STRATEGIC POSTURE COMMISSION--INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, the bipartisan consensus of the Perry/
Schlesinger Strategic Posture Commission Report was that total
disarmament is unlikely in the foreseeable future. As such, the
Commission recommends the NNSA undertake a focused investment strategy
to ensure a capability is in place to respond to unforeseen military
challenges and maintain the extended deterrent for our allies.
The foundation of that capability is the completion of the CMR-
Replacement facility (Los Alamos) and the UPF Facility at Y-12 (Oak
Ridge, TN). These facilities replace 1950's era facilities that are not
protective of worker health and safety, and the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board recommends they should be closed as soon as
possible.
Given the unique responsibility of each facility and likelihood
that the United States and Russia won't agree to eliminate their
respective stockpiles when do you anticipate making a decision on the
fate of these facilities and what are the decision drivers for this
decision?
Answer. Our recently submitted fiscal year 2010 budget reflects a
transition year for Weapons Account Activities while we complete the
administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). We are presently
continuing design work for CMR-Replacement and UPF but have not
included future construction funding pending recommendations from the
NPR. I anticipate the fiscal year 2011 budget to be submitted to
Congress in February 2010 will reflect our decision approach relative
to these two major nuclear facilities.
We recognize the need to replace the existing 1950's era facilities
as rapidly as practical. The drivers for our decision will include the
specific recommendations in the NPR and our judgment on how to best
balance the competing needs of our enterprise given the available
resources. We must achieve the correct balance between sustaining our
science and technology base, refurbishing or modernizing our stockpile,
and recapitalizing major facilities that would include constructing the
CMR-Replacement and UPF.
Question. Recent press articles reported that the budget request is
not adequate to sustain the existing design teams and would force
layoffs. Do you believe this budget request would result in layoffs and
contribute to further project delays at either of these facilities?
Answer. Yes. The proposed fiscal year 2010 funding plan will result
in lower staffing levels for the design teams for CMRR and UPF than
previously planned. The delay in funding pending the strategic
decisions of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and related
considerations will make completion of both projects later than
originally planned. The administration plans to make decisions about
these two projects in the broader context of the NPR.
Question. Your budget will delay the completion of the RLUOB by 1
year based on this budget estimate. How much more funding is needed to
complete this facility including acquisition of equipment and
installation to maintain the current schedule of 2010?
Answer. The RLUOB will complete construction in September 2009 and
be equipped and made ready during 2010-2012, with the schedule
controlled by equipment delivery. The costs of acquisition and
installation of the RLUOB equipment and related scope to bring the
facility up to operations are currently estimated at about $199
million, of which approximately $36 million has been appropriated
already. The President's budget request plus previously appropriated
funds adequately support RLUOB and its equipment.
Question. How much is needed to fund a new start on UPF and CMR-R?
Answer. NNSA does not contemplate a ``new start'' for either
project in fiscal year 2010 because the designs are not yet complete.
The fiscal year 2010 funding request will allow both projects to make
some design progress and avoid the need for a re-start. The funding
levels in fiscal year 2010 balance sustaining continuity of the
projects with minimizing commitment of resources until after completion
of the Nuclear Posture Review.
Question. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board also stated
unequivocally that NNSA needs to get out of both the CMR and Y-12
facilities. As a result of the delays created by the budget request,
what will you tell the Defense Board, the scientists, and staff working
in the old facilities that fall below the required structural and
health and safety standards?
Answer. The CMR facility at Los Alamos and the uranium processing
facilities (9212/9215) at Y-12 are old, past-end-of-life facilities.
Although these facilities are about 60 years old, we are maintaining
and operating these facilities in a safe and secure manner. Over the
past decade, we initiated actions and took proactive steps to reduce
the hazards at these facilities. For example, improvement of facility
safety systems, reduction of nuclear material inventories,
implementation of new safety controls, etc., were some of the actions
taken to enhance both the public and worker safety. This approach,
however, does not fix the root problem of end-of-life infrastructure
and is a temporary approach. Additional infrastructure investments will
be needed to continue to safely operate these facilities until
replacement facilities become available.
Until replacement facilities are available for both CMR and Y-12
facilities, we will continue to safely operate and maintain the
existing facilities but at increasing costs, and manage increasing
program vulnerability and safety risk. At CMR, risk reduction steps are
being implemented through the CMR Facility Consolidation and Risk
Mitigation Program. At Y-12, risk mitigation activities will be
implemented through investment in the Facility Risk Reduction Program.
In the absence of a decision on replacement facilities, dedicated
commitment for increased operations funding would be required to
continue to safely operate these facilities.
transferring the tritium mission is a waste of taxpayer dollars
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, last year, an independent study of the
proposed transfer of the tritium R&D and design missions found that
there was ``no programmatic or economic justification for closing down
the LANL tritium R&D facility and reestablishing the capabilities at
the Savannah River tritium site.''
It is my understanding that the NNSA's Navy and Air Force customers
are not convinced this transfer makes sense and find no justification
for the move.
Also, General Smolen, who was your deputy at the NNSA, recently
stated in the press that ``There's really not any huge cost savings one
way or another.'' He went on to say that the reason behind the decision
was related to work-load leveling.
As you are undoubtedly aware, the Senate included language in the
supplemental stopping the transfer until an independent analysis can be
performed of this decision and we can better understand the NNSA's
rationale for this costly and unjustified decision.
What was the rationale for the NNSA ignoring the TechSource study
recommendation which advised against moving the tritium missions?
Answer. We do not believe the TechSource study advised against
moving the tritium missions as much as it stated that such a move
should have a programmatic or economic justification, considering the
importance of the GTS mission. The TechSource study provided useful
recommendations for mitigating risks during the transition, and these
have been incorporated into our implementation planning.
Question. Do you support General Smolen's argument that work-load
leveling was the rationale for this decision?
Answer. Work-load leveling may be a benefit of this transition,
however there are two other significant benefits. The first has to do
with the potential for Sandia to provide a more integrated system
architecture, incorporating GTS into the other non-nuclear subsystems.
The second is that, as time goes on, it may no longer be possible to
maintain a critical mass of technology staffs at multiple locations.
While it may be possible to support two design agencies today, and to
support two R&D centers that load and handle bulk quantities of
tritium, we anticipate that future downsizing of the enterprise will
force us to choose to have only one DA and one tritium R&D center of
excellence. It seems prudent to plan ahead for this eventuality rather
than to cope with it after the opportune time for transition has past.
With the Savannah River Site having been established as the Tritium
Center of Excellence, closer coordination of the R&D enterprise with
the production facility is expected to be an advantageous initiative.
Question. Will the tritium GTS mission be impacted by the Nuclear
Posture Review?
Answer. The likely outcome of the NPR is expected to lend further
support to the GTS transition decision. Projected future workloads do
not support keeping highly specialized technical expertise at multiple
sites, and more leveraging of talent will be required to support system
needs. The mechanical and materials knowledge will need to be applied
across multiple component sets. As the NPR relates to stockpile size,
our expectation is that the GTS DA and tritium R&D missions and
workloads will not be significantly affected. Considering the range of
probable recommendations, we will still need to support GTS
technologies that are currently deployed, and to make further
improvements to the reliability, safety, and surety of GTS units in the
future. Reductions in the quantities of systems deployed or developed
will not result in proportional reductions in the need for GTS field
support or development but may constrain the resource base available to
support these missions.
Question. Dr. Seymour Sack sent a letter to Mr. D'Agostino on Feb
8, 2008 to which a response was sent. Can you please forward a copy of
Dr. Sack's letter regarding transfer of the tritium gas transfer system
to my office or the Senate Security Office if it is classified?
Answer. Yes. We did receive Dr. Sack's letter addressing his
concerns with our decision process. We will provide a copy of Dr.
Sack's letter as well as our response.
DOES THIS ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT IMPROVED WEAPONS USE-DENIAL
STRATEGIES?
Question. Given the importance of the B61 to sustaining a safe,
secure and reliable nuclear deterrent for the United States and its
allies, the NNSA has made a decision to proceed with the B61 Life
Extension Program. I have two concerns with your budget request. The
first, it fails to provide sufficient funding to support a full
feasibility study of both nuclear and non-nuclear parts as requested by
the Air Force. Second, it fails to evaluate the option to integrate
state-of-the-art use control devices. I believe it is important that
the weapons we do retain have the best safety and security features
built into them.
Does the administration support adding more state-of-the-art safety
and security features to our nuclear weapons systems like the B61?
Answer. NNSA is committed to improving the surety (safety, security
and use control) of the nuclear weapons stockpile at each insertion
opportunity. This commitment meets the national imperative to ensure an
adversary, either a nation or terrorist, never obtains a functional
U.S. nuclear weapon. U.S. Presidents have consistently articulated this
imperative through directive or policy such the National Security
Presidential Directive 28 and more recently articulated by our
President in the speech he delivered in Prague, April 2009.
As directed by the Nuclear Weapons Council, the Phase 6.2 life
extension study for the B61 Mods 3, 4, 7, and 10 bombs began in
September 2008, and we are evaluating, within existing funding
constraints, the inclusion of state-of-the-art surety features in both
the non-nuclear and nuclear systems during the study.
Question. How much more would it cost to expand the feasibility
study to include adding safety and surety features to the physics
package?
Answer. The NWC has directed a study including improving surety of
the nuclear explosive package (NEP). NNSA estimates that an additional
$30 million in fiscal year 2010 would be needed to fully support the
addition of the nuclear scope to the study. This includes the study of
options to add improved safety, security and use control to the NEP.
This additional scope and resources are needed to complete the
feasibility study in fiscal year 2010 and align the program to achieve
a first production unit by 2017. Alignment between the NNSA and DOD is
essential to providing the needed capability.
Question. Since this is an Air Force weapon, can you tell me what
their preference would be regarding the expansion of this study to
include the physics package?
Answer. During an April 2009 senior-level review, the Air Force and
other DOD representatives made it clear that it is a priority for NNSA
to include the NEP in the B61 life extension study. In addition, senior
Air Force officials have communicated with the Secretary of Energy, the
NNSA Administrator, and congressional staff their strong endorsement of
adding enhanced safety and security features within the nuclear
explosive package.
ADVANCED COMPUTING
Question. Supercomputing is another success of Stockpile
Stewardship. You have the fastest computer in the world, and NNSA has
achieved modeling and simulation capabilities that many thought
impossible.
The Defense Science Board conducted a study of the Advanced
Computing program and was very complimentary of the achievements in
this program to develop a predictive and simulation capability and
drive innovation in the advanced computing architecture.
The Defense Science Board study concluded that the existing budgets
are inadequate to achieve the milestones established by the NNSA.
Can you please provide the subcommittee with a list of the current
milestones and the status of each and what impact the budget request
will have on each milestone?
Answer. Computer simulation underpins our ability to certify
weapons in the absence of testing, as well as meet our broad national
security responsibilities. ASC planning is based in part on the urgency
of developing predictive tools while experts still reside in the
complex. The ``milestones'' in the ASC Roadmap (2006) to which the
Defense Science Board (DSB) report refers are actually stretch goals
along the pathway set forth in four focus areas necessary to meet
national security simulation needs. These target goals include, for
example, developing science-based replacements for (ad hoc models)
Knobs #1-4 in the 2009-2016 timeframe, attaining a 100x petascale
computing capability in 2016, an exascale computing capability in 2018,
and a 50 percent improvement in setup-to-solution time for significant
finding investigation (SFI) simulations. The knob-removal goals are key
stockpile stewardship objectives and have been incorporated into the
Predictive Capability Framework (PCF) that integrates activities of the
NNSA simulation, science and engineering campaigns. The target date for
achieving these stretch goals may change depending on funding or as
more insight is gained about the problems.
The NNSA has decided to keep the 2010 budget for science level with
2009 pending outcome from the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). To some degree, the declining funding
that the DSB reviewed has been stemmed. However, their question about
how the ASC program intends to meet roadmap stretch goals in a timely
fashion, such as achieving exascale computing by 2018 to support
stockpile stewardship, remains a legitimate concern.
Question. What is your plan for developing the next generation of
computers and how is this effort specifically being coordinated with
the Office of Science?
Answer. There has been an ongoing R&D partnership between ASC and
DOE Office of Science's Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) to develop
advanced supercomputers based on the BlueGene P/Q architecture.
However, this level of collaboration and associated funding will not
achieve exascale computing. Developing the next generation of
(exascale) computers will be a significant challenge, more difficult
than the first effort under ASCI to develop a 100 teraFlop
computational capability. Machines at the exascale will require
radically new ways of thinking about computer architectures and ways to
program applications.
We recognize that this is a challenge beyond the scope of ASC alone
within current funding projections, and that it will require a
Government-wide solution. To this end we have taken the first steps to
establish a collaboration with the Office of Science to make exascale
computing a reality. This joint collaboration was announced at the June
2009 Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC)
Conference in San Diego, CA, and a steering group has been formed. The
first task for the steering group is to report to the ASCR and ASC
programs the scope of what needs to be done to achieve exascale
computing. Once identified, the scope could require focused investments
for a period of time to be successful. The programs' intent is to work
together through shared investments towards a common goal of achieving
exascale computing by the end of the next decade.
Question. And, what is your plan for ensuring that the
sophisticated computer codes and models that you have in place now will
be able to be run on these new generations of supercomputers?
Answer. Generally, our modern-multiphysics codes are continuously
updated. Portions of the codes that can best take advantage of the new
architectures are modified to do so. Writing code can take years to
achieve, and must be well planned and synchronized with evolving
technologies. Consequently, ASC must be intimately involved with the
technology frontier. Our approach ensures that the power of the
supercomputers is available to users of the existing code base; it
provides a reliable but very modest improvement in code and model
performance. By adopting this incremental approach, risk that our codes
and models will not be available is minimized.
This approach will likely not be sufficient as we approach exascale
computing. But, at this time it is premature to project what will be
needed to move our codes to an, as yet, unknown architecture. Our
planning will be synchronized with architectural designs as they
mature. At that time we will make the traditional trade-offs between
advancing the current codes, freezing development until transitioning
is complete, or accelerating the transition by expanding the work
scope. While we generally have not had to rely on expanding work scope
in the recent past, this scenario is more likely as we approach
exascale, which will dictate the need for additional funding for a
limited term initiative in future years.
Question. Can you please provide the subcommittee with a project
data sheet on for the Zia and Sequoia machines, including cost,
schedule, and mission justification?
PART 1--ZIA
Answer. The DOE NNSA ASC Program requires a production capability
computing system in 2010 to run extensive, high-fidelity integral
calculations of high-priority applications within the Complex to
support the national Stockpile Stewardship Program. The Zia capability
system will replace the ASC Purple system for existing simulation codes
as the next national user facility for computing across the tri-labs.
This system will provide a capability class resource to the ASC
simulation community for the 2010-2015 timeframe.
Zia has a 3-year schedule, with delivery of the platform scheduled
for Q3 fiscal year 2010 and assume the national user facility workload
by the beginning of fiscal year 2011. The funding profile for Zia is as
follows: fiscal year 2008--$0; fiscal year 2009--$15 million in budget,
$0 spent with project at CD-1; fiscal year 2010--$42.36 million; fiscal
year 2011--$14.6 million.
PART 2--SEQUOIA
The Sequoia mission need is to run both high-fidelity science
calculations and three-dimensional uncertainty quantification (UQ)
calculations. In addition, Sequoia is an advanced architecture system
that will push the state of the art on the road to exascale computing.
It will provide the processing power necessary to run the most resolved
calculations required by the weapons codes as they will exist between
2011 and 2016.
The scope of this project covers acquisition of Sequoia
computational resources and related I/O infrastructure, platform vendor
build contract, platform vendor development and engineering (D&E)
contract, and an I/O infrastructure D&E contract. In addition to the
2011 system delivery, the Sequoia contract will provide a smaller, but
significant, initial delivery (ID) environment beginning in 2008 to
permit the necessary scaling and code development to ensure effective
use of the final platform.
Sequoia has an extended 5-year schedule, with delivery of the final
system scheduled for Q1 fiscal year 2012. The Future Years Nuclear
Security Plan (FYNSP) funding profile for Sequoia is as follows: fiscal
year 2008--$15 million; fiscal year 2009--$54 million in budget, $42
million spent; fiscal year 2010--$14.5 million; fiscal year 2011--$38.7
million; fiscal year 2012--$51.8 million; fiscal year 2013--$43.0
million.
CUT TO NONPROLIFERATION AND DETECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, the budget request cuts the nuclear
detection R&D budget by $66 million. This funding is critical to
maintaining the technological advances to detect and monitor
clandestine nuclear program or to catch smuggling of nuclear materials.
In light of the activities in North Korea and Iran, it seems this
funding reduction should be reconsidered.
What is the rationale for this reduction?
The apparent ``reduction'' of $66 million comes from comparing the
fiscal year 2010 budget request with a fiscal year 2009 appropriation
that was significantly higher than the fiscal year 2009 budget request.
The administration's fiscal year 2010 budget request is greater than
the fiscal year 2009 request.
Question. Recent reports, including the Strategic Posture Review
and the Council of Foreign Policy, recommended increased funding for
forensic research and attribution. Can you please describe how this
program is investing in our forensic and attribution capabilities and
what long term investments in NNSA facilities aside from the 300 Area
at PNNL where this program is building our capabilities?
Answer. NNSA investments include purchase of specific scientific
instrumentation for the NNSA laboratories to advance research in post-
detonation forensics analytical methods (some examples include: laser
fluorination isotope ratio mass spectrometer (LLNL); Cameca secondary
ion mass spectrometer (SIMS-LANL); Los Alamos Sferic array (measures
ground EMP)). In addition to these activities funded by the NN R&D
program, NNSA funds national technical nuclear forensics work through
the Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response program at about $10
million annually.
Question. NNSA facilities provide significant and varied research
and discovery capabilities for different users and mission need. Each
of these facilities is costly to maintain and staff. Can you please
tell the subcommittee how much of the annual Nonproliferation and
Detection R&D budget contributes to operations funding at our national
labs in both real dollar amount and as a percentage of facility
operations.
Answer. NNSA's Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN), Office of
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D funding is presented as a
percentage of estimated overall NNSA fiscal year 2009 funding to the
listed DOE/NNSA labs. The following table is provided.
FISCAL YEAR 2009 APPROPRIATIONS--ALLOCATED BY SITE
[Estimates in whole dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonproliferation Percent of
Reporting Entity and Verification NNSA Site
R&D Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ames National Laboratory.............. $236,000 100.0
Argonne National Laboratory........... 3,275,000 6.8
Brookhaven Science Association (BNL).. 2,171,000 5.1
BWXT Pantex........................... 35,000 <0.01
BWXT Y-12............................. 2,226,000 0.3
NNSA-HQ (including SBIR).............. 11,043,129 13.2
Idaho National Lab.................... 4,595,000 2.3
Kansas City Plant..................... 35,000 <0.01
Lawrence Berkley National Lab......... 5,376,000 94.9
Lawrence Livermore National Lab....... 43,184,671 4.2
Los Alamos National Lab............... 88,231,445 6.0
NNSA-Service Center (incl. University 16,622,605 1.9
grants)..............................
NSTech................................ 10,538,000 3.9
Oak Ridge National Lab................ 25,306,746 18.6
Pacific North West Lab................ 42,257,800 19.5
PNSO/PNNL Construction................ 18,460,000 98.8
Sandia National Lab................... 73,144,604 6.7
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions...... 17,054,000 6.2
---------------------------------
TOTALS.......................... 363,792,000 4.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are the long term technology challenges this program
is working to solve and what are the top research priorities in this
budget?
Answer. The top research priorities in this budget are divided into
two areas. Roughly 60 percent of the budget will focus on developing
technologies and methods to detect foreign uranium-235 production
activities, plutonium production activities, special nuclear material
movement and on developing Global Nuclear Safeguards technologies. The
other 40 percent of the budget will focus on improving the Nation's
ability to detect nuclear detonations by building the Nation's
operational treaty monitoring space sensors, developing the regional
geophysical capabilities to enable the Nation's ground-based treaty
monitoring networks, and advancing technology in post-detonation
nuclear forensics.
HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM IN RUSSIA
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, your testimony and pronouncements of the
administration have clearly made nonproliferation a top priority
including the goal of minimizing the use of highly-enriched uranium in
the civilian nuclear sector. I am supportive of those goals, although I
am concerned about the vast amount of undeclared reserves of Highly
Enriched Uranium (HEU) held by Russia, which is outside of the scope of
the existing program.
Reports vary, but it is quite possible that Russian HEU stockpiles
make up the largest inventory of weapon-usable material held in the
world today.
When President Obama travels to Russia this July to sign the
Plutonium Material and Disposition Agreement, will he press Russian
President Medvedev to declare the size and makeup of the Russian HEU
reserves and press for additional down blending of that material,
whether it is used in Russia or sold internationally?
Answer. Nonproliferation, and specifically, eliminating stocks of
excess fissile material are key priorities of this administration.
Coming to agreement on the terms of the Plutonium Management and
Disposition Agreement is one important step in this effort. The
President also has committed to seek further weapons reductions under a
START Follow-On Treaty and to open negotiations for a Fissile Material
Cut-off Treaty. Given the critical success of the DOE/NNSA HEU
Transparency Program over the past 15 years to verify the disposition
of over 368 metric tons of the planned 500 metric tons of Russian HEU,
we would welcome the possibility of down blending additional excess
Russian HEU. This HEU Transparency effort has been one of our most
successful bilateral nonproliferation efforts with Russia yet in the
area of tangibly eliminating weapons-derived material. However, to date
the Russians have been unwilling to consider an extension beyond the
2013 end date of this program. DOE/NNSA would certainly welcome the
continuation of this important effort if Russia declares additional
amounts of excess HEU beyond the initial 500 metric tons in the HEU
Agreement.
Question. Your budget proposes additional investment to secure
weapons-grade material in Russia. Wouldn't you prefer that this
material be down blended to eliminate any further threats?
Answer. We would prefer that excess material be downblended; we are
already working with the Russians to downblend HEU under the Material
Consolidation and Conversion project that is not of weapons origin and
that has been declared excess by the Russians. We think this activity
would be a way to help Russia eliminate the risks associated with this
and all nuclear material, as well as avoid the associated long-term
security costs. However, some Russian sites require weapons-useable HEU
for their operations. In those cases, our joint intent is to protect
the material as well as possible. Central storage facilities with
modern security systems are a good way to improve material security.
CYBER SECURITY
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, I find it curious that the DOE Office of
Electricity Transmission Delivery and Reliability received $50 million
in additional funding for cyber security research and development, yet
the NNSA, which has seen a tremendous increase in cyber attacks of the
past years, and recently in the last several months, received no
additional funding increases.
How do you explain this funding disparity?
Answer. Funding for all programs within DOE, to include NNSA is
determined by the Secretary of Energy through a very prescriptive
process. NNSA's cyber security requirements are first presented by the
NNSA CIO to the NNSA Administrator. The Administrator, after
determining the highest priority needs for NNSA, makes the final
recommendation to the Secretary who makes the final corporate decision.
Question. Are you confident that the NNSA has adequate cyber
protections in place to protect our national security secrets?
Answer. The threats to the national security information and
classified system within the NNSA computing environment are constantly
changing and represent risks to our operations. However with the
technology enhancement (i.e. EnCase Enterprise) and process
improvements (NNSA Policy (NAP)) NNSA have invested in over past 2
years, I believe that we have minimized the threats to the NNSA
computing environment and national security information and are
operating at an acceptable level of risk. NNSA's cyber security systems
have benefited by external independent oversight programs, such as HSS,
with activities such as network penetration testing and reviews of
security plans and strategies. The Department and NNSA senior
leadership will continue to monitor the threats to our computing assets
along with the accompanying risks in order to make necessary changes
and provide an appropriate level of protection.
SECURITY
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, several NNSA sites have suggested that
funding of safeguards and security is inadequate to support the
mission. Do you have any security concerns with any NNSA site or do you
believe any of the NNSA sites lack sufficient funding?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget request is adequate to support
the core security mission and maintain the program within acceptable
risk levels. At the request level, NNSA sites will be able to sustain
the security baseline program and support NNSA Enterprise-wide efforts
to consolidate high-security assets and reduce the overall security
footprint. In fiscal year 2010, the NNSA security program will focus on
improving the effectiveness and efficiency of security operations
through standardization and consistency of security program
implementation, and upgrades to the security systems infrastructure so
as to enable the sites to maintain performance of the security mission
at the same or reduced funding levels in the out-years. To this end, we
are investing in improved performance assurance programs at each site,
with emphasis on Federal manager oversight, and have undertaken a new
initiative (Zero-Based Security Review) with the objectives of
establishing clear performance expectations, and issuing consistent
policy implementing guidance. NNSA sites are, and must remain, among
the most well-protected facilities in the world.
NAVAL REACTORS
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, your budget proposes to move forward on
an Ohio Class submarine replacement. At the same time, you have frozen
progress on CMR-R and UPF and other facilities pending the outcome of
the NPR.
Why not wait on the new submarine platform until the NPR is
complete?
Answer. The President has reaffirmed the need to maintain a strong
deterrent for the foreseeable future. To ensure there is no gap in
strategic coverage when the OHIO Class SSBNs begin to retire in 2027,
we need to start concept design studies for the OHIO Class Replacement
in fiscal year 2010. There are key technical and schedule drivers that
require the fiscal year 2010 start so design and technology can mature
to support a fiscal year 2019 ship construction schedule. Early design
studies answer questions that will arise from the NPR deliberations.
The design parameters under consideration are aimed at accommodating
any conceivable conclusion of the NPR. The NPR will not determine the
design of the submarine, but rather the number of weapons and targets.
A reduction in weapons may result in fewer missile tubes per submarine;
however, the total number of submarines is primarily derived from the
number required at sea at any given time to provide a survivable
deterrent in the regions we need to cover.
Question. How is this investment different than that of a one-of-a-
kind facility such as CMR-R and UPF, both of which are necessary in
order to maintain the deterrent?
Answer. There are more investment similarities than differences
between the Ohio Class Replacement project and the CMR-R and UPF
projects required to modernize the NNSA nuclear infrastructure. All are
needed to sustain essential capabilities for the long-term and the
details of NPR conclusions will not have significant impact on early
design activities. Early design work is needed for all three in order
to most efficiently plan for sustaining capabilities. The investment in
the OHIO Class Replacement project differs from that in the CMR-R and
UPF projects only in the maturity of its design. While the OHIO Class
Replacement project will be starting its conceptual design in fiscal
year 2010, the CMR-R and UPF projects are both currently in latter
stages of preliminary design. The previous answer pointed out how OHIO
Class Replacement design at its current maturity is independent of the
NPR's conclusions. Although more mature, the designs of both the CMR-R
and UPF projects are primarily driven by the need to maintain essential
capabilities that are expected to provide an adequate capacity merely
by the existence of the capability. Thus, CMR-R and UPF sizes and
capacities are independent of the NPR's conclusions at expected future
stockpile size ranges.
PENSION SHORTFALLS
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, The stock market down turn over the past
year has significantly reduced the DOE contractor pension value. In
order to make up the shortfall, contractors are required to adjust
their program charges (known as the indirect rate). According to
figures prepared by the Department, the average total contributions
paid to DOE contractor pension plans from 2003 to 2008 was $330
million. In the future, DOE expects to pay on average $1.5 billion per
year over the next 5 years. The peak contribution years are estimated
to come in 2012 and 2013 at just under $2 billion per year. The lion
share of the contributions coming from NNSA and Environmental Cleanup
sites.
Based on this 2010 budget request, it appears that the NNSA is
facing a pension shortfall of $411 million, of which $200 million was
not budgeted for and will further reduce mission funding. It is my
understanding that NNSA plans to deduct most of the savings out of the
operating budget and delay facility closures and preventative
maintenance and the consolidation of special nuclear materials.
This trend is simply unsustainable and will have a devastating
impact on the weapons and nonproliferation program. Has the Department
considered the program impacts on to scientific research, operations
and employment levels? What actions are being taken to mitigate this
problem over the next 5 years?
Answer. Because the pension payments for the Defined Benefit plans
are a function of economic conditions, the number of retirees to
receive benefits, and largely address legacy promises of benefits, we
are very limited in what we can do now to mitigate the problem
indicated by the analysis. Except for a few collective bargaining unit
Plans, the NNSA M&O contractors have closed their defined benefit
programs to new entrants in favor of defined contributions (401K) type
of retirement plans. As a result, there is little to be done to reduce
costs in the DB arena, instead NNSA and its M&O contractors are seeking
ways to better address future payments.
The pension plans of DOE's M&O contractors have suffered losses in
asset value similar to those in the private sector as a result of the
business downtown in the past 12 months. Overall, their plans are in
relatively good shape compared to the rest of industry, however, the
recession coupled with new Pension Protection Act requirements has
resulted in funding shortfalls for some of plans.
Additionally, our M&O contractors continue to experience
fluctuations in pension liabilities, and the increased liabilities
coupled with the decrease in Plan assets has resulted in a significant
increase in the required contributions to pension plans at some of our
sites. NNSA is monitoring the situation to understand the projected
shortfalls, and to mitigate the resulting impact on all of our mission
program activities, operations and employment levels. NNSA will
exercise all flexibility available during budget execution to manage
site and program impacts by incentivizing operating efficiencies at the
M&O contractors, by reallocating available funding to affected
contractors through reprogramming of remainder funding from completed
projects and programs; and by deferring or canceling lower priority
activities. However, the current projections for 2011 through 2013 of
about $1 billion shortfall annually in budgeted dollars, which are
likely to be required to reimburse our laboratory and plant contractors
for their payments to defined benefit pension plans, are beyond the
ability of the NNSA to handle through increased efficiencies and
limited reprogramming from remainders in project funding. If economic
improvements do not materialize to mitigate these cost increases, NNSA
may well be required to drastically cut back, and in some cases
abandon, planned activities at our Sites resulting in the potential for
significant workforce restructurings.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
Question. The President's budget request shows no construction
funding for the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) until 2013 which puts
the project 3-4 years behind schedule.
If UPF is delayed beyond its currently planned operational date of
2018, is it reasonable to assume that the Y-12 enriched uranium
facilities can remain safe and reliable beyond 2018?
Answer. The President's budget request included $54,478,000 for
Project Engineering and Design of UPF in order to advance the project`s
design, in accordance with the requirements of DOE Order 413.3A. NNSA
will take the steps necessary to maintain the Y-12 enriched uranium
facilities safe and reliable until UPF becomes operational. Concrete
measures are being taken to reduce risk at Y-12. For instance, the
Nuclear Facility Risk Reduction Project, a multi-year effort funding
maintenance and limited improvements, will address the safety and
reliability of uranium facilities until UPF can be built to replace
those facilities. While sufficient capacity exists today, the risk of
extended shutdown is unacceptably high and safety of operations remains
a major concern. The Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) must be built to
alleviate the risk of shutdown, reduce costs, and provide a safe
working environment for our nuclear security workers. Construction of
this facility is mission critical and will take at least 7 years to
complete. Each year NNSA is required to take measures to mitigate the
growing risks is another year longer the Nation runs the risk of losing
its uranium processing capability, with a commensurate impact on its
nuclear deterrent and its ability to supply the Navy with fuel.
Question. How long would it take for the UPF to pay for itself in
reduced annual costs?
Answer. Based on the current preliminary project estimates, UPF's
payback period is approximately 10 to 15 years. The UPF project's
contribution to safety of the Y-12 site and of the public is, however,
the overriding justification of the project--even if the actual payback
period is found to be longer, it would not have been acceptable to
continue operations in the current facilities.
Question. What is the condition of Building 9212, where the uranium
enrichment work currently takes place? Is this facility viable for
long-term enriched uranium mission capability?
Answer. Building 9212 is not suitable for performing long-term
enriched uranium services. The enriched uranium services need to be
transferred to a facility that can support long-term sustainability and
meet modern industrial and nuclear safety standards. The enriched
uranium services are being conducted in Building 9212, pending
availability of UPF. NNSA will take the steps necessary to maintain the
Y-12 enriched uranium facilities safe and reliable until UPF becomes
operational. Our current uranium infrastructure is obsolete, costly,
and decrepit. The risk of extended shutdown is unacceptably high, and
worker safety continues to be a major concern.
Question. If there were no new nuclear weapons production or life
extension, would UPF still be needed?
Answer. Yes, UPF sustains capabilities that are needed as long as
the Nation has an inventory of HEU. UPF is essential to dismantling
weapons to support arms controls initiatives, supporting the Naval
Nuclear Reactors Program, for down-blending excess enriched uranium for
non-proliferation purposes, and ultimately for power and research
reactors (i.e., Accelerator Test Facility and High Flux Isotope
Reactor). UPF is needed to support all stockpile activities involving
the processing of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), including the
surveillance and dismantlement programs. Many studies conducted on the
UPF design, including the recently issued Dr. Everet Beckner/TechSource
Study, concluded that approximately 75 percent of the UPF is required
even if no new weapon is ever built and noted that continued operations
of the current facilities at Y-12 past 2020, in particular the 9212
building, would require accepting an appreciably increased safety risk.
Question. Who has reviewed the capabilities and size of the UPF
facility?
Answer. The capabilities and size of UPF have been assessed both
internal and external to NNSA over the past few years. First, the Y-12
project team and NNSA Headquarters led a review of UPF that included
subject matter experts from across the nuclear security enterprise,
including the national laboratories. Second, NNSA conducted a joint
review of UPF with technical assistance provided by the United
Kingdom's Aldermaston Weapons Establishment. Third and most recently,
NNSA chartered an independent external review committee headed up by
former Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, Dr. Everet Beckner.
As stated by Dr. Beckner in his team's final report: ``Based upon our
review, as will be demonstrated in the following report, I am now
convinced that given the requirements as defined, a substantial change
of size of the facility is not warranted at this time and the project
should move forward without further delay.''
Question. Can the enriched uranium mission be performed anywhere
other than Y-12?
Answer. No, the uranium enrichment mission can not be accomplished
at other sites without additional funding. UPF (and the facilities it
replaces) are part of an integrated manufacturing operation that
includes the soon-to-be-completed Highly Enriched Uranium Manufacturing
Facility (HEUMF) and the non-nuclear operations of the Y-12 site. It is
possible for portions of the enriched uranium mission to be met in new
facilities at two alternative sites, the Savannah River Site (down-
blending, sweetening, reuse of material) and the Pantex Plant
(surveillance, disassembly), but with differing schedules, costs, and
risk levels, and with the replication at some level of the capabilities
of other parts of Y-12's integrated operation. An Integrated Project
Team (IPT) conducted an analysis evaluating these alternative sites and
produced a report on Uranium Mission Transformation in July 2008. As
part of this effort, NNSA asked the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) Cost Analysis Investment Group (CAIG) to act as an independent
advisor to the IPT for this comparative business case analysis. The
total operations and transportation costs were lower for Y-12 than the
other alternatives. A new, fully trained, and qualified workforce would
also have to be established if the mission were to be performed
elsewhere. Overall, the comparative risk and costs are lower for Y-12
than the alternative sites considered. The IPT concluded that the
uranium mission should be retained at Y-12.
Question. Your office has been studying how best to compete the
NNSA production contracts (Y-12, Pantex, and Kansas City Plant) that
are expiring next year. Recently your spokesman indicated the NNSA
leadership would review the work of the team, who provided analysis for
this decision, over the coming months. Given you are in the window
where a decision needs to be made soon if new contracts are to be put
in place, can you be more specific on schedule for this action.
Answer. The acquisition strategy is in the final review process and
we expect a decision in the near future. The extend/compete decisions
will require Secretarial approval.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Dorgan. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., Tuesday, June 2, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:59 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Dorgan, Tester, Bennett, Cochran, Bond,
and Alexander.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENT OF TERRENCE C. SALT, ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. I'm going to call the meeting to order.
This is the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee of the
United States Senate, Subcommittee on Energy and Water. Today
we're going to take testimony on the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department
of the Interior.
Testifying for the Corps will be Terrence Salt, Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Mr. Salt,
congratulations on your appointment as Principal Deputy and
your current assignment as Acting Assistant Secretary. I look
forward to working with you and Ms. Darcy once she is confirmed
on the many water resource problems that we face.
I know that you will familiarize yourself especially with
North Dakota water issues and know something about some of them
already, perhaps Mississippi issues as well. But those of us
who serve on this subcommittee have an abiding interest in
these matters.
Lieutenant General Van Antwerp, Chief of the Engineers for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it's always good to see you
and welcome. We appreciate your being here.
Testifying for the Department of the Interior will be
Deanna Archuleta, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science at the Department. Welcome to you. Congratulations,
too, on your appointment as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science and on your current assignment as the Acting
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. I look forward to
working with you and Ms. Castle once she is confirmed on many
of the western water issues.
Michael Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Commissioner Connor, congratulations on your recent
confirmation. We appreciate your being here and I know that
you're aware I'm passionate about the issues concerning rural
water supply, especially on the unmet promises for now nearly
five decades in North Dakota when they built the Garrison Dam,
and I know you'll be more familiar with those projects as well
and perhaps already are.
The task of talking about the Corps budget is difficult
because we've only had the details available for about a week.
I'm talking about the detailed budget justifications.
Justifications were released 5 weeks after the President
released the budget to Congress, which has made it very
difficult for us. Every other Federal agency got their budget
justifications to Congress with the submission of the budget.
I understand that some of that delay was beyond the control
of the Corps, General. For instance, I understand the budget
justifications were not cleared by OMB until May 29. That was 3
weeks after the budget was released. So perhaps my real beef
here is with the Office of Management and Budget. That would
not be a new irritation for me.
The Corps of Engineers did not get the budget
justifications on the Internet until June 11, and printed
copies were not furnished until June 12, to the extent that
they were printed. So we've had staff working on these issues
now, but it's been difficult.
Mr. Salt, we postponed this hearing in May because those
details weren't available, and I thought we might have to
postpone a second time. But we're here finally at long last to
talk about these various issues.
This is the second time in 4 years that this has happened,
so it's not about the administration. It's about particularly
OMB and the tortured mechanics that these things go through.
The President's fiscal year 2010 budget for the Corps of
Engineers proposes $5.125 billion, which is $277 million below
the fiscal year 2009 enacted of $5.402 billion. This is the
narrowest gap that we've seen for a number of years between
current enacted amount for fiscal year 2009 and the President's
fiscal year 2010 budget.
When you look at the budget details on an account by
account basis, the difference really is considerably larger
than that. General investigations is down $68 million from the
current year. General construction is down $424 million from
the current year, and this certainly doesn't help us reduce the
more than $67 billion backlog in unconstructed projects.
The Missouri River and tributaries is down $136 million
from the current year.
O&M is one of the bright spots in the Corps budget with an
increase of about $300 million. O&M has been essentially flat
for a number of years, even though personnel costs have
continued to rise and the inventory of Corps projects has
continued to age, increasing maintenance needs.
In this case, the administration has not resorted to budget
tricks, which we've seen in many previous years. I appreciate
that. The O&M budget that I just described is in fact a true
increase, not some mirage, and that will be helpful.
To provide even this modest O&M increase and get the other
major accounts to current levels would require an additional
$600 million. Now, the two major projects for the Department of
the Interior under this subcommittee are the Central Utah
Project Completion Act and the Water and Related Resources for
the Bureau of Reclamation. Your budgets, I would say to Ms.
Archuleta and Mr. Connor, are relatively flat compared to
fiscal year 2009.
The Central Utah Project Completion account is proposed at
the same amount as the current year, and the Bureau of
Reclamation is down $55 million from the current year. A flat
budget, of course, is a declining budget for your agencies.
Personnel and contract costs continue to increase each year by
some amount. So you're accomplishing less work when you propose
a flat budget. Unfortunately, the needs for water and power in
the West continue to rise.
I'm very cognizant of the very serious deficit problems we
face in our Government. I'm also aware, though, that some
spending is just spending, while other spending is a really
important investment which provides dividends for the future.
Much of the investment we make in water projects and
reclamation projects produce significant deficits and great
assets for this country.
So it's not escaped my notice that we really need to
evaluate on a line by line basis what our needs are, what our
responsibilities are, and what kinds of funding we will have
available for them.
I know that you come to us today as members of the
administration, destined to support and required to support the
budget that has been sent to us. In fact, only in recent years
on one occasion have we had someone in a complete fit of candor
and unbelievable truthfulness say: No, I'm sitting here at the
table and the amount of money that's been requested is far
short of what is really needed. We were staggered to hear that
kind of testimony, and the next morning that person was fired.
So my expectation is that you will pay fealty to the budget
you're here to support today but you will hear from members of
our subcommittee that in these areas of water projects and the
Corps of Engineers' needs and responsibilities as well as the
Bureau's responsibilities, that many of us have very
significant and strong feelings about how to meet those
obligations.
I want to be able to get to you so that you can give us
your statements, but I want to talk just for a moment about the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I was surprised that
the request from the administration on an economic recovery act
to try to lift the country's economy, which as you know was
controversial--some voted for it, some didn't--included not one
penny from the administration for either of your agencies. I
was pretty surprised by that.
It seems to me that if you're going to do something to
substantially address infrastructure problems and put people
back to work and have an asset when it's completed, one of the
things you would look at would be water issues, water projects,
and reclamation projects. But there wasn't any funding in the
initial request.
Senator Cochran and I and others included funding in this
economic recovery package for water projects, then left it to
your agencies to decide how the funding that we finally put
together would be distributed. We believe we gave pretty clear
guidance, without earmarking, how funding should be
distributed, both in the legislation as well as in report
language.
But we have some concerns about how the distribution of
that funding was developed behind closed doors. So we'll talk
some about that today.
Let me thank you for being here. I have other things I will
put in the record that describe some of our interests and some
of our concerns.
Let me now call on my colleague from Mississippi, Senator
Cochran, for any comments he wishes to make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for
convening this important hearing to review the administration's
fiscal year 2010 budget request. I'm pleased to join you in
welcoming this panel and to thank them for appearing here
before the subcommittee today.
The Corps of Engineers has a very large presence in my
State. Flood control activities on the Mississippi and Yazoo
Rivers, dredging of ports on the Mississippi River and in the
gulf coast region, and environmental infrastructure projects
are all very important activities that affect the economic
future of our State and the physical survival of our citizens.
I'm concerned that the budget we are reviewing today might
not adequately address some of these most important needs. But
I would like to take the opportunity to compliment the efforts
of the Corps of Engineers, the Mississippi Coastal Improvements
Program team, specifically in Mobile, Alabama, for completing
the plan to implement hurricane mitigation projects and to
restore Mississippi's barrier islands.
The plan the team has provided is a much needed project
that is essential to protect the vast natural resources as well
as property of the State of Mississippi and its citizens and to
help protect infrastructure and commerce along the Gulf of
Mexico.
General Van Antwerp, as the Chief of Engineers I know you
understand it is your charge to verify the final version of
this plan. It's my hope that you will be able to certify the
proposal expeditiously after a careful review of its merits.
I would also like to compliment the Engineer Research and
Design Center of the Army Corps of Engineers. The research
undertaken at this facility is of the highest importance to our
Nation and our armed forces. Once again, the center was named
the Army's top research laboratory, an honor that is often
bestowed on the researchers and staff in Vicksburg,
Mississippi. We are very proud of all of them.
The Civil Works Division of the Army Corps of Engineers has
a unique history. It's vital to our Nation's infrastructure
protection and it's very important that we in Congress
recognize both the importance of the work done by the Corps of
Engineers and carefully review the costs and other challenges
that these projects may face.
We thank you again for your cooperation with this
subcommittee and I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Cochran, thank you very much.
I wanted to make one additional point before I recognize
the witnesses, and that is the question of earmarks. I'm
speaking explicitly about the President's request coming
through the agencies of what it is you wish to have funded--
your earmarks--and the metrics that you use to determine that,
and the concern that many of us have how these things change
year to year. The criteria for budgetable projects switch from
one year to the next, depending on the administration, and even
changes inside the same administration. For example, shifting
views on shore protection projects, the way major
rehabilitation projects and environmental compliance activities
have bounced among various accounts, rural water projects are
funded one year, next they are not funded, even the way the
benefit-to-cost ratio is chosen to determine budgetable
projects moves up and down on the list.
Again, these are all earmarks chosen by someone, and
ultimately the President. But someone in your agencies, through
OMB, decides to earmark all this money and then send the
earmarks to Congress and say: We've made these decisions about
what our priorities are; that's how we've earmarked it; but we
have our own metrics with which to make the decisions. We up
here look at them and think: Well, why do those metrics change
so much from one year to the next with shore protection or
water projects and so on?
We don't quite understand that, and we hope that we can
begin a discussion with you about how you decide on what
earmarks you request, what those metrics are, and whether those
metrics can perhaps see the light of day so that we understand
them a bit better.
Well, let me thank all of you for being here and let me
begin, Mr. Secretary, with your testimony. Terrence Salt,
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, thank
you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF TERRENCE C. SALT
Mr. Salt. Sir, thank you, Chairman Dorgan, Senator Cochran.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the President's budget
for the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers for
fiscal year 2010. I will also briefly touch on the activities
related to the stimulus bill.
In developing this budget, we have sought to achieve four
principal objectives: the first, to focus construction funds on
those investments that provide the best return from a national
perspective in achieving economic, environmental, and public
safety objectives;
Second, to support the safe and reliable operations and
maintenance of key existing water resources infrastructure;
Third, to improve Corps project planning and program
performance;
Finally, to advance aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts,
including the restoration of Louisiana's coastal wetlands and
Florida's Everglades.
The budget provides funding for the development and
restoration of the Nation's water and related resources within
the three main Civil Works program areas. Sir, you mentioned
the commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage
reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Additionally, the budget supports hydropower, recreation,
environmental stewardship, water supply services at existing
water resource projects owned or operated by the Corps,
protection of the Nation's regulated waters and wetlands, the
cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of the Nation's early
efforts to develop atomic weapons, and emergency preparedness
and training.
As you pointed out, the total discretionary funding of
$5.125 billion in the fiscal year 2010 budget is our budget
and, although it is less than was previously appropriated last
year, it is the highest amount ever requested by the President
for the Civil Works Program.
The budget proposes enactment of legislation to authorize a
lock usage fee which would, over time, replace the diesel fuel
tax now paid by most commercial users of the inland and intra-
coastal waterways. This proposed legislation will address the
declining balance in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. This
affects the Government's ability to finance the non-Federal
portion of Federal capital investment in these waterways and
will do so in a way that improves economic efficiency compared
to the existing fuel tax by more closely aligning the costs of
those who use the Corps locks for commerce with the capital
costs that the Corps incurs on their behalf.
The administration stands ready to work with the Congress
and stakeholders with interests in these capital investments to
help pass and implement this proposal.
The fiscal year 2010 budget continues the Civil Works
Program's commitment to a performance-based approach to
budgeting. The Army applied objective performance guidelines to
focus construction funds on these investments within the three
main mission areas of the Corps that provides the best return
from a national perspective in achieving economic,
environmental, and public safety objectives.
Similarly, the Army used objective performance criteria to
allocate O&M funds in the fiscal year 2010 budget. The O&M
criteria consider both the condition of the project and the
potential consequences for project performance if the O&M
activity were not undertaken in fiscal year 2010.
In fiscal year 2010, the court will focus efforts on
developing new strategies along with other Federal agencies and
non-Federal project partners, to better manage, protect, and
restore the Nation's water and related land resources,
including flood plains, flood-prone areas and related
ecosystems.
I'd like to speak for a minute about the recently enacted
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provided $4.6
billion for the Corps' Civil Works Program. The Corps is
managing these funds and successfully achieving the Recovery
Act's stated purposes. Obligations and expenditures commenced
in early May. Upon clearance of the Corps' project plans and
lists, projects were selected based on the fundamental tenet of
prudent management and investment in infrastructure and the
ecosystem restoration projects that will provide long-term
benefits for the Nation.
The Civil Works allocations are fully consistent with the
President's direction provided in his executive memorandum of
March 20, 2009, ensuring responsible spending of Recovery Act
funds. Moreover, the Civil Works allocations are consistent
with additional project selection criteria provided in the
conference committee report accompanying the act that projects,
programs, or activities that are accomplished with Recovery Act
dollars will be obligated and executed quickly, will result in
high immediate employment, have little schedule risk, will be
executed by contract or direct hire of temporary labor, and
will complete a project phase, a project, an element, or will
provide a useful service that does not require additional
funding.
Also, as stipulated in the Recovery Act, no funds will be
used for any project that at the time of the obligation has not
received appropriations provided for energy and water
development--essentially no new starts.
The wide geographic distribution of projects spreads the
employment and other economic benefits across the United
States. Funding is also distributed across Civil Works programs
to provide the Nation with project benefits related to inland
and coastal navigation, the environment, flood risk management,
hydropower, recreation, and more.
I'm pleased to report that as of the close of business June
12, 2009, the Corps has obligated more than $320 million, work
on the ground has begun, and real progress is being made.
In conclusion, this administration has made rebuilding
America's infrastructure a priority. Through resources provided
for the Army Civil Works program in the President's budget for
fiscal year 2010, as well as the resources provided through the
stimulus bill, the Corps can help achieve this objective.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this budget for the
Army's Civil Works program. I look forward to working with this
subcommittee and to your support of the President's budget
proposals, and I welcome any questions you may have.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terrence C. Salt
Chairman Dorgan, Senator Bennett, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the President's
budget for the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers for
fiscal year 2010.
OVERVIEW
In developing this budget, we sought to achieve four principal
objectives:
--Focus construction funds on those investments that provide the best
return from a national perspective in achieving economic,
environmental and public safety objectives;
--Support the safe and reliable operation and maintenance of key
existing water resources infrastructure;
--Improve Corps project planning and program performance; and
--Advance aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts, including
restoration of Louisiana's coastal wetlands and Florida's
Everglades.
The budget provides funding for development and restoration of the
Nation's water and related resources within the three main Civil Works
program areas: commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage
reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. Additionally, the budget
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 and training. 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.
FISCAL YEAR 2010 DISCRETIONARY FUNDING PROGRAM
The total discretionary funding of $5.125 billion in the fiscal
year 2010 budget is the highest amount ever requested by the President
for the Civil Works program.
Within this total, $1.718 billion is budgeted for projects in the
Construction account. The budget provides $2.504 billion for activities
funded in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) account.
The fiscal year 2010 budget also includes $100 million for
Investigations; $248 million for Flood Control, Mississippi River and
Tributaries; $41 million for Flood Control and Coastal Emergency; $190
million for the Regulatory Program; $134 million for the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; $184 million for the Expenses
account and $6 million for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Works.
Enclosure 1 displays the current estimate for the distribution of
fiscal year 2010 discretionary funding among eight appropriation
accounts, eight program areas plus executive direction and management,
and five funding sources including the general fund of the Treasury and
trust funds. Enclosure 2 is a crosscut between appropriation accounts
and program areas.
The fiscal year 2010 budget for the Civil Works program supports
high performing new studies and construction starts.
The budget funds three new watershed studies: Green River
Watershed, Kentucky; Ocmulgee River Watershed, Georgia; St. Louis
Watershed, Missouri; and a study addressing Access to Water Data. The
budget also includes $2 million for a high-priority, interagency
evaluation of the Nation's vulnerability to damage from flooding, the
Water Resources Priorities study, as authorized in section 2032 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007).
The budget also includes funding for five construction starts,
namely Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, California; Kansas City's,
Missouri and Kansas flood damage reduction project; Washington, DC and
Vicinity flood damage reduction project; Norfolk Harbor, Craney Island,
VA; and the Bridges at Deep Creek, Virginia project on the Atlantic-
Intracoastal Waterway.
Restoring Louisiana Gulf Coast Wetlands
For fiscal year 2010, the allocation for the Louisiana coastal area
(LCA) has been increased by $5 million, from $20 million to $25 million
in the Investigations account. Over 1 million acres of Louisiana's
coastal wetlands have been lost since the 1930's; another one-third of
a million acres could be lost over the next 50 years unless large-scale
corrective actions are taken. A 10-year plan of studies, projects and
science support was developed through a public involvement process, and
working closely with other Federal agencies and the State of Louisiana.
All construction activities under the plan will be subject to approval
of feasibility level of detail documents by the Secretary of the Army.
The increased funding level for fiscal year 2010 includes $20 million
for the LCA ecosystem restoration program and reflects an accelerated
schedule arising from section 7006(e)(3) of WRDA 2007. The fiscal year
2010 amount also includes $5 million for the science needed to support
the ongoing effort to restore the complex coastal wetland and barrier
island ecosystem of coastal Louisiana.
Storm Damage Reduction for the Louisiana Coast
The Investigations account includes $3 million for completion and
review of the ongoing Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration
(LACPR) study. The final LACPR Technical Report is scheduled to be
completed at the Corps District level in late fiscal year 2009. Funding
included in the fiscal year 2010 budget will be used to refine and
integrate LACPR findings and outputs regarding alternative trade-offs,
and coastal landscape contributions to risk management, with ongoing
Hurricane Storm Damage Reduction projects and Coastal Protection and
Restoration projects and to delineate comprehensive plans for higher
levels of storm surge risk reduction.
Everglades
In partnership with the South Florida Water Management District and
the National Park Service, the Corps is working to restore much of the
unique natural ecosystem value to the Everglades. The objective of the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program is to restore, protect and
preserve the south Florida ecosystem, including the Everglades, while
providing for other water related needs of the region. In order to move
the program forward, the budget for the Corps provides $214 million for
fiscal year 2010, an increase of $91 million above the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2009. Within this amount, the budget would
initiate or advance construction of the three authorized projects in
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan: Picayune Strand, Site
One Impoundment, and Indian River Lagoon--South.
INLAND WATERWAYS LEGISLATION
The budget proposes enactment of legislation to authorize a lock
usage fee, which would over time replace the diesel fuel tax now paid
by most commercial users of the inland and intracoastal waterways. This
proposed legislation will improve the way that the Nation raises the
revenue needed to cover the non-Federal share of the capital costs of
inland and intracoastal waterways projects. The balance in the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), which affects the Government's ability to
finance the non-Federal portion of Federal capital investment in these
waterways, has been declining since fiscal year 2002. The legislation
will raise more revenue from the users and will do so in a way that
improves economic efficiency compared to the existing fuel tax, by more
closely aligning the costs of those who use the Corps locks for
commerce with the capital costs that the Corps incurs on their behalf.
The administration stands ready to work with the Congress and
stakeholders with interest in these capital investments to help pass
and implement this proposal. The amount provided in the fiscal year
2010 budget for construction and rehabilitation of projects on the
inland waterway system, $85 million, has been constrained to ensure
that necessary funding will be available in the IWTF under current law,
in the event that the proposed legislation is not in place prior to the
beginning of fiscal year 2010.
OTHER INITIATIVES
Response to Climate Change at Corps Facilities
The Corps is working, along with other Federal agencies, to address
the implications of climate change, which has the potential to affect
the way in which the Corps manages its projects. The fiscal year 2010
budget includes $5 million in the O&M account to initiate a program to
develop and begin implementing practical, nationally consistent, and
cost-effective approaches and policies to reduce potential
vulnerabilities to water infrastructure resulting from climate change.
Nationwide Evaluation of Hydropower Rehabilitation
The budget includes $2 million in the O&M account to conduct a
nationwide assessment of the Corps hydropower program. This initiative
will help to develop a long-term programmatic investment strategy based
on a national approach to prioritizing hydropower replacement studies
and projects.
Low Commercial Use Navigation Pilot Project
The budget emphasizes the safe and reliable operation of key
infrastructure assets that are of central importance to the Nation,
including federally maintained channels and harbors that support high
volumes of commercial commerce. From a national perspective, projects
that no longer carry significant commercial traffic nor serve to meet
subsistence or safety needs have a lower priority. However, many of
these low commercial use projects remain important locally to the
people that they serve.
The fiscal year 2010 budget includes a $1.5 million pilot project
in the O&M account to develop and encourage alternate non-traditional
ways to fund maintenance of low commercial use harbors and waterways.
The pilot project would focus on the Atlantic Coast and Chesapeake Bay
in the North Atlantic and South Atlantic Divisions of the Corps. It
will identify the universe of Federal harbors and inland waterway
segments that support lower levels of commercial use and their
respective non-Federal sponsors. The project will also formulate a
range of possible long-term options for the funding and management of
such facilities, evaluate the pros and cons of these options, and
examine their applicability to the various types of low use navigation
projects. This initiative also envisions that more regional general
permits will be developed through the Corps' Regulatory Program to
streamline efforts by non-Federal entities to accomplish the
maintenance of these channels harbors.
PLANNING IMPROVEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING
The Army continues working through the Chief of Engineers to
strengthen and improve the planning expertise of the Corps, including
greater support for planning Centers of Expertise, better integration
of project purposes, and greater reliability of cost estimates and
schedules in both planning and programming processes. These efforts
have already begun and will ultimately improve all of our project
reports.
The fiscal year 2010 budget continues the Civil Works program's
commitment to a performance-based approach to budgeting. Competing
investment opportunities for studies, design, construction, and
operation and maintenance were evaluated using multiple metrics. The
Army used and will continue to use objective, performance criteria to
guide its recommendations on the allocation of funds.
The Army applied objective performance guidelines to its many
competing construction projects in order to establish priorities among
them and to guide the allocation of funds to high-performing ongoing
projects and high-performing new construction starts. These guidelines
focus construction funds on those investments within the three main
mission areas of the Corps that provide the best return from a national
perspective in achieving economic, environmental, and public safety
objectives. Similarly, the Army used objective performance criteria to
allocate O&M funds in the fiscal year 2010 budget. The O&M criteria
consider both the condition of the project and the potential
consequences for project performance if the O&M activity were not
undertaken in fiscal year 2010.
In fiscal year 2010 the Corps will focus efforts on developing new
strategies, along with other Federal agencies and non-Federal project
partners, to better manage, protect, and restore the Nation's water and
related land resources, including floodplains, flood-prone areas, and
related ecosystems. The Corps also will continue to pursue management
reforms that improve project cost and schedule performance to ensure
the greatest value from invested resources, while strengthening the
accountability and transparency of the way in which taxpayer dollars
are being spent.
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $4.6 billion
for the Civil Works program. That amount included $2 billion for the
Construction account; $2.075 billion for O&M account; $375 million for
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries; $25 million for
Investigations; $25 million for the Regulatory Program; and $100
million for the Formerly Used Sites Remedial Action Program. Economists
estimate the Corps' Recovery Act appropriation will create or maintain
approximately 57,400 direct construction industry jobs and an
additional 64,000 indirect and induced jobs in firms supplying or
supporting the construction and the businesses that sell goods and
services to these workers and their families.
The Corps will manage and expend these funds so as to achieve the
Recovery Act's stated purposes, including both commencing expenditures
as quickly as possible consistent with prudent management and investing
in infrastructure and ecosystem restoration that will provide long-term
benefits. The Civil Works allocations also are fully consistent with
the President's direction provided in the Executive Memorandum of March
20, 2009--Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds. In that
Memorandum, the President directed agencies to ensure that Recovery Act
funds are spent responsibly and transparently and that projects are
selected on merit-based principles.
Moreover, the Civil Works allocations are consistent with
additional project selection criteria provided in the Conference
Committee report accompanying the act that projects, programs or
activities that are accomplished with Recovery Act dollars will be
obligated and executed quickly; will result in high, immediate
employment; have little schedule risk; will be executed by contract or
direct hire of temporary labor; and will complete a project phase, a
project, an element, or will provide a useful service that does not
require additional funding. Also as stipulated in the Recovery Act, no
funds will be used for any PPA that, at the time of the obligation, has
not received appropriations provided for Energy and Water Development.
The Corps selected approximately 170 activities in the Construction
account, 520 in the Operation and Maintenance account, 45 in the
Mississippi and Tributaries account, 70 in the Investigations account,
and 9 in the FUSRAP account. These activities mostly involve the
funding of work under a single contract, though in some cases projects
or useful increments of projects will be completed.
The wide geographic distribution of projects spreads the employment
and other economic benefits across the United States. Funding also is
distributed across Civil Works programs to provide the Nation with
project benefits related to inland and coastal navigation, the
environment, flood risk management, hydropower, recreation, and more.
CONCLUSION
The administration has made rebuilding America's infrastructure a
priority. Through resources provided for the Army Civil Works program
in the President's budget for fiscal year 2010, the Corps can help
achieve this objective. We seek to apply 21st century technological
advances to present day challenges, while protecting and restoring
significant ecological resources.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the fiscal year 2010 budget for
the Army Civil Works program. I look forward to working with this
subcommittee and to your support of the President's Budget proposals.
Thank you.
ENCLOSURE 1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL WORKS BUDGET SUMMARY,
FISCAL YEAR 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested New Appropriations by Account:
Investigations................................... $100,000,000
Construction..................................... \1\ 1,718,000,000
Operation and Maintenance........................ \2\ 2,504,000,000
Regulatory Program............................... 190,000,000
Mississippi River and Tributaries................ 248,000,000
Expenses......................................... 184,000,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies............ 41,000,000
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.. 134,000,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary................ 6,000,000
------------------
TOTAL.......................................... 5,125,000,000
==================
Sources of New Appropriations:
General Fund..................................... (4,204,000,000)
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.................... (793,000,000)
Inland Waterways Trust Fund...................... (85,000,000)
Special Recreation User Fees..................... (43,000,000)
------------------
TOTAL.......................................... (5,125,000,000)
==================
Additional New Resources:
Rivers and Harbors Contributed Funds............. \3\ 369,000,000
Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund.......... \4\ 86,000,000
Permanent Appropriations......................... 9,000,000
------------------
TOTAL ADDITIONAL NEW RESORCES.................. 464,000,000
==================
TOTAL PROGRAM FUNDING.......................... 5,589,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $85,000,000 from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
\2\ Includes $793,000,000 from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
$43,000,000 in Special Recreation User Fees.
\3\ Cost Sharing contributions required by law for budgeted work
financed 100 percent by non-Federal interest.
\4\ Transferred from the Sport Fish Restoration Account of the Aquatic
Resources Trust Fund for planning, protection, and restoration of
coastal wetlands in the State of Louisiana.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Salt, thank you very much. We
appreciate your being here today.
General Robert L. Van Antwerp, the Chief of Engineers for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for being here,
General. You may proceed.
Let me just make the point that the written testimony that
you have submitted will be made a part of the permanent record
and you may summarize.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT VAN ANTWERP,
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
General Van Antwerp. Thank you very much, Chairman Dorgan.
It's great to see you again and thanks for the opportunity to
testify on the fiscal year 2010 President's budget.
I'd like to just set a couple of data points before I talk
about the budget. For the Corps of Engineers, by the end of
this year we'll have over $40 billion obligated under contract.
It's the largest in the history of the Corps and we're
celebrating our 234th birthday on June 16. So it is really a
historic time in the Corps.
In order to get this work done, we need to hire 3,300
people, and we are about halfway there. For the Recovery Act,
those will be temporary hires and contracts. For the regular
program, of which of that $40 billion, $10 billion of that will
be in the Civil Works area that will be under contract by the
end of this year. So this is a very, very exciting time.
A couple of other data points, the dams that are owned and
operated by the Corps number 650. There are 10 of those dams
that are in this budget for construction, for dam safety. We
have over 12,000 miles of inland waterways that we're
responsible for owning and operating. That really constitutes a
lot of what enables the shipping industries to get goods to
market.
We have 241 lock chambers at 195 different sites. Most of
those were built about 52 years ago. In fact, the average is
52.5 years old for those lock chambers. So a lot of that O&M
goes to getting at some of those facilities that greatly need
that effort.
We have 926 harbors that are maintained by the Corps of
Engineers. The amount of dredging material on a given year
averages over 200 million cubic yards. Of course, the disposal
of that and the beneficial use of that dredged material is of
great concern to us, and we want to use that in the most
beneficial manner.
We have over 11,000 miles of levees. Actually, that only
constitutes about 16 percent of the levees in this country.
Most of the Nation's levees are agricultural levees and others.
But 16 percent of them are built and controlled by the Corps.
We have 75 generating plants in hydropower. We generate
about 24 percent of the U.S. hydropower.
Then finally, just a data point, we had 370 million
visitors to our project sites last year. It's really a great
opportunity for recreation for the people of America.
This is a performance-based budget. It completes 10
projects, 4 in navigation, 6 are in flood and coastal storm
damage reduction. Just broken down by percentage of this
budget, 11 percent of the budget went for environmental things,
35 percent for navigation, and 32 percent for flood and coastal
storm damage reduction.
In the construction program, it funds 93 construction
projects, including the 10 dam safety that I mentioned, 9
projects that address significant risk to human safety, and 8
are project completions. There are five new starts in this
budget.
The O&M, as you've mentioned, is a 14 percent increase and
this is much needed because of the age of a lot of those
facilities.
I want to give just a quick update on New Orleans. We're on
track to make the 2011 hurricane season with the 100-year storm
protection.
Just a quick word on Iraq and Afghanistan, over the course
of the years we have deployed more than 10,000 people over
there. A couple of weeks ago we had our first civilian death.
So there has been mourning, but we are taking care of that
family and doing what's right there.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Finally on the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we anticipate
by the end of this year, September 30, 2009, we'll have 45
percent of that $4.6 billion obligated. It constitutes more
than a thousand contract actions altogether.
Sir, thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning
and I look forward to the questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
honored to be testifying before your subcommittee today, along with the
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Mr. Terrence
Salt, on the President's fiscal year 2010 budget for the United States
Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Program.
My statement covers the following 5 topics:
--Summary of Fiscal Year 2010 Program Budget
--Investigations Program
--Construction Program
--Operation and Maintenance Program
--Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2010 PROGRAM BUDGET
Introduction
The fiscal year 2010 Civil Works budget is a performance-based
budget, which makes the best use of available funds through a focus on
the projects and activities that provide the highest economic and
environmental returns on the Nation's investment or address significant
risk to human safety. The Civil Works budget consists of a
discretionary funding request of $5.125 billion and mandatory funding
of $464 million, for a total direct program of $5.589 billion. In
addition, Reimbursable Program funding, work that the Corps does for
other agencies and entities with those agencies' and entities' funds,
will be approximately $2.5 billion.
Direct Program
The budget reflects the administration's commitment to the sound
management of the Nation's water resources. The budget incorporates
objective performance-based metrics for the construction and the
operation and maintenance programs, and for proposed projects
undergoing preconstruction engineering and design. It provides a high
level of funding for maintenance, with a focus on those facilities that
are of central importance to the Nation. It provides funding for the
regulatory program to protect the Nation's waters and wetlands, and
supports restoration of aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, it emphasizes
the need to fund emergency preparedness and training 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 technical assistance in the areas of planning,
engineering and construction. Rather than develop an internal workforce
to oversee large design and construction projects, these entities
utilize the skills and talents that we bring to our own Civil Works and
Military Program missions. Our support is primarily through the
development of contracts with private sector firms to perform technical
assistance and management of engineering, environmental, and
construction projects. This portion of our work is totally reimbursed
by the agencies and entities that seek our assistance.
Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 70 Federal
agencies and several State and local governments. Total reimbursement
for such work in fiscal year 2010 is projected to be approximately $2.5
billion. The exact amount will depend on the extent of fiscal year 2010
assignments.
INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM
The budget for the investigations program would enable the Corps to
evaluate and design the future projects that are most likely to be
high-performing, within the Corps three main missions: Commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration. The budget includes $100 million for these and related
activities in the Investigations account and $2.084 million in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account.
This year the budget includes three new watershed studies, Ocmulgee
River Basin Watershead, Georgia; Green River Watershed, Kentucky; and
St. Louis Missouri River Watershed, Missouri; and a study addressing
Access to Water Data. The budget also includes $2 million for a high-
priority, interagency evaluation of the Nation's vulnerability to
damage from flooding, the Water Resources Priority study, as authorized
in section 2032 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA
2007).
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
The fiscal year 2010 budget includes $1.718 billion in
discretionary funding in the Construction account and $87.343 million
in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account to further this
objective.
The budget funds 93 construction projects, including 10 dam safety
assurance, seepage control, and static instability correction projects,
9 projects that address a significant risk to human safety, and 8
project completions. Also, the budget provides significant funding for
Corps aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts in South Florida including
the Everglades, and in the Columbia River Basin and the Missouri River
Basin, where this work supports the continued operation of Corps of
Engineers multi-purpose projects by meeting the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act.
This budget includes funding for five new, high performing,
construction projects. These include Washington, DC and vicinity flood
risk reduction project; the Deep Creek Bridge Replacement, Virginia
project on the Atlantic-Intercostal Waterway; the Norfolk Harbor,
Craney Island, Virginia project; the Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas
City, Kansas flood risk reduction project; and the Napa River Salt
Marsh, California environmental restoration project.
The budget uses objective performance measures to establish
priorities among projects, and through continued proposed changes in
the Corps contracting practices, that will also increase control over
future costs. The performance measures used include the benefit-to-cost
ratios for projects whose primary outputs are economic and are measured
by economic returns. The selection process also gives priority to dam
safety assurance, seepage control, static instability correction, and
to projects that address a significant risk to human safety. Under each
of these criterions, resources are allocated based on performance. This
approach significantly improves overall program performance.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
As soon as the Corps constructs a project, the infrastructure
begins to age. Generally, with periodic maintenance, we can operate our
facilities for many years. The budget supports our continued
stewardship of this infrastructure by focusing funding on key
infrastructure that is of central importance to the Nation.
The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program for the fiscal year
2010 budget includes $2.504 billion in the O&M account and an
additional $158.573 million under the Mississippi River and Tributaries
program. The Corps used objective performance criteria to allocate
operation and maintenance funds to facilities. These criteria
considered both the condition of the project and the potential
consequences for project performance if the O&M activity is not
undertaken in the 2010 budget. The focus is on the maintenance of key
commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, hydropower,
and other facilities. Specifically, the operation and maintenance
program supports completed works owned or operated by the Corps of
Engineers. Other work to be accomplished includes dredging, repair,
aquatic plant control, removal of sunken vessels, monitoring of
completed coastal 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
We are privileged to be a part of an organization that directly
supports the Nation's infrastructure. The way in which we manage our
water resources can improve the quality of our citizens' lives and the
environment in which we live.
For example, Corps personnel from across the Nation continue to re-
construct and improve the storm damage reduction system for New
Orleans. Their work will reduce the risk of damage from future storms
to people and communities.
Research and Development
The Research and Development Program for the Civil Works Program
provides innovative engineering products, some of which can have
applications in the private sector and in the military infrastructure
sphere as well. 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.
CONCLUSION
The Corps of Engineers is committed to staying at the leading edge
of service to the Nation. We're committed to change that ensures an
open, transparent, and performance-based Civil Works Program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. This
concludes my statement.
Senator Dorgan. General, thank you. We appreciate your
being here and your testimony.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENT OF DEANNA ARCHULETA, ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE
ACCOMPANIED BY REED R. MURRAY, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
COMPLETION ACT OFFICE
Senator Dorgan. Next we'll hear from Acting Assistant
Secretary Deanna Archuleta. Thank you very much. You may
proceed.
Ms. Archuleta. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Senators, subcommittee members. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you in support of the President's fiscal year
2010 budget request for Bureau of Reclamation and the Central
Utah Project Completion Act. With me today are Mike Connor,
Commissioner of Bureau of Reclamation, and additionally we have
Reed Murray, the Director of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act office, should you have any questions regarding
that program.
I have submitted written testimony which presents a
detailed summary of the Department's appropriation request.
Today I would like to highlight the Department's 2010
priorities and touch briefly on Reclamation and the Central
Utah Project request, before turning it over to Commissioner
Connor for a more detailed discussion on Reclamation's request.
The Department of the Interior's mission is complex and
multifaceted. Our program's missions stretch from the North
Pole to the South Pole, across 12 different time zones, from
the Caribbean to the Pacific Rim. Nearly every American lives
within 1 hour driving distance from either our lands, our
waters, all of which are managed by the Department of the
Interior. As Secretary Salazar has said, the Department of the
Interior is truly the Department of America.
Our fiscal year 2010 budget of $12.1 billion will position
us to provide enduring benefits to the American people by
maximizing our opportunities to realize the potential of our
lands, our waters, our resources, and our people. As you know,
the Department has released a detailed implementation plan for
$3 billion appropriated in the American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act, which provided $1 billion for programs funded by
this subcommittee. The Department, Reclamation, and the Central
Utah Project Completion Act programs are moving expeditiously
with our customers to invest those funds, which will quickly
provide jobs and stimulate the economy.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of
the Interior focuses on creating new energy frontiers, tackling
climate change impacts, including the emphasis on water
conservation, protecting America's treasures, and establishing
a 21st Century Youth and Conservation Corps. And our fiscal
year 2010 budget also assumes commitment to restoring the
integrity of our Government to Government relationships with
our Indian tribes and empowering our Native American
communities.
This is an overwhelming need to tackle climate change
impacts. The key aspects of climate impacts, particularly in
the West, are an increased variability of our water supplies.
Our fiscal year 2010 Reclamation budget is proposing water
conservation initiatives of $46 million, which will take
significant steps toward addressing western water issues
through three ongoing programs: an expansion of our water
conservation challenge grant program, Reclamation's basin study
program, and the title 16 water reclamation and reuse program.
Through these programs, Reclamation will provide competitive
grants for water marketing and conservation projects, basin
wide planning studies that will address impacts of climate
change and continued funding of water reuse and recycling
projects.
With regards to the programs under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee, the fiscal year 2010 request for Bureau of
Reclamation and the Central Utah Project Completion Act is $1.1
billion. I will defer to Commissioner Connor to discuss the
details of Reclamation's request, but note that their 2010
proposals support managing, developing, protecting water and
the related resources in an environmentally and economically
sound manner.
Reclamation continues to strive for the highest levels of
service to the American people and the highest levels of
management excellence.
The request for implementation for the Central Utah Project
Completion Act is $42 million. The fiscal year 2010 funding
provides funding for design, construction, and features of the
Utah lake system, continues to implement water management
improvement projects, as well as implementing fish, wildlife,
and recreation mitigation, as well as other conservation
projects.
Through the Department's fiscal year 2010, we have a
tremendous opportunity to improve the future of our children
and our grandchildren with wise investments in clean energy,
climate impacts, treasured landscapes, our youth, and the
empowerment of Native Americans.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
I appreciate the strong support this subcommittee has given
the Department, in particular to the Bureau of Reclamation and
to the Central Utah Project. I look forward to working with all
of you in advancing those goals of all of our programs and
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Deanna Archuleta
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bennett, and members of this subcommittee, I am
pleased to appear before this subcommittee today to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2010 budget for the Department of the Interior
and to update you on progress in implementing our fiscal year 2009
programs.
The Department of the Interior's mission is complex and
multifaceted. Our programs and mission stretch from the North Pole to
the South Pole and across 12 time zones, from the Caribbean to the
Pacific Rim. Our extensive mandate rivals any government agency in its
breadth and diversity--and its importance to the everyday lives of
Americans.
Interior manages 500 million acres or about 1 in every 5 acres in
the United States, including 391 national park units, 550 wildlife
refuges, the 27 million-acre National Landscape Conservation System,
and other public lands. These places are treasured landscapes and serve
as economic engines for tourism and growth opportunities for
recreation, wildlife conservation, and responsible resource use.
The Department's public lands and 1.7 billion acres on the Outer
Continental Shelf supply nearly one-third of the Nation's domestic
energy production. These resources are vital to the Nation's energy
security and provide economic returns to the Nation. In fiscal year
2010, an estimated $14.0 billion in revenues will be generated from
these lands and waters.
The Department fulfills its special responsibilities to Native
Americans managing one of the largest land trusts in the world
including over 56 million acres held in trust for Indian tribes and
individual Indians, over $3.4 billion of funds held in over 2,700
tribal trust accounts, and over 380,000 open individual Indian Money
accounts. The Bureau of Indian Education school system provides
services to approximately 42,000 students in 23 States attending 183
elementary and secondary schools and supports 30 tribally controlled
community colleges, universities, and post-secondary schools.
THE FIRST 100 DAYS
Recently, President Obama and Secretary Salazar marked their first
140 days in office. It has been an exciting time as Secretary Salazar
has begun to change how the Department of the Interior does business.
He has already implemented changes to improve accountability,
transparency, and ethical reform; established a vision for a new energy
frontier that will help to produce and transmit renewable energy from
our public lands; set an agenda for protecting America's open spaces
and treasured landscapes with stewardship based on sound science; began
strengthening the government-to-government relationship with Indian
tribes; announced a new 21st Century Youth Conservation Corps; and
implemented the President's economic recovery plan.
The Department has released detailed implementation plans for $3
billion appropriated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that
could significantly improve the safety and energy efficiency of our
facilities; the reliability of our water infrastructure; and habitat
for wildlife including endangered species.
Thanks to your support, the Recovery Act provided $1 billion for
the programs funded by this subcommittee.
The Department, Reclamation and the Central Utah Project Completion
Act program are moving expeditiously with our customers to invest funds
appropriated by the Recovery Act in projects which will quickly provide
jobs and stimulate the economy. As Secretary Salazar announced on April
15, $945.2 million is being devoted to Reclamation recovery projects in
six program investments areas:
--Meeting Future Water Supply Needs--$450.9 million
--Infrastructure Reliability and Safety--$164.5 million
--Environmental/Ecosystem Restoration--$236.3 million
--Green Buildings--$13.5 million
--Water Conservation Initiative (Challenge Grants)--$40.0 million
--Emergency Drought Relief--$40.0 million
As permitted by the Recovery Act, $50.0 million is being
transferred to the Department's Central Utah Project Completion Act for
work that includes continuing construction of both the Spanish Fork
Canyon Pipeline and the Spanish Fork--Provo Reservoir Canal Pipeline,
as well as the construction of the Big Springs Fish Hatchery for the
Ute Indian Tribe. Finally, as permitted by the statute, $4.8 million is
being set aside for management and oversight.
OVERVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET
The fiscal year 2010 Interior budget request for current
appropriations is $12.1 billion, $802.0 million or 7.1 percent above
the level enacted by Congress for fiscal year 2009. This comparison
excludes $3 billion enacted in the Recovery Act. Permanent funding that
becomes available as a result of existing legislation, without further
action by the Congress, will provide an additional $6.1 billion,
providing a total of $18.2 billion for Interior in fiscal year 2010.
The request for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, funded under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee, is $1.2 billion for net discretionary funding. This is a
decrease of $37.4 million below the level enacted for fiscal year 2009.
This comparison excludes $1 billion in enacted Recovery Act funding.
The fiscal year 2010 Reclamation discretionary budget request is $985.6
million in current appropriations and the request for the Central Utah
Project is $42.0 million, the same as fiscal year 2009 enacted. The
decreases in Reclamation are primarily in title XVI and rural water,
areas that received significant increases through the Recovery Act
($135 million for title XVI and $200 million for rural water projects)
and through earmarks in fiscal year 2009. These decreases are also
somewhat offset by fiscal year 2010 increases for the new Water
Conservation Initiative, the dam safety program, the Central Valley
Project, and increases in several other programs.
TACKLING CLIMATE IMPACTS
There is an overwhelming need to tackle climate change impacts.
With lands that range from the Arctic to the Everglades, Interior's
managers expect to observe the sometimes dramatic effects of a changing
climate, including thawing permafrost and melting glaciers, changes in
precipitation patterns, and sea level rise. In this dynamic context,
Interior managers need information, tools, and resources to measure,
understand, and respond to on-the-ground impacts. As the largest land
manager in the Nation, Interior is positioned to pioneer adaptive
management approaches to address the effects of climate change.
WATER CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
A key aspect of climate impacts, particularly in the West, is
increased variability of water supplies. The request includes funding
for a comprehensive water conservation program focused on expanding and
stretching limited water supplies in the West to reduce conflict,
facilitate solutions to complex water issues, and meet the growing
needs of expanding municipalities, the environment, and agriculture.
The Department of the Interior has an important role to play in
providing leadership and assistance to States, tribes, and local
communities to address these competing demands for water. In fiscal
year 2010, Reclamation is proposing a Water Conservation Initiative
(WCI), at $46 million, which will take a significant step toward
addressing western water issues through three ongoing programs. The WCI
includes: (1) an expanded Water Conservation Challenge Grant Program
(increased by $26 million over fiscal year 2009); (2) Reclamation's
Basin Study Program; and (3) the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse
Program. Through these programs, Reclamation will provide competitive
grants for water marketing and conservation projects, and basin-wide
planning studies that will provide projections of future water supply
and demand on a basin-wide scale and address the impacts of climate
change and drought.
The Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 2010 net discretionary
budget request of $1.0 billion is offset by $35.1 million in funds from
the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. This request supports
Reclamation's mission of managing, developing, and protecting water and
related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner
in the interest of the American people. The budget emphasizes reliable
water delivery and power generation by requesting more than $427.2
million to fund operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation activities
at Reclamation facilities.
To address important infrastructure funding needs, the budget
includes an increase of $13.6 million for the Bureau of Reclamation's
Safety of Dams program. This will allow the Bureau to address
corrective actions at Folsom Dam and other high priority projects.
Reclamation is currently developing programmatic criteria for a
Rural Water Program as required under the Reclamation Rural Water
Supply Act of 2006. Reclamation expects to begin appraisal level
studies in fiscal year 2009. The fiscal year 2010 budget includes $64.0
million for seven ongoing authorized rural water projects. Within this,
$48.7 million supports the administration's commitment to complete
seven ongoing authorized rural water projects including ongoing
municipal, rural and industrial systems for the Pick Sloan-Missouri
Basin Program--Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota; the Mni Wiconi
and Perkins County in South Dakota, Lewis and Clark in South Dakota,
Iowa, and Minnesota; Ft. Peck and North Central Mountain/Rocky Boys in
Montana; and Jicarilla in New Mexico. Funding for the required
operations and maintenance component of rural water projects is $15.3
million for fiscal year 2010. For the construction component,
Reclamation allocated funding based on objective criteria that gave
priority to projects nearest to completion and projects that serve
tribal needs.
The $54.2 million budget for Animas-La Plata provides for
directional drilling and pipeline construction on the Navajo Nation
Municipal Pipeline, the first fill of Lake Nighthorse and construction
of County Road 211 relocation will continue.
The Bureau will complete removal of the Savage Rapids Dam in fiscal
year 2010. The budget includes $23.7 million for the Middle Rio Grande
project to continue to focus on the protection and recovery of the
silvery minnow and southwestern willow flycatcher.
The fiscal year 2010 request includes $2.0 million for the Bureau
of Reclamation and $2.0 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to further assess the costs and benefits of removing PacifiCorp's four
dams on the Lower Klamath River. These studies will be conducted by
Reclamation and FWS in coordination with BLM, BIA, the U.S. Forest
Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Marine Fisheries Service. The results of the study will be
used by the Federal Government to determine if the potential benefits
outweigh the costs of dam removal. Consideration will be given to the
liabilities, environmental risks, and effects on downstream resources
resulting from dam removal.
The budget request for CALFED is $31.0 million, continuing
implementation of priority activities that will resolve water conflicts
in the Bay-Delta of California. Funds will be used for water storage,
the conveyance program, water recycling and conservation, the science
program, water quality assurance investigations, ecosystem restoration
projects, and the oversight function to ensure program balance and
integration.
PICK SLOAN LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL (BUREAU OF RECLAMATION)
The fiscal year 2010 budget request for Reclamation is accompanied
by a proposal that will affect receipt levels in fiscal year 2010 and
in future years. This proposal will be transmitted separately from the
budget for consideration by congressional authorizing committees. The
proposal is for a reallocation of the repayment of capital costs for
the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of the
Interior. I want to reiterate my appreciation for the long-standing
support of this subcommittee. Our fiscal year 2010 budget will--in its
entirety--make a dramatic difference for the American people. We have a
tremendous opportunity to improve the future for our children and
grandchildren with wise investments in clean energy, climate impacts,
treasured landscapes, our youth, and the empowerment of Native
Americans. This concludes my overview of the fiscal year 2010 budget
proposal for the Department of the Interior and my written statement. I
will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
______
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 2010 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 2010 request for the Central Utah Project Completion Account
provides $42.0 million for use by the District, the Mitigation
Commission, and the Department to implement titles II-IV of the act.
The project is currently scheduled to be completed by 2021.
The fiscal year 2010 request for the District includes $37.7
million to fund the designs, specifications, land acquisition, and
construction of the Utah Lake System ($30.8 million); to implement
water conservation measures ($5.9 million); and to implement
groundwater conjunctive use projects ($1.0 million).
The request includes $1.5 million for the Mitigation Commission.
Approximately $1.2 million will be used to implement the fish,
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation projects
authorized in title III. The Commission will use the remaining portion
($271,200) for completing mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992
Bureau of Reclamation planning documents.
Finally, the request includes $2.8 million for the Program Office
for operation and maintenance costs associated with instream flows;
$1.1 million for fish hatchery facilities; and $1.7 million for program
administration.
In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee and would be happy to respond to any questions.
Senator Dorgan. Madam Secretary, thank you very much for
being here.
Commissioner Connor, welcome. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER
ACCOMPANIED BY BOB WOLF, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM AND BUDGET
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bond, Senator Alexander, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today in support of
the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Bureau
of Reclamation. With me today is Bob Wolf, who is our Director
of Program and Budget.
Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say it's very much a
pleasure for me to be here at the witness table today. But as I
told Roger and Scott earlier, I'm soon to find out that it's
much more comfortable to do these hearings behind the dais, I
think, than where I am today.
The fiscal year 2010 discretionary budget request for
Reclamation is $986 million. I have submitted written
testimony. In the interest of time, as well as the fact that as
a former Senate staff member, I should know the value of
brevity, I'll quickly summarize three areas of the budget that
we want to focus on. I also want to talk a little bit about
Secretary Salazar's Water Conservation Initiative, which the
Assistant Secretary just mentioned.
The first area is maintaining our existing infrastructure.
Reclamation's budget reflects the need to maintain our existing
portfolio of projects. Reclamation has 476 dams, 348
reservoirs, 58 power plants, and many other water delivery
facilities. Much of that infrastructure is at least 50 years or
older and its proper operation and maintenance is our top
priority.
About $427 million of Reclamation's discretionary budget is
dedicated to making sure that our facilities are operated and
maintained in a safe and reliable fashion. This is a 21 percent
increase just over the last 2 years, but providing adequate
funding for these activities continues to be one of
Reclamation's highest priorities.
Part of that program is our dam safety program. In
Reclamation's infrastructure portfolio there are 371 dams and
dikes that could result in loss of life if they were to fail.
These structures form the core of Reclamation's Dam Safety
Program. A total of $102 million is requested for this program,
which is about a $14 million increase over the 2009 enacted
level.
The second area I want to focus on is new water
development. Reclamation continues to be actively involved in
programs to develop new water supplies and infrastructure.
Examples of these ongoing water development activities in the
fiscal year 2010 budget request include: the Animas-La Plata
project, for which there is $54 million allocated to continue
implementation of the Colorado Ute Settlement Act and Rural
water programs.
The budget includes $64 million in fiscal year 2010 funding
for water systems to deliver surface water to Indian and non-
Indian communities in the Great Plains Region. These projects
provide good quality water to rural areas where existing water
supplies are either nonexistent or of very poor quality. The
request includes funding for seven ongoing authorized rural
water projects and funding for the O&M requirements that
Reclamation has for the tribal water features is $15.3 million
and about $49 million supports the administration's commitment
to completing construction of the Mni Wiconi Project in South
Dakota, the Garrison Unit in North Dakota, Lewis and Clark in
South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota, Fort Peck in Montana, and
for the first time we have included a budget request for
Perkins County in South Dakota, Jicarilla Apache Project in New
Mexico, and the North Central Montana Rocky Boys Project in
Montana.
Overall, the request for rural water projects will continue
the substantial investment made in recent years, including the
$200 million in Recovery Act funding that Reclamation is
currently in the process of allocating.
The fiscal year 2010 budget also requests $2.3 million for
the establishment of the formal rural water supply program
required under title 1 of the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006
and we hope to get that program up and going by fall of this
year.
The third area is the environmental and ecosystem
restoration programs that Reclamation has. Reclamation works to
meet the increasing water demands of the West while protecting
the environment. Reclamation has an established role in
restoring aquatic habitat that is impacted by historic
development and is working on a large number of restoration
programs that are necessary to maintain compliance with the
Endangered Species Act.
Accordingly, the 2010 budget continues focus on these
challenges, including increases for several programs addressing
environmental issues. Some examples include a $15 million
request for the Red Bluff Pumping Plant, which is part of the
Central Valley Project in California. Additionally, you will
see an increase in the Lower Colorado River Operations Program
to fund the multi-species conservation program which is key to
ESA compliance in the lower Colorado River.
Finally, as I mentioned, I want to talk a little bit about
Secretary Salazar's water conservation initiative. It's one of
the most significant and exciting elements of our fiscal year
2010 budget. In fiscal year 2010, Reclamation will implement
the water conservation initiative to expand and stretch limited
water supplies in the West, to reduce conflict, facilitate
solutions to complex water issues, and meet the growing needs
of municipalities, the environment, and agriculture.
The fiscal year 2010 budget provides $46 million in funding
for the water conservation initiative. This includes a $26
million increase in challenge grants for fiscal year 2010 and
Reclamation will use these--will provide these grants on a cost
shared basis in the areas--to facilitate water transfers
between willing sellers and buyers, water efficiency and
conservation projects, and projects that improve water
management by increasing operational flexibility in our
systems, and finally, pilot and demonstration projects that
demonstrate the viability of treating and using brackish ground
water, sea water, or impaired waters within a specific locale.
Within the funding requested in 2010, Reclamation will be
able to fund at least 110 new water conservation projects.
These projects will be required to be completed within 2 years
from the date of funding and therefore will have a near-term
impact on water savings. The initiative also incorporates the
basin study program, in which Reclamation will work with State
and local partners to initiate comprehensive water supply and
demand studies in the West.
A final piece for the water conservation initiative is
funding for the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.
The funding requested in the 2010 budget is in addition to a
substantial amount of funding provided by Congress in the
Recovery Act.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, please allow me to express my sincere
appreciation for the continued support that this subcommittee
has provided Reclamation.
This completes my statement. I'll be happy to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael L. Connor
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bennett and members of the
subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you in support of
the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation. With me today is Bob Wolf, Director of Program and Budget.
I appreciate the time and consideration this subcommittee gives to
reviewing and understanding Reclamation's budget and its support for
the program. Reclamation works hard to prioritize and define our
program in a manner that serves the best interest of the public and
those who rely on Reclamation for their water and power.
Our fiscal year 2010 request continues support to activities that
deliver water and generate hydropower, consistent with applicable State
and Federal law, in an environmentally responsible and cost-effective
manner.
The proposed funding will allocate funds to projects and programs
based on objective and performance-based criteria to most efficiently
implement Reclamation's programs and its management responsibilities
for the water and power infrastructure in the West. The President's
budget request emphasizes the following principle: enhancing management
of our water infrastructure and programs in the West by eliminating
program redundancies, leveraging partnerships with our western
stakeholders and maximizing opportunities for competitive processes.
The fiscal year 2010 request for Reclamation totals $1.0 billion in
gross budget authority. This takes into consideration the effects of
the legislation that, beginning in fiscal year 2010, redirects an
estimated $5.6 million for Friant surcharges from the Central Valley
Project Restoration fund to the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. The
request also is partially offset by discretionary receipts in the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund of $35.1 million. The resulting
net discretionary request for Reclamation is $985.6 million.
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
The fiscal year 2010 request for Water and Related Resources is
$893.1 million. The request for Water and Related Resources includes a
total of $465.9 million for water and energy, land, and fish and
wildlife resource management activities (which provides for
construction and management of Reclamation lands, and actions to
address the impacts of Reclamation projects on fish and wildlife). The
request also includes $427.2 million for facility operations,
maintenance, and rehabilitation activities which is used to ensure
sound and safe ongoing operations. 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 2010 Request for Water and Related
Resources
I would like to share with the subcommittee several highlights of
the Reclamation budget, including one of the most significant and
exciting elements of our 2010 request, the Water Conservation
Initiative. In fiscal year 2010, Reclamation will implement the Water
Conservation Initiative focused on expanding and stretching limited
water supplies in the West to reduce conflict, facilitate solutions to
complex water issues, and to meet the growing needs of expanding
municipalities, the environment, and agriculture.
Water Conservation Initiative (WCI) ($46.0 million).--Of this
amount, $37.2 million appears as the Water Conservation Initiative line
item. The remaining $8.8 million is funded in specific title XVI water
reclamation and reuse projects.
The American West is now the fastest growing region of the country
and faces serious water challenges. Competition for finite water
supplies, including water for environmental needs, is increasing as the
need for water continues to grow. At the same time, extended droughts
are impacting water availability and climate change is likely to
compound the situation. With an increase of $26 million in fiscal year
2010, Reclamation will help address these concerns by providing cost-
shared grants, on a competitive basis, through the Water Conservation
Initiative. The Water Conservation Challenge Grants (previously Water
for America Challenge Grants) provide the following types of on-the-
ground projects: (1) Water marketing projects with willing sellers and
buyers, including water banks that transfer water to other uses to meet
critical needs for water supplies; (2) water efficiency and
conservation projects that allow users to decrease diversions and to
use or transfer the water saved; (3) projects that improve water
management by increasing operational flexibility (constructing aquifer
recharge facilities or making system optimization and management
improvements); and (4) pilot and demonstration projects that
demonstrate the technical and economic viability of treating and using
brackish groundwater, seawater, or impaired waters within a specific
locale. All grant proposals will be evaluated using criteria that give
priority to projects that save the most water, facilitate transfers to
new uses, address endangered species and other environmental issues,
improve energy efficiency, conserve Reclamation project water, and
exceed the minimum 50 percent non-Federal cost-share requirement.
With the funding requested in fiscal year 2010, Reclamation will be
able to fund at least 110 new water conservation projects. The WCI
competitive grant projects will be required to be completed within 2
years from the date of funding. As a result, projects funded under the
WCI will have a near-term impact on water savings. Reclamation believes
that water conservation, use of markets, and improved efficiency are
crucial elements of any plan to address western water issues. With the
WCI grants, Reclamation will take an important step towards increasing
conservation and efficiency on a West-wide basis.
The WCI also incorporates the Basin Study Program in which
Reclamation will work with State and local partners to initiate
comprehensive water supply and demand studies in the West. Each study
includes state of the art projections of future water supply and demand
on a basin-wide scale; analysis of how the basin's existing water and
power operations and infrastructure will perform in the face of
changing water realities; and recommendations on how to optimize
operations and infrastructure in the basin to supply adequate water in
the future.
The title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse Program also contributes
to water conservation in the Western United States, and is included in
the WCI. The request includes $9.0 million to make available cost-
shared funding for ongoing title XVI construction projects, research
activities, and feasibility studies ($8.8 million directly supports
named projects, $200,000 is used by the Commissioner's Office for
administrative support of the program). Title XVI projects develop and
supplement urban and irrigation water supplies through water reuse,
thereby improving efficiency, providing flexibility during water
shortages, and diversifying the water supply. There is also $3.0
million for water reclamation funded in the California Bay-Delta
program under the Water Use Efficiency activity.
Other significant programs and highlights include:
Animas-La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico ($54.2 million).--The
fiscal year 2010 President's budget request will continue
implementation of the Colorado Ute Settlement Act. This funding will
provide for directional drilling and pipeline construction of the
Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline, the first fill of Lake Nighthorse,
and construction of County Road 211 Relocation and other required
relocations. In addition to construction funding, this request includes
funding for operation and maintenance of improvements for wetland and
wildlife mitigation lands associated with the project.
Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and
Washington ($18.0 million).--This program implements actions under both
the 2000 Biological Opinion issued by FWS and section 7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act as required by the 2008 Biological Opinion
issued in May 2008 by the National Marine Fisheries Services. The
fiscal year 2010 President's budget request will enable Reclamation to
address the requirements in the 2008 Biological Opinion for actions to
enhance tributary spawning and rearing habitat to offset the effects of
the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) hydro system operations
on salmon and steelhead survival. It also will fund Reclamation's
involvement with non-Federal parties located in Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington to modify screens and remove instream diversion-related
barriers. As required by the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion, it will
fund Reclamation's participation in the implementation of real-time
operational measures, system flood control, and Columbia Basin Project
actions associated with ESA listed species.
Klamath Project in Oregon and California ($25.0 million).--The
fiscal year 2010 President's budget request will continue 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.
Klamath Dam Removal Study ($2.0 million).--The fiscal year 2010
President's budget request includes $2.0 million for the Bureau of
Reclamation and $2 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to
further assess the costs and benefits of removing four privately-owned
hydroelectric dams on the Lower Klamath River below the Federal
project. The request will fund the study costs associated with
preparing National Environmental Policy Act documentation. The FWS also
has $2.0 million in its request to support these studies. These studies
will be conducted by Reclamation and FWS in coordination with BLM and
BIA, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service. Reclamation also
allocated $4.0 million in ARRA funding for these studies.
Lower Colorado River Operations Program in California, Arizona and
Nevada ($21.4 million).--The fiscal year 2010 President's budget
request will provide funds for the work necessary to carry out the
Secretary's responsibilities as water master of the lower Colorado
River, including the development of the Shortage Guidelines and
reservoir management strategies during low reservoir conditions. The
fiscal year 2010 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 ($23.8 million).--The fiscal year
2010 President's budget 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.
Platte River Endangered Species Recovery Program ($12.7 million).--
The President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Platte River
Recovery Implementation Program is $12.7 million. The agreement for the
program was signed by then Secretary Kempthorne and the Governors of
Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming in late 2006. Platte River habitat is
essential to the recovery of the whooping crane, interior least tern,
piping plover, and pallid sturgeon (all threatened or endangered
species).
Public Law 110-229 authorized the Secretary of the Interior,
through Reclamation, and in partnership with the States of Wyoming,
Nebraska, and Colorado, other Federal agencies, and other non-Federal
entities to participate in the implementation of the Program for
endangered species in the Central and Lower Plate River Basin and to
modify Reclamation's Pathfinder Dam. No Federal appropriations are
required to modify the Pathfinder Dam. Program activities include the
acquisition of lands and water and contracting for habitat restoration
projects.
Research & Development ($12.9 million).--Reclamation's research and
development program has two focus areas for fiscal year 2010: (1)
Science and Technology (S&T) ($9.2 million) which includes funding for
the development of new solutions and technologies which respond to
Reclamation's operational needs with priorities in fiscal year 2010 for
issues related to climate change and quagga mussels; and (2) the
Desalination and Water Purification program ($3.7 million) which
conducts desalination research, development and demonstrations for the
purpose of converting unusable waters into useable water supplies. The
research is conducted through competitive, merit-based cooperative
agreements on a cost-shared basis.
Rural Water Projects--Ongoing ($64.0 million).--This request
includes funding for seven ongoing authorized rural water projects. The
first priority for funding rural water projects is the required
operations and maintenance component, which is $15.3 million for 2010.
The budget also includes $48.7 million to support the administration's
commitment to complete construction of ongoing rural water projects
including ongoing municipal, rural and industrial systems for Mni
Wiconi and Perkins County (SD), the rural water component of the
Garrison Diversion Unit (ND), Fort Peck (MT), Jicarilla Apache
Reservation (NM), Rocky Boys (MT), Perkins County and Lewis and Clark
(SD, IA, MN). For the construction component, Reclamation allocated
funding based on objective criteria that gave priority to projects
nearest to completion and projects that serve tribal needs.
Rural Water Program Development ($2.3 million).--On December 22,
2006, the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 was signed. The fiscal year
2010 President's budget requests $2.3 million for title I of the
statute that requires the Secretary to establish a formal rural water
supply program for rural water 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, and to establish clear
guidelines for project development to help meet the water supply needs.
Reclamation anticipates completing the final rule and beginning program
implementation in late 2009.
Savage Rapids in Oregon ($1.2 million).--The fiscal year 2010
President's budget request will provide funds for completing the
removal of the main portion of the Savage Rapids Dam to allow the
Grants Pass Irrigation District to comply with a Federal court consent
decree requiring the District to cease irrigation diversions. The
project is expected to be completed in 2010. Removal of this irrigation
diversion dam and the installation of pumping facilities allows the
local farming community to continue irrigated agriculture and remove a
migration barrier for the threatened Southern Oregon and Northern
California coho salmon.
Site Security ($28.9 million).--The President's 2010 budget request
for site security helps to ensure the safety and security of the
public, Reclamation's employees and key facilities. Funding will
support all aspects of Bureau-wide security efforts including physical
security upgrades at high risk critical assets, law enforcement, risk
and threat analysis, personnel security, information security, security
risk assessments and security-related studies, and guards and patrols.
Under the provisions of section 513 of the Consolidated Natural
Resources Act of 2008, Reclamation will collect $18.9 million in
security-related operation and maintenance costs in 2010. Approximately
60 percent of this amount is reimbursable through up-front revenues.
Approximately 40 percent of this amount is appropriated and then
reimbursed to projects through the normal operations and maintenance
cost allocation process.
Safety of Dams ($101.9 million).--The President's budget allows
Reclamation to ensure that 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. Of the budget request of
$101.9 million, $50 million is for the Folsom Dam (CA), which has been
identified as the Bureau's highest safety priority. Dam safety
modifications, within the limits of enacted funding and latest
information on risk, are planned to begin in 2010 for Glendo Dam (WY)
and AR Bowman Dam (OR).
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
The $61.2 million request in fiscal year 2010 funds the
development, evaluation, and implementation of Reclamation-wide policy,
rules, and regulations, including actions under the Government
Performance and Results Act. These funds are also used for management
and performance functions that are not chargeable to specific projects
and required for ongoing Commissioner's activities.
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 $35.4 million is expected to be offset by discretionary receipts
totaling $35.1 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 $30.0 million (October 1992
price levels) on a 3-year rolling average basis.
The CVPRF request is a net of $35.4 million. This excludes a
redirection of an estimated $5.6 million collected from the Central
Valley Project Friant Division water users to the new San Joaquin River
Restoration Fund beginning in fiscal year 2010 as authorized in Public
Law 111-11, Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. Previously,
these funds went into the CVPRF as outlined in the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustments Act of 1992, title XXXIV of Public Law
102-575, section 3406(c)(1). Under the Settlement Act, approximately
$15.9 million per year of payments from the Central Valley Project,
Friant Division water users are deposited in the Fund and available
without further appropriations to implement the provisions of the
settlement. 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
As referenced above, funding in fiscal year 2010 will be used to
continue planning, engineering, environmental compliance, fisheries
management, water operations, and public involvement activities related
to the Restoration and Water Management goals in the Settlement. No
funds are requested beyond the $15.9 million that is available in
mandatory spending.
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 2010,
$31.0 million is requested to enable Reclamation to advance its
commitments under the CALFED Record of Decision to resolve water
resource conflicts in the CALFED solution area. Funds will be used for
water storage studies, the conveyance program, water recycling and
conservation, the science program, water quality assurance
investigations, ecosystem restoration projects and oversight functions
to ensure program balance and integration.
FISCAL YEAR 2010 PLANNED ACTIVITIES
Reclamation's fiscal year 2010 priority goals are directly related
to fulfilling contractual requests to deliver water and power. These
include addressing a range of other water supply needs in the West,
playing a significant role in restoring and protecting freshwater
ecosystems consistent with applicable State and Federal law, and
enhancing management of our water infrastructure while mitigating for
any harmful environmental effects. Reclamation will deliver roughly 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 maintain dams and associated facilities in good
condition to ensure the reliable delivery of water. Reclamation will
maintain a forced outage average of 2.20 that is lower than the
industry average for similar units to ensure reliable delivery of
power. Reclamation will reduce salinity by setting a goal of preventing
an additional 12,700 tons of salt from entering the water ways.
Moreover, the fiscal year 2010 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 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 2010 and beyond.
In addition, Reclamation, with funds from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, will undertake a variety of projects to meet
future water supply needs, improve infrastructure reliability and
safety, and restore ecosystems.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, please allow me to express my sincere appreciation
for the continued support that this subcommittee has provided
Reclamation. This completes my statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions that you may have at this time.
BUDGET PROCESS
Senator Dorgan. Commissioner Connor, thank you very much.
Mr. Salt, let me ask you why it took 5 weeks from the time
that the President's budget was released to us getting details
of that budget? What was going on in the background there?
Mr. Salt. Sir, both the Recovery Act and the budget being
so close together, there were a number of efforts by the
administration to look at the policies that had existed, try
and come up with a review of those policies, apply them in some
appropriate way, first in the bill and then, based upon those
sets of decisions, then to go and make the appropriate
adjustments in the budget.
I think as we were doing all of that some of the projects
changed, some of the numbers changed. As we then went to adjust
our documentation, it took us certainly longer than we had
hoped, and I apologize for the delay.
Senator Dorgan. I'm trying to understand on both the
economic recovery plan and also this budget what role OMB
played in the delays, because it seems to me that we have had
very little time to review what you have submitted in detail.
We've been put in that position twice in the last 4 years.
You know, there are lots of questions about how we can get
information about the metrics that you used to evaluate what
funding you recommend. I said at the start, the President has
recommended a lot of earmark funding here. It was true with the
previous president. Presidents recommend their earmark funding.
How are those earmarks decided upon? Who makes the judgments
about here are the things we're going to earmark in our request
to the Congress?
Mr. Salt. Sir, as you pointed out in your opening comment,
it is the President's budget. So obviously at some level the
President is the one who submits the budget. I am here on his
behalf presenting this budget. So I take full responsibility
for the budget that is in front of you.
I would say as a new person learning how this works, we
receive broad guidance from OMB. We then apply that guidance as
we assemble our budget. As I said in my testimony, our focus is
on trying to ensure that we are recommending the highest
priority projects. We are given a budget envelope that we fit
within and it's trying then to recommend the highest priority
projects.
Senator Dorgan. Let me tell you why I'm asking the
question. My sense is you have some sort of evaluation down
there using certain metrics and models by which you decide
here's what we'd like to fund. Then I assume it goes, as it has
in the previous administration, down to the Office of
Management and Budget and they say, well, here's our
priorities, and they send it back to you. My understanding is
these things bounce back and forth. I'm trying to understand
how it works.
But let me ask you a couple of specific questions. For
example, the contract for the Ozark-Jeta Taylor Powerplant is
not funded for completion in this budget. It's a project that
you have had in your budget in prior years. I don't understand,
for example, why you wouldn't fund this to completion or if
you've changed your mind about the project.
Mr. Salt. As part of the criteria, we used benefit to cost
ratio. The sequence of priorities basically was that dam safety
projects were put at the top of the list, high priority
projects justified by their economic benefits were arrayed in
order of their benefit to cost ratio, and in this case the
Ozark-Jeta Project fell below the other priority projects that
we had recommended.
Senator Dorgan. Again, I don't have any particular
attachment to this project. It just seems to me like if it fit
some sort of criteria last year saying, it's a project we're
building, we're going to keep funding it, and now you say,
except this year we've decided that we don't want to keep
funding it. I don't understand what the metrics are by which
one makes that decision. We probably need to know more about
that.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
A question about the Everglades funding, as I calculate
what you're doing, the Everglades request is $214 million.
We've spent I think about $1.3 billion on various components of
Everglades restoration. I'm supportive of restoration projects
in the Everglades, but the $214 million, that's in addition to
the $123 million that was in the omnibus, and more than $100
million you've proposed in the Recovery Act. So that's about
$440 million in just a matter of months, intended to be
utilized no later than September 30, 2010.
I question whether that is going to be able to be done. In
addition, the Everglades takes about 13 percent of the Corps
construction budget, and then the next highest funded project
is the Herbert Hoover Dike, also in Florida, which takes up
about 8 percent of the construction funds. That means more than
one-fifth of all the construction money for the Corps is going
into these two Florida projects.
I'm not talking about the merits of the projects, but I am
saying that there are projects I assume in New York and
California and Missouri and Utah and elsewhere that would
probably say, how is it that one-fifth of the funding is going
to be destined in Corps construction to the State of Florida?
Mr. Salt. Sir, you've raised up a number of important
issues. As you know, the Everglades restoration is largely
funded on a 50-50 basis. Much of the work we're talking about
here are projects that we've been working on for a long time. I
think the Corps and our partners have been criticized for the
lack of achieving any actual restoration benefits. So the
administration is aware of those criticisms and is trying to
move out with projects that would allow for actual on-the-
ground restoration.
The recently authorized--the recent WRDA authorized a
number of projects and what you're seeing in this budget is the
startup of construction for these recently authorized projects
that would allow for the progress that people are expecting.
Senator Dorgan. And those are new starts?
Mr. Salt. Sir, they are receiving construction funding for
those elements for the first time, yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. General Van Antwerp, you've stated that 11
percent of the total budget, fiscal year 2010 budget, is for
environmental restoration. How much of the construction budget
is set aside for environmental restoration?
General Van Antwerp. I'm not certain of that figure. I'm
going to have to get back with you on that number, of the
actual construction projects. We don't have it broken down like
that.
Senator Dorgan. Would you break that down for us, please?
General Van Antwerp. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. I have a question of the Bureau, but I want
to commend the Corps and just say we've been through some
significant flood fights this year. When you go into a flood
fight you want the Corps on your side, and the men and women of
the Corps who came to community after community to be engaged
in those fights, we should not let the moment pass without
saying thank you to the Corps and to the organization that
helps make this happen.
General Van Antwerp. Thank you, Senator.
PROJECT EVALUATION
Senator Dorgan. In the Bureau of Reclamation, there are a
number of projects in the fiscal year 2009 Energy and Water Act
that were not included in the fiscal year 2010 budget request.
Again, kind of what I asked the Corps: What's the reason for
that? Have you changed your mind about projects that you
previously thought worthy and now perhaps think are less
worthy?
Mr. Connor. Mr. Chairman, I think that what we're doing
there is operating within the parameters of the overall budget
number that we were given. We look at the budget and we
allocate a set of priorities maintaining the existing
infrastructure. Then we look at dam safety and security. Then
we look at ongoing construction activities. Then finally we
have to deal with our ESA compliance items.
I recognize that within that ongoing construction activity
we do have actions that have been undertaken with write-in
funding on a lot of these rural water projects. But when we
look at the kind of requirements with respect to maintaining
that infrastructure, the safety and compliance activities so
that we can keep delivering water, then we're left with a
certain amount of money within that budget allocation that
we're provided. That's where we have to make some tough
choices.
Senator Dorgan. So that's where your advice to the
committee about how you made those choices would be helpful,
that you force-rank them. I use the term ``earmark.'' You
earmark your funding choices and force-rank them. We're
wondering because of that ranking, are some of the things that
you have previously funded now judged to be less worthy?
So we'll submit a list of questions to you, but it would be
helpful to us if you would submit at least a judgment about
those that you have previously funded and are not now funding,
to say, in addition to being short of money, we felt this
ranked below the following, when it did not perhaps the year
before or the year before that it did rank below another
project.
We're just trying to understand what you're doing and what
your assessment is of the various projects related one to
another.
I have taken more than my share of time. I'm going to be
submitting a list of questions to the Corps and the Bureau. We
appreciate your being here.
I'll call on the ranking member, Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. I'll yield.
Senator Dorgan. Then Senator Bond.
Senator Bennett. Senator Tester and I were up with the
Secretary. So you go ahead.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Bond.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Sorry I missed that fun.
General, you mentioned the tremendous O&M costs for our
operating locks, locks some 80 years old that were built for 50
years. Many of us believe that they should be replaced and
expanded for tremendous economic, energy, and environmental
benefits. But of course, OMB does not agree.
The chairman rightly pointed out, and he put his finger on
the problem with earmarks by the administration. My experience
in the few years I've been here is that the ultimate decisions
on administration earmarks are made somewhere in the bowels of
OMB by people we don't know, we don't see or even hear from
directly, and our constituents can't communicate with.
When one of us in Congress changes one of these priorities,
we stand up for the specific item. We appropriately take
responsibility and answer questions about them. I am one who
believes that that is a very fair and not sufficiently
exercised priority.
MISSOURI RIVER
So going to one of the earmarks, the Corps is currently
responsible under the Clean Water Act to ensure navigable
waters, such as the Missouri River, are not polluted. A side
note: I came from EPW, which is looking for a vast expansion in
the Corps's responsibility that will require a huge number of
people to regulate every puddle and pond that is not now
navigable.
But the administration budget includes $70 million for the
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Project. This is the
construction of side channels and shallow water habitats across
farm land adjacent to the Missouri River, for restoration
activities, primarily for the habitat of the pallid sturgeon.
Some are already constructed.
Now, here's the problem. According to the Corps's
estimates, construction of these projects will result in
dumping 540 million tons of farm land soil directly into the
Missouri River. Thus these projects will contribute more than
350,000 tons of phosphorus to the Missouri River. These
projects alone will supply 10 times what the EPA Task Force on
Hypoxia determined to be the annual load of phosphorus of the
entire Missouri River Basin.
Scientists believe that phosphorus is a major contributing
factor in hypoxia in the gulf. In Missouri, the Clean Water
Commission has vigorously opposed this effort. Missouri
citizens and farmers have implemented a $41 million soil and
water conservation tax upon themselves, and Missouri farmers
pay an additional $27 million of their money to cost-share to
keep this soil out of the river because of their concern of
negative environmental impacts.
Given that the estimated cleanup cost to remove the
phosphorus that the Corps is planning to put in the Missouri
River in Missouri cleaning up the shallow water habitat
projects will be $18 billion, how wise is dumping that soil in
the Missouri River?
General Van Antwerp. You have a lot of great facts, Senator
Bond. I think as we do our section 108 study of the Missouri,
we need to look further into those issues that you just raised
right there. As far as the wisdom of that, I've got to really
dig into the contents of that study. I understand what you're
saying.
Senator Bond. I'd like to be able to have a discussion with
the genius who made that decision. If somebody believes that
that is still a wise decision, it would be very nice, Mr.
Chairman, if we could chat with that individual here in a
hearing.
These side channel projects are supposed to develop a
habitat for the pallid sturgeon. I'd like to know how the
projects were evaluated and justified. Do we know that we're
getting the best value of our $70 million? I know the U.S.
Geological Survey has done additional tests on the pallid
sturgeon and believes there may be some other, more fruitful
ways of encouraging the reproduction of pallid sturgeon. We
are, through a Conservation Commission, engaging in a
significant breeding program for pallid sturgeon so our
favorite little fish will remain there.
I would like to know what you have found out about the best
way to stimulate the sex life of the pallid sturgeon. That
would be helpful.
FLOOD RELIEF AUTHORITY
Finally, we're very much concerned that a recent
announcement by the administration to get FEMA out of the
ability to help fight floods, remove debris, de-water, and
assist in emergency efforts. There are many small communities
in my State and I imagine in all States where our communities
could be left high and dry or, worse, low and wet in the
darkest hour.
Does the Corps have any authorization to step forward in
the gap left by FEMA's failure to deal with these natural
disasters?
General Van Antwerp. We do--we have a number of our own
authorities under Public Law 84-99, which allows us to come in
and flood fight and do coastal emergencies and those kinds of
things separate from the FEMA. When we work for FEMA, we work
under Emergency Support Function 3, which is for debris removal
and ice and water and the blue roofs. So those issues are under
FEMA when we respond to a disaster.
Senator Bond. But you can handle--not just coastal, but you
can handle the inland disasters that might strike the Dakotas,
Utah, and Montana?
General Van Antwerp. Right, much like the Midwest floods or
even the ice storms of Kentucky this year. We're able to
respond if it is a levee that's affected, we can come in under
our own authority.
Senator Bond. What tests if it's not a levee? What kind of
damage do you have to have for you to move in?
General Van Antwerp. If it's not a flood or a levee
situation----
Senator Bond. If it's a flood, you can take it?
General Van Antwerp. If it's a flood, we're allowed to
flood fight that with the local community. If a levee is judged
that it is entitled to 84-99 funds, we can come in and build
HESCO barriers, help increase the height of that levee, et
cetera.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, General. We appreciate
the good work you do. You're a vitally important partner and
we're grateful for it. We just have some serious concerns about
some of the things you've been directed to do.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Bond, thank you.
I should point out that if those in the audience observe a
different look here on the dais, it's Seersucker Thursday. Some
of us can only afford one suit, but our colleagues look pretty
spiffy today and we're glad to see them here.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Once I bought it for the first Seersucker
Thursday, I was determined I was going to keep wearing it year
after year because I'm not going to pay $150 for a suit and
only wear it once. So that's where we are.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES
Mr. Salt, your testimony says that the Corps is applying
objective performance guidelines to the competing projects. Can
you explain what the specific guidelines are?
Mr. Salt. Sir, there are different guidelines depending on
the business line that we're talking about. Our highest
priority is dam safety. The Corps does a risk analysis, taking
into consideration the condition of the dam and the probability
that there would be a serious risk to public safety, and based
on that criteria those projects that are deemed a serious risk
are moved to the top of our list.
For projects that are justified by the economic benefits,
it's the benefit to cost ratio that is used. So we take the
project portfolio that we have and we apply our benefit to cost
ratio criteria.
For our navigation projects, it's a combination of the
state of the navigation channel, the degree to which it's
silted in and the additional work, dredging or other repairs,
which need to be done. The Chief of Engineers, General Van
Antwerp, mentioned the navigation locks and the need to pay
attention to the important maintenance of our navigation locks.
That analysis is done based on a combination of the condition
of the particular project and the impact of not doing the
maintenance in that year. Again, a similar risk-based analysis
is used for those projects.
Senator Bennett. Do you apply those same standards to
environmental infrastructure projects, the risk, economics, and
navigation?
Mr. Salt. Sir, for the environmental restoration, those
efforts are prioritized basically by the administration as our
highest priority environmental restoration efforts, and there
are a number of large environmental restoration efforts. In
2007, Congress directed the Corps to review its principles and
guidelines, which really doesn't give the administration's
national policy for evaluating projects. It doesn't really give
any guidance as to how to deal with the environmental issue
that you're talking about.
We expect within a few months to have the draft proposed--a
revised draft of the principles and guidelines that we're
required to give to the National Academy of Sciences. It's in
that document that we're looking at how to quantify non-
monetary benefits in a way that would allow for a more
objective set of criteria for dealing with environmental
restoration projects.
Senator Bennett. Do you ever have a conflict where you say
if we do this environmental infrastructure it's in fact going
to increase the risk?
Mr. Salt. I'm not aware of any--when I talk about the
environmental, I'm talking about the environmental restoration
projects. The environmental infrastructure is basically the
sewage treatment and those sorts of projects, and I would say
those are not supported by the administration.
But for the environmental restoration projects, I'm not
aware of any--those that I'm aware of in Florida--I've been
working in Florida--we maintained existing authorizations and
in fact the projects were formulated so that there was no harm
done to flood or water supply interests. So I would say as a
matter of policy that would be my expectation as it relates to
environmental restoration projects.
Senator Bennett. Okay.
DROUGHT ASSISTANCE
Ms. Archuleta, the Bureau has budgeted $500,000 for drought
assistance in fiscal 2010. Do you think that's sufficient?
Ms. Archuleta. Well, Senator, certainly it's difficult to
know what our drought conditions are going to be. We work
collaboratively with NOAA. It's tough for us to predict what
the weather conditions are going to look like in the coming
year. We're hopeful and certainly we'll work as closely with
that budget as we can.
Senator Bennett. The Central Utah Project. I'm sure it
comes as no surprise that I have an interest in that. The
budget is flat compared to fiscal 2009. Obviously you think
that's sufficient to meet the progress. But what is your
funding, total funding capability for CUPCA in 2010?
Ms. Archuleta. Well, actually, if I may, I'd like to turn
it over to Mr. Murray, who's here, who knows the project, as
you know, very well.
Senator Bennett. Okay, good.
Mr. Murray. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett----
Senator Bennett. Would you identify yourself?
Mr. Murray. Yes, Reed Murray. I'm the Program Director of
the Central Utah Project.
First of all, I'd like to thank the subcommittee for your
support over the years of the Central Utah Project. As you
know, it's the largest water project ever undertaken by the
State. We do appreciate your support.
Your question was the capability of the project.
Senator Bennett. Right.
Mr. Murray. Well, first of all, we do support the
President's budget. As you mentioned, there is no increase over
the 2009 appropriation. However, the boost in appropriations
that we received through your support with the Recovery Act has
helped us and given a significant increase to our program and
allowed us to keep on schedule. So as far as our capability, we
feel that the budget is the capability that we can maintain in
2010, given that and the Recovery Act funds that we have.
Senator Bennett. Good. Thank you.
TERMINATING PROJECTS
I'm concerned about failure to complete existing projects.
I think the chairman visited this issue as well. As I see it,
this budget cancels 100 ongoing construction projects funded in
fiscal 2009, not addressed in 2010. Terminating ongoing
projects obviously long-term creates an enormous cost for the
taxpayer.
So Mr. Salt, can you quantify what you expect the Corps to
be able to pay in contract termination fees if we adopt this
request? Or will they simply be delayed and resumed at a
certain point hereafter, which could potentially be
significantly more expensive as construction costs go up?
Mr. Salt. Sir, I don't know the number of projects that we
have stopped. There's one project that, the Ozark Jeta Project
I believe the chairman mentioned earlier, is a----
Senator Bennett. I've noted that as well.
Mr. Salt [continuing]. Has a continuing contract. The
estimated termination costs if we're required to terminate are
estimated at $12 million. That project--at the time we put the
stimulus list together, our assumption was that that project
would be in the budget. So it wasn't included in our list. It
would have----
ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT
Senator Bennett. So you're saying it was not included in
the Recovery----
Mr. Salt. It was not in our initial stimulus list. When the
final guidance--when we finally determined what was our
criteria, on the benefit to cost----
Senator Bennett. Right.
Mr. Salt [continuing]. The benefit to cost ratio from that
project fell under the--we were not able to get to it with the
available funds that we had. Because it has a higher benefit to
cost ratio than other projects that we included on our stimulus
list, we are now looking at the possibility, if funds are
available based on our execution of the Recovery Act funds,
this would be a priority for us to include under Recovery Act
funding, and that's something we will seriously look at.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, that gets to the point I was
trying to ask you about earlier. I believe you were working on
the fiscal year 2010 request at the same time that we provided
funding for the Economic Recovery Act for you. As I said, there
was zero money requested, inexplicably, for water projects in
the economic recovery package.
We provided money, then you began working on how that money
would be spent, and that was concurrent with your work on the
fiscal year 2010 budget request. So when you say that you
expected it to be in the budget request, so you didn't put it
in the economic recovery package, you were doing both of them.
That's what I was trying to get at. Or did that list go
somewhere else for somebody else to make decisions? And if so,
whom?
Senator Bennett. I'm assuming from your question and the
chairman's explanation, from your answer to me and the
chairman's probing, I'm assuming that we can expect some
reprogramming requests from you to try to put some of this back
in.
Mr. Salt. Sir, that decision has been made. It is a
priority, and I think as we move forward--I guess, Mr.
Chairman, your comment gets to what I was trying to answer when
I apologized for the delay. I think there were two areas where
this came up. One was on the beach projects, where we were
trying as a matter of policy to decide whether to fund some of
them in the Recovery Act or not. We ended up doing not only
initial nourishment, but also re-nourishment, and doing that as
part of the budget, and not to include funding for those in the
stimulus.
Similarly, we were putting the stimulus together, we did
make what turned out to be a wrong assumption that we would
proceed with the continuing contracts in the budget. It turned
out that the performance-based guidance we received was that we
would fund down to a benefit to cost ratio for which the Ozark
Jeta Project didn't compete on a benefit to cost basis, and it
was not included in the President's budget.
So it was our decision. Basically, we said here is the
broad guidance we were given. As we applied that broad
guidance, the Ozark Jeta Project fell below the threshold.
Senator Bennett. You do incur an obligation to repay people
who have been involved. Do you have plans to reimburse the
Southwest Power Authority or their ratepayers for the $20
million that they've contributed?
Mr. Salt. Sir, that's why it's a priority that we consider
it for the available funds in the Recovery Act.
Senator Bennett. So it would be cheaper, wouldn't it,
rather than reimburse that $20 million, to simply go ahead and
finish it?
Mr. Salt. Yes, sir, I think it would.
Senator Bennett. Okay, then let's go ahead and finish it.
I understand, having experience with OMB that OMB sometimes
has a different view of life than agencies, and I won't press
you any further on that. But I do feel that failing to complete
existing projects ultimately ends up as a waste of taxpayers'
money.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. I think that there can be cases where an
existing project at some point becomes a project that someone
says, well, we'll reevaluate; it sounded good when we started
it, but this is no longer a project that makes much sense.
But the Senator from Utah makes an important point. If this
project should be continued--I'd much sooner appropriate
funding to finish a project that is worthy rather than pay
penalties to end the project. I mean, $12 million or $20
million is a lot of money.
Did anyone raise this during the deliberations of the
budget and the Recovery Act, or was it just not raised?
Mr. Salt. Sir, we raised it and my counterparts in OMB even
said I could blame them if I wanted. But I don't----
Senator Dorgan. Maybe you just did.
Mr. Salt. No, sir. No, sir. What I'm trying to say is I'm
here and I take ownership of this budget. I'm trying to explain
the rationale for it.
BUDGET PRIORITIES
Senator Dorgan. I understand the difficulty. We're not
trying to ruin your breakfast here. As I said at the start, you
come representing a budget. You're required to pay fealty to
that budget. I understand that. And we're just trying to
understand what the criteria is by which decisions are made and
who makes them.
It was very frustrating for us as we watched particularly
the economic recovery funds and the list, because you didn't
have a list. You didn't ask for any funding. We provided
funding. And then there was a list. I had to call the head of
OMB and I called the White House to find out when would
somebody start making decisions about funding some of these
projects, because the purpose of them was to start some sort of
economic recovery. It took some while to get something off
center to get it moving.
So again, I don't--I understand the point you're making,
Mr. Salt. Yes?
Mr. Salt. Sir, could I make one comment, that as a new
person I too am sharing some of your frustration as to how
we're doing this. We have talked to OMB. We have talked to
folks that as part of our fiscal year 2011 budget to try and
work with the Congress to come up with a better way.
The big issues are what you alluded to, sir, how do you
ensure that we're funding the highest priority needs, because
we have a backlog that we can't get to of very high priority
projects because we're funding the portfolio that we have. So
we're very interested in trying to come up with a better way of
working through this in a way that's more mutually
satisfactory.
Senator Dorgan. And we want to work with you. We want you
to succeed. We want the best decisions possible to come out of
all of this. This is not a subcommittee where there are
political battles going on. We're all very interested in water
and energy issues and we want the best decisions to be made. We
want to work with you, and we appreciate your being here.
A new member of this subcommittee, and we're pleased to
have him, Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MISSOURI RIVER RECOVERY PLAN
We'll start with the General. But, Mr. Salt, if you want to
throw in on this one you can. The Army Corps requested $70
million for the Missouri River recovery plan. Senator Bond
spoke of it a bit ago. Part of this money is to be used for
completing an environmental analysis and engineering on an
intake dam near Glendive, Montana. The replacement of that dam
will open up about 240 miles to pallid sturgeon on the
Yellowstone River.
I guess the question is, does the $70 million request for
that line item allow for the intake dam project to proceed in a
timely manner?
Mr. Salt. Senator, it does allow for it to proceed in a
timely manner. There were also funds in the Recovery Act for
that, so the combination of these allows us to proceed in a
timely manner.
Senator Tester. Thank you. What's the timeframe on that, on
the removal and replacement of that dam?
Mr. Salt. That I'm going to have to get the detailed
schedule. I don't have it with me right now.
Senator Tester. If you could do that and get it back to my
office, I would certainly appreciate that. Thank you very much.
FORT PECK RESERVOIR
Talk a little bit about--we'll talk a little bit about
some--and this is also for you, General--about some lots on
Fort Peck Reservoir. The WRD Act of 2000 authorized conveyance
of about 400 cabin sites in four areas around Fort Peck to
current leaseholders. I guess the question is that in the last
2 years the Corps has received about $1.8 million to complete
the surveys and environmental work to complete the sale. The
authorization expires next year. Does the Corps have adequate
resources to complete the lot sales before the authorization
expires?
General Van Antwerp. In this case we don't have the entire
funds to complete this. There is an additional amount of funds
that is needed to finish this project.
Senator Tester. Okay. So the Omaha District reported to our
office that about $1.9 million could be used in fiscal year
2010 to complete the sales. I'm confused why they told my
office that, but yet did not put in a request to that effect.
General Van Antwerp. At this point I need to read about
capability and what the district did was give you the
capability. That of course is the amount of funding that could
be used above the amount requested. In this case, there's no
money requested in the President's budget for this project.
Also, I have to remind that we would utilize additional
funds on projects or studies, but there would have to be
offsets. So it's all part of, as the budget was assembled this
project didn't get the funds, but there is a capability to do
work on this project if funds were appropriated.
Senator Tester. Okay. The authorization expires next year.
It's been going on since 2000, a 10-year project. I think that
there is a will on both sides to do this. What I heard you just
say is that you weren't going to do it because you didn't have
capability of doing it?
General Van Antwerp. No, we have capability of doing the
work. As we looked at the budget in its entirety and it was put
together, there weren't sufficient funds to allocate money
toward this project.
Senator Tester. Okay, so it didn't come up high enough on
the priority list to ask for money for this project, is what
you're saying?
General Van Antwerp. That's correct.
Senator Tester. Okay. So are you going to ask for an
extension of that authorization? Are you just going to let it
run out?
You can get back to me on that, if you would. It would be
good to get it done. Let's just put it that way.
MISSOURI RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
I hate to pick on you, General. I've got another one. The
Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee was created as
an all-inclusive--well, an inclusive; shouldn't say ``all''--
planning body for the stakeholders throughout the basin of the
Missouri River. The legislation creating this project, the
MRRIC Project, prohibited the stakeholders from getting help
for traveling to these meetings. I've got a couple questions.
How is stakeholder involvement? If you can't address it,
you can get back to me on that, too. But how is stakeholder
involvement as far as this subcommittee goes? That would be the
first question.
General Van Antwerp. First of all, it's crucial that we
have stakeholder involvement.
Senator Tester. Are they involved?
General Van Antwerp. They are involved. That's absolutely
crucial and it is part of the process. As we do all the
activities--this is in kind of the preplanning stage, which is
really when those stakeholders need to be involved.
Senator Tester. I agree with you that it is absolutely
critical that you get broad-based participation in the
subcommittee. I can tell you the stakeholder travel is not
permitted under the project and I have got--I have received a
fair number of calls saying, particularly from Native American
tribes who are part of that basin, saying that it's really not
inhibiting their--its inhibiting their ability to come.
I just want to get your thoughts on that. I mean, if we're
getting broad-based attendance now, that truly is broad-based,
that's a good thing. Going into the future, if it starts to cut
back I think it would be great to know about that, so we can
address it.
General Van Antwerp. I think your concerns, Senator, are
good. What we try and do in this case--we do not pay those
funds for them to travel to be part of that stakeholder group.
But we do try and locate our meetings where----
Senator Tester. Centralized.
General Van Antwerp [continuing]. They don't have to
travel. So we will take--I'll take a close look at this and
make sure we're not disadvantaging or not getting their input
because we're not in their location.
Senator Tester. I appreciate that.
SAINT MARY'S CANAL PROJECT
Mike Connor, it's good to see you, good to see you on that
side of the table, hope the position's working out well. I
think you're doing good work.
The President's budget included funding to conduct NEPA on
the diversion dam at Saint Mary's Canal. We appreciate the
recognition from the administration more than you will know
that this facility is in bad need of repair--a critical first
step.
However, while replacing the diversion dam is needed,
especially as it applies to endangered species protection, it
does not address the risk of catastrophic failure of the
overall parts of the system, which are--not if, but when
they're going to fail. We cannot fix it, the project, as you
probably know, Mike, until the alternatives are completed
around it.
Does the administration support NEPA on the entirety of the
Saint Mary's Canal Project, and if they haven't been--if you
don't know that question, I guess my question is would you
advocate for that?
Mr. Connor. Well, thank you for your welcome, Senator
Tester.
I don't know the complete answer to your question, but I do
know we do have in the fiscal year 2010 budget a request to
initiate the NEPA and the ESA consultation that we do need to
complete.
Senator Tester. And we thank you for that.
Mr. Connor. So we will move forward very quickly in that
manner. We are also having ongoing discussions with the Corps
and our regional folks and a very good dialogue going right
now, given the authority that the Corps also has, as to how to
best move forward and maybe we can do it in a cooperative
effort in doing our analysis and trying to develop a game plan
under which we can maybe segment or look at different ways to
get into the rehabilitation as we move forward with the NEPA
and the ESA process.
Senator Tester. Commissioner, the door is always open. We
would love to be a part of those conversations. This is a
critically important project for the northern tier of Montana,
not only towns, but irrigators, and it's one of those things
that should have been replaced 30, 40 years ago. But we are
where we are.
RURAL WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Another question that deals with the rural water projects
that received a good sum of money for the recovery package, and
we appreciate your work there, too. Projects in my neck of the
woods, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, these are long-term
commitment projects, as you well know. Should we interpret the
support in the Recovery Act as a renewed commitment from this
administration to support rural water infrastructure? Is it
high on their list?
Mr. Connor. Well, the funding provided for those two rural
water projects in Montana, I think represents the fact that
there's a recognition of the need that exists there, and
certainly trying to implement the Recovery Act in a way that
met the goals of job creation and meeting other priorities as
set forth in the legislation. So those two projects did receive
substantial money.
There is also a request, I think even maybe for the first
time, on a couple of those projects for the fiscal year 2010
budget. Recognizing that those requests are significantly lower
than the funding provided by Congress, I think it's a
recognition that we do want to continue toward moving forward
with progress. Particularly in Fort Peck, I think we're getting
substantially down the way to completion of the project.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Connor. Rocky Boys is still really in its infancy, but
there is some level of funding in the 2010 budget to keep the
activity going there.
Senator Tester. Well, I certainly appreciate it. Just as a
sidebar comment, from my days in the State legislature, from my
first day in the State legislature as a matter of fact, these
projects were on the list and they've more than doubled in the
last 10 years because of inflation. I appreciate the
administration's stepping up and putting some significant
moneys in because it finally gets us ahead of inflation, and I
think that we've got to get these projects done or literally a
good portion of eastern Montana will have a hard time
surviving. Let's just put it that way.
Anyway, I thank you all for being at the hearing and I
appreciate your comments.
Thank you very much.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Tester, thank you very much.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK
I have just two. Thanks to each of you for being here. I
have just two questions, General, and both of them are of you,
if I may. I'm concerned the Corps is not properly prioritizing
Chickamauga Lock near Chattanooga as it considers when to
complete the construction of the new lock. You've done a lot of
very important work on it and we appreciate that. But usually
the Corps determines how important it is to repair or rebuild a
lock based upon the value of the cargo passing through the
lock. My concern is that in cases like the one we have at
Chickamauga the Corps of Engineers isn't able to fully measure
the value of the lock because the lock plays an important
supporting role to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Y-
12 National Security Complex, and the cargo that goes through
the lock to the Oak Ridge Laboratory, which is the largest
energy laboratory in the world, and the Y-12 National Security
Complex, which has to do with nuclear weapons, is different and
difficult to--is different in terms of evaluating it.
Is there some way that you can consider the role
Chickamauga Lock plays in supporting Oak Ridge and Y-12 as you
assess the value of the lock and prioritize it with respect to
your other lock repair and construction projects?
General Van Antwerp. Senator, you make some great points.
We'll take that under consideration. Right now the
prioritization goes if it's life safety, then economic is
slightly below that, but very, very important. So we need to
look at these other considerations, and I will go and make sure
that this is plugged in as we look at the value of these; when
we rate our locks and dams, basically the dams, we have
categorized all them as to the risk of danger for life safety
and other factors.
Senator Alexander. Nationally----
Mr. Salt. Senator, could I comment on that, sir?
Senator Alexander. Yes, of course.
Mr. Salt. As we talked earlier, the current guidance for
the Corps, national guidance, called the principles and
guidelines, directs the Corps to focus on the aspects of a
project that optimize the economic development, the NED plan.
Senator Alexander. Right.
Mr. Salt. The new P and G will attempt to look at other
non-monetary factors as a way to try and expand the way we look
at projects to include these other kinds of considerations. As
I mentioned earlier, we expect to have our new draft of this
out later this summer. But I would hope that it would give us
the analytical basis and the national policy basis to try and
get at the kinds of issues that you're raising.
Senator Alexander. Well, the National Academy of Sciences
in its report--well, in a variety of ways, but in its work with
the Augustine Commission, which we called America Competes, one
of the most important pieces of legislation we passed in
Congress, said that America's brain power advantage since World
War II is the single greatest contributing factor to our high
standard of living. That's economic development.
And the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the single largest
energy research laboratory in America, perhaps the world. So
our great laboratories are our principal engines of economic
development, not just in Tennessee, but in our country. And
that's been recognized by the National Academies of Science and
Engineering and Medicine. It's been affirmed by the Congress in
our America Competes Act, where we prioritized those efforts.
So national security is of course another part of it, but
if we're going strictly on economic development--I remember
when I was Governor of Tennessee I tried many different ways to
help our State improve our low family incomes. I tried getting
rid of the usury limit and I tried building highways. I tried
everything, but it all came back to education. I eventually got
into funding centers of excellence and master's teachers and
chairs of teachers and creating distinguished scientist
programs between the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the
University of Tennessee as the single best way to create higher
family incomes, economic development. In fact, we became the
State with the fastest growing family incomes in the country.
So I'd make a strong argument that the Oak Ridge Laboratory
and similar institutions around the country fit the economic
development title or even should lead it. Economic development
today is different than it was 50 years ago, most people who
work in it understand that better schools, colleges,
universities, national laboratories are essential to it.
Anything else on Chickamauga I should know or ask about?
General Van Antwerp. I will just tell you it's very high on
our priority and we're watching it closely and having periodic
reviews of it. It's moving along.
Senator Alexander. Well, we've talked about it before and
it has great importance to our entire region in terms of jobs.
CENTER HILL AND WOLF CREEK DAMS
The other question I have has to do with Center Hill and
Wolf Creek Dams. I greatly appreciate the priority that you've
placed on those two dams. The President's budget request shows
support for funding levels that will continue to keep the
projects on track with minimal disruption to residents. There's
a safety problem in Kentucky and in Tennessee outside
Nashville.
Now, here is my goal and my question. I'd like to get the
lake levels back up to pre-construction levels as rapidly as we
possibly can, because while the lake levels are low we're
having to buy $100 million worth of electricity every year from
outside sources that would otherwise be produced by
hydroelectric.
Now, this administration is placing a very high value on
carbon-free electricity from renewable energy and the simplest,
cleanest form of renewable energy is hydroelectric power. So my
question is, is there a way that you can continue to do your
work there, finish the work that you're doing about seepage,
and bring the lake levels back up to their pre-construction
levels so we can use that carbon-free electricity that we can
produce?
General Van Antwerp. Your point is very well made. I assure
you we're going to bring those lake levels up as soon as we can
and still have the proper safety measures. So now that we've
got the grouting walls in Wolf Creek, for example, that allows
some raising of that elevation. But it may be farther down the
road before we can get back to pre-construction levels.
Safety is the primary concern here. But I assure you we're
trying, and we're reviewing this. What is the next level? We've
got all of our experts on it to see, now that you have the
grouting walls done, what does that allow you to do. We'll do
some raising of it. As we've had inflows in and raised it up,
we're watching the boils down below the dam that have lessened,
by the way, because of the grout curtain.
But we'll get it up there as soon as we can.
Senator Alexander. I appreciate that and I have no
complaint to make about anything about your work there. I just
thought maybe I'd give you some extra ammunition, given the
administration's focus on carbon-free electricity. This is a
significant amount in an area--otherwise we use more coal or
other things.
Mr. Chairman, those are the only questions I have. I thank
you for the time.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Alexander, thank you very much.
RED RIVER VALLEY FLOODING
Two other points, Commissioner Connor and Secretary
Archuleta, I'm going to send you a note. I would ask that you
respond if you would about additional information that you may
be sending to OMB about the record of decision that's awaiting
us on the Red River Valley Water Project. The previous
secretary did not issue a record of decision. I understand
there is discussion between your agency and OMB and my
expectation is that you'll be sending them additional
information. If you would give me a report on that, that record
of decision has been waiting for some while.
General Van Antwerp, I did not mention the Red River Valley
flooding situation and the work that we have done. You've been
in a number of meetings on the Devil's Lake flooding, chronic
flooding problem. I'll be holding meetings on Saturday morning
in Valley City, North Dakota, and Jamestown, North Dakota,
about the James River and the Cheyenne River, both of which had
very serious flooding this year. So we're working on a lot of
issues with you in our State.
I think all of us on this subcommittee find ourselves in
that position. That's one of the reasons we aspire to be on
this subcommittee, to address some very significant water
policy issues.
So we will continue to have those discussions. I didn't
mention them earlier, but I wanted to make note for the record,
just because we have had a lot of discussions recently about
them, that they remain a significant priority.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I want to thank you for appearing. We will be submitting a
list of questions to you and ask that you respond to them, and
we appreciate very much your being here today.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Terrence C. Salt
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Question. Who is the responsible official for approving what goes
into the Corps' budget?
Answer. While the Army made recommendations, this is ultimately the
President's fiscal year 2010 budget.
Question. Were you also the responsible person that made the
decisions as to what projects were included in the Recovery Act?
Answer. Yes, I was ultimately responsible for those decisions.
Within the Corps headquarters, a senior management group is responsible
overseeing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
activities.
Question. Could you tell us a little about the decisionmaking
process that went into the Recovery Act?
Answer. USACE received $4.6 billion of ARRA funds in 6 different
appropriation accounts. The projects selected represent a set of
investments that will contribute to economic development. The Civil
Works projects will further these Recovery Act stated purposes of
preserving and creating jobs and promoting recovery as well as to
invest in transportation, environmental protection and other
infrastructure that will provide long term economic benefits .
The Corps followed the Recovery Act's guidance which included
commencing expenditures and activities as quickly as possible
consistent with prudent management. The Corps made its allocation of
Recovery Act construction funds based on the economic and environmental
return of its ongoing projects. The projects will achieve the purposes
of the Recovery Act to commence expenditures quickly by investing in
infrastructure that will provide long term economic and environmental
benefits to the Nation. Moreover, the projects are fully consistent
with the President's direction to ensure that Recovery Act funds are
spent responsibly and transparently.
The projects also meet the five criteria enumerated in the
Congressional report accompanying the Recovery Act, namely that the
projects:
--Be obligated/executed quickly;
--Result in immediate employment;
--Have little schedule risk;
--Be executed by contract or direct hire of temporary labor; and
--Complete a project phase, a project, an element, or will provide a
useful service that does not require additional funding.
Question. I find it interesting that beach renourishment projects
were deemed not eligible for funding in the Recovery Act and yet when
the budget was released less than 3 weeks later, beach renourishment
projects were included in your fiscal year 2010 budget. You had to be
working on both of these at the same time. How is it that this decision
was made?
Answer. The administration has reviewed the policy for beach
nourishment and re-nourishment in the context of Flood and Storm Damage
Reduction. After reviewing the policy, the decision was made to have
beach nourishment and re-nourishment projects compete for funding with
other Corps construction projects. The decision was made to support the
highest performing beach nourishment and re-nourishment projects and
the first opportunity to do so was in the fiscal year 2010 budget.
Question. It took 5 weeks from the time the President's budget was
released on May 7 for the COE to provide detailed budget
justifications. You knew in March what your funding allotment was going
to be. Reclamation on the other hand did not find out their allotment
until much later, yet managed to get their justifications released with
the budget. What was the problem?
Answer. I regret that the materials were not provided in a timely
manner. We will work diligently to provide budget materials in a timely
manner in the future.
Question. Are you aware of any other agency in the executive branch
that took this long to get their budget justifications submitted?
Answer. No.
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR POWER PLANT, AR
Question. I am surprised that the contract for the Ozark-Jeta
Taylor power plant is not funded for completion in the fiscal year 2010
budget. This is a project that you have budgeted for in prior years.
Can you explain why you are not choosing to fund the completion of this
contract in fiscal year 2010?
Answer. The Ozark-Jeta Rehabilitation Contract was not funded this
year because the decision point for allocation of funding to high-value
projects was made on a performance basis within available resources.
The Ozark-Jeta Rehabilitation project has a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of
1.8, which fell below the 2.5 BCR funding threshold.
Question. What is the cost to complete this contract?
Answer. The costs to complete this contract is $33 million.
Question. What is the cost to terminate this contract?
Answer. The costs for the termination is estimated to be $20
million.
Question. Why couldn't Recovery Act funds have been used to
complete this project?
Answer. At the time decisions on Recovery Act project selections
were made, the Army did not know the full extent of the fiscal year
2010 budget policies or the impacts on specific projects of such
decisions. Therefore the Army did not know how Ozark-Jeta would be
specifically treated in the budget.
Question. Was the criteria for inclusion in the Recovery Act
different than the criteria utilized in the fiscal year 2010 budget?
Answer. Yes, there were many projects funded through the Recovery
Act that would not be included in the fiscal year 2010 budget.
EARMARKS
Question. Do you or Ms. Archuleta have any idea how President
Bush's Executive order on earmarks will be enforced by President Obama?
Answer. No, I do not.
Question. For fiscal year 2009, Congress referenced all of the
Corps and Bureau text and tables into the law. Is this causing you any
execution issues?
Answer. No.
Question. Is this contributing to an increase in carry over from
one fiscal year to the next?
Answer. No.
NORFOLK HARBOR, CRANEY ISLAND, VA
Question. I notice that you have recommended funding for the
Norfolk Harbor, Craney Island project as a new start construction
project for fiscal year 2010. As authorized in WRDA 2007, this project
is to be 50/50 cost shared between the Federal Government and the local
sponsor. However, it is my understanding that the Chief of Engineers
recommendation for the project was that it be cost shared at 4 percent
Federal costs and 96 percent non-Federal costs.
Explain to us how a project that was authorized in violation of
your own policies was funded as a new start in your budget?
Answer. The decision on which projects to start is based on their
benefit-cost ratios. This project has a benefit-cost ration of 3.6 to 1
and was within the range of high-value projects selected for new
starts. The project was first authorized in WRDA 98 at the 4/96 Federal
non-Federal cost sharing based on the Chief's report of 1997. The
budget is based on the project being executed at that cost sharing,
rather than at the subsequently revised cost sharing.
Question. Are you aware of any other time that the administration
has recommended funding for a project that was not authorized in
accordance with administration policy?
Answer. Yes, and in that case also the project was budgeted on the
basis that it would be executed at cost shared in accordance with
policy.
Question. What makes this one special?
Answer. It is a high performing project with a benefit to cost
ratio of 3.6.
Question. You proposed $28.5 million for fiscal year 2010 which is
clearly less than 4 percent of the total project cost of $750 million.
Your budget justification indicates that once you fulfill the 4 percent
Federal share that no more funding will be recommended by the
administration. Are you not then leaving us with the problem of
fulfilling the cost share authorized in law?
Answer. The 4 percent share is based on the allocation of project
costs as shown in the Chief's report of 1998 and reflective of the
large local sponsor investments that must be made in land-side
facilities and lands, easements and rights of way.
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND
Question. You have again proposed a lockage fee as a replacement
for the current diesel tax on the Inland Waterways as a way to enhance
revenues in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. This fee was roundly
rejected by industry and Congress last year.
Do you see a different outcome this year?
Answer. The Inland Waterways Users Board formed an Inland Marine
Transportation System (IMTS) Investment Strategy Team, with
participation by representatives of the inland navigation community and
Corps of Engineers representatives from around the country, to consider
long-term investment options and to address the shortfall in the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). The intent of this effort is to reach a
consensus approach to address this issue.
Question. Has the administration worked with the Finance or
Environment and Public Works Committees in the Senate to determine what
might be acceptable to enhance these revenues?
Answer. I am not aware of such discussions.
Question. This subcommittee will write a bill to conform to the
revenues as they currently exist in the Trust Fund. No solution to the
inadequate revenue nor forgiveness of the matching requirements of the
Trust Fund will be proposed by this subcommittee.
Were other methods to raise revenues besides this fee proposal
considered?
Answer. The administration proposal reflects some changes from the
bill proposed last year, and a number of possibilities are being
evaluated by the IMTS Investment Strategy Team to address the solvency
of the IWTF.
Question. What were they?
Answer. The IMTS Strategy Investment Team is evaluating options
such as increasing the current fuel tax, lockage fees, and a
combination of funding methods.
Question. How is the economic slowdown affecting the revenues in
the existing Trust Fund?
Answer. Revenues generated by the fuel tax are lower in fiscal year
2008 and fiscal year 2009 than in recent years, about $85 to $87
million. Revenues generated for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund are
affected by many factors such as the overall economy, fuel efficiency
of towboat engines, market conditions for the various commodities
transported on the inland and intracoastal waterways, etc. At least
part of the decline in revenues in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year
2009 is attributable to the economic slowdown.
Question. Will we have to slow down work even further?
Answer. The IWTF projects and corresponding amounts proposed in the
President's fiscal year 2010 budget are predicated on revenue
projections of $85 million in fiscal year 2010. The budget also
provides for using that revenue to bring the few remaining
rehabilitation projects under construction that were exempt from cost-
sharing in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Act back into a 50 percent-50
percent balance between Construction Appropriations and IWTF. Due to
the number of projects currently underway, the large funding
requirements of those projects, and the lack of IWTF resources,
available revenue will be applied to ongoing projects so as to make
reasonable progress on high performing projects.
EVERGLADES
Question. I am concerned by your Everglades request of $214.3
million for fiscal year 2010. This amount is in addition to $123
million we provided in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus and more than $100
million that you have proposed in the Recovery Act. That is nearly $440
million provided in a matter of months that is intended to be utilized
no later than September 30, 2010.
Your track record on expending Everglades funding has not been all
that great. Do you really believe you can efficiently use this much
funding this fast?
Answer. I believe the Everglades program has reached a point of
maturity where efficient progress can be made using the full amount of
funds budgeted.
Question. According to an article in the Miami Herald on June 16,
issues between the State and Federal Governments over how the State
will be credited for land purchases are holding up initiation of the
Picayune Strand project planned for fiscal year 2009. You budgeted
$21.9 million in fiscal year 2009 to start this project and included
$40.8 million in the Recovery Act to accelerate the project. It appears
that none of these funds can be spent based on this article, is that
correct?
Answer. The issues described in the Miami Herald all have been
resolved. The Master Agreement for the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP) is scheduled for execution on August 13, 2009,
as is the Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) for the Picayune Strand
project. Following execution of these agreements, the Picayune Strand
project construction will be initiated. The Corps is prepared to award
and obligate all of the fiscal year 2009 appropriated funds, as well as
the ARRA funds provided for Picayune Strand, in October 2009.
Question. If the dispute is not resolved by October 1, you may
carry over the $62.7 million planned for the Picayune Strand element.
In addition, your budget indicates that you have programmed an
additional $44.4 million in fiscal year 2010. I believe that makes the
total just over $107 million for this project in fiscal year 2010 if
the agreements can be worked out on crediting. Is that correct?
Realistically do you believe you can execute this funding?
Answer. Yes, $107 million is scheduled to be obligated for work
planned on the Picayune Strand project, using funds previously
appropriated and funds budgeted in fiscal year 2010. The execution of
the Master Agreement and the Picayune Strand Project Partnership
Agreement as scheduled August 13 will clear the path for construction.
The first construction contract on the Picayune Strand project is
scheduled to be awarded in October 2009, and the second contract is on
schedule to be awarded in fiscal year 2010.
Question. Your fiscal year 2010 budget proposes two more new starts
for a total of $70 million. I believe you also have planned new starts
for Mod Waters that you will be carrying out for the Interior
Department.
It appears that there are an awful lot of planned starts and little
action on getting anything built. I have to ask, is it prudent to
propose two more new starts in fiscal year 2010, for funding that will
likely have to be carried over into fiscal year 2011?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget proposes the initiation of
construction of two additional CERP projects, the Indian River Lagoon
South C-44 ($22 million) and Site 1 Impoundment ($25 million). The
Corps expects to obligate all those funds in fiscal year 2010. The
Master Agreement will provide a streamlined process toward project
delivery. With its planned execution on August 13 of this year, the
CERP program is taking a major step forward in delivery of planned
projects. Design efforts on the Indian River Lagoon and Site 1
Impoundment projects will be complete, and construction is ready to be
initiated, consistent with project sequencing in the Integrated
Delivery Schedule.
Question. We have an abundance of needs for that funding in fiscal
year 2010. Despite the merits of the Everglades project it seems
imprudent to be ``parking'' large sums of money in the project that
cannot be utilized. This is not like running into an unexpected
construction delay. The Miami Herald article indicates that this
crediting dispute has been ongoing for 4 years. Don't get me wrong, I
believe that restoration of the Everglades is a worthwhile expenditure
of taxpayer funds, and this subcommittee has been supportive of it.
Since fiscal year 2000, this subcommittee has appropriated more than
$1.3 billion to the various components of Everglades Restoration. That
is a far bigger commitment than we have made to any other project over
the same period. However, let's assume that everything falls into
place. Will there be enough personnel to execute all of this planned
work? How will this massive infusion of funding for Everglades projects
affect future Corps budgets?
Answer. The crediting dispute is now resolved. As for personnel
available to execute the program, the Corps is accustomed to adjusting
management and oversight personnel in response to changing program
levels and has plans in place to adjust personnel levels to short term
and long term needs of the Everglades Restoration program. Each year we
will consider the level of construction required to support planned
Everglades work and balance these needs against the needs of other high
performing projects.
Question. In fiscal year 2010, the Everglades gobbles up more than
13 percent of the Corps construction budget. The next highest funded
project is the Herbert Hoover Dike, also in Florida, accounting for
about 8 percent of the construction funds. That means that more than
one-fifth of your construction money is going to Florida. I realize
that the work is where the work is, but you can see that this puts me
in a little bit of a quandary. Senator Feinstein would argue that there
is plenty of work needed for flood control projects for Sacramento and
Los Angeles. Senator Landrieu would argue that there is plenty of work
needed for hurricane protection for the Louisiana Gulf Coast. Senators
McConnell and Alexander would argue that there is plenty of work needed
to repair Wolf Creek and Center Hill Dams. Senators Schumer and
Gillibrand would be happy to tell you about the work that could be
accomplished on the New York and New Jersey project. It is certainly
not my intent to pit one Member of the Senate against another, but you
can see my dilemma. These are all authorized worthwhile projects. Yet
you have not accommodated their needs in your budget in the manner that
you have accommodated the Everglades. What am I to tell these members?
Answer. The administration has made funding decisions based on the
performance of the projects. As the higher performing projects are
funded to completion, opportunities to consider other projects will
expand.
Question. The budget justification for the Everglades again shows
more than $4 million in Corps funding for the Modified Waters Delivery
Plan. I thought Congress was quite clear in the fiscal year 2009 E&W
bill, that this project should be funded through the Department of the
Interior. Why is this included in the Corps budget when Congress has
made it abundantly clear that this project should be funded 100 percent
by Interior?
Answer. Completion of the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades
National Park Project remains a high priority for the administration.
The fiscal year 2010 budget reflects the administration's continued
belief that the Corps and the Department of the Interior each has a
role to play in restoring flows to the Park.
Question. How much of the funding that this subcommittee has
provided for Mod Waters was carried over into fiscal year 2009? How
much will be carried into fiscal year 2010 based on current
projections?
Answer. The unobligated carry over from fiscal year 2008 into
fiscal year 2009 was $32 million because the Corps was unable to award
a contract for modifications to Tamiami Trail as a result of
uncharacteristically high cost growth in the construction industry at
the time. Since that time, the project scope has been revised and all
associated issues have been resolved. No currently available funds are
projected to be carried over into fiscal year 2010--all USACE available
funds will be obligated on the Tamiami Trail construction contract,
which is scheduled for award in September 2009.
Question. I was surprised at your recommendation of more than $100
million for Everglades' projects in the ARRA. The Everglades projects
consistently receive one of, if not the highest allocation of funds in
our annual bill. These annual amounts are supposed to be very close to
the Corps capability. You notified me in a letter dated June 15 that
one of the projects, ``Site 1'', has been removed from the ARRA list. I
believe this project was planned for over $41 million in Recovery Act
funding. Can you tell me about the decision process that brought you to
include this project in the ARRA and the decision process to remove
this project for consideration?
Answer. The Everglades project is one of the highest value major
environmental projects that this administration is pursuing. The
project is of such value that the Army sought to accelerate the current
plan through the use of ARRA funds. As explained in the referenced
letter of June 15, 2009, if appropriations for Site 1 are made
available in the Energy and Water appropriations for 2010 as
recommended by the President, then Site 1 would be eligible to receive
Recovery Act monies, if such are available at that time. Should
Congress not provide construction funds for Site 1 in fiscal year 2010,
then Recovery Act funds cannot be used for that project.
Question. How much of the funding is anticipated to be carried over
from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010?
Answer. The estimated carry over from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal
year 2010 for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration (SFER) Program is
$31 million. The majority of carry-over funding is due to delays in
execution of the Master Agreement and to the receipt of favorable
contract awards.
Question. There has been a lot of talk of the State of Florida
purchasing the lands belonging to U.S. Sugar. If that happens, will
that affect the analysis of the projects that have already been
planned?
Answer. The affects of any lands purchased by the State of Florida
remains uncertain, since the State has not yet determined their planned
use of any lands purchased. However, the Corps has determined that the
U.S. Sugar acquisition is not likely to affect the majority of projects
identified for early implementation in the Integrated Delivery
Schedule. Because of its proximity to the lands being acquired and
potential affects to planned CERP features, the Everglades Agricultural
Area Phase 1 Reservoir Project Implementation Report development has
been suspended pending the outcome of the sugar purchase and assessment
of affects planned use of U.S. Sugar lands may have.
Question. Put more simply, this would be a major change without
project conditions. How will that be incorporated into the design of
current and future projects?
Answer. The projects currently under construction and in design are
not likely to be affected. However, it is possible that the State's
land acquisitions may provide opportunities to improve the CERP Plan.
The land purchase provides several key areas that may allow for
substantial savings in the future.
Question. Might this purchase result in the need for a major
reevaluation of the suite of projects being considered for the
Everglades?
Answer. The projects currently under construction and in design are
not likely to be affected. If the State indicates its intent to make
the lands available for potential use in the CERP, the Corps would
prepare a report to assess these opportunities, which would then be
evaluated in detail in Project Implementation Reports and proposed for
authorization.
Question. There has been considerable discussion of global climate
change and sea level rise in the media. Some of the more extreme
projections I have seen show much of Southern Florida under water.
While that is a possibility, how is the design of the current projects
considering global climate change?
Answer. The September 2008 Biennial Report to Congress recommended
that additional studies be undertaken to determine sensitivity of
restoration efforts to sea level rise. A CERP Technical Data report is
now being developed to identify the potential impacts for a range of
sea level rise scenarios. The initial draft of this Technical Report is
expected to be available in late 2009.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. In late 2005, following hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
Congress directed the Secretary of the Army (Public Laws 109-103 and
109-148), acting through the Chief of Engineers, to conduct a
comprehensive hurricane protection analysis and design in close
coordination with the State of Louisiana and its appropriate agencies;
to develop and present a full range of flood control, coastal
restoration, and hurricane protection measures exclusive of normal
policy considerations for South Louisiana; to consider providing
protection for a storm surge equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane; and
to submit a preliminary report within 6 months of enactment and final
technical reports within 2 years. We now refer to this report as the
LACPR or Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Study or the
``Category 5 Report''.
Mr. Secretary and General, I understand that this report is now
under further public review, but can you please detail for this
subcommittee why is this report is nearly 2 years late? Additionally,
please detail how the money appropriated for this report has been
spent? Lastly, when the report is transmitted--will it contain specific
recommendations for the authorizations of projects?
Answer. Inserted below is a letter that was forwarded on February
9, 2009 to the President of the Senate regarding the progress of the
Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) Technical Report.
It also discussed actions required to complete the technical report.
As indicated in the letter, the Corps has worked diligently to
ensure that the report addresses the entire scope of issues required by
statute, including developing a full range of flood control, coastal
restoration, and hurricane protection measures without regard to normal
policy considerations related to the economic justification of
projects, as well as to submit a final technical report for protection
from Category 5 storm events.
The Corps also has worked to coordinate its efforts with State and
Federal agencies, obtain independent external peer review, and
incorporate lessons learned from the Interagency Performance Evaluation
Task Force.
Department of the Army,
Office of the Assistant Secretary,
Washington, DC, February 9, 2009.
Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
President of the Senate,
U.S. Capitol Building, Room S-212,
Washington, DC 20510-0012.
Dear Mr. President: This letter is to advise you of the current
progress of the report for Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration
(LACPR) that is being prepared in response to the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act of 2006 and the Department of Defense,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf
of Mexico, and Pandemic and Influenza Act, 2006.
These statutes directed the Chief of Engineers to conduct a
comprehensive hurricane protection analysis and design; to develop a
full range of flood control, coastal restoration, and hurricane
protection measures exclusive of normal policy considerations for South
Louisiana; and to submit a final technical report for ``Category 5''
protection. The final report was originally scheduled for completion in
December 2007. However, as described in my letter to you of December
20, 2007, due to the magnitude and scope of the work being considered,
the complexities of the study, and the necessity to provide a clear and
fully informed report, additional time was needed to revise the draft
technical report and to ensure its full coordination with State and
Federal agencies, including critical independent external peer review
by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
While this study was underway, we incorporated the extensive
knowledge and lessons learned from the Interagency Performance
Evaluation Task Force (IPET) which itself was conducted under the
review of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the independent
peer review of NAS. Many of the models and tools that were developed by
the IPET team provided a critical foundation to this study. Included
within this study will be a systems analysis of both LACPR and the
Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program (MSCIP). This continued
analysis will ensure that we maintain a systems perspective for the
region.
The study authorization directed that the recommendations of this
study not be constrained by normal policy considerations (i.e., not be
constrained by the ratio of their projected costs to their projected
benefits). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) policy is to recommend
to Congress a single plan that maximizes net economic benefits in
meeting the study objectives. Without such a definitive discriminator
the Corps' design recommendations could default to simply the most
effective means of providing the required protection, but this approach
undoubtedly would come at great cost, both to the Treasury and to the
ecosystem. It is apparent, therefore, that decisions made by Congress
regarding the activities to be authorized will need to be supported by
a report that arrays the available information in a way that the
relative advantages and disadvantages of the various courses of action
can be readily displayed. An undertaking of such scope and complexity
as providing comprehensive storm surge protection within a dynamic
coastal and riverine environment and within an environmentally and
socially-sensitive framework is an undertaking that requires supporting
information of far greater scope and complexity than has ever been
developed for other Civil Works projects.
Consequently, a new tool to support the decisionmaking process has
been developed by the Corps. The ``risk informed decision framework''
was utilized in both Gulf Coast studies to array the various
alternatives that are considered most likely to be implementable, along
with the assessments of various stakeholders, in a way that
communicates the relative advantages and disadvantages of each. As a
result of this process, decisionmakers should be able to make a well-
informed decision as to which alternatives can be knit into a holistic
and systematic solution to the problems and are worthy of further
pursuit.
Over the past year, the Corps has worked in partnership with the
State of Louisiana and other Federal agencies to refine the final array
of alternatives which would make the Louisiana coast more resilient to
future storm events. Tremendous efforts have been undertaken by the
Corps and our partners toward the production of the final report.
Approximately 20 meetings were held across the Louisiana coast with
stakeholders and our Federal partners. There was also a critical need
to ensure that the Corps completed an independent external peer review
by the NAS. The NAS has provided initial comments and will be
completing a final review within the next few months. Its initial
comments are being addressed in the revisions to the technical report.
In the coming months, the Corps will circulate draft and final
reports, formerly coordinate the final report with the Governor of
Louisiana and the Federal agencies, and undertake a final review
process. The final report will include an array of alternatives with
evaluation results for each alternative and a comparison of top-ranked
plans based on input from stakeholders. This will include a ranking of
alternatives that provide hurricane and storm risk reduction from an
array of ``Category 5'' storm events. Due to the size and complexity of
the Louisiana coastal system, a preliminary level of design and cost
information is included, but a programmatic environmental impact
statement will not be part of the submission package. The final
technical report will provide a basis for sound, risk based,
consideration of possible actions to manage storm surge related risks
and will take into account previously authorized projects and those
requiring further analysis.
The Corps advises me that it will be in a position to submit a
final report that is responsive to congressional and administration
directions to this office by August 31, 2009. The Corps will also
provide an implementation framework with the report. Once the Corps
provides the complete documentation for the LACPR study, my office and
the Office of Management and Budget will evaluate the report and
provide an administration position on further recommendations. I am
providing a copy of this letter to the Senate Subcommittees on Energy
and Water Development, and Transportation and Infrastructure.
Very truly yours,
John Paul Woodley, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of the Army.
Since the 2005 authorization, the Corps has obligated and expended
approximately $22,769,000 on the LACPR Project, as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning and Project Management............................ $9,561,000
Engineering & Design....................................... 3,944,000
Socioeconomics and Analysis................................ 2,919,000
Environmental Studies...................................... 1,005,000
Real Estate Investigations................................. 52,000
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).................... 849,000
Public Outreach............................................ 783,000
Other Federal Agencies..................................... 980,000
Report Development......................................... 535,000
Agency Technical Review (ATR).............................. 765,000
External Peer Review....................................... 876,000
Dutch Shadow Plan.......................................... 500,000
------------
Total................................................ 22,769,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In lieu of specific construction recommendations, the technical
report recommends implementation options and a path forward beyond the
technical report.
The report will require Congress and the administration to make
tradeoffs with the input of other Federal agencies, the State, local
government, other stakeholders, and the public. These decisions will
involve billions of dollars and will impact the coast and its people
over the next 50 to 100 years.
All of the final alternative plans may have social and economic
impacts requiring further evaluation and stakeholder input. The Corps
will implement recommended projects in the most expeditious manner
available by maximizing the use of available construction and study
authorities (i.e., modifications of on-going projects/studies, post-
authorization change reports, or new authorizations).
Question. In WRDA 2007, the Congress authorized the Louisiana
Coastal Area or LCA. This authorization provides --for the first time--
authorization for coastal wetlands restoration in Louisiana. What is
the status of this program in general and what is the timetable for
creating a master plan under this program as required by the act? Has a
task force been established? If not, why?
Answer. The authorization for the Louisiana Coastal Area as
identified in the Chief's Report dated January 31, 2005 required
additional investigations prior to the initiation of construction.
Overall, 12 project investigations are underway with 10 of those
investigations starting after the enactment of WRDA 2007. I am advised
that the investigations for the features authorized in section
7006(e)(3) of WRDA 2007 are on track for completion of a Chief's Report
by December 31, 2010 (as required by section 7006(e)(3)(B). The
investigations for the features authorized by section 7006(e)(1) are
scheduled to be completed by November 2011. The investigation for the
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Program authorized in section
7006(d) is scheduled to be completed by July 2010. The investigation
for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline feature authorized by section
7006(c) also is scheduled to be completed by July 2010, although issues
remain to be resolved. The project management plans for the
investigations for the other features that require submittal of a
construction report, as outlined in section 7006(c), are being
coordinated with the State of Louisiana.
WRDA 2007, title VII, section 7002 provides for the development of
a Comprehensive Plan. Given the importance of and the extensive,
ongoing efforts to implement the restoration plan authorized in title
VII, no work will be initiated to develop a comprehensive plan until
such time as funds are appropriated.
Section 7004 of WRDA 2007 establishes the Coastal Louisiana
Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force (Task Force), but to
date, funds have not been appropriated to implement section 7004. In
the interim, the Corps New Orleans District and Mississippi Valley
Division have successfully engaged Federal and State agency
representatives at the regional level throughout the study process for
the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration study and the
Louisiana Coastal Area program. Similarly, Corps Headquarters has
engaged Washington-level Federal Principals throughout the study
process for these efforts. These meetings have been an efficient and
effective way to communicate and solicit input from the agencies. Until
funds are appropriated for the Task Force, the Corps will continue to
engage the Federal and State agencies through the regional working
group and Federal Principals Group.
Question. The Corps of Engineers is currently re-evaluating
Morganza to the Gulf Hurricane Protection project due to projected cost
overruns. This situation is unacceptable. Congress has done its job by
authorizing this project and the Corps should move quickly to sign the
Record of Decision, remove any remaining obstacles and get to work.
What is the status of this re-evaluation? Will the State and local
government receive credit for the nearly $200 million they have
appropriated for this project? In the long term, how with the Corps
work with State and local partners to allow them to move forward with
interim measures of protection on critical Federal projects and receive
credit for this critical work?
Answer. Section 1001(24) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2007 (WRDA 2007) authorized 100-year level of risk reduction for
Morganza to the Gulf based on the Chief of Engineer's Reports completed
on August 23, 2002, and July 22, 2003. Due to changes in hydraulic
conditions and design criteria established following Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita in 2005, a revised project cost estimate was completed in
October 2008. In this analysis the Corps applied the lessons learned
and engineering design recommendations for improving the performance of
hurricane and storm damage risk reduction systems that were identified
by the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET). The
results of the revised project cost estimate clearly show that the cost
to provide post-Katrina 100-year level of risk reduction will exceed
the authorized project cost by more than 20 percent, thereby exceeding
the limit imposed by section 902 of WRDA 1986 and triggering the
requirement for additional authorization. A Post Authorization Change
(PAC) Report is being prepared to reaffirm the Federal interest and
seek additional authorization. The PAC Report is scheduled for
completion by December 2012. Initiation of construction of the Morganza
to the Gulf project will be dependent upon additional Congressional
authorization and appropriation of construction funds.
As is the case for all Work-In-Kind credit, the non-Federal
sponsor's design and construction will be reviewed for compliance with
the Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System guidelines, and a
credit determination will be made on a case-by-case basis for each
project feature.
In order to maximize the amount of Work-In-Kind credit our State
and local partners may receive, the Corps will continue to help our
partners comply with the Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction
System guidelines, considered the Federal standard. Specifically, the
Corps will review and comment on the local sponsor's real estate
acquisitions, relocations and engineering designs in a timely manner.
The Corps will also conduct periodic field inspections on the local
sponsor's construction sites, provide inspection reports, and work with
the sponsor if any remedial actions are required to meet the Federal
standard. In order for credit to be awarded, the project will have to
be reauthorized, construction funds will have to be appropriated, a
Record of Decision will have to be signed and a Project Partnership
Agreement (PPA) will have to be executed.
For any work performed by the our State and local partners in
advance of the execution of a project partnership agreement to be
eligible to receive a credit, the reauthorization of the project must
include a provision that authorizes the Government to provide credit to
the sponsor for the reasonable and allocable costs of the work
performed in advance of the execution of the project partnership
agreement and that the provision of such credit shall be subject to a
finding by the Government that the said work is compatible with the
Federal project, is constructed to a design standard that is acceptable
to the Chief of Engineers, is economically justified and
environmentally acceptable.
Question. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) was created to
provide the necessary funding to keep our harbors, ports and waterways
safe and navigable; yet, the HMTF takes in far more revenues each year
than it spends despite a backlog of approved projects. (NOTE: In fiscal
year 2009, due to multiple supplemental appropriations bills including
those for natural disasters, HMTF expenditures equaled revenues, but
this is the rare exception, and our ports shouldn't be put in a
position where they should have to depend on such supplementals simply
to receive funding for necessary projects). Now that there is a
substantial balance in the fund, don't you think annual expenditures
should at least equal annual revenues? Do you think the HMTF should be
restructured in order to more effectively use the funds collected?
Answer. The overall Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program is
prioritized for all missions, including navigation, flood risk
management, hydropower, etc. O&M funding is budgeted for the diverse
Civil Works missions based on performance metrics and priorities. The
O&M budget includes funding for critical maintenance of the highest use
navigation channels and harbors. If the HMTF funded activities were to
be increased, other critical mission areas would be adversely impacted.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR HYDROPOWER REHABILITATION
Question. I am aware that it is the Corps's policy, and that of
this Congress, to enter into Continuing Contracts only when they are
necessary for efficient construction. Congress has limited the Corps
use of continuing contracts to insure that they are only used when
necessary, and with the understanding that the Corps will budget these
contracts efficiently through to completion. You have not budgeted for
the continuation of the Ozark-Jeta Hydropower Rehab project, which will
deliver clean, renewable energy into the foreseeable future when
finished, even as you have budgeted extraordinary amounts for the
Everglades where the benefits are much less tangible. Further, my
understanding is that you require only $30 million to complete the
contract and it will cost $20 million to terminate the contract. To not
budget to continue this contract appears to be not only bad government,
but also to contradict past Corps policy regarding budgeting for
continuing contracts. Please provide the rationale for failing to
budget to continue the work on the Ozark-Jeta Hydropower Rehab
Continuing Contract?
Answer. The Ozark-Jeta Rehabilitation Contract was not funded this
year because the decision point for allocation of funding to high-value
projects was made on a performance basis within available resources.
The Ozark-Jeta Rehabilitation project has a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of
1.8, which fell below the 2.5 BCR funding threshold.
Question. The work for the Ozark-Jeta Hydropower Project is almost
two-thirds complete. Not only has the Federal Government invested more
than $44 million to date, the non-Federal sponsors for this project,
the Southwestern Power Marketing Association, have invested $20 million
of their money. By your estimate, it will cost $20 million to pay the
contractor to terminate this contract. Do you have any plans to
reimburse the SWPA or their rate payers for their out-of-pocket costs?
Did you consider the impact of this decision on the rate payers?
Answer. As sponsors and signatories to the Project Cooperation
Agreement for the project, the SWPA and/or their rate payers are
subject to paying their share of the costs incurred by the project,
even those for termination for convenience without reimbursement by the
Corps or the Federal Government. The Army does not have authority to
reimburse SWPA.
Question. I understand that at least one turbine has already been
dismantled and that an additional turbine has been ordered. What do you
plan to do with the turbine that has been ordered--let it rust?
Answer. The Army is currently working with the contractor to assess
the project schedule to incorporate current funding constraints. Our
goal is to develop a plan that will allow for beneficial use of all
funded features of the project.
Question. How do you expect additional funds ``to become
available'' if you don't budget for the project? Are you leaving it up
to this subcommittee to fix this problem? Does it require a
congressional add, which is disparaged by the administration, to
correct this lapse in judgment on the Government's part?
Answer. The Army is looking at other options for funding of the
project in fiscal year 2010. The Army is working with the Southwestern
Power Administration, the agency in the Department of Energy
responsible for marketing the power generated at Ozark, to identify
``customer funding'' to continue contractor activities. The Army is
also assessing the potential to fund fiscal year 2010 scheduled work
with ARRA funding. If neither of these possibilities work out, the
project will be put in caretaker status subject to funds coming
available.
Question. Mr. Secretary, How much energy will be lost as a result
of not funding this project?
Answer. According to the Southwestern Power Administration, the
amount and value of the lost energy due to forced outages at Ozark for
the last 2 fiscal years is 82,420 MWh valued at $5.1 million in fiscal
year 2007; and 153,550 MWh valued at $9.5 million in fiscal year 2008.
That rate of loss would continue or increase.
Question. Mr. Secretary, What will happen to the Corps and contract
workers when this project is terminated?
Answer. This project is being constructed concurrently with the
Webbers Falls Powerhouse rehabilitation project. If the Ozark
Powerhouse Rehabilitation work is suspended or terminated, Corps and
contract workers will be shifted from Ozark to Webbers Falls. At this
time, the Corps does expect any employees will be terminated.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I notice that you have funded the Richard
B. Russell Powerhouse Rehab project when it has a benefit-cost ratio of
1.9 which is lower than the BCR of Ozark-Jeta, AR project which is 2.4.
Can you explain why these two projects which appear to be the same were
treated differently in the budget?
Answer. While Richard B. Russell is a Hydropower project on the
Savannah River in GA and SC, the item budgeted for fiscal year 2010 is
an environmental mitigation piece of the project. The work essentially
deals with environmental monitoring of the oxygen injection system.
Funds are budgeted for procurement and fabrication of 50 percent of the
Government furnished equipment associated with the underwater diffuser
system. For the record, the Ozark-Jeta project has a current benefit to
cost ratio of 1.8.
BUDGET REQUEST
Question. In your press release on the fiscal year 2010 budget you
state that ``The budget represents the prudent level of investment in
the Nation's water infrastructure and in the restoration of its aquatic
resources. I am proud to present it.''
What exactly are you proud of? Is it the more than 100 on-going
construction projects funded in fiscal year 2009 that are not addressed
in this budget, or is it the $227 million decrease from what we
provided in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus?
Answer. I am proud of the fact that the fiscal year 2010 budget
provided an increase of nearly 9 percent above previously budgeted
levels for the Corps of Engineers water program. The budget includes
$5.125 billion in new Federal funding for the Civil Works program, the
highest budget ever proposed for the Civil Works program.
The fiscal year 2010 budget provides critical funding that will
enable the Corps to continue to contribute to the Nation's efforts to
revitalize the economy, and restore the environment.
Question. Is it prudent not to provide funding for projects that
have been under construction for years?
Answer. Projects funded through the fiscal year 2010 budget are the
highest performing projects in their respective categories, and it is
important to fund these projects as efficiently as possible.
Question. What are we supposed to tell the project sponsors that
are sharing in the costs of these projects?
Answer. The administration has made funding decisions based on the
performance of the projects. As the higher performing projects are
funded to completion, opportunities to consider other projects will
expand.
Question. It will cost them more. It will cost us more. Again, how
is this prudent?
Answer. By focusing available funding on the highest performing
projects in their categories, those projects can be completed more
efficiently and their benefits brought on line sooner.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich
Question. Should the Great Lakes Navigation System be funded as a
``system'' the way the Mississippi River System is?
Answer. The Great Lakes projects are individually authorized and
are considered coastal projects. While there is some interdependence of
the Great Lakes ports and harbors on each other, the Great Lakes system
is non-linear and many Great Lakes ports and harbors can operate
independent of other harbors. Conversely, the inland navigation
facilities on the Mississippi River, Ohio River, and other inland
waterways are linear and interdependent on each other, and a single
closure in the system will stop all traffic. For other than short-haul
movements, the commercial towing vessels must transit through many
locks and dams to move from the point of origin to the destination
point and all the inland navigation infrastructure along the way must
be functional for the trip to occur.
THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
Question. It is my understanding that the Corps used ``geographic
diversity'' when allocating stimulus funds. However, the Great Lakes
region, encompassing eight States, received only 2 percent of the $4.6
billion in civil works funding. Can you explain?
Answer. The geographic diversity element was considered in the
sense that the entire United States was canvassed for projects. ARRA
projects are funded in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.
When the bill was enacted, the USACE received $4.6 billion in
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds in six different
appropriation accounts. Each account has a purpose directed in statute
and ARRA funding was directed or otherwise targeted to account
capability. The projects selected represent a set of productive
investments that will contribute to economic development and aquatic
ecosystem restoration. The Civil Works projects will further these
Recovery Act stated purposes of preserving and creating jobs and
promoting recovery as well as to invest in transportation,
environmental protection and other infrastructure that will provide
long term economic benefits.
The Corps followed the Recovery Act's guidance which included
commencing expenditures and activities as quickly as possible
consistent with prudent management. The Corps made its allocation of
Recovery Act construction funds based on the economic and environmental
return of its ongoing projects. The projects will achieve the purposes
of the Recovery Act to commence expenditures quickly by investing in
infrastructure that will provide long term economic and environmental
benefits to the Nation. Moreover, the projects are fully consistent
with the President's direction to ensure that Recovery Act funds are
spent responsibly and transparently.
The projects also meet the five criteria enumerated in the
Congressional report accompanying the Recovery Act, namely that the
projects:
--Be obligated/executed quickly;
--Result in high, immediate employment;
--Have little schedule risk;
--Be executed by contract or direct hire of temporary labor; and
--Complete a project phase, a project, an element, or will provide a
useful service that does not require additional funding.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp
Question Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. A large amount of goods move in and out of our Nation's
ports, and these ports play a vital role in our Nation's economy.
Louisiana has some of the largest and most critical ports in our entire
Nation. Navigable and safe ports are also essential to our Nation's
security. Do you think the Army Corps of Engineers should take national
security into account when it prioritizes funding for operations and
maintenance projects? How will this new administration ensure that our
ports are secure and maintained for this critical commerce?
Answer. The impacts of a potential waterway closure due to loss of
channel dimensions and/or lock/structure failure and its criticality to
the navigation infrastructure are considered and weighted along with
economic, environmental, safety, and industry impact factors. In
addition, as a response to the Maritime Transportation Security Act of
2002, Corps locks were assessed for criticality and risk reduction to
infrastructure and security upgrades were implemented at critical locks
and maintained through project operations and maintenance funds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM
Question. In your role as the Chief of Engineers, what do you see
as the major water resource challenges facing this Country in the
future.
Answer. Some of the major challenges are in the area of developing
new strategies to operate and manage existing water infrastructure in a
sustainable manner that not only meets the Nation's contemporary water
resources needs, but also adapts to changing conditions such as climate
change and demographic shifts to ensure such resources are available
for future generations. Competing water uses must be balanced to
provide multiple benefits such as economic security, environmental
health, social well-being, and public safety. For example, navigation
projects must be designed and operated to not only safely and
efficiently convey vessels and cargo to ports and waterways, but do so
in an environmentally responsible manner. Flood risk management
projects must simultaneously reduce flood risks and sustain healthy
ecosystems. To address these competing demands, the Corps is beginning
to undertake a new overarching strategy called Integrated Water
Resources Management, which seeks to foster equitable, efficient
management and sustainable use of water. There is much work to be done
but it will lead to significant gains in these areas.
Question. What level of funding would be necessary to maintain the
progress realized in the Civil Works Program through the enacted
appropriations levels for the past couple of years?
Answer. This is truly a difficult and challenging question, in this
time of significant funding for the Corps of Engineers Civil Works
program. The Corps is currently working with over $20 billion that have
been provided through a variety of appropriations, including not only
regular Energy and Water appropriations, but also the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act and emergency supplemental funding. That
is an unprecedented amount of money for the Corps of Engineers.
Question. If the administration's budget proposal is enacted, what
will be the impact on meeting the Army Corps' O&M backlog? The
construction backlog?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget does not reduce the magnitude
of the O&M and construction backlog. However, the budget is the
appropriate mix of Construction and O&M funding and will enable the
Corps to meet essential construction, operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation requirements in the Civil Works program. The O&M backlog
and the Construction backlog do not represent a prioritization of work
within either of the two accounts or between the accounts. The priority
of work in the backlog varies widely.
Question. What is the percentage of the Nation's commerce that come
into or leaves this Country that goes through a Corps built and
maintained harbor?
Answer. The Corps of Engineers has 299 deep draft coastal harbor
channels. Virtually all the waterborne cargo passes through a Corps
navigation project, and anecdotal evidence indicates the vast majority
of all import and export commerce passes through them. The Corps of
Engineers doesn't track waterborne commerce in a way that enables me to
provide a more specific answer to your question.
Question. Could you characterize the proportion of the
discretionary budget of the Federal Government that is directed toward
building and maintaining this Country's water infrastructure today
versus 30 years ago?
Answer. Multiple agencies, including the Department of the Interior
(Bureau of Reclamation), were provided resources for building and
maintaining the Nation's water infrastructure. The Corps of Engineers,
in fiscal year 1979, was provided 1 percent of the discretionary budget
of the Federal Government for civil works projects and programs.
In fiscal year 2009, 1.07 percent of the Federal Government's
discretionary budget was provided for the Corps of Engineers. However,
given the magnitude of changes in the Nation and in Federal programs,
it is not clear that these percentages are meaningful.
Question. Could you provide a historical perspective on the value
of the Nation's inland waterways for national security and economic
security?
Answer. Navigation has been very important to national security and
economic security for over 200 years. The benefits of navigation accrue
to the Nation as a whole, with 31 States directly served by the 12,000
mile commercial inland waterways. This helps to explain the major
Federal interest in our Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS).
The IMTS is a major transportation mode and the Nation's industrial
and agricultural sectors would be profoundly affected without an
efficient, effective and safe Inland Marine Transportation System. The
waterway system annually handles well over 600 million tons of cargo
valued at over $112 billion. This includes energy commodities such as
coal; petroleum and related products; construction materials; grain and
other farm products, which move by waterways to ports for export;
industrial and agricultural chemicals; forest products; and
manufactured goods.
The waterways play an important role is the movement of military
equipment, supplies, fuel, and many defense-related raw materials and
finished products. Over the years since World War II the use of the
waterway system for national security purposes has shifted from rapid
mobilization to a more lengthy mobilization. The waterway system now
plays a role in the long-term or advance movement of military supplies,
cargo, equipment, fuel, and industrial materials. With a longer
mobilization scenario there is increased consideration of civil and
industrial as well as military transportation needs. The interpretation
of national defense transportation needs now includes three components:
traditional military mobility, industrial mobility to support a
conflict, and support for a mobilized civil economy. This paradigm
places additional emphasis on the use of the inland waterways.
Question. How much unobligated funding did the Corps carry over
from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2009?
Answer. Unobligated funding carried over in the accounts receiving
annual appropriations is as follows.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations............................................. 92
Construction............................................... 1,461
Operation & Maintenance.................................... 432
Mississippi River and Tributaries.......................... 95
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program............ 5
Flood Control and Coastal Emergency........................ 3,516
Regulatory Program......................................... 12
Expenses................................................... 1
------------
TOTAL................................................ 5,614
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These figures do not include funds appropriated in Public Law 110-
252 and not available for until fiscal year 2009, or funds appropriated
in Public Law 110-329 that were not available until fiscal year 2009.
Question. To what do you attribute this large carryover?
Answer. About $4.4 billion of the total is supplemental funds
appropriated to respond to emergency events. Often, obligations for
project repairs and restoration activities following emergency events
extend beyond the fiscal year in which the emergency events occur. In
particular, about $3.5 billion of the supplemental funds carried over
are Construction funds and Flood Control and Coastal Emergency funds
being used in the program to protect the New Orleans metropolitan area,
which is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2011.
About $1.2 billion is regularly appropriated funds being carried
over on a variety of projects. This level of carryover is not
unexpected, given that funds by and large are remaining on the projects
for which they were provided, with minimal reprogramming compared to
years before fiscal year 2006.
Question. Do you anticipate another large carry over balance from
fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010?
Answer. In fiscal year 2009 the Corps received, in addition to
regular appropriations of $5.4 billion, supplemental funding of $9.3
billion under Public Laws 110-252, 110-329, and 111-32, plus $4.6
billion of funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
2009, Public Law 111-5. Of the supplemental funding, $5.8 billion is
for the New Orleans metropolitan area, and much of the rest is for
repairs and restoration activities that can extend into fiscal year
2010.
In addition, just under one-half of the Recovery Act funding will
be obligated in fiscal year 2009. Therefore, there will be significant
carryover into fiscal year 2010.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich
GREAT LAKES
Question. The Corps has dredged at less than the ``break-even''
line for virtually every year in the last decade for the Great Lakes.
The only year, fiscal year 2008, in the last decade when the Corps
dredged above the break-even point occurred because Congress added
significant funding for that purpose. The Corps responded with a
proposed administration Great Lakes budget for fiscal year 2009 that
drastically cut the enacted amount. Please explain why there is so much
resistance to dredging at or above the break-even point? Is it common
in other regions to hit the break-even level of dredging only
occasionally over an extended period of years?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget for navigation
Operation and Maintenance for the Great Lakes is a $4 million increase
over the fiscal year 2009 program. Competition for Federal funds is
very keen and gets tighter each year. Our Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) funding requirements continue to grow as the infrastructure ages,
newly constructed projects are added to our inventory, and costs
increase. The Corps budgets for many worthwhile operation and
maintenance needs across the entire spectrum of Civil Works projects by
prioritizing projects based on maximizing benefits. In navigation, the
focus is on harbors and waterways that have high volumes of commerce.
Question. The 2008 Army Corps document, Great Lakes Navigation
System: Economic Strength to the Nation, describes the Great Lakes as
having a dredging backlog that has ``grow[n] to an unprecedented level
in major navigation channels and harbors.'' How can the Corps ever
address the estimated $200 million Great Lakes dredging backlog when
the Corps keeps dredging at less than the break-even level?
Answer. The Corps has not been able to keep pace with annual
channel sedimentation and within a relatively short period (e.g., 5
years) cannot address prior years' accumulations (backlog) under
historical funding levels. In fiscal year 2008 the Corps reduced the
backlog in dredging quantity from 18 million cubic yards to 17 million
cubic yards. Once the Corps completes the dredging funded by the fiscal
year 2009 Omnibus and Recovery Act appropriations, the backlog will be
reduced to 15.3 million cubic yards. These appropriations enabled us to
address the backlog dredging needed to move toward a high performing
Navigation system.
The Corps could address the dredging backlog by planning other
possible alternative control measures including higher efficiencies and
a Demonstration Regional Commercial Efficiency Dredging Program. While
the Corps always seeks to execute our programs in the most efficient
manner possible, efficiencies addressing the dredging process are
currently under review. For example, working with the States and other
agencies toward less restrictive environmental windows to increase the
time available to dredge in particular harbors will help reduce costs.
The Corps plans to work with dredging contractors to find ways to
reduce costs and plan to work with States to explore reducing
restrictions on open water disposal and thus reduce filling rates for
expensive Confined Disposal Facilities.
The Corps will renew emphasis on beneficial use of dredged material
and to open a dialog with State agencies for a scientifically-driven
review of open water disposal policies to ensure that the environmental
protections are achieved at the least cost to the taxpayers. A
technical plan ``Demonstration Regional Commercial Efficiency Dredging
Program'' using highly efficient, more technically advanced equipment
to augment the typical annual dredging process will be prepared. This
is the most promising prospective remedial action to address the
dredging backlog but must be worked in concert with the other potential
efficiency improvements. Solutions will be planned considering other
competing national needs which have historically challenged resourcing
backlog projects in the Great Lakes; however our goal is unwavering to
meet the needs of waterborne commerce on the Great Lakes by making
steady progress in reducing the dredging backlog.
Question. Does the Corps consider the ``source of funds'' when
making budget decisions? For example, shouldn't a project funded by
industry via the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund receive a higher
priority than one funded by the taxpayers or cost shared by the
taxpayer? Why doesn't the Corps spend what it collects from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund on eligible projects?
Answer. The Corps of Engineers has a number of cost-sharing
authorities for the Civil Works program. The source of funds is just
one of many factors considered in the budget development process. The
Corps of Engineers' overall Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program is
prioritized for all missions, including navigation, flood risk
management, hydropower, etc. Funding is budgeted for the diverse Civil
Works missions based on various metrics and priorities within available
resources,. and other critical mission areas would be adversely
impacted if the funding for those activities were reduced to
accommodate additional funding for HMTF funded activities.
Question. The Corps uses different metrics to prioritize projects.
Would it make sense to use the same metric for all parts of the
country? Would transportation rate savings be a more appropriate metric
than tons or ton-miles? Should the same metric be used for domestic
transportation systems and a different metric for import/export
systems? Should all tons be treated equally or should a domestic ton
that creates value for Americans on both ends of the trip be treated
differently from one that imports products while exporting jobs.
Answer. Harbors and waterways are vital components of the Nation's
transportation system. The Corps funds many worthwhile maintenance
needs across the entire spectrum of Corps of Engineers Civil Works
projects by prioritizing projects based on maximizing benefits. In
navigation, the focus is on harbors and waterways that have high
volumes of commerce. Funding is also based on other factors,
particularly those that serve as critical harbors of refuge,
subsistence harbors, facilitate U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue
operations, supply energy needs to communities, and those that play an
important role in national security and defense. The Corps is
developing the necessary tools to use a risk-informed, asset management
based approach to prioritizing funding and to evaluate the Federal
return on investment. These tools will help in making better funding
decisions than tons or ton-miles. In the mean time, the approach
outlined above assists in making the best use of constrained resources
and provides for commercial goods to reach the market and contribute to
the economic well being of the Nation.
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Michael L. Connor
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
RURAL WATER
Question. In prior years I have talked about the drought situation
in the West particularly as it relates to North Dakota. As we know,
that is not the situation this year. However, can you talk about the
drought situation in the West and what we should expect based on
current models?
Answer. Without significant snow pack or substantial rainfall,
current drought conditions are expected to continue. Precipitation
outlooks are generally unreliable beyond 3 months, and Reclamation
itself does not forecast weather or drought conditions. Reclamation
tracks current drought conditions based on information provided by
other agencies focused on weather, including the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center (http://
www.cpc.noaa.gov/), and the Drought Monitor, managed by the National
Drought Mitigation Center (http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html).
Reclamation is working, together with other agencies, to promote
the development of climate science and tools that will allow us to
evaluate the impacts of climate change on water supplies. Reclamation
has formed a Federal Climate Change and Western Water Group (CCAWWG)
dedicated to providing scientific and research collaboration in support
of Western water management as climate changes.
Question. There are a number of projects in the fiscal year 2009
Energy and Water Act that were not included in the President's fiscal
year 2010 budget request. Can you provide us the capability amounts
needed for those projects?
Answer. All rural water projects are included in the President's
fiscal year 2010 budget request.
Question. I am happy to see that you have included all of the
currently funded rural water projects in your budget. Although some are
funded at very low levels. How did you arrive at the funding decisions
for these projects?
Answer. Rural water projects included in the fiscal year 2010
President's budget request followed the criteria established by
Reclamation which first provide for the required O&M component and then
for projects nearest to completion and projects that serve on-
reservation needs.
Question. How are we ever going to make progress on completing
these projects, at these low budget levels? Inflation is going to
increase the project cost faster than the funding we are investing.
Answer. Reclamation is making significant progress in funding rural
water projects throughout North and South Dakota and Montana. ARRA
funds in the amount of $200 million were allocated to rural water
projects. The Mid-Dakota rural water project was completed in fiscal
year 2006 and Mni Wiconi is scheduled to be completed by 2013.
TITLE XVI
Question. Title XVI programs are not well supported by the
administration. Can you explain what the issues are with this program?
It seems the program would be a good fit with Reclamation's mission of
bringing water and power to the west.
Answer. The title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program is an
important part of Reclamation's mission and is a key element of
Reclamation's Water Conservation Initiative to address 21st century
water challenges. Projects funded through the title XVI program enable
water to be reused, thereby improving efficiency, providing flexibility
during water shortages, and diversifying the water supply. In addition
to the fiscal year 2010 request, $135 million of funding under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has been allocated to
title XVI projects.
Question. What modifications do you believe could be made to the
title XVI program that would make it more acceptable to the
administration?
Answer. Reclamation recognizes that water reuse is an essential
tool in stretching limited water supplies in the West. Under the
President's budget request, the title XVI program will be part of a
Water Conservation Initiative--along with the Challenge Grant program
and Basin Study program--to address increasing water demands and
decreasing water supplies due to extended droughts and climate change.
Reclamation looks forward to working with the subcommittee to make the
title XVI program as effective as possible as part of this coordinated
approach to addressing 21st century water challenges.
Question. How much of a backlog currently exists in the currently
authorized title XVI program?
Answer. There are currently 53 authorized title XVI projects,
including new projects authorized as a result of the Omnibus Public
Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11).
AGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. The recently passed Lands Bill gave Reclamation the
authority to address rehabilitation of its aging infrastructure. Prior
to the passage of this legislation this rehabilitation work would have
been a non Federal responsibility. Recognizing that this is a
relatively new authority, has Reclamation established guidance for how
this program is to be implemented?
Answer. Reclamation is currently developing guidance regarding the
implementation of this program. Similar programs designed to assist
Reclamation project beneficiaries in financing the reimbursable costs
of extraordinary maintenance and rehabilitation work have been
implemented by Reclamation in the past, and we are drawing on that
experience in developing implementation guidance.
Question. Has Reclamation evaluated the condition of this
infrastructure so that this work could be prioritized in a meaningful
manner?
Answer. Reclamation periodically evaluates the condition of its
facilities through existing review programs. The recommendations
resulting from the reviews are the basis for prioritization of funding
for identified needs.
Question. The language in the lands bill makes this work
reimbursable over a period not to exceed 50 years. Will this be
affordable to the non-Federal sponsors that most need this assistance?
Answer. Current law requires the non-Federal sponsors to pay for
their allocated portion of this work in advance or repay costs within
the current year when work is performed. Allowing repayment over a term
of up to 50 years will greatly ease the burden these entities have
faced in the past in advancing or repaying the reimbursable costs that
would be allocated to reimbursable project purposes. Reclamation would
continue to pay the costs that would be allocated to non-reimbursable
project purposes. However, given that some of the major repair work
needed will be very costly, and that interest will be assessed on the
reimbursable obligations, some project sponsors will still face
challenges in repaying these costs. It is important to remember that
non-Federal sponsors, in many cases, are responsible for repaying their
allocated portions of the capital in addition to operations and
maintenance costs of the Federal facilities. This law allows more
flexibility to make payments over time, thereby reducing or minimizing
long term Federal involvement.
Question. With much of Reclamation's infrastructure more than 50
years old, this problem is only going to increase. Has Reclamation
developed contingencies to address failures of this infrastructure?
Answer. Assuming that the reference to failures is in the context
of not being able to continue water deliveries, this would pose a
public policy question regarding the costs and benefits associated with
major Federal investment in recapitalizing this infrastructure, as
addressed in responses to Questions 12 and 13.
Question. Would a cost shared Federal recapitalization of
infrastructure that has exceeded its economic life make sense to
consider?
Answer. Reclamation believes that the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act (Public Law 111-11) provides the authority to undertake
such a program, and plans to consider the appropriateness of funding
requests to supports these efforts on a project-by-project basis.
Question. What would be required to establish a program like this
in Reclamation?
Answer. In order to establish an effective program to address aging
infrastructure under the authority of the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act, Public Law 111-11, Reclamation will need to establish
procedures for allocating costs among reimbursable and non-reimbursable
project purposes, set standards for appropriate repayments terms within
the prescribed limits, and prioritize the use of available funds among
its many aging facilities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY
Question. Commissioner Connor, I am disappointed that the Odessa
Subarea Special Study, which was included in the fiscal year 2009
President's budget request, has been eliminated in the fiscal year 2010
President's budget request. As you know, the Columbia Basin Project is
a critical tool for farmers in my home State of Washington. Securing a
reliable surface water supply for the producers is important to
ensuring the continuation of agriculture in Central Washington while
protecting our groundwater supplies. Can you tell me why this project
was eliminated in the President's budget request?
Answer. Reclamation recognizes the importance of Columbia Basin
water issues; however, faced with significant competing demands for
aging infrastructure, satisfying Endangered Species Act regulatory
requirements on operating projects, and other high priority water
issues throughout the 17 Western States, no funding was included in the
fiscal year 2010 President's budget. Reclamation also understands the
importance, specifically, of the Odessa Subarea Special Study (Study).
Reclamation has partnered with the State of Washington (State) to
investigate the possibility of continuing development of the Columbia
Basin Project to deliver project surface water to lands currently using
ground water in the Odessa Subarea. Reclamation will continue to work
with the State to bring the Study to completion as soon as possible.
The State has identified the declining Odessa Subarea aquifer as the
highest priority issue to address in the Columbia River Basin. The
State will continue to fund the study in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal
year 2011.
Question. It is my understanding that the environmental impact
statement analysis of the alternatives identified in the appraisal-
level investigation is underway, and the State of Washington and the
Bureau are working together to complete this work. When do you
anticipate completion of the feasibility study? Are you still on track
for completion in 2011?
Answer. Reclamation anticipates that the study may need to be
extended. Reclamation and the State of Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology) are jointly preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS)
to meet the National Environmental Policy Act and State Environmental
Policy Act requirements. The draft EIS is currently scheduled for
release to the public in spring 2010, with the final EIS scheduled for
spring 2011.
Question. Now that the appraisal-level investigation has been
completed and the path forward has become more clear, an increase in
the annual funding level will be needed to make sure the study is
completed in a timely fashion. Unlike this year, can we expect to see
future requests from the Bureau to reflect this?
Answer. There will be a continued level of commitment from
Reclamation to complete the study in fiscal year 2011. The State has
indicated a continued level of commitment in 2010 and 2011.
WASHINGTON STATE ARRA FUNDED PROJECTS
Question. Commissioner Connor, as you know, my State has many ready
to go construction projects within the Bureau's purview, and as such
was a beneficiary of Recovery Act funding, which I am thrilled about.
Can you please provide an update on these projects?
Answer. We too are pleased that so many worthy projects in the
State of Washington received Recovery Act funding. The following is an
update of those projects:
The following contracts and work have been awarded:
--Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Complex--an Indefinite Delivery/
Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) task order was awarded for the
design of a water supply replacement system for the intake
facility. Amount $780,000.
--Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Complex--IDIQ task order was
awarded for survey work for the repair of the adult holding
pond. Amount $33,000.
--Columbia/Snake River Habitat Projects hired a three-person crew to
work on the Methow Habitat Project Evaluation to meet
monitoring requirements. Amount $130,000.
The following contracts are out for solicitation:
--Roza Roller Gates solicitation was issued with an estimated award
of early October 2009 and construction projected to begin late
October 2009. Estimated cost $4.9 million.
--Weber Siphon Complex solicitation was issued with an estimated
award of late September 2009 and construction projected to
begin late October 2009. Estimated cost is $49 million.
--Potholes Supplemental Feed Route--Pinto Dam and Brooks Lake
solicitation was issued with an estimated award of mid-
September 2009 and construction projected to begin mid-October
2009. Estimated cost is $3.1 million.
--Grand Coulee Maintenance items have been advertised for bid on E-
BUY with an estimated award date of mid-August 2009. Estimated
amount is $890,000.
The following items are either in the review stage or being
prepared:
--Remaining Grand Coulee Maintenance items being reviewed for ARRA
compliance requirements in our Denver office.
--Umatilla Project--Modifications and improvements on water delivery
system being reviewed for ARRA compliance requirements in our
Denver office.
--Sunnyside Division Board of Control--the financial assistance
agreement to the Sunnyside Board of Control for piping three
large laterals is expected to be signed in mid-September.
--Columbia/Snake River Habitat Projects--the financial assistance
agreement to the Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation for two fish
habitat improvement projects is expected be signed in early
September.
Question. As you know, the Bureau owns billions of dollars worth of
irrigation infrastructure all across the West, and the infrastructure
is aging and in need of significant investment to maintain efficient
operation. We have authorized and directed the Bureau to develop a
Federal loan guarantee program to assist operators of Reclamation
projects in securing low interest loans to encourage investment in
Federal infrastructure.
Can you please tell me the status of this program?
Answer. This program has not yet been implemented. A proposed rule
for the program has been published and comments were received. We will
continue to keep Congress informed about the status of the program.
Question. Do you think that this program is successful in
encouraging local project operators to make these kinds of investments
in our Federal facilities?
Answer. The program has not been implemented, but we will continue
to keep Congress informed about its status.
Question. Are there other ways to encourage this investment?
Answer. Section 9603 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-11) was enacted to assist Reclamation project
beneficiaries in paying for extraordinary operation and maintenance
costs. Public Law 111-11 allows repayment of extraordinary O&M costs
allocated to the authorized reimbursable purposes of the project within
50 years, with interest.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
QUAGGA MUSSELS
Question. Quagga Mussels are becoming more of a problem in western
waters and are affecting Reclamation projects. How much funding is
included in Reclamation's budget to address the control of Quagga
Mussels?
Answer. In fiscal year 2009, Reclamation-wide appropriated funding
for addressing the control of invasive mussels (both Quaqqa and Zebra
mussels) includes just over $2.0 million. This funding encompasses
activities related to the prevention of spread, early detection and
rapid response for new infestations, control and management, research,
and outreach and education. The fiscal year 2010 appropriated budget
request totals nearly $3.5 million. In addition to appropriated
funding, there are also direct or contributed funds and in-kind
services to be provided by various partners and customers estimated to
be nearly $375,000 and $475,000 in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year
2010, respectively. Reclamation also received $4.5 million in ARRA
funding for monthly testing of 60 Reclamation reservoirs for presence
of mussel larvae. This activity will continue through 2010.
Question. What are the costs to Reclamation to deal with Quagga
Mussels at Reclamation projects?
Answer. Reclamation is continually working with its regional and
area offices to consolidate invasive mussel related cost information.
Appropriated Reclamation funding expenditures in fiscal year 2008 and
fiscal year 2009 are estimated to total approximately $3.5 million and
reflect Reclamation-wide costs to deal with invasive mussels to date.
Future costs are expected to escalate as invasive mussels continue to
spread throughout Reclamation in the 17 Western States.
Question. Does Reclamation have a research and development program
to study Quagga Mussels?
Answer. Reclamation's Research and Development (R&D) Office has
made invasive mussels a top priority. Zebra and Quagga mussel research
under Reclamation's Science and Technology Program was started in 2008
to address both existing and anticipated mussel impacts at Reclamation
facilities throughout the Western United States. The emphasis is on
monitoring, early detection, control, and mitigation to maintain
Reclamation's water and hydropower operations. The goal is broad
application of promising facilities protection technologies and
strategies. Specific investigations seek to improve early detection
methods, infrastructure coatings to prevent mussel settlement, mussel
resistant fish screens, use of filters and Ultraviolet (UV) light
systems, development of a bacterial product (Pseudomonas fluorescens)
to kill mussels, control using natural predators, addressing post-
infestation rapid die-off impacts, and assessing mussel impacts in
river and reservoir environments.
Question. How much funding has Reclamation included in the fiscal
year 2010 budget to study these invasive species?
Answer. Reclamation's fiscal year 2010 R&D Office budget request
includes $1.49 million for invasive mussel research.
DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Question. What research and development plans does Reclamation have
for the Brackish Groundwater National Desalination Research Facility?
Answer. In general, the work at this facility will focus on
improvement and testing of technologies for the treatment of inland
brackish groundwater and disposal of concentrate, with special emphasis
on the use of renewable energy to drive such processes.
Research funds for the Brackish Groundwater National Desalination
Research Facility (BGNDRF), appropriated to Reclamation under the
Desalination Act of 1979, were earmarked to New Mexico State University
in fiscal year 2008 ($3.365 million) and fiscal year 2009 ($2.0
million). For fiscal year 2010, we requested $1.6 million for O&M of
the BGNDRF, and $2.133 million for research on advanced water treatment
technologies, some of which will occur at the facility.
Research to date at BGNDRF has included work with Sandia National
Laboratories and a private sector company looking at an innovative
concentrate disposal method and testing of new membranes developed by a
university through an Office of Naval Research grant. Also underway is
concentrate disposal testing by Veolia Water and electro-dialysis
testing with New Mexico State University and General Electric. Other
projects are in the discussion stages.
The facility will provide all the requirements for researchers
working with desalination systems, concentrate management issues,
renewable energy/desalination hybrids, and rural systems.
Question. Will the funding budgeted allow for meaningful research
at the facility?
Answer. Historically, Reclamation has ensured that research
appropriations produce the highest quality products by defining the
research objectives to address the highest-priority questions, and
funding research through an open, competitive, peer reviewed process.
These have been the administration's standards for research
administration.
This approach will be used to administer research at the BGNDRF
facility for those appropriations that Reclamation controls. The
amounts requested in the President's 2010 budget are sufficient to
undertake important work advancing the treatment of brackish
groundwaters.
Reclamation's ability to ensure meaningful research is limited to
the extent that the funds appropriated for this research are earmarked
without an open, competitive process.
Question. What other advanced water treatment options are showing
promise for impaired groundwater?
Answer. Many technologies exist to treat a range of brackish
waters. Reclamation focuses its research on technologies that may
represent a significant breakthrough in either cost reduction or
effectiveness of treatment. Currently, two of the most promising
technologies that Reclamation is developing are: (1) a truly chlorine-
resistant thin-film composite reverse osmosis membrane that will allow
pre-treatment with chlorine to prevent bio-fouling without the
degradation of the membrane, and (2) a more efficient cellulose-
triacetate membrane that is naturally chlorine resistant. Both
technologies will likely be tested at the BGNDRF.
Reclamation is also working with other Government agencies,
universities, non-profits, and the private sector. Not only are there
new membrane formulations being created and tested by Reclamation and
others, innovative work is continuing on the development of cost
effective concentrate disposal, reduced energy consumption/lower
CO2 footprint/renewables, reduced fouling, and alternative
desalination technologies such as forward osmosis, membrane
distillation, electro-dialysis, thermal technologies and others.
Question. Do you see any potential for Reclamation becoming
involved in the construction of desalination plants? Why?
Answer. Historically, Reclamation has focused upon research and
development of advanced water treatment technologies up through pilot
scale testing and demonstration, and moving those technological
advances to the private sector for commercialization. Given the very
large global industry around design and construction of desalination
plants, there does not appear to be a need for Reclamation to enter
into this domain. However, Reclamation may be able to play a role in
providing designs or reviewing designs for systems that are not a focus
of the mainstream design and construction industry, for example for
small-scale plants that are part of a Reclamation Rural Water project,
or applications on Indian lands, or applications that are otherwise
integrated with Reclamation projects.
Question. You have only budgeted about $500,000 for drought
assistance in fiscal year 2010. Is that funding sufficient to address
the drought issues that are anticipated next year?
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.
The amount requested for Drought Program funding in fiscal year
2010 is primarily the result of a relatively flat overall budget for
Reclamation and increasing costs associated with site security, dam
safety, project rehabilitation, and operation and maintenance, to name
just a few. Reclamation has many important programs that need to be
funded, and has made its best effort to develop a budget that
adequately balances the competing needs for these different programs.
In addition to the $500,000 requested for drought assistance in
fiscal year 2010, Reclamation recently announced $40 million in funding
available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of
2009 to projects that will address the impacts of drought in
California. The $40 million in ARRA funding will be used to fund
drought projects beginning this summer and continuing throughout 2010.
In addition to our Drought Program, Reclamation also addresses
competing demands for finite water supplies through the Water
Conservation Initiative. Reclamation has requested $46 million for the
Water Conservation Initiative in 2010, which includes funding for the
title XVI, Challenge Grant, and Basin Study Programs.
Question. In the fiscal year 2010 budget, the rural Water Program
authorized in 2006 appears to be finally getting out of the evaluation
and rule making phase into actually starting to address the water needs
in western States. Can you update us on the status of this program?
Answer. The Rural Water Supply Act required that the Department of
the Interior develop programmatic criteria for the new program and
publish them in the Federal Register through a rulemaking process. In
November 2008, the Department published an interim final rule (Rule)
establishing comprehensive programmatic criteria governing eligibility,
the prioritization of projects for funding, and the evaluation of
studies completed under the program. The Rule became effective on an
interim basis on December 17, 2008, and the 60-day public comment
period ended on January 16, 2009. The Rule will be implemented upon
completion of a set of guidelines or internal directives (``Directives
and Standards'') describing how the program will be implemented by
Reclamation. The Directives and Standards will describe key aspects of
program implementation, such as how Reclamation will receive and review
applications, how Reclamation will review completed studies, and will
specify the required content of appraisal and feasibility studies
completed or reviewed under the program. By establishing uniform
requirements for program implementation, the Directives and Standards
will help ensure that the program is implemented consistently,
effectively and transparently across the organization.
______
Questions Submitted to Reed Murray
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
Question. Mr. Reed, The budget for CUPCA is flat when compared to
fiscal year 2009. Is this funding level sufficient to continue to make
progress on this critical project?
Answer. The President's 2010 budget for CUPCA is sufficient to
continue CUP construction and implementation of CUP mitigation and
conservation activities.
Question. What is your total funding capability for CUPCA in fiscal
year 2010?
Answer. The President's 2010 budget for CUPCA represents the
funding capability of the CUPCA program.
Question. What will this additional capability accomplish?
Answer. Since the President's 2010 budget represents the CUPCA
programs funding capability the CUPCA budget justification documents
adequately describe the proposed 2010 accomplishments.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Dorgan. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Thursday June 18, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--At the direction of the subcommittee
chairman, the following statements received by the subcommittee
are made part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2010
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Prepared Statement of the Red River Valley Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Wayne Dowd,
President, and pleased to represent the Red River Valley Association,
629 Spring St., Shreveport, Louisiana. Our organization was founded in
1925 with the express purpose of uniting the citizens of Arkansas,
Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to develop the land and water resources
of the Red River Basin.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 84th Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana, on February
19, 2009, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the
Red River Basin area as they pertain to the goals of the Association. A
summary of the civil works projects and requested funding is included
in this testimony.
The President's fiscal year 2010 budget included $5.1 billion for
the civil works programs. It is $350 million more than proposed in
fiscal year 2009 and $300 million less than what Congress enacted in
the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus bill, $5.4 billion. The problem is also
how the administration distributes funds. A few projects received the
full ``Corps Capability'' to the detriment of many projects that
receive no funding. Even though this is one of the largest
administrative budgets, the $5.1 billion level does not come close to
the real needs of our Nation. A more realistic funding level to meet
the existing needs of the civil works program is $8 billion for fiscal
year 2010. The traditional civil works programs remain at the low,
unacceptable level as in past years. These projects are the backbone to
our Nation's infrastructure for waterways, flood prevention, water
supply and ecosystem restoration. We remind you that civil works
projects are a true ``jobs program'' in that up to 85 percent of
project funding is contracted to the private sector; 100 percent of the
construction, as well as much of the architect and engineering work.
Not only do these projects provide jobs, but provide economic
development opportunities for our communities to grow and prosper,
creating permanent jobs.
We want to point out that we appreciate the funding Congress
enacted in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Bill; however, it is $200
million less than appropriated in fiscal year 2008. We encourage
Congress to increase the ``water'' share of the total Energy and Water
bill closer to 20 percent to reach the $8 billion capability.
Another proposal allocates O&M funding by watershed regions and
eliminates funding by individual project. We do not accept this concept
since you will loose ownership and identity of each project; therefore,
lose grass root support. If this was done, due to reprogramming
constraints, then reprogramming should be addressed. Major
reprogramming issues are with CG projects, not with O&M projects. Fund
O&M by project, not watershed basins.
We have great concerns over the issue of ``earmarks''. Civil Works
projects are not earmarks! Civil Works projects go through a process;
reconnaissance study, feasibility study, benefit to cost ratio test,
EIS, peer review, review by agencies, public review and comment, final
Chief of Engineer approval, authorization by all of Congress in a WRDA
bill and signed by the President. WRDA 2007 added an independent review
of major projects. No other Federal program goes through such a
rigorous approval process. Each justified project ``stands alone'', are
proven to be of national interest and should be funded by project. For
most projects there is local sponsor cost sharing during the
feasibility study, construction and for O&M. Those who have
contributed, in most cases--millions of dollars--to the process, must
have the ability to have a say for their projects to get funded. That
voice is through their Congressional delegation. We believe that
earmarks are not in the national interest, but it does not pertain to
the civil works program. For civil works it is an issue of priority of
projects to be funded and who will determine that, OMB or Congress! We
hope Congress keeps their responsibility to set civil works priorities
and to determine how its citizen's tax dollars are spent.
The President's budget proposes eliminating the current fuel tax to
fund the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) and replace it with a barge
lock-use fee. This change creates an unfair tax to industries on
waterways with locks versus waterways without locks. The needs of the
IWTF should be analyzed and determine what increase to the existing
fuel tax would maintain the necessary income flow to keep projects
funded from the Inland Water Trust Fund. The lockage fee proposal is
unfair to tributary waterways with locks and we request it not be
implemented.
I would now like to comment on some of our specific requests for
the future economic well being of the citizens residing in the four
State Red River Basin regions. It is noted that at the time for
testimony submission the details of the President's fiscal year 2010
budget have yet to be released.
Navigation.--The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the
expectations of the benefits projected. We are extremely proud of our
public ports, municipalities and State agencies that have created this
success. This upward ``trend'' in usage will continue as new industries
commence operations. A major power company, CLECO, is investing $1
billion in its Rodemacher Plant near Boyce, Louisiana, on the lower Red
River and has started moving over 3 million tons of ``petroleum coke''
and limestone, by barge, in the 4th quarter 2008. These projects are a
reality and there are many more industries considering using our
Waterway.
You are reminded that the Waterway is not complete, 6 percent
remains to be constructed, $121 million. We appreciate Congress'
appropriation level in fiscal year 2009 of $7,656,000. There is a
capability for $21 million of work, but we realistically request $12
million to keep the project moving toward completion, ``J. Bennett
Johnston Waterway (CG)''.
Now that the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is reliable year round we
must address efficiency. Presently a 9-foot draft is authorized for the
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway. All waterways below Cairo, Illinois are
authorized at 12-foot, to include the Mississippi River, Atchafalaya
River, Arkansas River and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. A 12-foot channel
would allow an additional one-third capacity, per barge, which will
greatly increase the efficiency of our Waterway and further reduce
transportation rates. This one action would have the greatest, positive
impact to reduce rates and increase competition, bringing more
industries to use waterborne transportation. We request a 1-year
reconnaissance study be funded to evaluate this proposal, at a cost of
$100,000. Fact: Approximately 95 percent is already at 12-foot year
round.
The feasibility study to continue navigation from Shreveport-
Bossier City, Louisiana, into the State of Arkansas will be completed
in CY 2010. This region of SW Arkansas and NE Texas continues to suffer
major unemployment and this navigation project, although not the total
solution, will help revitalize the economy. Due to the time lapsed in
the study the ``freight rates'' calculated a number of years ago they
must be re-evaluated this year. We request funding of $100,000 to
conduct the re-evaluation of freight rates, ``Navigation into SW
Arkansas''.
Flood Prevention.--What will happen when we ignore our levee
systems? We know the Red River levees in Arkansas do not meet Federal
standards, which is why we have the authorized project, ``Red River
Below Denison Dam, TX, AR & LA''. Now is the time to bring these levees
up to standards, before a major flood event, which will occur.
We continue to consider flood control a major objective and request
you continue funding the levee rehabilitation projects ongoing in
Arkansas. Five of 11 levee sections have been completed and brought to
Federal standards.
The levees in Louisiana have been incorporated into the Federal
system; however, they do not meet current safety standards. These
levees do not have a gravel surface roadway, threatening their
integrity during times of flooding. It is essential for personnel to
traverse the levees during a flood to inspect them for problems.
Without the gravel surface the vehicles will cause rutting, which can
create conditions for the levees to fail. A gravel surface will insure
inspection personnel can check the levees during the saturated
conditions of a flood.
Appropriations of $15 million will construct one more levee section
in Lafayette County, AR and continue the rock surfacing of levees in
Louisiana, ``Red River Below Denison Dam, AR & LA''.
Bank Stabilization.--One of the most important, continuing
programs, on the Red River is bank stabilization in Arkansas and North
Louisiana. We must stop the loss of valuable farmland that erodes down
the river and interferes with the navigation channel. In addition to
the loss of farmland is the threat to public utilities such as roads,
electric power lines and bridges; as well as increased dredging cost in
the navigable waterway in Louisiana. These bank stabilization projects
are compatible with subsequent navigation into Arkansas and we urge
that they be continued in those locations designated by the Corps of
Engineers to be the areas of highest priority. We appreciated the
Congressional funding in past fiscal years and request you fund this
project at a level of $11 million in fiscal year 2010, ``Red River
Emergency Bank Protection''.
Water Quality.--The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works),
in October 1998, agreed to support a re-evaluation of the Wichita River
Basin tributary of the project. The re-evaluation report was completed
and the Director of Civil Works signed the Environmental Record of
Decision. The plan was found to be economically justified. Then the ASA
(CW) directed that construction would not proceed until a local sponsor
was found to assume 100 percent of the O&M for the project. The 2007
WRDA bill included language that clarified that all aspects of this
project will be at full Federal expense, to include O&M.
Over the past years there has been a renewed interest by the
Lugart-Altus Irrigation District to evaluate construction of Area VI,
of the Chloride Control Project, in Oklahoma. They have obtained the
support of many State and Federal legislators, as well as a letter from
the Oklahoma Governor in support of a re-evaluation report.
Total request for the ``Chloride Control Project'': $9,000,000 for
the Texas and Oklahoma areas.
Water Supply.--Lake Kemp, just west of Wichita Falls, TX, is a
major water supply for the needs of this region. Due to siltation the
available storage of water has been impacted. A reallocation study is
needed to determine water distribution needs and raising the
conservation pool. Total O&M of $664,000 is requested for fiscal year
2010 ($214,000 is required for the base annual O&M, $300,000 for the
study and $150,000 for service bridge and gate repair).
A water re-allocation study has been completed for Lake Texoma. It
will provide for an additional 600,000 acre-feet for municipal use. The
release of the study has been delayed at the Corps HQ for over a year.
Congress needs to request that this re-allocation study be approved and
released.
Studies.--We have a number of General Investigation (GI) studies
that have been funded and have local sponsors prepared to cost share
feasibility studies. Some of those important studies include: Bossier
Parish Flood Control Study, LA--$350,000; Cross Lake Water Supply
Study, LA--$100,000; SE Oklahoma Water Resource Study, OK--$500,000; SW
Arkansas Study, AR--$100,000; Washita River Basin, OK--$500,000 and
Wichita River Basin, TX--$100,000. These studies are important to have
projects ready for future construction.
Operation & Maintenance.--Full O&M capability levels are not only
important for our Waterway project but for all our Corps projects and
flood control lakes. The backlog of critical maintenance only becomes
worse and more expensive with time. The ``2007 Summer Flood of Record''
was devastating to the recreation industry at Lake Texoma, on the main
stem Red River, as well as a number of other Oklahoma lakes. We urge
you to appropriate funding to address this serious issue, either
through an emergency supplemental or the appropriation bill. We request
that the Corps O&M projects be funded at the expressed, full Corps
capability.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.--The original
administrative submission did not include civil works funding. We want
to thank Congress for including $4.6 billion in the ``stimulus''
package for civil works projects, especially in the O&M account. These
additional funds will be important to address our long list of backlog
needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and project
details of the Red River Valley Association on behalf of the
industries, organizations, municipalities and citizens we represent
throughout the four State Red River Valley region. The Civil Works
program directly relates to national security by investing in economic
infrastructure. If waterways are closed companies will not relocate to
other parts of the country--they will move over seas. If we do not
invest now there will be a negative impact on our ability to compete in
the world market threatening our national security.
RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2010 APPROPRIATIONS--CIVIL WORKS \1\
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year RRVA Fiscal President
2009 Approp Year 2010 Fiscal Year Local Sponsor
Omnibus Request 2010 Budget Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies (GI):
Navigation into SW Arkansas: .............. $100 .............. (ARRC)
Feasibility.
Red River Waterway, LA-12' Channel, .............. 100 .............. (RRWC)
Recon.
Bossier Parish, LA................. $191 350 .............. (Bossier Levee)
Cross Lake, LA Water Supply 229 100 .............. (Shreveport)
Supplement.
SE Oklahoma Water Resource Study: 311 500 .............. (OWRB)
Feasibili- ty.
SW Arkansas Ecosystem Restoration: 143 184 .............. (?)
Recon Study.
Cypress Valley Watershed, TX....... .............. 100 .............. (?)
Sulphur River Basin, TX............ .............. 1,000 .............. (Sulphur Auth)
Washita River Basin, OK............ 191 500 .............. (L)
Wichita River Basin above Lake .............. 100 .............. (L)
Kemp, TX: Recon.
Red River Above Denison Dam, TX & .............. 100 .............. (L)
OK: Recon.
Red River Waterway, Index, AR to .............. 44 .............. (?)
Denison Dam.
Mountain Fork River Watershed, OK & .............. .............. .............. (?)
AR, Recon.
Walnut Bayou, Little River, AR..... .............. 100 .............. (ANRC)
Red River Waterway, Index to .............. .............. .............. (?)
Denison, Bendway Weir.
Construction General (CG):
Red River Waterway: J.B. Johnston 7,656 21,000 .............. (RRWC)
Waterway, LA.
Chloride Control Project, TX & OK.. 2,201 9,000 .............. N/A
Red River Below Denison Dam; AR & 2,105 11,000 .............. (Levee Districts)
LA.
Bowie County Levee, TX......... .............. .............. .............. (Levee Districts)
Red River Emergency Bank Protection 2,817 15,000 .............. (Levee Districts)
Big Cypress Valley Watershed, TX: .............. 1,450 .............. (Jefferson)
section 1135.
Palo Duro Creek, Canyon, TX: .............. 100 .............. (Canyon, TX)
section 205.
Millwood, Grassy Lake, AR: section ( \2\ ) 350 .............. (?)
1135.
Little River County/Ogden Levee, .............. 300 .............. (ASWC)
AR, PED.
McKinney Bayou, AR, PED............ .............. .............. .............. .......................
Miller County Levee, AR, section .............. .............. .............. (Miller Levee)
1135.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M):
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA... 9,797 16,230 .............. .......................
Lake Kemp, TX--Total Need.......... 198 664 .............. .......................
Basic Annual O&M............... .............. 214 .............. .......................
Reallocation Study............. .............. 300 .............. .......................
Service Bridge & Gate Repair... .............. 150 .............. .......................
Lake Texoma, TX & OK--Total Need... 6,164 9,393 .............. .......................
Basic Annual O&M............... .............. 6,393 .............. .......................
Suppl. EIS..................... .............. 1,000 .............. .......................
Backlog Maintenance............ .............. 2,000 .............. .......................
Chloride Control Project, TX & OK.. 1,348 5,824 .............. .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Depending on final Stimulus funding RRVA fiscal year 2010 requests may change. Details of the President's
fiscal year 2010 budget have NOT yet been released.
\2\ YES.
NOTE: Local Sponsor Column--Sponsor indicated in ( ); (?) indicates No Sponsor identified and need one to
continue (L) indicates Sponsor not required now but need one for feasibility; N/A--No Sponsor required.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and the members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and Bureau of Reclamation.
The Nature Conservancy's recommendations represent a priority set
of efforts that are both individually important and collectively
designed to demonstrate innovations in restoration to help guide future
resource allocation. Further, if done well, ecosystem restoration
projects pay dividends through services such as provision of more
reliable and higher quality water, natural flood attenuation,
sustaining commercial fisheries, and supporting economically-important
outdoor recreation. Moreover, the Nation's resiliency to climate change
will be substantially dictated by the health of our ecosystems. In
short, we believe the public investments we are requesting now will pay
far larger dividends for decades to come.
CORPS CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES
Continuing Authorities Program.--We thank the subcommittee for
continuing its strong support of the section 1135: Project
Modifications for Improvement of the Environment and section 206:
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration programs. However, demand for these
programs continues to outstrip funding. The Conservancy requests that
the programs be fully funded by appropriating $40 million for section
1135 and $50 million for section 206.
The Conservancy seeks funding for two section 1135 projects. The
Spunky Bottoms project (IL) is a model floodplain restoration and
reconnection effort on the Illinois River that needs $400,000 to
complete a feasibility study in fiscal year 2010; the Conservancy is
the non-Federal cost share partner. Additional dollars will be
necessary for the planning, specifications, construction and monitoring
phases, totaling approximately $7.5 million. The Chain Bridge Flats
project (D.C.) needs $100,000 to complete a reconnaissance report to
restore a globally rare habitat along the Potomac River.
The Conservancy also seeks funding for three section 206 projects:
Emiquon Preserve (IL), a floodplain restoration and reconnection
project that needs $600,000 to complete a feasibility study, sign a
project partnership agreement, and begin design; Camp Creek (OR), a
headwaters stream restoration project that needs $575,000 to sign a PCA
and complete construction; and Navajo Reservation Implementation (NM),
which needs $510,000 for restoration on the San Juan River. The
Conservancy is the cost share partner for Emiquon and Camp Creek.
We continue to be concerned about the subcommittee's guidance for
these programs. The prioritization requirements and ``no new starts''
rule in the fiscal year 2009 report block the implementation of
important conservation priorities that enjoy strong support from their
local communities. We urge the subcommittee to adopt a more flexible
approach. Appropriating the requested amounts will help address the
backlog in these programs, as will funds from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act.
Estuary Restoration Program.--The Estuary Restoration Program is a
national, multi-level, multi-agency strategy to restore our Nation's
estuaries that benefits fish, shellfish and wildlife; improves surface
and groundwater resources; provides flood control; and enhances
recreational opportunities. The Conservancy supports $10 million for
the Estuary Restoration Program in fiscal year 2010.
Upper Mississippi River Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability
Program.--The Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP) is
a dual purpose authority for integrated management of the Upper
Mississippi River (UMR) system's habitat and navigation facilities. All
activities implemented under the existing Environmental Management
Program (EMP) can be transitioned into NESP, but it is critical to fund
both programs until the transition is complete. While the Corps has the
capability to execute a $50 million budget for NESP in fiscal year 2010
for ecosystem restoration and navigation projects, and we support this
funding level, we also recognize the current budgetary constraints and
acknowledge that a more realistic NESP fiscal year 2010 new start
request should be $35 million. The Conservancy also supports $33.2
million for EMP in fiscal year 2010.
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Program (MRRP).--Under
this program, the Corps has completed 30 projects in the lower Missouri
basin States to assist in the recovery of three listed species,
restoring more than 40,000 acres of habitat. New authority was provided
in WRDA 2007 for the expenditure of funds in the upper basin States and
for the Intake Dam project on the Yellowstone River in Montana.
Construction of fish passage and screens at Intake Dam is a priority
for the recovery of the endangered pallid sturgeon and other warm-water
fish. The Conservancy supports $85 million for the MRRP in fiscal year
2010, including sufficient funding to continue progress on the design
and construction of fish passage and screens at Intake Dam.
South Florida Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Program.--Corps
flood control projects, coupled with agricultural and urban
development, have degraded one of the most diverse and ecologically
rich wetlands ecosystems in the world. WRDA 2007 authorized
construction of the first projects under the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP). We place priority on funding the restoration
of the Kissimmee River, a project that is almost 75 percent complete
and already a restoration success story. The Conservancy requests $300
million for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program in fiscal
year 2010.
Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters.--The Puget Sound and Adjacent
Waters Program provides funding for early action projects to restore
Puget Sound and its watershed. The Conservancy requests $3.5 million
for Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters in fiscal year 2010. Identification
of these early action projects is informed by the Puget Sound Nearshore
Ecosystem Restoration project (in the Investigations account), for
which the Conservancy requests $1.5 million in fiscal year 2010.
Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.--
This project will increase flood protection for Hamilton City, CA and
surrounding agricultural lands and restore approximately 1,500 acres of
riparian habitat. The PED phase for this project will be complete in
fiscal year 2009, the non-Federal sponsor is in place and the project
received construction authorization in WRDA 2007. The Conservancy
supports $15 million in fiscal year 2010 to complete the first phase of
construction.
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery.--Eastern oyster populations in the
Chesapeake Bay have been decimated from historical levels by a century
of overfishing, disease and pollution. This project will help move the
oyster population towards sustainable levels. The requested
appropriation will create more than 60 acres of additional oyster
habitat. The Conservancy supports $4 million in fiscal year 2010 for
this program.
SUSTAINABLE RIVERS PROJECT
The Sustainable Rivers Project (SRP) is an initiative launched by
the Corps that recognizes the urgent need to update decades-old water
management practices to meet society's needs today and in the coming
decades. The SRP is developing and demonstrating innovative approaches
to reservoir operations that restore critical ecosystems and valuable
ecosystem services, while continuing to provide for (and often
improving) water supply and flood risk management. These innovative
approaches also offer substantial promise for social and ecological
adaptation to climate change. The SRP currently involves work in 8
river basins containing 36 Federal reservoirs, as well as training and
development of next-generation decision support tools for water
management. The Conservancy requests $3 million for the Corps'
Institute for Water Resources to support engineering and scientific
needs of current and new SRP sites.
Savannah Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Study.--The Savannah
River basin is experiencing tremendous growth, and recent droughts have
highlighted the need to comprehensively address water use issues in the
basin. The reconnaissance phase of this study evaluated water
management in the reservoirs and indicated that future needs may not be
met under current management practices. The feasibility phase will
consider a new set of rules that could meet future demands while
protecting more than 200 miles of river and tens of thousands of acres
of wetlands. The Conservancy supports $250,000 in fiscal year 2010.
Willamette River Floodplain Restoration Study.--The Corps and the
Conservancy are working together to identify ecological flow
requirements downstream of Corps dams, and to incorporate those flows
into dam operations. Initial efforts have focused on the Middle and
Coast Forks of the Willamette, in conjunction with a study to identify
floodplain habitat restoration opportunities, and implementation and
monitoring of flow releases are ongoing. Flow analysis has begun in
additional tributaries, with the ultimate goal of system-wide changes
in dam operation and floodplain management to meet ecological goals.
The Conservancy supports $150,000 in fiscal year 2010 to continue this
study.
Connecticut River Watershed Study.--This project will restore 410
miles of river flow and thousands of acres of natural habitat in the
Connecticut River Basin. The basin is a priority landscape for the
Conservancy due to its high quality tributary systems, unique natural
communities and multitude of ESA-listed species. The study identifies
dam management modifications for environmental benefits while
maintaining beneficial human uses. We support $450,000 in fiscal year
2010 for this study.
Bill Williams River--Alamo Dam.--Numerous Federal, State and
private partners have invested significant funding in determining the
flow needs of downstream ecosystems and working with the Corps to
change operations at Alamo Dam to provide these flows. This request
will provide additional baseline information about the River and
continue long-term monitoring to guide future management actions on
rivers across the southwestern U.S. The Conservancy supports an
Operations and Maintenance appropriation for Alamo Dam in fiscal year
2010 that includes $250,000 for these purposes.
OTHER CORPS INVESTIGATION PRIORITIES
Thames River Basin Watershed Study.--The Thames River Basin
ecosystem, including its tributaries to Long Island Sound, depends on
naturally variable water flow, good water quality and suitable habitat.
This study will determine what research and measures are necessary to
improve the management of water control structures in the basin. We
support $100,000 in fiscal year 2010 to complete the reconnaissance
phase.
Middle Potomac River Watershed Comprehensive Study.--This study
will develop a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional sustainable
watershed management plan for the Middle Potomac River watershed,
balancing the ecological functions and services provided by the river
with the human demands upon it. To support the completion of the
watershed assessment, we support $844,000 in fiscal year 2010.
Yellowstone River Corridor Comprehensive Study.--Funding this
ongoing study of economics, fisheries, and wetlands studies will help
ensure that the longest free-flowing river in the lower 48 States
maintains its natural functions while supporting irrigation and other
economic uses of its waters. The Conservancy supports $750,000 for
fiscal year 2010.
Lake Champlain Canal Feasibility Study.--Invasive species are the
most significant threat to the native biodiversity of Lake Champlain in
New York and Vermont. Several new invaders are poised to enter Lake
Champlain through the Champlain Canal in coming years, and an invasive
species dispersal barrier is urgently needed. The Corps is authorized
to study the feasibility of such a barrier and to construct and operate
it. The Conservancy supports $500,000 for the feasibility study in
fiscal year 2010.
Susquehanna River Basin Low Flow Management and Environmental
Restoration.--Drought conditions, combined with current and projected
demands for water use, have the potential to impact natural ecosystems
in the Susquehanna River basin and the upper Chesapeake Bay. This
appropriation will fund a basin-wide study to investigate low flow
conditions and establish ecologically based goals and standards for low
flow management. The Conservancy supports $285,000 in fiscal year 2010
for this project.
Navajo Reservation Watershed Management, Restoration and
Development.--The San Juan River watershed is severely impacted by
water withdrawals, flow regulation at Navajo Dam and runoff from
petroleum extraction and agriculture. This project will formulate a
conservation strategy for the watershed within the Navajo Nation. The
Conservancy supports $315,000 in fiscal year 2010 for this project.
Pecos River Environmental Management Planning.--The Pecos River
below Santa Rosa Dam is severely affected by flow regulation,
irrigation, water withdrawals and runoff, preventing native vegetation
from regenerating and causing frequent drying. This project will help
develop a comprehensive strategy that identifies key conservation
targets, critical threats and practical actions to address them. The
Conservancy supports $840,000 in fiscal year 2010 for this project.
CORPS EXPENSES
Mid-Atlantic River Basin Commissions.--We applaud the subcommittee
for restoring Federal funding to the Delaware, Potomac, and Susquehanna
River Basin Commissions in fiscal year 2009. They are essential to
advancing and coordinating the water management and conservation
interests of the Federal Government, the affected States, and the
Conservancy. We support $2,365,000 for the Commissions in fiscal year
2010.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery and San Juan River
Basin Recovery Programs.--These programs take a balanced approach to
restore four endangered fish species in the Colorado River system while
allowing water use to continue in the arid West. A full appropriation
will fund work on remaining major capital projects, including the
completion of fish screens at the Hogback Diversion Dam and Tusher Wash
Dam. The Conservancy supports $3.2 million in fiscal year 2010 for
these Programs.
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.--An agreement between
the Governors of Wyoming, Nebraska and Colorado and the Secretary of
the Interior sets forth a plan to restore five endangered or threatened
species in the Platte River basin. The Conservancy supports $14,038,500
for this recovery effort in fiscal year 2010.
Over the course of the past 10 years, restoration funding through
the Corps has frequently focused on a select set of large-scale
programs. These programs have been essential to restoring and
maintaining some of America's most precious and imperiled ecosystems.
At the same time, the role of smaller-scale projects should not be
underestimated for their cumulative benefit and power as demonstrations
to guide broader-scale efforts. We encourage the subcommittee to
address the needs of these critical projects while continuing to
support large-scale programs.
All of the restoration projects supported in this testimony will
create the same kinds of on-the-ground jobs created through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The restored wetland and water
resources resulting from these projects will also contribute ongoing
value to local and regional economies through the important ecosystem
services provided by healthy waterways and wetlands.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments on the Energy
and Water Appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) welcomes the opportunity to provide our views
on the budget estimates for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or
the Corps) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) for fiscal year
2010.
In its recent report on the concurrent resolution for fiscal year
2010, the House Budget Committee said that the United States faces two
significant deficits: the first, a budget in deficit this year alone by
$1.752 trillion, according to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB); the second, an economy running at 6.8 percent, or $1 trillion,
below its potential.
These are daunting numbers, and Congress confronts a major
challenge in funding the operations of the Government in light of the
depressed economy and the continuing Federal deficits.
But ASCE believes the Nation faces a third deficit--one that is as
important as the first two. The United States must manage a continuing
infrastructure investment deficit. Federal outlays for basic public
works systems have declined relative to gross domestic product (GDP)
over the past several decades.
In its 2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, ASCE reported
that the Nation needs to invest approximately $2.2 trillion over the
next 5 years to maintain the Nation's total infrastructure in good
condition.
Even with current and planned investments from Federal, State, and
local governments in the next 5 years, the ``gap'' between the overall
need and actual spending will total more than $1 trillion by 2014.
Within the Nation's general water resources alone, ASCE identified
a 5-year funding gap of more than $20 billion.
Nowhere is the infrastructure investment deficit more acute than in
our waterways. Of the 257 locks still in use on the Nation's inland
waterways, 30 were built in the 19th century and another 92 are more
than 60 years old. The average age of all federally owned or operated
locks is nearly 60 years, well past their planned design life of 50
years. The cost to replace the present system of locks is estimated at
more than $125 billion.
congress should appropriate $7 billion for the u.s. corps of engineers
CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM IN FISCAL YEAR 2010
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has one of the Federal
Government's largest environmental responsibilities. The Corps provides
ecosystem restoration, constructs sustainable facilities, regulates
waterways and manages natural resources, and cleans up contaminated
military bases.
Forty-one States, 16 State capitals and all States east of the
Mississippi River are served by commercially navigable waterways. The
U.S. inland waterway system consists of 12,000 miles of navigable
waterways in four systems that connect with most of the States in the
United States. The entire system contains 257 locks. The waterways
include the Mississippi River, the Ohio River Basin, the Gulf
Intercoastal Waterway, and the Pacific Coast systems.
Three-quarters of the Nation's inland waterways (9,000 miles) are
within the Mississippi River system. The next largest segment is the
Ohio River system (2,800 miles). The Gulf Coast Intercoastal Waterway
system is 1,109 miles, and the Columbia River system is only 596 miles
long, the shortest of the four major systems.
The network includes nearly 11,000 miles of the ``fuel-taxed inland
waterway system.'' Commercial waterway operators on these designated
waterways pay a fuel tax, deposited in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund,
which funds half the cost of new construction and major rehabilitation
of the inland waterway infrastructure.
Because of their ability to move large amounts of cargo, the inland
waterways are a strategic economic and military resource. A recent
analysis by the U.S. Army War College concluded that ``the strategic
contributions of these inland waterways are not well understood. The
lack of adequate understanding impacts decisions contributing to
efficient management, adequate funding, and effective integration with
other modes of transportation at the national level. Recommendations
demonstrate that leveraging the strategic value of U.S. inland
waterways will contribute to building an effective and reliable
national transportation network for the 21st century.''
The current system of inland waterways lacks resilience in that
waterway usage is increasing but facilities are aging and many are well
past their design life of 50 years. Recovery from any event of
significance would be harmed by the age and deteriorated condition of
the system. Future investment must focus on life-cycle maintenance,
system interdependencies, redundancy, security, and recovery from
natural and man-made hazards.
In spite of inadequate budgets in recent years, the Corps continues
to keep the waterways functioning. It will open new twin 1,200-foot
locks on the Ohio River to replace a single, shorter lock built in
1921. The Corps is currently constructing new, larger locks in several
States, including Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia.
The Corps also is embarking on major renovations of several older
locks. These projects represent a $3.5 billion investment in
modernizing the Nation's inland waterways. They also include
significant investments in environmental restoration and management.
The Corps is bringing new technology online to make waterways
navigation safer. The latest innovation is called ``real-time current
and velocities.'' This system alerts waterways users to the real-time
speed of wind and currents on inland waterways. A total of six systems
will be completed by the end of 2009.
In addition to the infrastructure mentioned above, the Corps has
major responsibilities in other areas. It protects coastlines; develops
flood-reduction and hydropower projects; oversees 4,300 recreation
areas at 420 lakes in 43 States; and operates 134 multiple-purpose
projects that contain storage for water supply in 26 States and Puerto
Rico.
The USACE also shares responsibility among Federal, State and local
agencies, and private landowners for raising awareness and
understanding of the risks associated with living and working behind
levees.
The fiscal year 2009 appropriation for the Corps of Engineers is
$5.4 billion, but the construction backlog for the Corps tops $60
billion nationwide. Even with the addition of $4.6 billion for fiscal
year 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the
investment deficit on our waterways remains at an estimated $20.5
billion through 2014.
The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2010 is $5.1
billion. Despite the difficult budget climate and the dismal economic
picture, we urge an appropriation of $7 billion in fiscal year 2010 to
begin the long overdue process of rebuilding America's water resources
infrastructure.
CONGRESS SHOULD APPROPRIATE $1.3 BILLION FOR THE U.S. BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION IN FISCAL YEAR 2010
The Bureau of Reclamation's mission is to ``manage, develop, and
protect water and related resources in an environmentally and
economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.'' The
Bureau is the Nation's largest wholesale water supplier; it administers
348 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 245 million acre-feet
of water. It provides water to more than 31 million customers and
supplies 20 percent of western farmers with water to irrigate 10
million acres of farmland.
In addition, the Bureau is the Nation's second largest producer of
hydroelectric power, generating more than 40 billion kilowatt-hours of
energy each year--an amount equivalent to the energy provided by 80
million barrels of crude oil. In the 100 years since Reclamation's
creation, the Federal Government has invested almost $21 billion in
original development costs for its infrastructure and other facilities.
The Bureau operates 348 dams and reservoirs, 58 hydropower
generation facilities, more than 8,000 miles of canals, more than
24,000 miles of water distribution laterals, and more than 13,000 miles
of drains. ASCE notes that most of Reclamation's major dams,
reservoirs, hydroelectric plants, and irrigation systems are 50 or more
years old. In December 2007, the Bureau calculated that nearly 80 of
the 348 dams (approximately 23 percent) are 90 to 100 years old or
older.
The Bureau has identified an estimated $3 billion in total
infrastructure investment needs over the next 20 years.
We concur with former Commissioner Robert Johnson, who informed
Congress in 2008 that, although the Bureau and its more than 350
operating partners have successfully operated and maintained the
infrastructure to date, the aging process will inevitably lead to
increased pressure on budgets and user rates to keep infrastructure
service and reliability corresponding with past levels. The Bureau and
its partners anticipate a steady increase in infrastructure repair
needs that will continue to grow over time, the Bureau said last April.
The fiscal year 2009 appropriation was $1.1 billion, the same as
fiscal year 2008, for dams, canals, water treatment and conservation,
and rural water projects. The fiscal year 2010 proposal is $1.020
billion. Congress should appropriate $1.3 billion for the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation in fiscal year 2010, with the bulk of the increase set
aside for infrastructure renewal under the Bureau's 5-year capital
improvement plan.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-
Mississippi Delta
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES PROJECT
FISCAL YEAR 2010 REQUEST--$500 MILLION
As the front line flood protection provider for the approximately
300,000 Mississippians who reside within the 10 counties of our levee
district, the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee Board humbly requests that
you allocate adequate funding to fully fund the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project (MR&T) at the Corps of Engineers' capability level
for the 2010 fiscal year--$500 million.
And yes, we do know that is a lot of money. Even in this time--one
which many of us believed we'd never see--of trillion dollar deficits
and untold trillions in evaporated wealth, we do indeed know that $500
million is a lot of money.
We know that these are perilous times for our Nation, times in
which the collective wisdom and sound judgment of you men and women
will be nothing less than critical to our well being as a people. We
know there are simply fiscal limits and we know that priorities must be
and will be set.
But we also know that flood control is nothing less than vital to
America's heartland. In many cases, such as our part of the Mississippi
Delta, flood control is the primary factor allowing those who live
there to live there. The heartland produces much of the food and fiber
which allows us to feed and clothe not only our Nation, but much of the
world. But there can be no food, there can be no fiber if the most
fertile soils this side of the Nile delta were to be under water--were
to be again inundated by the same water which created them.
The Mainline Mississippi River Levee System, truly one of the
world's greatest engineering marvels, is literally all that stands
between the human beings who live and produce and prosper up and down,
along either side of the Mississippi River--the largest, most powerful
and often most fickle flowing waterway on the North American continent.
Our levees are strong, true and tested, but like all the creations of
man, they must be maintained; they must be vigilantly strengthened and
repaired from the ravages of the power they contain every day.
We ask that the MR&T's levees be funded at levels of $69.972
million for construction, $61.2 million for channel improvements,
$13.522 million for levee maintenance and $79.309 million for channel
maintenance.
There are many projects, many efforts within the flood control
umbrella that is the MR&T, and there are many who will speak to you on
behalf of them, but for our people, for the lives and livelihoods of
those we are dedicated to protect, there is only this levee board to
speak. And so we now will.
For us there must remain one overriding priority--the Upper Yazoo
Project. Ladies and Gentlemen, this effort designed to protect
thousands from chronic flooding along the Yazoo/Coldwater river system,
is perhaps the least controversial flood control project in the Nation,
favored not only by our citizenry but the environmental community, as
well. It is designed and it is demonstratively effective within its
completed reaches. It need only be adequately funded to provide long
awaited relief to those who have suffered for many years.
We ask that you provide the Corps capability funding level of $24.4
million in 2010.
We also ask that this collective Congress provide funding for the
following projects affecting our district and its people at the 2010
capability levels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION
Backwater........................................... $325,000
Main Stem........................................... $25,000
MS Delta Headwaters................................. $25 million
Big Sunflower River................................. $2.18 million
Reformulation Study................................. $3 million
MAINTENANCE
Revetments and Dikes................................ $58.2 million
Sardis Lake......................................... $14.483 million
Arkabutla Lake...................................... $13.793 million
Enid Lake........................................... $12.69 million
Grenada Lake........................................ $13.231 million
Greenwood........................................... $1.85 million
Yazoo City.......................................... $550,000
Yazoo Main Stem..................................... $3.154 million
Yazoo Tributaries................................... $953,000
Big Sunflower....................................... $4.311 million
Yazoo Backwater..................................... $905,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your careful consideration of our requests and we
trust that once again, as has been so critical for our people on so
many occasions over the years, the old adage will once again be
validated: ``The President proposes, but the Congress disposes.''
______
Prepared Statement of the California State Coastal Conservancy
SUMMARY
On behalf of the California State Coastal Conservancy, I want to
thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to present our priorities
for fiscal year 2010 and, at the same time, express our appreciation
for your support of the Conservancy's projects in past years. The
Conservancy respectfully requests needed funding for the following
critical U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects during fiscal year 2010.
All of these requests reflect Corps of Engineers capability for the
individual projects: $18 million for the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Project
(Construction General); $7,750,000 for Napa River Salt Marsh Project
(Construction General); $18,500,000 for the Hamilton Bel-Marin Keys
Wetland Restoration Project (Construction General) and $2,800,000 for
the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study (General Investigations).
CONSERVANCY BACKGROUND
The California Coastal Conservancy, established in 1976, is a State
agency that uses entrepreneurial techniques to purchase, protect,
restore and enhance coastal resources while providing public access to
the shore. We work in partnership with local governments, other public
agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners to accomplish
these goals.
To date, the Conservancy has undertaken more than 950 projects
along the 1,100 mile California coastline and around San Francisco Bay,
resulting in completed projects in every coastal county and all 9 San
Francisco Bay Area counties. Through these projects, the Conservancy:
protects and improves coastal wetlands, streams, and watersheds; works
with local communities to revitalize urban waterfronts; assists local
communities in solving complex land-use problems; and protects
agricultural lands and supports coastal agriculture, to list a few of
its main activities.
Since our establishment in 1976, the Coastal Conservancy has:
helped build more than 300 access ways and trails opening more than 80
miles of coastal and bay lands for public use; assisted in the
completion of over 100 urban waterfront projects; and joined in
partnership endeavors with more than 100 local land trusts and other
nonprofit groups, making local community involvement an integral part
of the Coastal Conservancy's work.
MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT--CORPS OF ENGINEERS, LOS
ANGELES DISTRICT
In fiscal year 2010 we are seeking $18,500,000 in Construction
funding for the Army Corps of Engineers Construction General account to
finalize design and begin the removal of the Matilija Dam in Ventura
County, California. Approximately $1 million will be utilized to
finalize design activities and the remaining $14 million in Corps
capability will be used to advance construction of the project. Of that
amount, approximately $7,500,000 would be designated for construction
activities associated with the high-flow bypass of the dam with the
remaining $5,500,000 being utilized for the building of levees
downstream from the site.
The Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project, authorized in
Public Law 110-114, is a project of vital importance and consists of
the removal of the no longer needed or functional 200-foot tall
Matilija Dam, located on a tributary to the Ventura River. The dam is
currently unusable as sediment has filled in its reservoir. Completion
of the project will reopen 17.3 miles of unimpeded habitat for the
endangered steelhead trout and other aquatic species. In addition, the
project will restore over 2,800 acres of habitat that will support a
wide variety of native species, including 25 special status species
while replenishing area beaches by allowing sand (now trapped behind
the Dam) to flow to coastal beaches upon the Dam's removal.
The removal of Matilija Dam will also provide extensive economic
benefits in addition to the environmental benefits that will be
accrued. Specifically, over the life of the project we can expect an
increase in California's economic output of $250 million and the
creation of 1,500 jobs for the $100 million investment in the
construction of the project. In the more immediate future (3 years)
there would be an economic benefit of $150 million and the creation of
over 900 jobs making the project a sound investment in California and
the Nation's economy.
This project is one of the largest dam removal projects in the
Country and enjoys broad support from many local, State and Federal
agencies. To remove the dam, 6 million cubic yards of sediments will be
moved or recontoured and a high flow sediment bypass system will be
constructed at a water diversion downstream. In addition, a silt
removal system will be installed along the diversion canal.
Furthermore, levees will be built in several places along the river
channel to protect property from flooding due to the expected increases
in stream channel elevation in the first years after removal of the
dam. The project also involves removal of invasive plants and the
installation of replacement water wells.
NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH--CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT
For fiscal year 2010, we are seeking $8 million in construction
funds to continue to advance this critical project that is nearly two-
thirds complete. The only remaining work is that which was authorized
for construction in Public Law 110-114 and must be undertaken by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The funds requested would allow the Corps
of Engineers to complete design and begin construction of their portion
of the Napa River Salt Marsh Project which includes the restoration of
Ponds 6-8. It is important to note that the project can be completed
quickly as it only requires a total of $13 million to construct the
Ponds 6-8 improvements over an estimated 2-year construction period.
Substantial funding during the current fiscal year is essential to
ongoing project success as the local sponsors have spent their full
share and have no additional State or local funds dedicated to the
project to continue its implementation. State and local partners
expended their share on completion of Phases I and II of the project.
Phase I involved opening 3,000 acres of salt ponds (Ponds 3, 4, and 5)
to full tidal action in 2006 and is the largest tidal restoration
project in the San Francisco Bay to date. Phase II involved the
restoration of 1,700 acres (Ponds 1/1A, and 2) to managed ponds for
waterfowl and shorebirds in 2007. Without Federal funding this fiscal
year, the project will continue to be halted, benefits will continue to
be delayed and project costs will increase greatly.
The project is part of a larger environmental restoration effort to
restore the Nation's second largest estuary the San Francisco Bay, and
its watershed, to its natural state. This restoration effort is
expected to improve the environmental sustainability of the Estuary
while providing great scenic and recreational values for the local
community. Federal funds are critically required for the completion of
the project whose extensive benefits to the region include: providing
extensive wetland habitat in San Francisco Bay; the beneficial use for
recycled water in the North Bay; improved open space and recreational
opportunities; and resolving urgent issues associated with
deterioration of the site's levee, water control structures, and water
quality.
Our request reflects Corps capability and funding will be utilized
to complete design of Ponds 6-8. In addition, funding will initiate
design of the recycled water pipeline, an item expressly included by
Congress in the project's authorization. Funds will also be used to
secure necessary permits and approvals and begin construction of Ponds
6-8.
The 10,000 acre Napa River Salt Marsh was purchased by the State of
California from Cargill in 1994 and is managed by the California
Department of Fish and Game. The State Coastal Conservancy has been the
non-Federal sponsor working with the Corps on the Feasibility Study.
The Corps' Feasibility Study was completed and the Chief's Report was
signed in December 2004.
HAMILTON BEL-MARIN KEYS WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT--CORPS OF
ENGINEERS, SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT
In fiscal year 2010, the California State Coastal Conservancy is
seeking $18,500,000 in Construction funding for the Hamilton Bel-Marin
Keys Wetland Restoration Project. The project was authorized by
Congress in 1999 (Public Law 106-53) and our request reflects Corps
capability for the project.
This project is of critical importance as it will provide nearly
700 acres of restored tidal and seasonal wetlands at a former Army base
and provides much needed habitat for several threatened and endangered
species; as well as, shorebirds and waterfowl migrating along the
Pacific Flyway. Because the project requires large volumes of dredged
sediment for completion, this project will result in a greatly reduced
need to dispose of sediment in the Bay and Pacific Ocean, which has
direct benefits to aquatic life. Furthermore, the project also
beneficially uses dredged material from the San Francisco Bay which
provides for increased navigation and maritime commerce, a much needed
economic stimulus for the region. In addition to the extensive
environmental and maritime navigation benefits, the project will also
serve as a key driver for the regional economy as implementation and
full funding is expected to bring approximately 304 jobs to Marin
County, California.
The project was provided full funding in the Omnibus Appropriations
Act of 2009 and as a result work is currently underway. As a result of
this significant commitment, the majority of the required site
preparation has been completed on the former Army Airfield, including
the construction of miles of levees. The main runway and taxiways are
now in the process of being buried under millions of cubic yards of
clean dredged sediment. Subsequently, the easterly levee will be
breached allowing tidal waters to once again flood the site.
Significant progress has been made as over 2.4 million cubic yards
being delivered to Hamilton as of January 2009. To complete the
Airfield portion of the project an additional 5 million cubic yards of
sediment is needed. Under the current schedule it is expected that
completion of the Airfield portion of the project will occur between
2013 and 2015. Following completion of the Airfield, the Corps will
work on the adjacent Antenna field and Bel-Marin Keys V property for a
total project area of nearly 2,500 acres.
The project enjoys broad support from environmental groups, labor
and maritime interests as well as local government in Marin County. Key
supporters include the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, the County of
Marin, the Port of Oakland, the Bay Planning Coalition, the Bay
Institute, the Save San Francisco Bay Association, the National Audubon
Society, and many others.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY--CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SAN
FRANCISCO DISTRICT
The Conservancy is seeking $2,800,000 in Investigations funding to
continue the Feasibility Study for this groundbreaking project that
will provide tidal and fluvial flood protection to the south San
Francisco Bay Area. The study was initiated in fiscal year 2005 and has
been ongoing thanks to the support of the subcommittee. In fact, in the
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 the project received $2,800,000
representing full capability for the project.
This project is of national significance as it will provide tidal
and fluvial flood protection for the south San Francisco Bay Area,
including Silicon Valley, protecting approximately 42,800 acres, 7,400
homes and businesses, and significant urban infrastructure, including
major highways, hospitals and airport facilities. In addition, the
project is being pursued in conjunction with the 2nd largest wetlands
restoration project occurring in the United States and as such will
provide extensive habitat for federally endangered species and
migratory waterfowl.
To continue to advance this important study it is imperative that
local interests and the Federal Government work together to ensure a
reliable funding stream for the project. To that end, continued Federal
funds are necessary to keep the project on schedule as the
Conservancy's co-local sponsor for the project, the Santa Clara Valley
Water District, will be approaching voters in 2012 to secure local
funding for the construction of the recommended project. When this
occurs, the District needs to have a deliverable product that they can
showcase to voters given the fact that California's Proposition 13
requires that any new taxation be approved by a two-thirds majority of
voters.
During fiscal year 2010 we are seeking $2,800,000 in accordance
with Corps of Engineers capabilities for the project during the current
fiscal year. Funds in fiscal year 2010 are expected to be used for the
following activities: Hydrology, Hydraulics and Coastal Analysis--$1
million; Economics Analysis--$250,000; Plan Formulation--Alternatives
Development $250,000; Habitat Evaluation Analysis--$150,000; NEPA--EIS
Development--$400,000; Engineering & Design/Geotech--$200,000; Project
Management--$400,000 and Surveys & Mapping--$150,000.
The project enjoys substantial support among Federal, State and
local agencies with the following agencies serving as active project
partners: California State Coastal Conservancy; California Department
of Fish and Game; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey; Santa Clara Valley Water
District; Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District;
Hewlett, Packard, and Moore Foundations and the Goldman Fund. The
project is also supported by the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, the
city of San Jose, The Bay Institute, Save the Bay, the Bay Trail
Program, the National Audubon Society, and many other local
governments, environmental groups, community groups, businesses, and
recreation organizations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
SUMMARY
This statement urges the subcommittee's support for a fiscal year
2010 appropriation of $100,000 to initiate a Reconnaissance Study of
the Coyote Creek Watershed.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT--COYOTE CREEK WATERSHED STUDY
Background.--Coyote Creek drains Santa Clara County's largest
watershed, an area of more than 320 square miles encompassing most of
the eastern foothills, the city of Milpitas, and portions of the Cities
of San Jose and Morgan Hill. It flows northward from Anderson Reservoir
through more than 40 miles of rural and heavily urbanized areas and
empties into south San Francisco Bay.
Prior to construction of Coyote and Anderson Reservoirs, flooding
occurred in 1903, 1906, 1909, 1911, 1917, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1930
and 1931. Since 1950, the operation of the reservoirs has reduced the
magnitude of flooding, although flooding is still a threat and did
cause damages in 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997. Significant areas of
older homes in downtown San Jose and some major transportation
corridors remain susceptible to extensive flooding. The federally-
supported lower Coyote Creek Project (San Francisco Bay to Montague
Expressway), which was completed in 1996, protected homes and
businesses from storms which generated record runoff in the northern
parts of San Jose and Milpitas.
The proposed Reconnaissance Study would evaluate the reaches
upstream of the completed Federal flood protection works on lower
Coyote Creek.
Objective of Study.--The objectives of the Reconnaissance Study are
to investigate flood damages within the Coyote Creek Watershed; to
identify potential alternatives for alleviating those damages which
also minimize impacts on fishery and wildlife resources, provide
opportunities for ecosystem restoration, provide for recreational
opportunities; and to determine whether there is a Federal interest to
proceed into the Feasibility Study Phase.
Study Authorization.--In May 2002, the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed a resolution
directing the Corps to ``. . . review the report of the Chief of
Engineers on Coyote and Berryessa Creeks . . . and other pertinent
reports, to determine whether modifications of the recommendations
contained therein are advisable in the interest of flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration and protection, water conservation
and supply, recreation, and other allied purposes . . .''.
Fiscal Year 2006 Administration Budget Request and Funding.--The
Coyote Watershed Study was one of only three ``new start'' studies
proposed for funding nationwide in the administration fiscal year 2006
budget request. Congress did not include funding for the study in the
final fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill, or in any subsequent bills.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding.--Congress did not appropriate any funding
to the project in fiscal year 2009.
Fiscal Year 2010 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation of $100,000 to
initiate a multi-purpose Reconnaissance Study within the Coyote Creek
Watershed.
SUMMARY
This statement urges the subcommittee's support for a fiscal year
2010 appropriation of $2.25 million to complete the General
Reevaluation Report, update of environmental documents, and commence
design work for the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project element of
the Coyote/Berryessa Creek Project.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT--COYOTE/BERRYESSA CREEK PROJECT--BERRYESSA CREEK
PROJECT ELEMENT
Background.--The Berryessa Creek Watershed is located in northeast
Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San
Francisco Bay. A major tributary of Coyote Creek, Berryessa Creek
drains 22 square miles in the city of Milpitas and a portion of San
Jose.
On average, Berryessa Creek floods once every 4 years. The most
recent flood in 1998 resulted in significant damage to homes and
automobiles. The proposed project on Berryessa Creek, from Calaveras
Boulevard to upstream of Old Piedmont Road, will protect portions of
the cities of San Jose and Milpitas. The flood plain is largely
urbanized with a mix of residential and commercial development. Based
on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 2005 report, a 1 percent or
100-year flood could potentially result in damages exceeding $179
million. Benefit-to-cost ratios for the six project alternatives being
evaluated range from 2:1 to 7.3:1.
Study Synopsis.--In January 1981, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (District) applied for Federal assistance for flood protection
projects under section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act. The Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized construction on the
Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project as part of a combined Coyote/
Berryessa Creek Project to protect portions of the cities of Milpitas
and San Jose.
The Coyote Creek element of the project was completed in 1996. The
Berryessa Creek Project element proposed in the Corps' 1987 feasibility
report consisted primarily of a trapezoidal concrete lining. This was
not acceptable to the local community. The Corps and the District are
currently preparing a General Reevaluation Report which involves
reformulating a project which is more acceptable to the local community
and more environmentally sensitive. Project features will include
setback levees and floodwalls to preserve sensitive areas (minimizing
the use of concrete), appropriate aquatic and riparian habitat
restoration and fish passage, and sediment control structures to limit
turbidity and protect water quality. The project will also accommodate
the city of Milpitas' adopted trail master plan. Estimated total costs
of the General Reevaluation Report work are $6.5 million, and should be
completed in 2009.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding.--Congress appropriated $138,000 to the
project in fiscal year 2009.
Fiscal Year 2010 Funding Recommendation.--Based on the continuing
threat of significant flood damage from Berryessa Creek and the need to
complete the General Reevaluation Report, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation of $2.25 million for
the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project element of the Coyote/
Berryessa Creek Project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Calaveras County Water District
PROJECT REQUESTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW HOGAN WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (Construction General-- $600,000
section 219)..............................................
COSGROVE CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT (Construction General-- 200,000
section 205)..............................................
CALAVERAS COUNTY REGIONAL WATER/WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED 600,000
WATER FACILITIES PROGRAM--PHASE II (Construction General--
section 5039).............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW
On behalf of the Calaveras County Water District, I want to thank
the subcommittee for this opportunity to present our priorities for
fiscal year 2010 and, at the same time, express our appreciation for
your support of the District's projects in recent years. The Calaveras
County Water District is respectfully seeking the following requests
before the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during fiscal year
2010. We are seeking $600,000 from the Corps of Engineers Construction
General Account section 219 for our New Hogan Water Distribution System
request; $200,000 from the Corps of Engineers Construction General
Account section 205 for the Cosgrove Creek Flood Control Project; and
$600,000 from the Corps Construction General Account section 5039 for
the Calaveras County Regional Water/Wastewater and Recycled Water
Facilities Program Phase II.
As background, our agency, the Calaveras County Water District
(CCWD) was founded in the fall of 1946 and was organized under the laws
of the State of California as a public agency for the purpose of
developing and administering the water resources in Calaveras County.
Therefore, CCWD is a California Special District and is governed by the
California Constitution and the California Government and Water Codes.
CCWD is not a part of, or under the control of, the County of
Calaveras. CCWD was formed to preserve and develop water resources and
to provide water and wastewater service to the citizens of Calaveras
County.
Under State law, CCWD, through its board of directors, has general
powers over the use of water within its boundaries. These powers
include, but are not limited to: the right of eminent domain, authority
to acquire, control, distribute, store, spread, sink, treat, purify,
reclaim, process and salvage any water for beneficial use, to provide
sewer service, to sell treated or untreated water, to acquire or
construct hydroelectric facilities and sell the power and energy
produced to public agencies or public utilities engaged in the
distribution of power, to contract with the United States, other
political subdivisions, public utilities, or other persons, and subject
to the California State Constitution, levy taxes and improvements.
NEW HOGAN WATER DISTRIBUTION PROJECT
CCWD is seeking $600,000 in fiscal year 2010 for the New Hogan
Water Distribution Project, a multi-phased project that will improve
the region's water supply, significantly increase and protect water
quality and provide significant environmental restoration that will
greatly increase habitat for local wildlife while increasing
recreational opportunities for the local community. The project will
construct infrastructure to convey surface water to existing and
expanding agricultural acreage in western Calaveras County. The area
currently relies on a diminishing groundwater supply, which is
experiencing water quality problems and has been identified by the
State as an overdrafted groundwater basin. The project will include
monitoring facilities to continually evaluate the region's sensitive
groundwater basin and its response to conjunctive use operation and
will also include enhanced modeling tools that evaluate the
effectiveness of planned or proposed facilities for expanding
conjunctive use in the region.
The project will provide a sustainable water supply for the western
Calaveras County region experiencing declining groundwater levels,
water quality deterioration, expanding agriculture, significant
population growth, and the continuing threat of drought. Infrastructure
will be built to convey surface water from existing reservoirs and
water rights and entitlements permitted or contracted by the Calaveras
County Water District to areas at greatest risk for groundwater supply
problems. Through introduction of surface water planned decades ago,
the Calaveras County Water District will introduce conjunctive use to
increase water supply reliability for all surface water and groundwater
users within the western Calaveras County region. The project will
benefit all of California as it will minimize the losses of naturally
occurring springs and will improve stream-flow conditions for river
tributaries of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, which provides
two-thirds of the State of California with water. Finally, water
conservation and wastewater recycling are critical elements that can
reduce demands or stretch existing water supplies. Assessment of public
outreach and environmental documentation needs will also be performed,
as identified in a project management plan.
Cost Breakdowns for this project in fiscal year 2010 are listed as
follows: Negotiation Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) and initial
planning, design, and construction contract $50,000; develop Calaveras-
Mokelumne Master Plan Concept $50,000; water supply and demand analysis
$75,000; alternatives formulation and analysis $175,000; environmental
program development $75,000; development of institutional partnerships
and public outreach, $100,000; development of Feasibility Report
$75,000.
COSGROVE CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
CCWD, in conjunction with Calaveras County, is seeking $200,000 in
the Construction General section 205 account for the Cosgrove Creek
Flood Control Project. The project will address flooding that occurs
along the lower reaches of the creek, as well as flooding that occurs
on Spring Creek. Flooding in these areas impacts over 400 people and
100 structures located in the 100-year floodplain. The project will
attenuate peak flows, address the beneficial use of peak flows,
stabilize creek banks, improve natural conditions favorable to wetlands
and riparian habitat, and increase recreational opportunities in the
area. In addition to providing critical flood control for the region,
the project will provide a number of ancillary benefits including; the
beneficial use of flood flows including sprayfields, conjunctive use of
recycled water and wetlands restoration. Further, the project will
provide additional riparian habitat and much-needed recreational
opportunities through the creation of hiking/riding trails and numerous
athletic fields for use by the local community.
CALAVERAS COUNTY REGIONAL WATER/WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER
FACILITIES PROGRAM--PHASE II
CCWD third and final priority for fiscal year 2010 is a request for
$600,000 to support the Calaveras County Regional Water/Wastewater and
Recycled Water Facilities Program Phase II, a multi-phase,
collaborative project to investigate strategic opportunities to correct
water and wastewater utility deficiencies along the Highway 4 corridor
in the Stanislaus River Watershed of Calaveras County.
Utility regionalization and improved coordination are needed to
support sustainable practices in the Sierra Nevada foothill
communities. This project would create partnerships between local,
State, and Federal agencies so that infrastructure improvements,
replacement needs, and growth decisions can be coordinated in a manner
that respects connections between water, wastewater, land use, and
development within the watershed thereby greatly enhancing the
utilization and safeguarding of our region's water resources.
To accomplish these objectives CCWD will partner with Calaveras
County, the city of Angels, Murphys Sanitary District, Union Public
Utility District, and the Utica Power Authority. Through the
identification of particular problem areas and collaboration with our
local partners a ``living'' model will be developed to examine
strategies for regionalizing water and wastewater facilities. A
technical team consisting of project partners will develop preliminary
concept plans based on shared goals, objectives, and priorities.
Information will be circulated among all stakeholders and strong
community involvement plan will be put forth that will incorporate the
suggestions of the public and interested non-governmental
organizations. This original model will then be further refined to
evaluate concepts achieving maximum beneficial use to ensure a
sustainable, cost-effective concept plan emerges for regional watershed
implementation.
Cost breakdowns for this critical project in fiscal year 2010 are
listed as follows: Negotiation of PPA and Initial planning, design, and
construction contract $50,000; development of regional water/wastewater
and recycled water master plan concept $50,000; summary of existing
facilities and regulatory setting $50,000; evaluation of wastewater and
water supply needs $75,000; formulation and evaluation of alternatives
$200,000; development of institutional partnerships and public outreach
$100,000; and reparation of Feasibility Study $75,000.
______
Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America
The Izaak Walton League of America appreciates the opportunity to
submit testimony concerning appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for
programs under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. The League is a
national, nonprofit organization founded in 1922. We have nearly 37,000
members and 270 community-based chapters nationwide. Our members are
committed to advancing common sense policies that safeguard wildlife
and habitat, support community-based conservation, and address pressing
environmental issues. The following pertains to programs administered
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
corps of engineers, operations and maintenance, upper mississippi river
The League supports strong financial efforts for ecosystem
restoration for the Upper Mississippi River (UMR). We have supported
the Environmental Management Program (EMP) since its inception and
continue to support this vital restoration program. EMP should be fully
funded at its authorized level of $33.2 million and the current
restriction for starting new EMP projects should be lifted. It is
important to note that even this level of investment can serve only to
slow the pace of UMR degradation, not achieve net restoration.
The League has also strongly expressed its opinion that the large-
scale navigation modifications included in the Recommended Plan for the
Upper Mississippi Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program
(NESP), as authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2007,
have not been justified by the Corps and should not be pursued.
Previous reviews from the National Academy of Sciences and the
Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works found that the navigation
construction component of NESP was not economically justifiable.
The League has strong roots in the Upper Mississippi River region.
Protecting the basin has been a key issue for our members since we led
the fight to create the Upper Mississippi River Fish and Wildlife
Refuge in 1924. The League has spearheaded efforts to reform the lock
and dam navigation system to ensure that flows and habitat remain as
natural as possible. We also work to promote sustainable agriculture
practices and implement farm conservation programs to reduce polluted
runoff. Our testimony reflects many decades of experience on the Upper
Mississippi River and our direct 15-year involvement with the Upper
Mississippi River--Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) navigation study.
The Upper Mississippi River is one of the most complex ecosystems
on earth. It provides habitat for 50 species of mammals, 45 species of
reptiles and amphibians, 37 species of mussels, and 241 species of
fish. The need for ecosystem restoration is unquestionable. As the
Corps correctly stated in its study of navigation expansion, this
ecosystem is ``significantly altered, is currently degraded, and is
expected to get worse.'' Researchers from the National Academy of
Sciences have determined that river habitat is disappearing faster than
it can be replaced through existing programs such as the Corps'
Environmental Management Program, which was authorized at $33.2 million
annually by Congress in 1999, but has never received full
appropriations. As habitat vanishes, scientists warn that many species
will decline and some will disappear.
Our Nation relies on a healthy Mississippi River for commerce,
recreation, drinking water, food supply and power. More than 12 million
people annually recreate on and along the Upper Mississippi River
spending $1.2 billion and supporting 18,000 jobs. More people recreate
on the Upper Mississippi than visit Yellowstone National Park. Notably,
barge traffic has remained static on the river for more than two
decades with real declines in recent years.
The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 authorizes the
Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP) for the Upper
Mississippi River. NESP allocates $2.2 billion for new navigation-
related construction and $1.7 billion for ecosystem restoration over an
initial 15-year project phase. Included in the $2.2 billion is over
$256 million for small-scale and non-structural navigation projects
that we fully support. However, we have consistently opposed the
unnecessary spending of tax dollars on the economically unsound new
locks, a position further bolstered by the continuing annual declines
in barge traffic on the UMR.
In assembling the UMR-IWW navigation study, the Corps recognized
the critical need for UMR ecosystem restoration work and encouraged
Congress to invest approximately $130 million annually in Upper
Mississippi River habitat restoration efforts. With this demonstrated
need in mind, the League strongly encourages the subcommittee to
prioritize investment in ecosystem restoration. Appropriating
significant funding for restoration will provide near-term economic
stimulus in communities along the UMR and long-term conservation and
economic benefits for the region and the Nation.
The administration's budget does not request funding for NESP. The
League supports increasing fiscal year 2010 NESP navigation funding to
adequately cover the cost of initiating small-scale and non-structural
navigation projects only. We strongly support increasing total
ecosystem restoration funding incrementally, in an efficient and
effective manner, to reach the total $130 million investment as soon as
feasible.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, MISSOURI RIVER
For fiscal year 2010, we urge the subcommittee to provide at least
$70 million as the President has specifically requested for ecosystem
restoration along the Missouri River. We believe it is essential to
provide this minimum amount because the final fiscal year 2009
appropriation is significantly below the request and the Corps
identified approximately $26 million in restoration projects that could
commence quickly to stimulate local economies, but these were not fully
funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In addition,
through the Missouri River Recovery Program, the Army Corps has
identified $105 million in projects, which have been designed and
approved, that it could implement next fiscal year. With at least $70
million, the Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could begin
important ecosystem restoration efforts that will produce long-term
ecological and economic benefits, as well as provide economic stimulus
throughout fiscal year 2010 by allowing the agencies to move forward
with shovel-ready projects.
The Missouri River basin encompasses land in 10 States and covers
one-sixth of the continental United States. The Missouri, America's
longest river, is one of the most altered ecosystems on earth. While
recovery and restoration efforts have begun, much more needs to be
done. League members, especially those in Iowa, Nebraska and South
Dakota, want to see the recovery efforts continue and expand.
The Corps, Fish and Wildlife Service and many State agencies have
been working on restoring habitat for fish and wildlife species along
the river. This work is critical for the Interior Least Tern and Pallid
Sturgeon, which are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species
Act, and the Piping Plover, which is listed as threatened. Moreover,
the positive impacts of restoration extend to all fish and wildlife
throughout the region.
A recent study conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service near
Lisbon Bottoms in Missouri showed that over twice as many fish species
were utilizing the created shallow water habitat (SWH) areas as the
main channelized section of the river. A Corps' study has shown that
the emergent sandbar habitat (ESH) projects have had tremendous
response from nesting terns and plovers. These habitat restoration
projects are working with the river--not against it.
These projects have also been a boon for recreation along portions
of the river. Anglers, hunters, boaters and others have been using some
of these areas proving the old adage ``if you build it, they will
come.'' Although the majority of the population lives in the lower
basin, most recreational spending is currently occurring in the upper
basin because facilities and opportunities are more abundant. These
developed habitat projects are bringing people back to the river in the
lower Missouri basin.
In addition to boosting the economy through tourism, restoration
projects can provide near-term economic stimulus in small communities
throughout the region. As Congress and the administration considered
the stimulus package earlier this year, the Corps identified $26
million in restoration projects that could commence this spring and
summer in Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota and other basin States. In
general, these projects involved removing barriers to fish passage on
the Yellowstone River in Montana as well as restoring and creating
habitat for terns, plovers and pallid sturgeon in the middle and lower
basin. To perform this work, the Corps would contract with local
construction companies, which would create or maintain jobs and inject
dollars into the local economy through purchases of materials, fuel,
food and lodging. Although these projects were not funded by the
Recovery Act, with an appropriation of at least $70 million, the Corps
could implement some of them next year. Doing so could help propel
economic recovery at the community level at a time when we hope the
national economy will also be improving.
The League encourages the subcommittee to provide at least $70
million for recovery and restoration efforts along the Missouri River.
Benchmarks have been set by the Biological Opinion establishing goals
for habitat restoration. With adequate funding and a lot of hard work
on the ground, we can meet these goals and restore critical segments of
America's longest river.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony and look forward
to working with the subcommittee to strengthen the investment in
ecosystem restoration and recovery along the Upper Mississippi and
Missouri rivers.
______
Prepared Statement of the Little River Drainage District
Dear Congressman Visclosky, my name is Dr. Sam M. Hunter, DVM of
Sikeston, Missouri. I am a veterinarian, landowner, farmer and resident
of Southeast Missouri.
I am the President of the Little River Drainage District, the
largest such entity in the Nation. Our District serves as an outlet
drainage and flood control District to parts of seven counties in
Southeast Missouri. We provide flood control protection to a sizable
area of Northeast Arkansas as well. Our District is solely tax
supported by more than 3,500 private landowners in Southeast Missouri.
My remarks will be directed toward the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project (MR&T) and the St. Francis River Basin portion of
the MR&T. Those funds when properly expended are investments yielding a
return of substantial benefits to the American taxpayer throughout this
Nation. They are used to prevent flooding to much of our valuable
farmland, to industrial sites, and to upgrade our ever aging locks and
dam system on our navigable streams which will prevent unscheduled lock
closures, modernize our hydro-electric plants, and restore some of our
environmental assets. MR&T authorized by Congress in 1928 and still not
completed is returning back to our Nation $25 for every $1 expended.
What a good investment!!
We are pleased to learn of the recent passage of the Omnibus bill
for fiscal year 2009 and the Stimulus bill. The Omnibus bill provides
$375 million for the MR&T Project for fiscal year 2009. The stimulus
funding will likewise provide additional funds to improve much needed
work on this excellent project. The Corps has a stated capability
exceeding both amounts and will be able to execute those funds
promptly.
Many jobs will be realized and many products will be purchased
throughout the entire Mississippi Valley and the watershed which
discharge into this system. We must put people back to work and this
should help in some small way. However, there still remains room for
more funding. This District supports the request of the Mississippi
Valley Flood Control Association for funding levels at $500 million for
the MR&T Project. This project as well as all of the subsidiary
projects within are returning back to the U.S. Treasury a minimum of $6
for each $1 invested.
We believe Congress needs to intervene and reverse the trend of
OMB, and of past administrations. We have not seriously invested in our
waterway infrastructure for decades but we MUST. Local economies will
be affected positively by these investments. Local labor will be used
as well as local businesses who will provide needed materials. This
would be a major boost to our economy. Each year OMB and recent
administrations have submitted low budget amounts for this worthwhile
project and we have had to rely on Congress to ``fix'' the problem. You
should not be burdened with this task. Someone needs to inform OMB what
projects need funding which are assets to our Nation and not a
liability.
We must prioritize projects and eliminate projects that are not
returning benefits back to this Nation. We must have our Federal
Government live up to the commitments they have made to the citizens of
this Nation. Private interests have made many investments based upon
faith in the Federal Government following through on what it promised
and what they had been told would be provided to them within a
reasonable period of time. If a project is to be funded entirely by the
Federal Government as directed by Congress then we must fulfill that
obligation. If local interest is to provide a portion of the cost then
local interest must meet that mandate as well. However, we do not need
to hold any projects up because local interests are not financially
able to meet their cost sharing needs provided that project returns a
benefit back to this Nation. Let us move forward with a plan and let us
work that plan and rebuild and bring our waterway infrastructure into
the 21st century properly.
Investing in our waterways is a great way to stimulate the economy,
which currently is very much needed, and at the same time be building
and making investments into a system for the future which will return
back more dollars than expended. We petition you to give this vital
industry of our Nation a strong endorsement and do all you can to
ensure our waterways system and carriers stay competitive with our
foreign competitors.
I have the following comments for your benefit and consideration:
STIMULUS BILL FUNDING
The Corps stated a capability to execute $12-$15 billion yet were
only allocated $4.6 billion. This amount is gratefully appreciated but
is a mere ``down payment'' to improve and upgrade our deteriorated
infrastructure. Thousands of jobs could be generated should the Corps
capability be met. The Corps continues the premier engineering and
construction arm of the Federal Government. We need to let them do what
they do best.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The current administration stated often during its campaign and
after that a genuine concerted priority would be to invest in this
country's future, namely, its infrastructure.
Our Federal road systems are crumbling! We must not wait for
bridges to fail before we act. We need to move forward across our
entire Nation upgrading our Federal highway system in its entirety.
This will take long term commitments not just a ``stimulus'' now and
then. We need to put a plan in place, work the plan and fund it
properly.
Are we truly interested in fuel independence--a cleaner
environment--a better economy? If we are why don't we have someone step
forward and be a champion for our ``waterways'' system? We have locks
and dams which are an average of 50 years old. Parts are having to be
fabricated since they are no longer manufactured. Tows are having to be
broken up to pass because our locks and dams are too short and not
modernized. Many undue delays are occurring. This does not permit our
carriers to compete fairly with the foreign shipping industry. We must
start a concerted effort to improve this part of our Nation's
infrastructure.
Locks, dams, hydropower, recreation, flood control, water supplies
and all other benefits from the construction, operation and maintenance
of these features on our rivers benefit our entire Nation not just a
few. It is a national asset and it must be operated and funded as a
national benefit. Private industry can not and will not operate this
system fairly and in the best interest of our Nation.
Environmentally moving goods and freight throughout our Nation via
water is much cleaner, less intrusive and far more environmentally
acceptable than highways or rail. Noise pollution, air pollution, land
pollution are substantially less when we move the mass amount of goods
possible by water.
Fuel efficiency comparison is a ``no brainer''! For instance 1
gallon of fuel moves 155 tons of freight by truck, 413 tons of freight
by rail and 576 tons of freight by water. What part of this do we not
understand? Why can't we realize such an endeavor would reduce much of
our fuel needs and take much pressure off our highway system?
Economically investing wisely in our waterways effects much of our
Nation--not just a regional portion. Consider it being possible to
board a waterborne vessel at the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana and one
can touch 36 States of this Nation and 6 provinces in Canada without
ever getting onto land. Over 75 percent of our population lives along
water. Only two of our major cities are not on water, namely, Atlanta,
Georgia and Denver, Colorado. With the many ports throughout the
Mississippi Valley, which network many more people inland, it is
evident many local economies will be benefitted when investments are
made in our water infrastructure.
We seem to be ready, willing and capable of improving the
infrastructure of other Nations at the expense of our taxpayers but
seem reluctant to do the same for our Nation. It is far past time to
reward the American taxpayer with a return for the money he provides
each year and stop using those funds to benefit those Nations who are
our enemies.
It has been estimated our waterway infrastructure needs $100-$120
billion to modernize, upgrade and be made functional. Lets start now by
setting a 10 year goal to modernize that system and then plan to meet
that goal and exceed same when possible. Currently we are spending $13-
$15 billion per month to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan which
is more spent in 1 year of what is needed to bring our waterways up to
a finished plan. Perhaps we could cut the 10 year plan to even 5 years
by eliminating much of that funding. Lets try!
I wish to thank you very much for your time and kind attention and
for taking the time to review the above. We would be very appreciative
of anything this subcommittee can do to help us improve our
environment, improve our livelihood, and improve the area in which we
live and work which ultimately is good for America. We are also very
appreciative of all this subcommittee has done for us in the past. We
trust you will hear our pleas once more and act accordingly.
______
Prepared Statement of Mayor Sara Presler, City of Flagstaff, Arizona
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Bennett, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of
the city of Flagstaff, Arizona in support of $23 million in the Army
Corps of Engineers budget for the Rio de Flag flood control project in
fiscal year 2010. The Rio de Flag flood control project is critically
important to the city, to northern Arizona, and, ultimately, to the
Nation.
As you may know, Mr. Chairman, with this subcommittee's help over
the last several fiscal years, Rio de Flag received more than $15
million to continue construction on this important project. We are
extremely grateful that the subcommittee boosted this project well
above the President's request every year, and we would appreciate your
continued support for this project in fiscal year 2010.
Furthermore, the amount of money invested in this project by the
Federal Government--approximately $54 million (authorized by WRDA)--
will be saved exponentially in costs to the Federal Government in the
case of a large and catastrophic flood, which could be more than $450
million. It will also promote economic growth and redevelopment along
areas that are currently underserved because of the flood potential.
Like many other projects under the Army Corps's jurisdiction, Rio
de Flag received no funding in the President's fiscal year 2010 budget,
although the Corps has expressed a capability of $23 million to
continue construction on the project and unwavering commitment to the
project. We are hopeful that the subcommittee will fund the Rio de Flag
project at $23 million when drafting its bill in order to keep the
project on an optimal schedule.
Flooding along the Rio de Flag dates back as far as 1888. The Army
Corps has identified a Federal interest in solving this long-standing
flooding problem through the Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona--
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The
recommended plan contained in this feasibility report was developed
based on the following opportunities: (1) flood control and flood
damage reduction; (2) environmental mitigation and enhancement; (3)
water resource management; (4) public recreation; and (5) redevelopment
opportunities. This plan will result in benefits to not only the local
community, but to the region and the Nation.
The feasibility study by the Corps of Engineers has revealed that a
500-year flood could cause serious economic hardship to the city. In
fact, a devastating 500-year flood could damage or destroy
approximately 1,500 structures valued at more than $450 million.
Similarly, a 100-year flood would cause an estimated $100 million in
damages. In the event of a catastrophic flood, over half of Flagstaff's
population of more than 60,000 would be directly impacted or affected.
In addition, a wide range of residential, commercial, downtown
business and tourism, and industrial properties are at risk. Damages
could also occur to numerous historic structures and historic Route 66.
The Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), one of the primary
east-west corridors for rail freight, could be destroyed, as well as
U.S. Interstate 40, one of the country's most important east-west
interstate links. Additionally, a significant portion of Northern
Arizona University (NAU) could incur catastrophic physical damages,
disruptions, and closings. Public infrastructure (e.g., streets,
bridges, water, and sewer facilities), and franchised utilities (e.g.,
power and telecommunications) could be affected or destroyed.
Transportation disruptions could make large areas of the city
inaccessible for days.
Mr. Chairman, the intense wildfires that have devastated the West
during the last several years have only exacerbated the flood potential
and hazard in Flagstaff. An intense wildfire near Flagstaff could strip
the soil of ground cover and vegetation, which could, in turn, increase
runoff and pose an even greater threat of a catastrophic flood.
In short, a large flood could cripple Flagstaff for years. This is
why the city believes it is important to ensure that this project
remains on schedule and that the Corps is able to utilize its expressed
capability of $23 million in fiscal year 2010 for construction of this
flood control project.
In the city's discussions with the Corps, both the central office
in Washington and its Los Angeles District Office also believe that the
Rio de Flag project is of the utmost importance and both offices
believe the project should be placed high on the subcommittee's
priority list. We are hopeful that the subcommittee will consider this
advice and also place the project high on its priority list and fully
fund the project at $23 million for fiscal year 2010.
It is important to note that the city has secured the necessary
property rights to begin construction, and the city is prepared to
assume the costs for the non-Federal portion of the cost-sharing
agreement.
The city of Flagstaff, as the non-Federal sponsor, is responsible
for all costs related to required Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way,
Relocations, and Disposals (LERRD's). The city has already secured the
necessary property rights to begin construction in 2004. Implementation
of the city's Downtown and Southside Redevelopment Initiatives ($100
million in private funds) are entirely dependent on the successful
completion of the Rio de Flag project. The Rio de Flag project will
also provide a critical missing bike/pedestrian connection under Route
66 and the BNSF Railroad to replace the existing hazardous at grade
crossings.
Mr. Chairman, the Rio de Flag project is exactly the kind of
project that was envisioned when the Corps was created because it will
avert catastrophic floods, it will save lives and property, and it will
promote economic growth. In short, this project is a win-win for the
Federal Government, the city, and the surrounding communities.
In conclusion, the Rio de Flag project should be considered a high
priority for this subcommittee, and I encourage you to support full
funding of $23 million for this project in the fiscal year 2010 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations bill. Thank you in advance for
your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this statement is
prepared by Peter Nimrod, Chief Engineer for the Board of Mississippi
Levee Commissioners, Greenville, Mississippi, and submitted on behalf
of the Board and the citizens of the Mississippi Levee District. The
Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners is comprised of seven elected
commissioners representing the counties of Bolivar, Issaquena, Sharkey,
Washington, and parts of Humphreys and Warren counties in the Lower
Yazoo Basin in Mississippi. The Board of Mississippi Levee
Commissioners is charged with the responsibility of providing
protection to the Mississippi Delta from flooding of the Mississippi
River and maintaining major drainage outlets for removing the flood
waters from the area. These responsibilities are carried out by
providing the local sponsor requirements for the congressionally
authorized projects in the Mississippi Levee District. The Mississippi
Levee Board and the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
support an appropriation of $500 million for fiscal year 2010 for the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. This is the minimum amount
that we consider necessary to allow for an orderly completion of the
remaining work in the Valley and to provide for the operation and
maintenance, as required, to prevent further deterioration of the
completed flood control and navigation work.
It is apparent that the administration loses sight of the fact that
the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project provides protection to
the Lower Mississippi Valley from waters generated across 41 percent of
the Continental United States. These waters flow from 31 states and 2
provinces of Canada and must pass through the Lower Mississippi Valley
on its way to the Gulf of Mexico. We will remind you that the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project is one of, if not the most
cost effective project ever undertaken by the United States Government.
The foresight of the Congress in their authorization of the many
features of this project is exemplary.
The many projects that are part of the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project not only provide protection from flooding in the
area, but the award of construction contracts throughout the Valley
provides assistance to the overall economy of this area. The employment
of the local workforce and purchases from local vendors by the
contractors help stabilize the economy in one of the most impoverished
areas of our country.
Thanks to the additional funding provided by the Congress over the
last several years over and above the administration's budget, work on
the Mainline Mississippi River Levee Enlargement Project is continuing.
Of the original 69 miles of deficient levees in the Mississippi Levee
District, 23.2 miles of work has been completed, 12.2 miles are
currently under contract, and another 4.7 miles will be awarded in late
Summer, 2009. We are requesting $69.972 million for construction on the
Mainline Mississippi River Levees in the Lower Mississippi Valley
Division which will allow the Vicksburg and Memphis districts to keep
existing contracts on schedule and award contracts to avoid any future
unnecessary delays in completing this vital project. We are all well
aware that the Valley some day will have to endure a Project Flood, we
just don't know when. We must be prepared.
The President's fiscal year 2010 budget did not include funding for
any construction projects within the Yazoo Basin. This action is
especially difficult to understand during a time when our Nation needs
an economic boost. These are all projects authorized and funded so
wisely by the Congress. All of these projects are encompassed in the
footprint of the Delta Regional Authority, an area recognized by the
Congress as requiring special economic assistance to keep pace with the
rest of our great Nation. We can not lose sight of the fact that all of
these projects are required to return more than a dollar in benefits
for each dollar spent.
The Final Report for the Yazoo Backwater Project was released in
late 2007. The Yazoo Backwater Project will provide economic and
environmental benefits to parts of six counties in the south
Mississippi Delta. This project will build a pump that will evacuate
floodwater that is generated over 4,093 square miles in the Mississippi
Delta. The pump will lower the 100-year flood event by 4.5 feet thereby
reducing urban and rural structural damages, providing benefits to the
remaining agricultural lands, and reducing the frequency and duration
of floods. Reforestation easements will be purchased on up to 55,600 of
existing agricultural land which will provide benefits in every
environmental category--wetlands, terrestrial, aquatics, and waterfowl
resources as well as vastly improving water quality. The recommended
plan for the Yazoo Backwater Project will balance economics with the
environment. This is a model project that should be the standard for
future public works projects in the United States. On August 31, 2008,
EPA wrongly used it's authority under section 404(c) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) to veto the Yazoo Backwater Project even though it is exempt
by section 404(r) of the CWA. We are requesting this project be funded
by the Congress in the amount of $5 million. These funds will allow the
Corps to begin acquisition of the reforestation easements and initiate
the award of the pump supply contract.
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Big
Sunflower River Maintenance Project will be released next year. This
maintenance project will restore flood control capacities to 130 miles
of channels by removing sediment that has built up over the past 40
years since the channels were originally improved. Our request for
$5.591 million will allow right-of-way acquisition to continue and for
the award of the first dredging contract. The residents in the
Mississippi Delta continue to suffer damages from flooding while they
wait for this maintenance project to reach their area.
Work on the Delta Headwaters Project has proven effective in
reducing sediments to downstream channels. To discontinue this project
will only diminish water quality by increasing sediment, reducing the
level of protection to the citizens of the Delta and increasing
required maintenance. We are requesting $25 million to continue this
project.
The Upper Yazoo Project is critical to the Delta. The Corps of
Engineers operates four major flood control reservoirs on the bluff
hills overlooking the Mississippi Delta. These reservoirs hold back
heavy spring rains and must have adequate outlet channel capacity to
pass this excess runoff during the summer and fall months. Without
completion of the Upper Yazoo Project, the Corps is forced to hold
flood water from the previous spring, thereby reducing the ability to
provide protection from the current year's flood water. We urge the
Congress to provide $24.5 million allowing construction to continue and
the award of additional channel enlargement items.
Maintenance of completed works can not be over looked. The four
flood control reservoirs over looking the Delta have been in place for
50 years and have functioned as designed. Required maintenance must be
performed to avoid any possibility of failure during a flood event. We
are asking for $13.793 million for Arkabutla Lake, $12.69 million for
Enid Lake, $13.231 million for Grenada Lake, and $14.483 million for
Sardis Lake.
We are requesting $13.522 million for Maintenance of the Mainline
Mississippi River Levees in the Lower Mississippi Valley Division which
will provide for repair of levee slides, slope repair, and repair of
the gravel maintenance roadway which is so vital to access during high
water.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been given too much
power under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) which allows
EPA to veto Congressionally authorized projects. During the early
1990s, due to abuse of the 404(c) power by EPA, Congress considered
removing this authority from EPA. EPA has again invoked this veto power
on the Yazoo Backwater Project. EPA is saying that you can't lower the
water level with a flood control project! By killing this project with
404(c) veto authority, EPA is drawing a line in the sand over the
future of flood control in our great Nation. EPA has vetoed the Yazoo
Backwater Project even though it was approved, authorized and funded by
Congress and exempt from a 404(c) veto by 404(r). It is now time to
again take up this issue and remove the 404(c) veto power from EPA
before they kill another flood control project that has been authorized
by Congress.
As Members of the Congress representing the citizens of our Nation
who live with the Mississippi River everyday, you clearly understand
both the benefits provided by this resource, and the destructive force
that must be controlled during a flood. On behalf of the Mississippi
Levee Board, I can not express enough, our appreciation for your
efforts in providing adequate funding over the last several years that
has allowed construction to continue on our much needed projects and
thank you in advance for your kind consideration of our requests for
fiscal year 2010.
______
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Prepared Statement of Dave Freudenthal, Governor, State of Wyoming
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, I am requesting your
support for an appropriation of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation
included in the President's fiscal year 2010 recommended budget in the
Upper Colorado Region budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program.'' This budget line-item designates
$1,950,000 for construction and construction management activities for
the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program; $1,219,000
for construction and construction management activities for the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; and $400,000 for Fish
and Wildlife Management and Development activities to avoid jeopardy.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs' objectives are
to recover endangered fish species while water use and development
proceeds in compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act. Since
1988, these programs have provided ESA section 7 compliance (without
litigation) for nearly 1,800 Federal, tribal, State and privately
managed water projects depleting more than 3 million acre-feet of water
per year. These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding
exceeding 50 percent is embodied in both programs.
The Department of the Interior recognized these programs with the
Department of the Interior's Cooperative Conservation Award in April
2008 as national model efforts demonstrating that collaborative
conservation partnerships can successfully work to recover endangered
species while addressing water needs to support growing western
communities in a manner that fully respects State water law and
interstate river compacts.
We request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation, as authorized and directed by Public Law 106-392, as
amended, in these two region-wide cooperative recovery programs. The
State of Wyoming thanks you for the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee; it has greatly facilitated the success of these multi-
state, multi-agency programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., Governor, State of Utah
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Cochran, this letter serves to
respectfully request your support for an appropriation of $3,569,000 to
the Bureau of Reclamation included in the President's fiscal year 2010
recommended budget in the Upper Colorado Region budget line item
entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program,'' This
budget line-item designates $1,950,000 for construction and
construction management activities for the San Juan River Basin
Recovery Implementation Program; $1,219,000 for construction and
construction management activities for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife
Management and Development activities to avoid jeopardy.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs' objectives are
to recover endangered fish species while water use and development
proceeds in compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act. Since
1988, these programs have provided ESA section 7 compliance (without
litigation) for neatly 1,800 Federal, tribal, State and privately
managed water projects depleting more than 3 million acre-feet of water
per year. These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and
environmental interests. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding
exceeding 50 percent is embodied in both programs.
The Department of the Interior recognized these programs with the
DOI's Cooperative Conservation Award in April 2008 as national model
efforts demonstrating that collaborative conservation partnerships can
successfully work to recover endangered species while addressing water
needs to support growing western communities in a manner that fully
respects State water law and interstate river compacts.
Utah requests the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation as authorized and directed by Public Law 106-392, as
amended, in these two region-wide cooperative recovery programs. On
behalf of the State of Utah, I thank you for the past support and
assistance of your subcommittee; it has greatly facilitated the success
of these multi-state, multi-agency programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Bill Richardson, Governor, State of New Mexico
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Cochran, I am requesting. your
support for an appropriation of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation
included in the President's fiscal year 2010 recommended budget in the
Upper Colorado Region budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program.'' This budget line-item designates
$1,950,000 for construction and construction management activities for
the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program; $1,219,000
for construction and construction management activities for the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program: and $400,000 for Fish
and Wildlife Management and Development activities to avoid jeopardy.
The requested fiscal year 2010 appropriation for to San Juan River
Recovery Program will be used for construction of critically needed
fish passage structures in critical habitat on the San Juan River as
well as providing for program management and development.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs' objectives are
to recover endangered fish species while water use and development
proceeds in compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act. Since
1988, these programs have provided ESA section 7 compliance (without
litigation) for nearly 1,800 Federal, tribal, State and privately
managed water projects depleting more than 3 million acre-feet of water
per year. These highly successful cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding
exceeding 50 percent is embodied in both programs.
The Department of the Interior recognized these programs with the
Department of the Interior's Cooperative Conservation Award in April
2008 as national model efforts demonstrating that collaborative
conservation partnerships can successfully work to recover endangered
species while addressing water needs to support growing western
communities in a manner that fully respects State water law and
interstate river compacts.
We request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation, as authorized and directed by Public Law 106-392, as
amended, in these two region wide cooperative recovery programs. The
State of New Mexico thanks you for the past support and assistance of
your subcommittee; it has greatly facilitated the success of these
multi-state, multi-agency programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Bill Ritter,. Jr., Governor, State of Colorado
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, I am requesting your
support for an appropriation of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation
included in the President's fiscal year 2010 recommended budget in the
Upper Colorado Region budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program.'' This budget line-item designates
$1,950,000 for construction and construction management activities for
the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program; $1,219,000
for construction and construction management activities for the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; and $400,000 for Fish
and Wildlife Management and Development activities to avoid jeopardy.
These programs are long-standing partnerships among the States of
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal
agencies, and water, power and environmental interests. These programs
are successful and collaborative efforts that merit continued support
by the Federal Government as a model method to recover threatened and
endangered species, while allowing water development to occur in a
manner that complies with the Endangered Species Act.
The Department of the Interior recognized these programs with the
Department of the Interior's Cooperative Conservation Award in April
2008 as national models demonstrating that collaborative conservation
partnerships can successfully work to recover endangered species while
addressing water needs to support growing western communities in a
manner that fully respects State water law and interstate river
compacts. Since 1988, these programs have provided ESA compliance
(without litigation) for nearly 1,800 Federal, tribal, State and
privately managed water projects depleting more than 3 million acre-
feet of water per year. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding
exceeding 50 percent is embodied in both of these programs as
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs. On
behalf of the State of Colorado, I thank you for that support and I
request the subcommittee's assistance, for fiscal year 2010 funding, to
ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing and vitally important
financial participation in these regional cooperative recovery
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wyoming Water Association (WWA)
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, on behalf of the members
of the Wyoming Water Association, I am requesting your support for an
appropriation in the President's recommended budget for fiscal year
2010 of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation I seek is as
follows: $1,219,000 for construction activities for the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $1,950,000 for construction
activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development
activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is authorized by Public Law
106-392, as amended, and is included in the President's recommended
budget for fiscal year 2010 within the Bureau of Reclamation's
``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program'' budget line-
item.
Founded in 1933, the Wyoming Water Association (WWA) is a Wyoming
non-profit corporation and voluntary organization of private citizens,
elected officials, and representatives of business, government
agencies, industry and water user groups and districts. The
Association's objective is to promote the development, conservation,
and utilization of the water resources of Wyoming for the benefit of
Wyoming people. The WWA provides the only statewide uniform voice
representing all types of water users within the State of Wyoming and
encourages citizen participation in decisions relating to multi-purpose
water development, management and use.
The Wyoming Water Association is a participant in the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. That program, and its
sister program within the San Juan River Basin, are ongoing
partnerships among the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Department of
the Interior continues to recognize these programs as national models
demonstrating that collaboratively partnerships can successfully work
to recover endangered species while addressing water needs to support
growing western communities in a manner that fully respects State water
law and interstate compacts. Since 1988, these programs have provided
ESA section 7 compliance (without litigation) for over 1,600 Federal,
tribal, State and privately managed water projects depleting more than
3 million acre-feet of water per year.
The requested fiscal year 2010 appropriation will allow the San
Juan River Recovery Implementation Program to complete a fish passage
facility on the San Juan River and to initiate planning and design for
a proposed similar structure in a following year. The funding for the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program will be used for pre-construction
efforts prior to the anticipated award of a contract in fiscal year
2011 to construct a fish screen to avoid entrapment and a water
conservation and canal automation project to provide additional water
supplies for the endangered fishes. Substantial non-Federal cost-
sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is being provided for the capital
construction projects benefiting the endangered fish and their habitats
associated with both of these successful programs.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs. On
behalf of the members of the Wyoming Water Association, thank you for
that support. We again request the subcommittee's assistance, with
regard to fiscal year 2010 funding, to ensure the Bureau of
Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these vitally
important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, on behalf of the Southern
Ute Indian Tribe, I am requesting your support for an appropriation in
the President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2010 of $3,569,000
to the Bureau of Reclamation (``Reclamation'') within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation the Tribe seeks
on behalf of Reclamation is as follows: $1,219,000 for construction
activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program; $1,950,000 for construction activities for the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and
Wildlife Management and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This
funding is authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Indian
Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the Jicarilla Apache Nation, Federal
agencies and water, power and environmental interests. The programs'
objectives are to recover endangered fish species while water use and
development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
The tribe appreciates the subcommittee's past support and requests
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010 funding to ensure
Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these vitally
important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System
(Public Law 106-382), Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water System, and the
Dry Prairie Rural Water System
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Fiscal Year Budget Request
The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural
Water respectfully request fiscal year 2010 appropriations of
$44,649,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation rural water program. The
project is 22 percent complete. It has progressed well subject to
available funds.
Fiscal year 2010 funds will be used to construct critical elements
of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System, Montana, (Public Law
106-382, October 27, 2000). The amount requested is based on need to
build Phase II of the regional water treatment plant, pipelines to
connect with the Town of Poplar and Dry Prairie systems on the east and
west sides project. The request is within capability to spend funds in
fiscal year 2010 and is set out in Table 1. The Schedule of Activities
and Cash Flow analysis to build the major features of the regional
system (water treatment plant and common pipelines) is included as
Attachment A and demonstrate capability to use funds.
TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2010 FUNDING REQUEST FORT PECK RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM (PUBLIC LAW 106-382)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Feature Federal Non-Federal Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Peck Tribes
Water Treatment Plant:
Phase I, Clear Well Wash Water Recovery..................... .............. .............. ..............
Phase II, Main Treatment.................................... $20,317,000 .............. $20,317,000
Pipelines:
Water Treatment Plant to Poplar............................. 10,763,000 .............. 10,763,000
Water Treatment Plant to Wolf Point......................... .............. .............. ..............
FP OM Buildings................................................. 558,000 .............. 558,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 31,638,000 .............. 31,638,000
===============================================
Dry Prairie
Big Muddy to Plentywood......................................... 4,739,000 $1,496,000 6,235,000
Fort Kipp....................................................... 219,000 69,000 288,000
Porcupine Creek to Opheim:
St. Marie to Nashua......................................... 4,619,000 1,458,000 6,077,000
St. Marie to Opheim......................................... 3,434,000 1,084,000 4,518,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 13,011,000 4,107,000 17,118,000
===============================================
Total..................................................... 44,649,000 4,107,000 48,756,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Status and Needs
As shown in Table 2 below, the project will be 22 percent complete
at the end of fiscal year 2009. Construction funds remaining to be
spent after fiscal year 2009 will total $225.061 million within the
current authorization (in October 2008 dollars). Administrative costs
of extending the project completion to fiscal year 2015 and
construction costs outside the authorized ceiling increase remaining
costs to $245.969 million before considering inflation. Inflation at
7.5 percent over the next 6 years, the average rate over the last 5
years in Reclamation construction projects, is expected to increase
remaining project costs to $314.001 million if the project is completed
in fiscal year 2015. An average $52.33 million annually is required to
complete the project by 2015 considering all factors. The project is
seeking an amendment of Public Law 106-382 in this session of Congress
to extend the project completion to December 31, 2015.
TABLE 2.--FUNDING STATUS AND NEEDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Funding Authority (October 2008 $)........ $289,110,000
Federal Funds Expended Through Fiscal Year 2009......... $64,049,000
Percent Complete........................................ 22.15
Amount Remaining After Fiscal Year 2009:
Total Authorized (October 2008 $)................... $225,061,000
Overhead Adjustment for Extension to Fiscal Year $245,969,000
2015 and Other.....................................
Adjusted for Inflation to Fiscal Year 2015 at 7.46 $314,001,000
Percent Annually...................................
Years to Complete....................................... 6
Average Annual Required to End in Fiscal Year 2015 (Need $52,333,000
Extension of Public Law 106-382).......................
Fiscal Year 2010 Amount Requested....................... $44,649,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The request ($44.649 million) is less than the average annual
appropriations needed to complete the project in fiscal year 2015
($52.333 million annually), and is within the capability of the project
to use funds for construction. The request will create an estimated 350
full-time equivalent (FTE) construction jobs in an area of Montana with
low per capita income and high unemployment.
Cost indexing from fiscal year 1998 reflecting inflation increased
the cost of the project from $176 million to $289 million, an increase
of $113 million. (See Attachment D). Increases in the level of
appropriations are needed to outpace inflation, which averaged 3.35
percent for pipelines in the first 5 years of the project, 7.46 percent
over the last 5 years and 13.80 percent last year.
Funding Has Not Been Adequate to Serve Any Tribal Users
The sponsor tribes and Dry Prairie greatly appreciate the previous
appropriations from the subcommittee that have permitted building the
Missouri River intake (the water source), stages of the water treatment
plant in multiple contracts, the Culbertson to Medicine Lake pipeline
and branches serving rural users outside the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation. However, funds have not been adequate to complete the
water treatment plant, pipeline to Poplar and other features as
proposed for fiscal year 2010. Service to tribal users and communities
within the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is dependent upon completion of
those facilities and has not been possible. No water has been delivered
on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.
Proposed Activities
Public Law 106-382 (October 27, 2000) authorized the project, which
includes all of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana and the Dry
Prairie portion of the project outside the Reservation in Roosevelt,
Sheridan, Daniels and part of Valley County.
Fort Peck Indian Reservation
On the Fort Peck Indian Reservation the tribes have used
appropriations from previous years to:
--Construct the Missouri River raw water intake, a critical feature
of the regional water project. The raw water pump station has
been constructed, and the raw water pipeline between the
Missouri River and the water treatment plant has been
constructed to within 2 miles of the water treatment plant.
--The sludge lagoons at the water treatment plant have been
completed.
--Phase I of the regional water treatment plant is under construction
and will be completed in fiscal year 2009 with funds
appropriated previously.
The regional water treatment plant was divided into three
construction phases over the past several years. This segregation of
the project in smaller contracts increased the cost of the project
significantly but was necessary due to inadequate funding to bid the
project as a single unit, which would normally be the case. Rather than
one contractor, there will ultimately be three contractors. Three sets
of plans and specifications were required to coordinate new
construction contracts with pieces already built. The Bureau of
Reclamation approved the plans and specifications for the entire plant
4 years ago. Capability to use funds has not been an issue.
The remaining phase of the water treatment plant has been
advertised for construction in contemplation of adequate funding in
fiscal year 2010 ($20.317 million) to complete this essential component
of the project. The bid opening is scheduled for April 7, 2009.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 funds would
offset the requirement for fiscal year 2010 appropriations. The project
clearly meets the expectation of Congress for ARRA, but at the time of
this writing, the availability of ARRA funds was not known.
The request for fiscal year 2010 includes funds for construction of
the essential pipelines from the water treatment plant to the community
of Poplar (but not to Wolf Point). The pipeline to Poplar is a regional
transmission pipeline east of the water treatment plant to serve the
Fort Peck Indian Reservation and to eventually connect to Dry Prairie
facilities east of the Reservation. The tribes will have capability to
build the pipeline to Wolf Point in fiscal year 2010, which is a
regional transmission pipeline west of the water treatment and serves
the west sides of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and Dry Prairie.
The pipeline project from the water treatment plant to Poplar will
provide a water supply from the Missouri River to replace groundwater
contaminated by ``brine'' from oil drilling operations. The brine
contamination is the subject of EPA orders against the responsible oil
company. The replacement supplies will serve the community of Poplar
and the surrounding rural area where wells have been contaminated. More
wells are threatened. There is urgency in completing the regional
project to Poplar before the advancing plume of contamination reaches
existing community wells. Projections of the date that contamination
will reach the Poplar community wells range from imminent danger to as
much as a decade, but the anxiety of the tribes' leadership and
membership cannot be overcome without completing the water treatment
plant and connecting the regional pipeline to Poplar in fiscal year
2010. This is a critical timeframe for the tribes. The staff and
members of the subcommittee are urged to review this matter with the
tribes and Bureau of Reclamation to clarify the urgency of completing
necessary project facilities and alleviating the threat of
contamination of the public water supply for the tribes' headquarters
community of Poplar. (See Attachment E).
The Bureau of Reclamation can confirm that the use of funds
proposed for fiscal year 2010 is within the project's capability to
spend (see Attachment A).
Dry Prairie
Dry Prairie has used previous appropriations to construct over 200
miles of distribution pipelines from the community of Culbertson, an
interim water source to be replaced when the regional water treatment
plant and transmission pipeline have been completed on the Fort Peck
Indian Reservation. The distribution system serves the communities of
Froid and Medicine Lake and over 200 rural homes, farms and ranches.
Pipelines were sized to serve the area north of the Missouri River,
south of the Canadian border and between the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation and the North Dakota border (see general location map,
Attachment B) as funds are made available and water sources are
expanded.
The request for fiscal year 2010 funds of $13.011 million,
supplemented by a non-Federal cost share of $4.107 million, will be
used to complete pipelines starting in fiscal year 2009 to rural
services on the west side of the Dry Prairie project between the
communities of St. Marie and Nashua. An existing water treatment plant
owned by the Boeing Co. at the former Glasgow Air Force Base will
provide an interim water supply to serve the west side project until
the regional water treatment plant of the tribes is complete and
pipelines from Wolf Point to Nashua are constructed. The facilities
constructed on the west side of the project are the same facilities
required after connection of the regional water treatment plant.
Therefore, no duplication of facilities are associated with the interim
project.
Dry Prairie will also assist the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes in
building pipelines from Culbertson on the east side of the project to
the Reservation boundary to serve the tribal community of Fort Kipp
with an interim water supply. The tribes are building facilities within
the Reservation with fiscal year 2009 funding.
Dry Prairie proposes to extend interim water supply capability
between Culbertson and Plentywood with fiscal year 2010 funding. These
facilities will be served from the tribes' regional water treatment
plant when the plant and interconnecting main transmission pipelines
are completed to Culbertson.
Master Plan
The project master plan is provided for review as Attachment C. The
request for fiscal year 2010 is shown in relation to the project
components that remain to be completed after fiscal year 2009.
Administration's Support
The project has reached 22 percent completion over a period of 9
years and needs greater funding support to complete the project in
2015. The administration's budget included the project in fiscal year
2007 at the $5.0 million level but has not supported funds for the
project since that time. The previous administration's support for the
rural water program has diminished to include the Mni Wiconi and
Garrison projects only. Congressional support is needed for the broader
program of projects under construction.
The tribes and Dry Prairie have worked extremely well and closely
with the Bureau of Reclamation since the authorization of the project
in fiscal year 2000. The Bureau of Reclamation has participated,
reviewed and commented on the Final Engineering Report, and all
comments were incorporated into the report. Agreement was reached on
final presentation. OMB reviewed the Final Engineering Report prior to
its submission to Congress in the final step of the approval process.
The Commissioner, Regional and Area Offices of the Bureau of
Reclamation have been consistently in full agreement with the need,
scope, total costs, and the ability to pay analysis that supported the
Federal and non-Federal cost shares. There have been no areas of
disagreement or controversy in the formulation or implementation of the
project.
The Bureau of Reclamation collaborated with the tribes and Dry
Prairie to conduct and complete value engineering investigations of the
Final Engineering Report (planning), the Culbertson to Medicine Lake
pipeline (design), the Poplar to Big Muddy River pipeline (design), the
Missouri River intake (design) and the Regional Water Treatment plant
(design). Each of these considerable efforts has been directed at ways
to save construction and future operation, maintenance and replacement
costs as planning and design proceed. Agreement with Reclamation has
been reached in all value engineering sessions on steps to save Federal
and non-Federal costs in the project.
The Bureau of Reclamation conducted independent review of the final
plans and specifications for the Missouri River raw water intake, the
regional water treatment plant and the Culbertson to Medicine Lake
Project. The Agency participated heavily during the construction phases
of those projects and concurred in all aspects of construction from
bidding through the completion of construction. The regional water
treatment plant is under construction, and the Bureau of Reclamation is
providing sound oversight.
Cooperative agreements have been developed and executed between the
Bureau of Reclamation and the tribes and between Bureau of Reclamation
and Dry Prairie. Those cooperative agreements carefully set out goals,
standards and responsibilities of the parties for planning, design and
construction. All plans and specifications are subject to levels of
review by the Bureau of Reclamation pursuant to the cooperative
agreements. The sponsors collaborate to undertake activities that
assure proper oversight and approval by the Bureau of Reclamation. Each
year the tribes and Dry Prairie, in accordance with the cooperative
agreements, develop a work plan setting out the planning, design and
construction activities and the allocation of funding to be utilized on
each project feature.
Clearly, the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System is well
supported by the Bureau of Reclamation. Congress authorized the project
with a plan formulated in full cooperation and collaboration with the
Bureau of Reclamation, and major project features are under
construction with oversight by the Agency.
SUPPLEMENTAL BACKGROUND
Local Project Support
The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when
they conceived it and sought means of improving the quality of life in
the region. The planning was a logical step after successful completion
of an historic water rights compact with the State of Montana. This
compact was the national ``ice breaker'' that increased the level of
confidence by other tribes in Indian water right settlement
initiatives. The tribes did not seek financial compensation for the
settlement of their water rights but sought development of meaningful
water projects as now authorized.
The 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism from its
Treasure State Endowment Program to finance the non-Federal share of
project planning and construction. Demonstrating support of Montana for
the project, there were only three votes against the statutory funding
mechanism in both the full House and Senate. The 2001 through 2007
Montana Legislatures have provided all authorizations and
appropriations necessary for the non-Federal cost share. (The 2009
legislature is in session and is expected to continue strong project
support).
Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
all 14 communities within the service area to participate in the
project. Rural support is strong, with about 70 percent of area farms
and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees
of $100 per household.
Need for Water Quality Improvement
The Fort Peck Indian Reservation was previously designated as an
``Enterprise Community'', underscoring the level of poverty and need
for economic development in the region. The success of economic
development within the Reservation will be significantly enhanced by
the availability of higher quality, safe and more ample municipal,
rural and industrial water supplies that this regional project will
bring to the Reservation, made more necessary by persistent drought in
the region. Outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the Dry Prairie
area has income levels that are higher than within the Reservation but
lower than the State average.
The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than
similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
regional project are located 2 to 3 miles from the river, including
Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton, Culbertson, and
Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a transmission system
outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation will deliver water 30 to 40
miles north of the Missouri River. Therefore, the distances from the
Missouri River to all points in the main transmission system are
shorter than in other projects of this nature in Reclamation's Great
Plains Region.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2010 Department
of the Interior Appropriations and funding for the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). We respectfully request your approval
of $5 million through the Bureau of Reclamation's Water and Related
Resources fiscal year 2010 appropriation. This funding request for
fiscal year 2010 is within the authorized level for the Foundation and
would allow us to expand our historical partnership with the Bureau of
Reclamation.
In 2009, the Foundation is celebrating its 25th Anniversary and a
remarkable history of bringing private partners together to leverage
Federal funds to conserve fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats.
The Foundation is required by law to match each federally-appropriated
dollar with a minimum of one non-Federal dollar. We consistently exceed
this requirement by leveraging Federal funds at a 3:1 ratio while
providing thought leadership and emphasizing accountability, measurable
results, and sustainable conservation outcomes. Funds appropriated by
this subcommittee are fully dedicated to project grants and do not
cover any overhead expenses of the Foundation.
As of fiscal year 2008, the Foundation had awarded over 10,000
grants to more than 3,500 national and community-based organizations
through successful partnerships with the Department of the Interior
agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In addition,
our collaborative inter-agency model has grown to include partnerships
with the Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, USDA Forest Service, USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and several other Federal agencies. This
effective model brings together multiple Federal agencies with local
government and private organizations to implement conservation
strategies that directly benefit diverse habitats and a wide range of
fish and wildlife species.
HISTORY OF BOR PARTNERSHIP
BOR has been an important funding partner with the Foundation since
1996. This subcommittee provided direct BOR appropriations to the
Foundation during fiscal year 1996-fiscal year 2003 and we also have a
long history of working with BOR through discretionary cooperative
agreements. Some examples of our successful partnership include:
--Pacific Grassroots Salmonid Initiative.--BOR was a partner with the
Foundation and NOAA to restore native fish habitat in
California, Oregon, and Alaska. Community-based grants support
projects for in-stream habitat restoration, fish passage
improvements, and barrier removals to benefit salmonids.
--Bring Back the Natives Program.--BOR participated in a national
grant program to restore aquatic species back to historic
habitats with the Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Bring Back the
Natives has already benefited more than 120 species, including
29 listed species such as salmon, desert pupfish, modoc
suckers, tui and borax chubs and toiyabe spotted frog.
--Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program.--The
Foundation previously partnered with BOR as part of this
program to administer funds and coordination of on-the-ground
conservation activities. As part of the program, the Foundation
successfully acquired 1,400 acres of Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher riparian habitat in New Mexico and Arizona.
--Williamson River Delta.--BOR is currently a partner in the
Foundation's efforts in the Williamson River Delta of Upper
Klamath Lake to protect, restore and maintain shoreline
wetlands critically important for the ESA-listed short-nosed
and Lost River suckers and to support monitoring efforts for
fish passage in the basin.
FISCAL YEAR 2010 OPPORTUNITIES
Fiscal year 2010 appropriations through BOR would allow the
Foundation to build more robust programs for our ongoing efforts and
forge new and innovative partnerships with BOR that will be required to
further develop water transaction programs to increase in-stream flows
for fish, removing fish passage barriers, and improving water quality
in reservoirs. These strategies are essential to the recovery of many
important fish species and provide important recreational opportunities
for the public.
It is widely known that climate change will endanger some fish and
wildlife populations and ecosystems more than others. In fiscal year
2008, the Foundation initiated grant-making through new keystone
initiatives, which focus on conservation and measurable impact on
select species of birds, fish and sensitive habitats. With BOR and
other agency funding in fiscal year 2010, we will accelerate
implementation of these strategic initiatives, many of which seek to
address the affects of climate change through wildlife and natural
resource adaptation. To ensure success in these investments, we are
incorporating monitoring and evaluation into the entire lifecycle of
our strategic initiatives in order to identify the highest priority
areas that will be resilient to climate change to assure long-term
conservation effectiveness, measure progress, promote adaptive
management, demonstrate results, and continuously learn from our grant-
making.
With our partners, the Foundation has identified several species
and ecosystems in need of immediate conservation action. In partnership
with BOR, fiscal year 2010 funds will focus on restoration of in-stream
flows, imperiled species recovery, and reservoir management.
--Restoration of In-Stream Flows.--We recognize that climate change
will greatly exacerbate two existing water supply problems
which impact wildlife and the public--too little water during
critical fish migration periods and the seasonality of
freshwater supplies. The Foundation has successfully
implemented a water transactions program in the Columbia Basin
in partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration, local
water trusts, agencies and willing landowners. Building on this
success, the Foundation is working proactively with Federal,
State and local partners to expand voluntary water transaction
programs to benefit a diversity of wildlife species while
improving water flows year-round for human use. BOR funding in
fiscal year 2010 would support voluntary water transaction
programs in the Klamath Basin of Oregon and California to add
water storage capability in the watershed and increase
available flows to meet both fish and irrigation needs. In
central California, fiscal year 2010 funds would also support
in-stream flow restoration along the Upper Sacramento River and
water storage and increased flows in the Sierra Nevada alpine
wetlands, or wet meadows.
--Imperiled Species Recovery.--Fiscal year 2010 funding would benefit
the recovery of multiple fish species in the key watersheds.
For example, wetland and stream habitat restoration on working
landscapes in the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon, will benefit two
ESA-listed sucker species and native redband trout. In the
Lower Klamath Basin of northern California, habitat
restoration, fish passage improvement and a new water
transactions program would restore flows for Coho salmon,
Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. In the Upper Colorado River
Basin, our efforts will focus on the warmwater-coldwater
interface to improve habitat for Colorado Cutthroat trout,
native suckers and chubs on both public and private lands.
--Reservoir Management.--Fiscal year 2010 funding would support
implementation of a Colorado River native fishes habitat
restoration program near BOR reservoirs. Working with BOR and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, one or two high priority
reservoirs will be targeted to serve as demonstration projects
for how reservoir habitat restoration can lead to improved lake
health, increased wildlife-related recreation opportunities and
strengthened local economies. In many reservoirs across the
west, fish habitat has significantly diminished since
construction of the reservoirs. This is due to loss of habitat
structure within the reservoir as well as reduced water quality
upstream of the reservoir. The Foundation will work with BOR
and other partners to improve upstream habitat and water
quality for native fish while also improving habitat conditions
within the reservoir.
With a fiscal year 2010 BOR appropriation, the Foundation would
engage non-Federal donors to support these strategic conservation
initiatives through corporate contributions, legal settlements, and
direct gifts. As a neutral convener, the Foundation is in a unique
position to work with the Federal agencies, State and local government,
corporations, foundations, conservation organizations and others to
build strategic partnerships to address the most significant threats to
fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Currently, the
Foundation has active partnerships with more than 30 corporations and
foundations and 17 Federal agencies.
Efficiency, Performance Measures and Accountability
In the last couple of years, the Foundation has taken important
strides to strengthen our performance measures and accountability. For
example, the Foundation is working with scientists and other experts to
develop species-specific metrics for each of our keystone initiatives
that we will use to measure our progress in achieving our conservation
outcomes. Our grant review and contracting processes have been improved
to ensure we maximize efficiency while maintaining strict financial and
evaluation-based requirements. We have enhanced our Web site with
interactive tools such as webinars and a grants library to enhance the
transparency of our grant-making, and instituted a new paperless
application and grant administration system. In 2009, we will continue
our efforts improve communication between and among our stakeholders
and streamlining of our grant-making process.
The Foundation's grant-making involves a thorough internal and
external review process. Peer reviews involve Federal and State
agencies, affected industry, non-profit organizations, and academics.
Grants are also reviewed by the Foundation's issue experts, as well as
evaluation staff, before being recommended to the Board of Directors
for approval. In addition, according to our Congressional Charter, the
Foundation provides a 30-day notification to the Members of Congress
for the congressional district and State in which a grant will be
funded, prior to making a funding decision.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate your continued
support and hope the subcommittee will approve funding for the
Foundation in fiscal year 2010.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, on behalf of the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District, I am requesting your support for
an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for fiscal year
2010 of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we seek is as
follows: $1,219,000 for construction activities for the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $1,950,000 for construction
activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development
activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is authorized by Public Law
106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of APS
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, we are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2010 of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $1,219,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $1,950,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
Dear Chairman Dorgan, attached herewith is my statement in support
of funding for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Basin
salinity control program. I sincerely appreciate your favorable
consideration of this statement and request that it be made a part of
the formal hearing record for fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the
Bureau of Reclamation. Also, I fully support the statement of Jack
Barnett, Executive Director, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Forum, submitted to you in support of the Bureau of Reclamation's
Colorado River Basin salinity control program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, we are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2010 of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $1,219,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $1,950,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
SUMMARY
This statement urges the subcommittee's support for a fiscal year
2010 appropriation of $40 million for California Bay-Delta Restoration.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM
Background.--In an average year, half of Santa Clara County's water
supply is imported from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta estuary (Bay-Delta) watersheds through three water projects: The
State Water Project, the Federal Central Valley Project, and San
Francisco's Hetch Hetchy Project. In conjunction with locally developed
water, this water supply supports more than 1.7 million residents in
Santa Clara County and the most important high-tech center in the
world. In average to wet years, there is enough water to meet the
county's long-term needs. In dry years, however, the county could face
a water supply shortage of as much as 100,000 acre-feet per year, or
roughly 20 percent of the expected demand. In addition to shortages due
to hydrologic variations, the county's imported supplies have been
reduced due to regulatory restrictions placed on the operation of the
State and Federal water projects.
There are also water quality problems associated with using Bay-
Delta water as a drinking water supply. Organic materials and
pollutants discharged into the Delta, together with salt water mixing
in from San Francisco Bay, have the potential to create disinfection by
products that are carcinogenic and pose reproductive health concerns.
Santa Clara County's imported supplies are also vulnerable to
extended outages due to catastrophic failures such as major earthquakes
and flooding.
Project Synopsis.--The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an
unprecedented, cooperative effort among Federal, State, and local
agencies to restore the Bay-Delta. With input from urban, agricultural,
environmental, fishing, and business interests, and the general public,
CALFED has developed a comprehensive, long-term plan to address
ecosystem and water management issues in the Bay-Delta.
Restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem is important not only because of
its significance as an environmental resource, but also because failing
to do so will stall efforts to improve water supply reliability and
water quality for millions of Californians and the State's trillion
dollar economy and job base.
The passage of H.R. 2828 (Public Law 108-361) in 2004 reauthorized
Federal participation in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and provided $389
million in new and expanded funding authority for selected projects,
including the San Luis Reservoir Low Point Improvement Project. The San
Luis Project is one of six new projects, studies or water management
actions authorized to receive a share of up to $184 million under the
conveyance section of the bill. It is critical that Federal funding be
provided to implement the actions authorized in the bill in the coming
years.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding.--Congress appropriated $40 million to the
program in fiscal year 2009.
Fiscal Year 2010 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation of $40 million for
California Bay-Delta Restoration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Energy Distributors
Association (CREDA)
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, the Colorado River Energy
Distributors Association (CREDA) requests your support for an
appropriation in the President's recommended budget for fiscal year
2010 of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation is as follows:
$1,219,000 for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $1,950,000 for construction
activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development
activities. This funding is authorized by Public Law 106-392, as
amended.
CREDA members serve over 4 million electric consumers in the States
of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming. CREDA
members are the purchasers of the clean, renewable hydropower resources
of the Federal Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). CREDA is a
participant in these cooperative programs. CRSP power revenues are
continuing to be used to provide ongoing base funding for these
programs. The programs' objectives are to recover endangered fish
species while water use and development proceeds in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act.
CREDA appreciates the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Utah Water Users Association
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, we are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2010 of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $1,219,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $1,950,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Denver Water
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, we are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2010 of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $1,219,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $1,950,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Grand Valley Water Users Association
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, we are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2010 of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $1,219,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $1,950,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation
Honorable Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Bennett, members of the
subcommittee, we respectfully request fiscal year 2010 appropriation of
funds for two priority watershed restoration and agricultural water
supply protection projects in Oregon and Washington, the Umatilla Basin
Water Supply Study Project (previously funded under the Umatilla Basin
Project Phase III, OR) and the Walla Walla General Investigation Stream
Flow Restoration Feasibility Study (previously funded under the Walla
Walla River Watershed, OR & WA).
--For the Umatilla Basin Water Supply Project, Oregon, we request an
appropriation of $150,000 in the Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific
Northwest Region, Water and Related Resources budget. This
request will enable the Bureau to finish the study and brings
to fruition the project that was initiated by the $450,000
committed by the Bureau of Reclamation to the project in fiscal
year 2007, the approximately $488,000 and $342,000 provided by
the subcommittee for fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009
respectively.
--For the Walla Walla River Watershed, Oregon and Washington, we
request an appropriation of $500,000 in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland Division, Walla Walla District, General
Investigations budget, and an additional $270,000 identified
for the Corps to provide to the Confederated Umatilla Tribes
through inter-governmental agreement to complete work required
as project sponsor. This request will allow the district and
the tribal government as Project Sponsor to move directly into
Pre-Construction Engineering and Design after completion of
Feasibility Report in 2010. This project is also known as Walla
Walla River Basin Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact
Statement.
Both the Umatilla Basin Water Supply Project and the Walla Walla
General Investigation Stream Flow Restoration Feasibility Study are
ongoing projects and have had administration and/or Congressional line
item funding in past fiscal years.
UMATILLA RIVER BASIN, OREGON WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
By letter dated March 19, 2007, the Office of the Secretary of
Interior responded favorably to the formal requests of the Oregon
Congressional delegation and of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation (CTUIR), Westland Irrigation District and Oregon
Governor Theodore Kulongoski to initiate the study of the Umatilla
Basin water development projects and concurrent settlement of the
tribe's reserved water rights. Counselor to the Secretary, L. Michael
Bogert, wrote ``I will ask the Secretary's Indian Water Rights Office
to appoint an Assessment Team . . .'' and ``I will also ask the Bureau
of Reclamation to move forward with a concurrent appraisal level study
of water supply options, including a full Phase III exchange . . . to
help resolve the tribe's water rights claims.''
The Bureau of Reclamation provided $450,000 in fiscal year 2007 for
work on the Umatilla Basin water supply appraisal study. The
subcommittee subsequently provided approximately $488,000 and $342,000
for this account in the fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 Energy
and Water Appropriations bills. The Bureau is actively developing its
Umatilla Basin Water Supply Study with these funds and will complete
the project in 2010 with the requested funding.
The Umatilla Basin Water Supply Project is authorized by the
Reclamation Feasibility Studies Act of 1966, 80 Stat. 707, Public Law
89-561, (Sept. 7, 1966).
The fiscal year 2010 request of $150,000 will enable the Bureau of
Reclamation to complete the estimated 2\1/2\ year appraisal level study
in mid 2010. The detailed appraisal study project will inform the
concurrent Interior Department Indian Water Rights Assessment Team's
work product. In 2010, Interior should have identified and estimated
costs and feasibility of a clear project or suite of projects necessary
to satisfy water rights of the CTUIR and in the Umatilla River.
This fiscal year 2010 request follows on the work of the Bureau of
Reclamation, authorized by the Umatilla Basin Project Act of 1988 (100
Public Law 557; 102 Stat. 2782 title II), to construct and operate the
Phase I Exchange with West Extension Irrigation District and the Phase
II Exchange with Hermiston and Stanfield Irrigation Districts. Heralded
as one of the most successful stream flow restoration and salmon
recovery projects in the Columbia River Basin, the Umatilla Basin
Project resulted in partially restored stream flows in the Umatilla
River and successful reintroduction of spring Chinook, fall Chinook and
Coho salmon. After nearly a century of dry river bed in summer months
and extinction of all salmon stocks, there has been an Indian and non-
Indian salmon fishery nearly every year in the Umatilla River since the
project was completed in the mid-1990s.
Completion of the Water Supply Study and the concurrent Tribal
Water Rights Assessment is supported and endorsed by the Honorable
Governor Ted Kulongoski and by local irrigation districts including
specifically Westland Irrigation District, the Umatilla County
Commission, and local municipalities including specifically the city of
Irrigon.
WALLA WALLA BASIN, OREGON AND WASHINGTON, GI FEASIBILITY STUDY
In its eighth and final full year of work leading to Study
completion, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' feasibility study will
complete a detailed analysis of the preferred alternative selected to
restore stream flows in the Walla Walla River. Drained nearly dry
during summer months by irrigation in Oregon and Washington, the Walla
Walla River is within the aboriginal lands of the CTUIR and the
complete loss of salmon violates the agreement by the United States in
the Treaty of 1855 to protect these fish.
Since the study's inception, approximately $4 million of Federal
funds have either been budgeted or appropriated for completion of the
Study through fiscal year 2009. The Walla Walla District will complete
the Feasibility Study Report in fiscal year 2010 and this request for
$500,000 for the Corps and $270,000 for the tribe will allow the
District and CTUIR to move directly into initiation of Pre-Construction
Feasibility and Design phase.
The Feasibility Study Project is authorized by the Senate Committee
on Public Works July 27, 1962 (Columbia River and Tributaries), 87th
Congress, House Document No. 403 and initiated as a result of a
positive Reconnaissance Report for the Walla Walla River Watershed
(1997) under a General Investigation study.
The CTUIR is the formal sponsor of the Corps of Engineers
Feasibility Study and has provided over $4.0 million in in-kind
contributions. Additionally, the State of Washington Department of
Ecology has provided $400,000 to the Feasibility Study. This is the
first year the CTUIR will request Federal funding, over and above that
requested for Corps of Engineers work, to enable the tribe's
continuation as Project Sponsor. Because of the unique status as a
Federal-recognized Indian tribe with Treaty Rights to the Walla Walla
Basin, and owing to the fact the CTUIR is the formal sponsor of the
Project, the Confederated Umatilla Tribes request an additional
appropriation of $270,000 to support their sponsor-required work of
real estate transactions and water right permitting from Oregon and
Washington. This will allow the tribe to initiate this work and will
necessitate additional and continued 2011 support to fund acquisition
of real property and other related activities. Prior to addressing this
unique situation in an upcoming Water Resources Development Act bill,
CTUIR requests the subcommittee consider this request as a clear
exception to the standard requirement that non-Federal sponsors provide
non-Federal funding.
Support for the completion of the Feasibility Study and moving to
construction of the project is strong and diverse and includes the
Honorable Governor of Washington Christine Gregoire, the Honorable
Governor of Oregon Ted Kulongoski, the Walla Walla Watershed Alliance,
the Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council, basin irrigation districts,
local State legislators, local governments and many local and regional
advocacy groups.
CONCLUSION
In closing, the CTUIR appreciates the opportunity to provide this
testimony in support of adding funds for the ongoing Umatilla River
Basin Water Supply Project, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Walla Walla
River Basin Watershed Restoration Feasibility Study, Army Corps of
Engineers. Both projects are critically important to protecting
existing agricultural economies, completing future water supply
development and concurrently restoring stream flows and recovering
threatened salmon and other Columbia River Basin fish stocks.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, we are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2010 of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $1,219,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $1,950,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy
District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett, we are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2010 of $3,569,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $1,219,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $1,950,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2010 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Prepared Statement of the Gas Turbine Association (GTA)
The Gas Turbine Association appreciates the opportunity to provide
the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development with our industry's statement recommending
fiscal year 2010 funding levels for the Department of Energy.
GTA recommends that the fiscal year 2010 appropriation for Fossil
Energy include $45 million for the Advanced Turbines Program to meet
critical national goals of fuel conservation, fuel flexibility
(including syngas and hydrogen), greenhouse gas reduction, and criteria
pollutant reduction. We also recommend that Congress take appropriate
action to ensure the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Industrial Technologies Program fiscal year 2010 appropriation include
$10 million, directed towards small gas turbine research, as part of
the Distributed Energy program to achieve goals similar to those
referenced above for the Fossil Energy initiative. In both cases a
public-private partnership is needed to ensure success.
It is clear that dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
are in the national interest. It is also clear that our economy needs
more electric generation capacity to resume and promote further growth.
Without new technology, the power generation industry will be hard
pressed to produce additional electric capacity, while at the same time
meeting the strict greenhouse gas emissions standards being set by
States and the Federal Government.
Federal investment in research and technology development for
advanced gas turbines that are more versatile, cleaner, and have the
ability to burn hydrogen-bearing reduced carbon synthetic fuels and
carbon-neutral alternative fuels is needed to ensure the reliable
supply of electricity in the next several decades. Domestic coal based
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) with carbon capture and
sequestration is one such approach that would significantly supplement
available supplies of domestic natural gas to guarantee an adequate
supply of clean and affordable electric power. Alternative fuel choices
range from imported LNG, coal bed methane, and coal-derived synthetic
or process gas to biogas, waste-derived gases and hydrogen. Research is
needed to improve the efficiency, reduce capital and operating costs,
and reduce emissions.
technologies for advanced igcc/h2 gas turbine--reducing the
PENALTY FOR CO2 CAPTURE
At current rates of research and development it is unlikely that
the Nation will have available the gas turbine technologies to meet the
needs of FutureGen type power plants. The advancement of these
technologies must be undertaken by the DOE since there is currently no
pathway to the development, insertion, and maturation of these
technologies into the Nation's electric power infrastructure based on
market forces. Thus, a combined effort by the public and private
sectors is necessary.
The turbines and related technologies being developed under the DOE
FE Advanced Turbines program will directly advance the performance and
capabilities of future power generation with CO2 capture and
sequestration. Advances are needed to offset part of the power plant
efficiency and output reductions associated with CO2
capture. Program funding is required to cost-share in the technology
development of advanced hydrogen/syngas combustors and other components
to realize the DOE goals.
Several GTA member companies are working cost-share programs with
the DOE to develop technologies for advanced gas turbine power plants
with carbon capture. These technologies will: (1) increase plant
efficiency; (2) increase plant capacities; and (3) allow further
reductions in combustion emissions of hydrogen rich fuels associated
with CO2 capture and sequestration. This will help offset
some of the efficiency and output penalties associated with
CO2 capture. These programs are funding technology
advancement at a much more rapid rate than industry can do on their
own.
The need for increased levels of Federal cost-share funding is
immediate. The funding levels in past years for the Advanced Turbines
program has been inadequate to meet DOE's Advanced Power System goal of
an IGCC power system with high efficiency (45-50 percent HHV), near-
zero emissions and competitive capital cost. To meet this goal, the
researchers must demonstrate a 2 to 3 percentage point improvement in
combined cycle efficiency above current state-of-the-art Combined Cycle
turbines in IGCC applications.
The plan for the IGCC-based FutureGen-type application is to
develop the flexibility in this same machine with modifications to
operate on pure hydrogen as the primary energy source while maintaining
the same levels of performance in terms efficiency and emissions. The
goal is to develop the fundamental technologies needed for advanced
hydrogen turbines and to integrate this technology with CO2
separation, capture, and sequestration into a near-zero emission
configuration that can provide electricity with less than a 10 percent
increase in cost over conventional plants by 2012.
The Advanced Turbines program is also developing oxygen-fired (oxy-
fuel) turbines and combustors that are expected to achieve efficiencies
in the 44-46 percent range, with near-100 percent CO2
capture and near-zero NOX emissions. The development and
integrated testing of a new combustor, turbine components, advanced
cooling technology, and materials in oxy-fuel combustors and turbines
is needed to make these systems commercially viable.
The knowledge and confidence that generating equipment will operate
reliably and efficiently on varying fuels is essential for the
deployment of new technology. Years of continued under funding of the
Advanced Turbines program has already delayed the completion dates for
turbine R&D necessary for advanced IGCC, as well as timing for a
FutureGen-type plant validation.
MEGA-WATT SCALE TURBINE R&D
In the 2005 Enabling Turbine Technologies for High-Hydrogen Fuels
solicitation, the Office of Fossil Energy included a topic area
entitled ``Development of Highly Efficient Zero Emission Hydrogen
Combustion Technology for Mega-Watt Scale Turbines''. Turbine
manufacturers and combustion system developers responded favorably to
this topic, but DOE funding constraints did not allow any contract
awards. The turbine industry recommends a follow-up to this
solicitation topic that would allow the developed combustion technology
to be tested in machines at full scale conditions and allow for
additional combustion technology and combustor development for high-
hydrogen fuels.
The turbine industry believes that this technology is highly
relevant to industrial coal gasification applications including: (1)
site-hardened black-start capability for integrated gasification
combined cycle applications (the ability to restart an IGCC power plant
when the electric grid has collapsed); (2) supplying plant electric
load fueled on syngas or hydrogen; (3) increasing plant steam cycle
capacity on hot days when large amounts of additional power are needed;
and (4) in gas turbines for compression of high-hydrogen fuels for
pipeline transportation. The development of MW-scale turbines (1-100
MW) fueled with high-hydrogen fuels will promote the sustainable use of
coal. In addition, highly efficient aeroderivative megawatt scale
engines operate under different conditions than their larger
counterparts and are installed for peaking or distributed generation
applications. Funding is required to design efficient and low emissions
combustors that accommodate the new fuels.
HIGH-EFFICIENCY, LOW CARBON, FUEL FLEXIBLE SMALL GAS TURBINES FOR
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY
The Distributed Energy Program of EERE's Industrial Technologies
program should include $10 million to initiate small gas turbine
research and development programs to dramatically increase their fuel
efficiency (and thus reduce their carbon footprint) and to make them
fuel flexible. Distributed energy is critical to building a efficient,
diverse, and robust electric power infrastructure. Specifically, this
program should set a goal of 42 percent efficiency (on a lower heating
value basis) for advanced small gas turbines while enhancing their fuel
flexibility to include dual fuel and alternative fuel utilization.
These programs should build on the success of the Advanced Micro-
turbine program of past years to overcome the barriers to insertion of
Distributed Energy into our Nation's electrical infrastructure and to
build on potential synergies between advanced small gas turbines and
the advances in waste heat capture such as combined heat and power
(CHP) and organic Rankine cycle (ORC).
GAS TURBINES REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The gas turbine industry's R&D partnership with the Federal
Government has steadily increased power plant efficiency to the point
where natural gas fired turbines can reach combined cycle efficiencies
of 60 percent, and quick-start simple cycle peaking units can reach 46
percent. The gas turbine's clean exhaust can be used to create hot
water, steam, or even chilled water. In such combined heat and power
applications, overall system efficiency levels can reach 60 to 85
percent LHV. This compares to 40-45 percent for even the most advanced
thermal steam cycles (most of which are coal fired).
Gas turbines already play a very significant role in minimizing
greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Gas turbines are both more
efficient and typically burn lower carbon fuels compared to other types
of combustion-based power generation and mechanical drive applications.
The Nation needs to reinvigorate the gas turbine/Government partnership
in order to develop new, low carbon power plant solutions without
increasing our reliance on natural gas. This can be done by funding
research to make gas turbines more capable of utilizing hydrogen and
synthetic fuels as well as increasing the efficiency, durability and
emissions capability of natural gas fired turbines. If Congress
provides adequate funding to DOE's turbine R&D efforts, technology
development and deployment will be accelerated to a pace that will
allow the United States to achieve its emissions and energy security
goals.
The GTA respectfully requests $45 million in fiscal year 2010
appropriations for the Fossil Energy Advanced Turbines Program, and $10
million for the Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy ITP/Distributed
Energy Program directed towards small turbines research in fiscal year
2010 to meet critical national goals of fuel conservation, fuel
flexibility (including syngas and hydrogen), greenhouse gas reduction,
and criteria pollutant reduction.
GTA MEMBER COMPANIES
Alstom Power; Capstone Turbine Corporation; GE Energy; Florida
Turbine Technologies; Rolls-Royce; Siemens Energy; Solar Turbines;
Pratt & Whitney Power Systems; Strategic Power Systems; and VibroMeter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology
On behalf of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental
Biology (FASEB), I respectfully request an fiscal year 2010
appropriation for the Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE SC)
of 8 percent over fiscal year 2009. This increase will provide the
Office of Science with the ability to sustain support for critical
research programs that spur scientific innovation, fuel the economy,
move the Nation towards energy independence and improve human health.
As a Federation of 22 professional scientific societies, FASEB
represents nearly 90,000 life scientists, making us the largest
coalition of biomedical research associations in the Nation. FASEB's
mission is to advance health and welfare by promoting progress and
education in biological and biomedical sciences, including the research
funded by VA, through service to its member societies and collaborative
advocacy. FASEB enhances the ability of biomedical and life scientists
to improve--through their research--the health, well-being and
productivity of all people.
FASEB is composed of 22 societies with more than 80,000 members,
making it the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in
the United States. Our mission is to advance health and welfare by
promoting progress and education in biological and biomedical sciences,
including the science supported by DOE SC.
``[T]he Office of Science is commit[ed] to invest in some of the
most exciting and daring research that humankind has ever conceived,
from explorations into the origins of our universe and the constituents
of life, to the scientific knowledge that will deliver new, clean, and
abundant sources of energy to meet world needs for 10 billion people by
the year 2050.''
This bold statement from the DOE SC Strategic Plan \1\ highlights
DOE SC's unique role in serving as a catalyst for discoveries in basic
energy research and in environmental and life sciences as well as
computational science. The research programs and facilities at DOE SC
support further cutting-edge science and technological innovations that
safeguard our Nation, strengthen our economy, and improve the daily
lives of the American people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United State Department of Energy. 2004. Office of Science
Strategic Plan. http://www.er.doe.gov/about/Strategic_Plan/Feb-2004-
Strat-Plan-screen-res.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each year, more than 25,000 researchers from universities, other
government agencies and private industry use DOE SC's extraordinary
system of national laboratories and research facilities. DOE's state-
of-the-art facilities comprise the most advanced research system of its
kind in the world and permit the agency to support unique and vital
programs in climate change, geophysics, genomics, materials and
chemical sciences, and life sciences. The Office of Science's emphasis
on interdisciplinary scientific research supports and extends the basic
research that other Federal agencies sponsor, and much of the research
that non-DOE science agencies fund could not occur in the absence of
DOE's highly specialized research infrastructure.
DOE's contribution to research and science extends beyond the
benefits of its national laboratories. The Office of Science is also a
principal supporter of graduate students and early career postdoctoral
researchers at U.S. colleges and universities. Almost 50 percent of DOE
SC's research funding supports research at over 300 colleges,
universities and institutes nationwide.
DISCOVERIES THAT IMPROVE HEALTH & WELL-BEING
Scientists whom DOE has supported have uncovered a wealth of basic
biological knowledge and have produced astounding health technologies.
--Restoring Function to Patients with Disabilities.--Office of
Science funding led to the bion microstimulator, a miniature
rechargeable and implantable neurostimulator that may benefit
50 million Americans who suffer from debilitating conditions by
stimulating viable nerves and muscles to prevent muscle
deterioration and help restore nerve and muscle function. The
device can address a wide variety of diseases and disorders,
including incontinence, chronic headaches, peripheral pain,
angina and epilepsy.
--Targeted Cancer Therapies.--DOE scientists have developed the
Cesium-131 Brachytherapy Seed, one of the most significant
advancements in brachytherapy (short distance treatment
involving the use of carefully placed, radioactive ``seeds'')
for cancer treatment in nearly 20 years. In treating prostate
and other cancers, it delivers a highly targeted therapeutic
dose of radiation to the tumor quickly and with potentially
fewer side effects.
Although research DOE SC has funded has already positively
influenced our lives and health, opportunities on the horizon are even
more exciting. For example, the DOE-SC Artificial Retina Project is
developing an artificial retina that can restore sight in patients who
are blind; the technology can also help persons who are deaf as well as
those who have spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease and almost any
other neurological disorder. Additionally, researchers at the Argonne
National Laboratory and the University of Chicago are engineering an
``ice slurry'' to cool organs; the slurry may help save stroke or
cardiac arrest patients from the destruction of their brain and heart
cells.
CLEANER AND MORE SECURE ENERGY FUTURE
Fundamental discoveries in basic energy sciences funded by DOE SC
are already having an impact on the energy we use daily and are
continuing to pave the way for the next generation of environmentally-
conscious, sustainable energy sources. As a recent report \2\ on future
energy needs produced by DOE stated, ``Major new discoveries are
needed, and these will largely come from basic research programs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ United States Department of Energy, Basic Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee. 2003. Basic Research Needs to Assure a Secure
Energy Future. http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/SEF_rpt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Building Better Batteries.--DOE SC discoveries resulted in lithium
batteries that offer high-energy storage capacity in an
environmentally benign package. Lithium batteries are widely
used in both consumer and defense applications, such as
cellular telephones and notebook computers. Moreover, DOE
researchers have generated a solid-state, fluoride-based
battery that is safer than traditional batteries in high-
temperature applications such as oil, gas and geothermal
drilling.
--Hydrogen Technologies.--At the Argonne National Lab, scientists
have constructed the world's fastest commercially producible
hydrogen sensor that can be used in hydrogen-powered cars to
detect unsafe levels of hydrogen. Scientists have also
developed materials resistant to metal dusting degradation,
which will be used to make more durable equipment in plants
that manufacture hydrogen.
Researchers are also on the brink of developing new technologies to
meet our most pressing energy needs. In an effort to increase the
amount of c solar power in the Nation's energy supply, DOE SC is
investing in research aimed at improving conversion of solar energy to
both electricity and chemical fuels. Moreover, fundamental research
awards have been made to institutions nationwide as scientists work to
overcome key hurdles in hydrogen production, storage and conversion in
an effort to increase the feasibility of hydrogen fuel.
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF DOE RESEARCH
The passage of the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully
Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science (COMPETES) Act
of 2007 renewed our Nation's commitment to science and technology and
established a 7 year doubling path for the budget of DOE SC. In 2009,
generous funding provided in the Omnibus Appropriations Act and the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act began to fulfill the commitment
Congress has made to scientific and technological innovation. In 2010,
we ask that this support continue, both to protect the investments that
have been made, and to realize the potential of the scientific
enterprise. An fiscal year 2010 funding level for DOE SC of 8 percent
over fiscal year 2009 will allow DOE to greatly enhance its
groundbreaking research portfolio and permit it to confront current and
future energy and health challenges. Scientists who have received DOE
SC funding have made and continue to make extraordinary breakthroughs
that contribute to the quality of our lives and facilitate advances
that drive our Nation's innovative technologies.
______
Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA)
SUMMARY
This testimony pertains to fiscal year 2010 appropriations for
biomass energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D)
conducted by the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy (EERE), Biomass Program (OBP). This RD&D is funded
by the Energy and Water Development bill, under Energy Supply and
Conservation, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. BERA recommends a
total appropriation of $400 million in fiscal year 2010 for Biomass and
Biorefinery Systems R&D. This is an increase of $75 million over the
U.S. Department of Energy request for fiscal year 2010 for this
programmatic area. Substantial investments in new technology and
demonstrations will be needed to meet the RFS goals for advanced
biofuels. Specific lines items for the DOE biomass RD&D budget are
below (also see Table 1):
--$40,000,000 for Feedstock Infrastructure development (regional
partnerships, harvesting and storage technology, exploration of
new feedstocks).
--$60,000,000 for Biochemical Conversion Platform Technology
(emphasis on cost-effective pretreatment technologies and
fermentation organisms--both are large contributors to high
cost of biofuels production from cellulosic materials).
--$60,000,000 for Thermochemical Conversion Platform Technology
(conversion of plants, oil crops, energy crops, wood and forest
resources to oils, long chain hydrocarbons, or other fuels/
intermediates).
--$200,000,000 for Utilization of Platform Outputs: Integrated
Biorefinery Technologies demonstrations. Technology
demonstrations reduce technical and economic risk and
accelerate the potential for private investment.
--$40,000,000 for Utilization of Platform Outputs: Bioproducts
(chemicals and materials).
BACKGROUND
On behalf of BERA's members, we would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to present the recommendations of BERA's
Board of Directors for the high-priority programs that we strongly urge
be continued or started. BERA is a non-profit association based in the
Washington, DC area. It was founded in 1982 by researchers and private
organizations conducting biomass research. Our objectives are to
promote education and research on the economic production of energy and
fuels from biomass, and to serve as a source of information on biomass
RD&D policies and programs. BERA does not solicit or accept Federal
funding.
TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2010 BIOMASS/BIOREFINERY SYSTEMS R&D, ENERGY
SUPPLY & CONSERVATION, DOE/EERE BIOMASS PROGRAM
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Area Description of RD&D Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedstock Infrastructure............. Regional feedstock $40.0
partnerships
Joint development of
storage and harvesting
technology
Plants species amenable
to thermochemical
(e.g., high lignin) and
biochemical (e.g., more
easily processed
lignin) processes
Biochemical Conversion Platform R&D.. Next generation biofuels/ 60.0
processes using a range
of feedstocks
Technologies to reduce
costs of pretreatment
Advanced biological
routes that combine
biological methods with
pretreatment to reduce
enzyme costs
dramatically
Seed funding for
revolutionary new
concepts, including
small businesses and
inventors
Thermochemical Conversion Platform Next generation biofuels 60.0
R&D. and processes that can
use a range of
feedstocks (pyrolysis,
gasification, routes)
Technologies to reduce
costs of pretreatment
Seed funding for
revolutionary new
concepts, including
small businesses and
inventors
Platform Outputs: Integrated Direct funding (cost- 200.0
Biorefineries. shared) of biochemical
and thermochemical
conversion technologies
Public awareness and
outreach programs
National center for
infrastructure issues
Underwriting of loan
guarantees
Platform Outputs: Bioproducts........ Co-production of 40.0
chemicals and materials
from biochemical and
thermochemical output
streams as alternatives
to petroleum-derived
chemicals
--------
TOTAL.......................... ........................ 400.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a growing urgency to diversify our energy supply, develop
technologies to utilize indigenous and renewable resources, reduce U.S.
reliance on imported oil, and mitigate the impacts of energy on climate
and the environment. The benefits will be many--support for economic
growth, new American jobs, enhanced environmental quality, and fewer
energy-related contributions to climate change. Economic growth is
fueled and sustained in large part by the availability of reliable,
cost-effective energy supplies. The import of oil and other fuels into
the United States is growing steadily, despite increased volatility in
supply and prices, especially petroleum and natural gas. This creates
an economic burden on industry and consumers alike, and adversely
impacts our quality of life. A diversified, sustainable energy supply
is critical to meeting our energy challenges and maintaining a healthy
economy with a competitive edge in global markets. Biomass can
diversify U.S. energy supply in several ways, and biofuels is only one
avenue:
--Biomass is the single renewable resource with the ability to
directly replace liquid transportation fuels.
--Biomass can be used as a feedstock to supplement the production of
chemicals, plastics, and materials now produced from crude oil.
--Gasification of biomass produces a syngas that can be utilized to
supplement the natural gas supply, generate electricity, or
produce fuels and chemicals.
While biomass will not solve all our energy challenges, it can
certainly contribute to the diversity of our supply, and do so in a
sustainable way, while minimizing impacts to the environment or
climate. The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007
mandates increased use of alternative fuels, with a substantial portion
to come from cellulosic biomass. To meet the ambitious EISA goals will
require aggressive support for RD&D to move technology forward and
reduce technical and economic risk.
overall bera recommendations for u.s. doe/eere biomass rd&d
--Make Investments to Accelerate Development of Next Generation
Biofuels/Processes [Platforms Research and Development--
Biochemical and Thermochemical Platform R&D].--Balance funding
so more is allocated toward next generation biofuels and
processes that include both biochemical and thermochemical
routes, including pyrolysis, gasification, and others, and
hybrid routes; emphasize processes that can use a range of
biomass types. Include advanced biological routes that better
integrate simplified combined biological methods with
pretreatment to reduce enzyme costs dramatically as enzymes
followed by pretreatment are the major cost items that are
susceptible to change.
--Make Investments to Bring Down the Cost of Biomass Pretreatment
[Platforms Research and Development--Biochemical and
Thermochemical Platform R&D].--Invest substantial funds to
bring down the capital and operating costs of pretreatment of
cellulosic biomass. This is very important and deserves
emphasis as pretreatment is a major factor in the cost of
production and also influences the cost of the rest of process.
It remains a major hurdle for commercialization of new
processes and achieving economic viability of operating
biofuels facilities. Developing pretreatment processes that
integrate better with the entire process are a critical aspect.
--Underwrite an Unprecedented Number of Loan Guarantees and Directly
Fund a Wide Range of Demonstrations [Utilization of Platform
Outputs: Integrated Biorefineries].--These actions will raise
confidence in private investment during uncertain economic
times--facilities need to be put in the ground now to make a
difference in the mid and long term. Technology demonstrations
reduce technical and economic risk and accelerate the potential
for private investment. A major concern is that DOE has not
approved and disbursed a single loan guarantee under the
innovative technology program established by EPAct 2005.
However, DOE Secretary Steven Chu indicates he is committed to
reform to speed up the loan guarantee process. We suggest that
DOE provide 50 percent of capital for first plants with the
rest being private funds to compensate for the risk of first
projects while assuring enough private capital is on the line
for proper due diligence. This level of guarantee is vital--
introducing any new fuel in today's petroleum-heavy market is
extremely challenging. The capital costs for petroleum
processing are paid off, making it a cash producer, while a
biofuels facility must cover not only cash costs but make a
high return on capital to compensate for first time risk. This
is a heavy lift for first-of-a-kind technology.
--Set Aside Funding for Demonstration of Revolutionary, but Unproven
New Concepts [Platforms Research and Development--Biochemical
and Thermochemical Platform R&D].--Seed funding is needed for
revolutionary new ideas that show great promise. We must appeal
to the great American sense of innovation and invention to
bring ideas to the table that will help solve our energy
crises. Small, entrepreneurial inventors and businesses should
be part of this equation. This is an important, but riskier
proposition, and will take longer to allow for successive
funding of ideas and demonstrations.
--Invest More Funds in Development of Cost-effective New Bioproducts
[Utilization of Platform Outputs: Integrated Biorefineries].--
Some chemicals could be produced from biomass, reducing our
dependence on oil-derived chemicals and materials that go into
a myriad of consumer goods from paint to food to drugs to
plastics. Positive economic returns (and improved margins for
integrated biorefineries) could be achieved by production of
value-added co-products, whether the facility is based on
thermochemical or biochemical technology. Current funding for
this area is extremely limited. The challenge is that large
plants are needed for economies of scale, thereby favoring
biofuels. Chemicals can improve returns in a fuels biorefinery
and provide scale advantages, but financing construction of
projects involving more than one product is risky.
--Invest in Study of New Non-food, Non-commodity Biomass [Feedstocks
Infrastructure].--This includes algae, selected perennial
grasses, wood, and waste (of any kind, industrial,
construction, food processing, etc); include an understanding
of the viability of these resources (yields, production issues,
chemistry, etc) for producing a wide range of fuels (analogs
for gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, marine fuel, etc). This should
include developing plants species that are more amenable to
thermochemical (e.g., high lignin) and biochemical (e.g., low
lignin, more easily processed lignin) processing.
--Invest Significant Resources on Outreach to Increase Public
Awareness [Utilization of Platform Outputs].--The importance of
public opinion cannot be overstated. Increasing awareness and
understanding of biofuels and their impacts on our energy
situation is critical. This includes understanding the positive
environmental impacts, and dispelling of misperceptions--we
need to get the truth out there, good and bad--and enable
consumers to make good choices. Funding should include
incentives to States to get the word out and educate the
public--and make this information available where people fuel
up--at local filling stations and grocery stores, etc.
--Jointly Fund (With USDA, DOT, EPA) a National Center to Address
Infrastructure Issues [Utilization of Platform Outputs].--A
national center for centralized information and technology
exchange is needed, covering all areas of infrastructure from
storage and transport of feedstocks to blending, storage and
distribution of fuels to consumers. This center would
incorporate a public-private partnership model to encourage
investment in infrastructure. Infrastructure has not received
much attention, but could severely impede reaching EISA RFS
goals.
______
Prepared Statement of the State Teachers' Retirement System, State of
California
Department of Energy--Elk Hills School Lands Fund: $9.7 million for
fiscal year 2010 installment of Elk Hills compensation.
Congress should appropriate the funds necessary to fulfill the
Federal Government's settlement obligation to provide compensation for
the State of California's interest in the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum
Reserve.
SUMMARY
Acting pursuant to congressional mandate, and in order to maximize
the revenues for the Federal taxpayer from the sale of the Elk Hills
Naval Petroleum Reserve by removing the cloud of the State of
California's claims, the Federal Government reached a settlement with
the State in advance of the sale. The State waived its rights to the
Reserve in exchange for fair compensation in installments stretched out
over an extended period of time. The State respectfully requests an
appropriation of at least $9.7 million in the subcommittee's bill for
fiscal year 2010, in order to meet the Federal Government's obligations
to the State under the settlement agreement.
BACKGROUND
Upon admission to the Union, States beginning with Ohio and those
westward were granted by Congress certain sections of public land
located within the State's borders. This was done to compensate these
States having large amounts of public lands within their borders for
revenues lost from the inability to tax public lands as well as to
support public education. Two of the tracts of State school lands
granted by Congress to California at the time of its admission to the
Union were located in what later became the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum
Reserve.
The State of California applies the revenues from its State school
lands to assist retired teachers whose pensions have been most
seriously eroded by inflation. California teachers are ineligible for
Social Security and often must rely on this State pension as the
principal source of retirement income. Typically the retirees receiving
these State school lands revenues are single women more than 75 years
old whose relatively modest pensions have lost as much as half or more
of their original value to inflation.
STATE'S CLAIMS SETTLED, AS CONGRESS HAD DIRECTED
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) that mandated the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve to
private industry, Congress reserved 9 percent of the net sales proceeds
in an escrow fund to provide compensation to California for its claims
to the State school lands located in the Reserve.
In addition, in the act Congress directed the Secretary of Energy
on behalf of the Federal Government to ``offer to settle all claims of
the State of California . . . in order to provide proper compensation
for the State's claims.'' (Public Law 104-106, 3415). The Secretary
was required by Congress to ``base the amount of the offered settlement
payment from the contingent fund on the fair value for the State's
claims, including the mineral estate, not to exceed the amount reserved
in the contingent fund.'' (Id.)
Over the year that followed enactment of the Defense Authorization
Act mandating the sale of Elk Hills, the Federal Government and the
State engaged in vigorous and extended negotiations over a possible
settlement. Finally, on October 10, 1996 a settlement was reached, and
a written Settlement Agreement was entered into between the United
States and the State, signed by the Secretary of Energy and the
Governor of California, under which the State would receive 9 percent
of the sales proceeds in annual installments over an extended period.
The Settlement Agreement is fair to both sides, providing proper
compensation to the State and its teachers for their State school lands
and enabling the Federal Government to maximize the sales revenues
realized for the Federal taxpayer by removing the threat of the State's
claims in advance of the sale.
FEDERAL REVENUES MAXIMIZED BY REMOVING CLOUD OF STATE'S CLAIM IN
ADVANCE OF THE SALE
The State entered into a binding waiver of rights against the
purchaser in advance of the bidding for Elk Hills by private
purchasers, thereby removing the cloud over title being offered to the
purchaser, prohibiting the State from enjoining or otherwise
interfering with the sale, and removing the purchaser's exposure to
treble damages for conversion under State law. In addition, the State
waived equitable claims to revenues from production for periods prior
to the sale. The Reserve thereafter was sold for a winning bid of $3.53
billion in cash, a sales price that substantially exceeded earlier
estimates.
CONGRESS SHOULD APPROPRIATE $9.7 MILLION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2010
INSTALLMENT OF ELK HILLS COMPENSATION
The State's 9 percent share of the adjusted Elk Hills sales price
of $3.53 billion is $317.70 million. To date, Congress has appropriated
seven installments of $36 million and one installment of $48 million
that was reduced to $47.52 million by the 1 percent across-the-board
rescission under the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations Act, for
total appropriations to date of $299.52 million of Elk Hills
compensation owed to the State. Accordingly, the Elk Hills School Lands
Fund should have a positive balance of at least $18.18 million.
We understand that Department of Energy personnel under the Bush
administration had proffered four purported grounds for suspending
further payments of Elk Hills compensation to the State. Each of these
is a ``red herring''.
Red Herring No. 1. Finalization of respective equity shares of
Federal Government and ChevronTexaco as selling co-owners of Elk Hills
oil field still not completed.--The Bush administration's fiscal year
2009 budget request stated that ``the timing and levels of any future
budget request [for Elk Hills compensation] are dependent on the
schedule and results of the equity finalization process'' between the
Federal Government and ChevronTexaco to determine the relative
production over the years from their respective tracts in the Elk Hills
field. (Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Appendix, at p. 403). But DOE already
has held back $67 million, including $6.03 million from the State's
share, to protect the Federal Government's interests in a ``worst case
scenario'' for this equity process. The State has agreed to a ``hold-
back'' of that amount to protect the Federal Government's interest.
This reduces the available balance in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund
to $12.15 million. In addition, DOE's fiscal year 2009 congressional
budget request detail stated that the equity determination is in its
final stages: ``Of the four applicable zones [in Elk Hills], the Dry
Gas Zone and Carneros Zone are finalized. The Stevens Zone [the largest
in Elk Hills] is expected to be completed in 2008. A final
recommendation for the Shallow Zone is pending.'' (p. 142).
Accordingly, remaining uncertainty in the equity process thus provides
no basis for withholding further payment of the State's Elk Hills
compensation.
Red Herring No. 2. There is no money left in the Elk Hills School
Lands Fund right now.--The Bush administration's fiscal year 2009
budget request stated: ``Under the Act [that mandated the sale of Elk
Hills], 9 percent of the net proceeds were reserved in a contingent
fund in the Treasury for payment to the States. . . . Under the
settlement agreement, $300 million has been paid to the State of
California.'' (Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Appendix, at p. 403). The fiscal
year 1999 budget request at the time of the sale notes that $324
million was deposited into the Elk Hills School Lands Fund. (Fiscal
Year 1999 Budget Appendix, at pp. 378-9). A post-sale adjustment to the
Elk Hills sales price reduced this amount to $317.7 million.
Accordingly, after deducting the $300 million in payments to the State
to date and the $6 million hold-back to protect the Federal
Government's interests in the ``worst case'' scenario for the equity
process, the Elk Hills Fund has ample funds available for appropriation
of a further payment of compensation to the State.
Red Herring No. 3. No payment can be made to the State because of
pending litigation between ChevronTexaco and DOE.--DOE has pointed to
pending litigation brought by ChevronTexaco against DOE in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims (Docket No. 04-1365C) as a reason to suspend
further payments to the State. This litigation alleges DOE personnel
committed misconduct in the equity finalization process by having
improper ex parte contacts and having the same DOE staff serve as both
advocate for DOE's position and advisor preparing the decision
documents for the decisionmaker. However, the California State Attorney
General has analyzed this litigation and advised that this litigation
is a claim for money damages for DOE staff misconduct that has no
effect on the Federal Government's equity share, and so there is no
effect on the State's share of compensation. Indeed, under the
governing agreement between DOE and Chevron, Chevron had waived any
right to contest the final equity determination in court. Hence this
litigation provides no basis for withholding the rest of the State's
compensation.
Red Herring No. 4. No payment can be made to the State because the
State's share must be reduced by the equity finalization costs and
environmental remediation costs and the final amount of such costs is
not yet known.--The State's share of compensation is properly reduced
by the ``direct costs of sale'' as required by Congress. Since the sale
took place over a decade ago, those costs are fixed and known. The
State has agreed to bear its share of these sales expenses. However,
DOE is seeking to charge against the State's share two additional
categories of costs--costs of determining the equity ownership and
environmental remediation--that constitute ongoing costs of operating
the oil field, not sales expenses. The California State Attorney
General advises that these do not properly constitute sales expenses
chargeable against the State's share.
More specifically, the Settlement Agreement between the Federal
Government and the State provides that the Federal Government shall pay
the State ``9 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the Federal Elk
Hills Interests that remain after deducting from the sales proceeds the
costs incurred to conduct such sale.'' This reflects the congressional
direction that, ``In exchange for relinquishing its claim, the State
will receive 7 [9 in the final legislation] percent of the gross sales
proceeds from the sale of the Reserve that remain after the direct
expenses of the sale are taken into account.'' (House Rept. No. 104-
131, Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, Public Law 104-
106).
The State has agreed that the $27.13 million incurred for
appraisals, accounting expenses, reserves report, and brokers'
commission are appropriate sales expenses. Accordingly, the State's 9
percent share of these proper sales expenses reduces the available
balance of the Elk Hills School Lands Fund by $2.44 million to $9.7
million.
Costs of conducting the equity adjustment are properly viewed as
ongoing costs incurred due to the joint operation of the Elk Hills oil
field by the Federal Government and ChevronTexaco, since the equity
adjustment already was required under their joint operating agreement
and related to pre-sale production revenues. Similarly, costs of
environmental remediation of the Elk Hills field was a cost
attributable to the prior operation of the field, which created any
environmental problems that exist. The ongoing operational nature of
this cost is underscored by the fact that the Federal Government is
currently engaged in the phased environmental remediation of a Naval
Petroleum Reserve that it is not selling--NPR-3 (Teapot Dome), as
evidenced by the fiscal year 2009 budget request.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, of the current Elk Hills School Lands Fund balance of
$18.18 million, taking into account the ``hold-back'' for worst case
scenario under equity finalization and deducting the appropriate direct
costs of conducting the sale, the State respectfully requests the
appropriation of at least $9.7 million for Elk Hills compensation in
the subcommittee's bill for the fiscal year 2010 installment of
compensation, in order to meet the Federal Government's obligations to
the State under the Settlement Agreement.
______
Prepared Statement of Integrated Building and Construction Solutions
(IBACOS), Inc.
IBACOS (Integrated Building and Construction Solutions) urges the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to provide $46 million for
the Building America Program at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office
of Building Technologies in fiscal year 2010 Appropriations under the
Office of Building Technologies, Residential Building Integration,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We further urge that the
following language is included to ensure that the competitively
selected Building America teams are funded at a percentage comparable
to their historic funding: Of these funds, $35 million shall be
provided for the research activities of the competitively selected
Building America research teams, the Building America lead research
laboratory, and other national laboratories conducting research to
achieve Building America's specified energy performance targets.
Residential Buildings currently account for over 20 percent of the
primary energy consumed by the United States. Each year, more than 1
million new homes are constructed and over a million are remodeled.
Significant energy savings can be achieved at minimal increases in
construction costs provided that a long term and consistent commitment
is made to work in partnership with the housing industry. DOE's
Building America Program has developed an industry-driven research
approach that can reduce the average energy use in new housing by 50
percent by 2015, providing significant benefits to homeowners in terms
of reduced utility bills and significant benefits to the U.S. economy
by maintaining housing as a major source of jobs and economic growth.
If building in significant energy savings isn't done now, the Nation
risks using an extravagant amount of energy in the future. In order to
reduce reliance on foreign energy supplies and to support the
stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions, we must invest appropriately
in research in the areas of technology, systems integration, and
builder processes to upgrade the performance of our housing stock;
otherwise, we are mortgaging our future.
Research, development, and outreach activities performed by the
competitively selected industry Teams in the Building America Program
are the key element in DOE's strategy to reduce energy consumption in
residential buildings. The Teams' activities focus on increasing the
performance of new and existing homes by developing advanced energy
systems that can be implemented on a production basis, while meeting
consumer and building performance requirements.
While the Teams have been working on improving efficiency in
housing since 1992, with successes being embodied in EPA's Energy Star
Home program and DOE's Builders Challenge, they are now focused on the
more difficult goal of creating strategies to achieve Zero Energy Homes
(ZEH)--homes that produce as much energy as they use on an annual
basis.
A NEW FRONTIER IN RESEARCH--ZERO ENERGY HOMES
The research needed to develop systems and strategies to achieve
the long term goal of ZEH is not simply applying lessons learned;
rather, fundamental research is still required. This R&D, performed by
the Building America Teams, is truly high-risk, high-payoff research.
The research required to meet the goal of ZEH is costly and high
risk:
--Significant basic research is required to develop and integrate new
technologies into homes before they are proven effective enough
to be applied in the field.
--This research is costly and risky, and not going to be undertaken
by the industry alone.
--The life cycle of this research is significantly longer than that
of comparable industries.
--The homebuilding industry is extremely fragmented, with
homebuilders having little ability to drive research, and a
lower than average financial commitment to investing in
research.
--Mechanisms do not currently exist within the homebuilding industry
to integrate new technologies and strategies effectively.
The research required to meet the goal of ZEH is also high-payoff
for the following reasons:
--Once constructed, homes have a long lifespan, providing the
opportunity for a durable long term reduction in energy use.
--Effective strategies to reduce energy use will positively impact
consumers, as well as the Nation's energy demand.
--Successful research into integration strategies will allow new,
high-risk technologies to be adopted more quickly and
effectively.
BUILDING AMERICA COMPETITIVE TEAMS--RESEARCH AND IMPLEMENTATION IN THE
REAL WORLD
The work of the Teams allows industry leadership to drive cost
effective solutions that move us towards Zero Energy Homes. Building
America partners have shown that homes with improved efficiency levels
can have equal or lower purchase prices than conventional homes, in
addition to much lower energy bills and operating costs, and increased
building durability as well as occupant safety, health, and comfort. In
addition to performing the fundamental research needed to advance the
energy efficiency of our Nation's housing stock, the Building America
Teams provide recommendations to a broad range of residential
deployment partners including the EPA's Energy Star Homes Program,
HUD's Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing Program, DOE's
Builders Challenge, and many industry associations and universities.
Furthermore, the Teams are perhaps the best resource for DOE to educate
the builder community on technology and integration breakthroughs. This
education has been, in part, demonstrated through successful projects,
where high efficiency housing is being built and bought, such as
Summerset at Frick Park (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania); Noisette (North
Charleston, South Carolina); Civano (Tucson, Arizona); The Landover
Group (Virginia and Maryland); Forest Glen development in (Carol
Stream, Illinois); Hunters Point Shipyard (San Francisco, CA);
Stapleton (Denver, Colorado); Habitat for Humanity (Georgia, Colorado,
Tennessee, Florida, Michigan, Texas and throughout the United States);
Summerfield (San Antonio, Texas); Sun City (Las Vegas, Nevada); and
others throughout the Nation as documented on www.buildingamerica.gov.
The more than 500 private sector partners who work with the Teams are
experts in home construction, building products and supply,
architecture, engineering, community planning, and mortgage lending.
All construction material and labor costs for homes and communities
constructed by Building America Teams are provided by DOE's private
sector partners.
DOE's Role in the Residential Buildings Research Partnerships
Catalyzing research in residential construction necessary to
increase the energy performance, and bringing together industry
partners to leverage research dollars and expertise.
Matching advanced product research programs to the system
integration efforts of the Building America Teams to ensure realistic
approaches to increasing energy performance.
Reducing risk and increasing reliability of emerging technologies.
Providing scientific expertise through the involvement of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and other national
laboratories.
Sharing critical information about research with several thousand
associated building industry professionals and leveraging information
through EPA, HUD, and private sector energy efficiency programs.
Program Goals
Reduce energy use in America's housing stock by 50 percent by 2015
and provide ZEH by the year 2025, integrating renewable energy when and
where practical.
Research and develop the systems and strategies necessary to allow
our Nation to deliver high performance houses in order to increase our
national energy security.
Program Status
Through the competitively selected Teams, Building America works
closely with America's lead builders, who produce approximately 50
percent of the Nation's new housing stock. Additionally, the program
has been tasked with providing the research and development basis for
the President's Partnership for Housing Energy Efficiency (PHEE). More
than 30,000 homes have been constructed in 34 States. Increased funding
is needed to address new program requirements including increased
energy efficiency goals, increased need for technical support of lead
builders, contractors, and suppliers for effective participation in the
program, expansion of applications in existing building stock,
expansion to multi-family housing stock, and design for integration of
on-site and renewable power. Specifically, the incorporation of the ZEH
goals into Building America research and development activities must be
done in an integrated fashion via the existing competitively selected
Building America teams, which have begun to include renewable energy
technologies and on-site energy into some projects. The stated DOE
goals of the program are unreachable without significant Team funding.
Recommendation for Fiscal Year 2010 Funding
Provide $46 million, for the Building America Program at the DOE's
Office of Building Technologies in fiscal year 2010 appropriations
(under the Office of Building Technologies, Residential Building
Integration). Additionally, include language as follows to ensure that
the competitive teams are funded at a percentage comparable to their
historic funding:
``Of these funds, $35 million shall be provided for the research
activities of the competitively selected Building America research
teams, the Building America lead research laboratory, and other
national laboratories conducting research to achieve Building America's
specified energy performance targets''.
______
Prepared Statement of GE Energy
The following testimony is submitted on behalf of GE Energy (GE)
for the consideration of the subcommittee during its deliberations
regarding the fiscal year 2010 budget requests for the Department of
Energy (DOE). Among GE's key recommendations are:
--Renewable Energy.--GE supports the fiscal year 2010 increases in
Wind and Solar.
--Fossil Energy.--(1) Increase Coal funding by $75 million for off-
the-shelf carbon capture plant designs to accelerate the near-
term deployment of large-scale carbon capture and
sequestration; (2) provide $45 million for Advanced Turbines in
fiscal year 2010 support of advanced IGCC with carbon capture;
(3) restore funding for water-related R&D activities.
--Nuclear Energy.--Additional funding is needed for loan guarantees,
to support new nuclear plant development.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
DOE has played a critical role in the development of renewable
energy technologies over the past three decades. The fiscal year 2010
budget request proposes $75 million for Wind and $320 million for
Solar, representing 36 percent and 83 percent increases, respectively,
from fiscal year 2009 appropriations. GE welcomes these funding
increases as critical investments in the transformation of the Nation's
energy infrastructure. We continue to believe that these appropriations
must be sustained and increased over time. The American Wind Energy
Association has recommended that annual Wind appropriations of $200
million are needed to meet the 20 percent wind by 2030 scenario. The
fiscal year 2010 budget request is an important step in this direction.
DOE proposes to utilize the $20 million increase in Wind program
funds to accelerate offshore wind technology development and improve
the reliability and cost performance of land-based wind turbines;
improve grid integration; and support efforts related to workforce
development, wind-radar mitigation efforts, education, and community
applications. GE has recommended that the DOE focus its Wind program on
performance, reliability and grid integration, particularly in areas
such as blade manufacturing; drivetrain technology; and grid operator
solutions such as managing variability, ramp rate control, frequency
regulation, and fault response. We support these new funds as critical
investments toward achieving the 20 percent wind scenario while
building U.S. technology and supporting increased U.S. jobs.
The proposed $145 million increase in Solar program funds includes
substantial increases in Photovoltaic and Concentrating Solar Power
R&D, as well as additional investments in systems integration, market
transformation, and PV manufacturing. GE has recommended that the DOE
focus its Solar program on improving PV module cost, reliability, and
efficiency performance, particularly with regard to thin film PV
technology; and on advanced controls and diagnostics to support the
grid integration of solar assets. We support these funding increases as
essential for realizing the DOE's goal of deploying 5-10 gigawatts of
solar by 2015.
FOSSIL ENERGY
Commercial Scale CCS Demonstrations.--Demonstration of CCS at
commercial scale is urgently needed to demonstrate to the public that
geologic sequestration of CO2 is a safe and environmentally
acceptable solution for low carbon coal power. The continued use of our
Nation's abundant coal resources requires proving that integration of
power plants and sequestration resources can provide competitive and
reliable electrical generation.
CCS Deployment.--GE recommends that DOE focus support on the near-
term deployment of large-scale, utility CCS. In its fiscal year 2010
budget request, the DOE described the $3.4 billion provided through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (``ARRA'') as the foundation of
its clean coal program. However, of the $3.4 billion, the only certain
funding that will be made available for utility CCS projects is the
$800 million that will be provided for Round 3 of the Clean Coal Power
Initiative. Much more is needed. GE is a member of the US Climate
Action Partnership (USCAP), which recommended in its ``Blueprint for
Legislative Action'' (January 2009) that a Federal CCS program
establish at least five (5) gigawatts (GW) of CCS-enabled coal fueled
facilities. Such a level of CCS deployment is needed to support
implementation of coal performance standards that are key to achieving
national greenhouse gas reduction goals. Even if CCPI Round 3 funds can
be combined with other funding mechanisms for utility projects (e.g.
EPAct 2005 section 48A Investment Tax Credits, loan guarantees and
section 48Q CO2 production credits), funding falls well
short of that necessary to offset the additional capital and several
years of additional operating costs of 5GW of utility CCS. While
funding sufficient for 5GWs is not likely without new legislation, DOE
can provide incentives to help remove barriers and accelerate CCS
deployment.
Therefore, GE recommends that DOE fiscal year 2010 Coal funding be
increased by $75 million (to $478.9 million) to fund the development of
off-the-shelf Front-End Engineering Designs (FEEDs) for IGCC Greenfield
plants optimized for CCS for Bituminous and Western coals. IGCC is
ready for carbon capture now, but only needs the detailed engineering
to support commercial proposals. Funding of FEEDs should accelerate
development of commercial CCS projects and reduce the difficulty of
obtaining approval from State regulators for recovery of project
development costs. The development of these FEEDs will also deliver
immediate and foster long-term job creation.
Geologic Sequestration.--Another significant barrier to the
deployment of first-mover CCS projects is the uncertainty associated
with availability of geologic storage. Comprehensive and expensive
geologic characterization is necessary to ensure that a plant will have
a sequestration resource with sufficient capacity for a 30-40 year
life. As with up-front engineering costs, public utility commissions
are reluctant to approve cost recovery of studies relating to the
availability of geologic storage, although they are necessary to assure
project viability. Therefore, GE recommends that DOE fiscal year 2010
Carbon Sequestration funding be increased by $100 million (to $279.9
million) for co-funding of detailed geologic characterization to more
fully validate storage sites for commercial CCS projects that are
starting development.
FutureGen.--GE has three recommendations for the structure of the
FutureGen program that will significantly improve its value in moving
CCS forward: First, make the successful demonstration of integrated
carbon capture and sequestration the primary focus of FutureGen.
Reliable CO2 production is essential to a successful
sequestration demonstration. Second, FutureGen must demonstrate
commercially relevant coal power generation with CCS. Carbon capture
using gasification is widely performed economically and reliably in the
commercial chemical process industry. The FutureGen project should
incorporate technology and equipment in a design configuration that is
representative of commercial practice in order to provide critical
experience on integration of capture and sequestration at a commercial
scale. Third, and as is essential to achieving the two foregoing goals,
we recommend that FutureGen be contracted on a commercial and
competitive basis for the design and construction of the plant and its
sequestration facility. FutureGen can draw from existing experience and
investment and avoid duplication of engineering costs. Carbon capture
using gasification is widely performed economically and reliably in the
commercial chemical process industry. GE has invested substantially in
the development of its standard 630MW IGCC plant and an ancillary
Carbon IslandTM for carbon capture. A commercial contract
with its guarantees and warrantees will provide the performance,
schedule and cost certainty with reliable CO2 supply for
sequestration that FutureGen needs to achieve its primary goal of
successful sequestration with reliable power generation.
Advanced Turbines.--GE recommends that annual funding of $45
million be provided in fiscal year 2010 to maintain needed progress in
the Advanced Turbines. The Advanced Turbines program represents the
Department's high priority research effort focusing on the development
of enabling technologies for high efficiency hydrogen turbines for
advanced gasification systems with carbon capture. It is on target to
enable future advanced IGCC coal fueled power plants to offset much of
the performance penalties associated with carbon capture while also
achieving very low NOX emissions. In addition to benefiting
future coal IGCC applications, the technologies that come out of this
program will also benefit existing and future natural gas combined
cycle power plants. Improved efficiency of these applications will mean
reduced emissions and reduced CO2 for the same power output.
This improvement would be by either implementing the technology on new
advanced products or retrofitting the technology into existing gas
turbines. A one point improvement in efficiency on GE's existing F-
class fleet would result in 4.4 million tons less of CO2
emissions per year.
Water.--Large amounts of water are needed to produce or extract
energy, and large amounts of energy are needed to treat or transport
water. This co-dependency is called the Water/Energy Nexus. In order
for the DOE to achieve its aggressive goals of reducing freshwater
withdrawals and consumption 50 percent by 2015 and 70 percent by 2020,
water related R&D funding is needed. GE recommends water-related
funding under Innovations for Existing Plants be restored and
significantly increased above the $12 million allocated under the
fiscal year 2009 budget. Funding for R&D and demo projects including:
Non-traditional Waters for Cooling Make-up, Water Reuse and Recovery,
Advanced Cooling Technologies, and Water Treatment and Detection will
help to ensure DOE's goals are met. GE also recommends $40 million be
allocated to innovative water reuse technologies and demonstration
projects in the production of oil and natural gas to further reduce
environmental impacts and operational costs of upstream energy
processes. Support is also needed to advance reuse/treatment
technologies for the conversion of impaired wastewater streams into
sources of renewable water in areas of water scarcity, reducing the
need to use energy to transport water over long distances and to
support electricity generation.
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Nuclear power plant operation provides baseload energy generation
with no greenhouse gas emissions. Each operating nuclear plant avoids
the production of 8 million tons of CO2 annually and in
total the U.S. fleet of 104 reactors avoids nearly 1 billion tons of
CO2 annually. GE supports the use of nuclear energy as part
of a diverse portfolio of power generation technologies and fuels.
Loan Guarantees and New Plant Development.--Federal investment has
been instrumental in the licensing and partial development of
standardized designs for advanced light water reactors and has helped
form the foundation for a nuclear renaissance through programs such as
the NP2010 program. In addition to the continuation of existing
programs, more actions are required to ensure successful
commercialization of new nuclear technologies. The Energy Policy Act of
2005 authorized loan guarantees to support advanced nuclear energy
facilities. Due to the capital-intensive nature of nuclear plant
deployment, these loan guarantees are key to the ability of utilities
to attract financing and move forward with this clean, carbon-free
technology. The current credit crisis in the United States makes it
increasingly difficult to finance these and other capital-intensive
projects. The original $18.5 billion in available loan guarantees is
sufficient to support 2 to 3 new nuclear projects. DOE has already
received applications for significantly more than that number of
projects and to have meaningful progress on both climate change and
energy security certainly more are needed. Based on this level of
industry demand, the benefit to be derived, and the fact that these
loan guarantees are self-funded and have no budget impact, GE supports
an additional $50 billion in authorized loan guarantees through the
DOE's Loan Guarantee Program for nuclear power facility projects.
Energy Parks--Research and Development for Commercial Deployment.--
GE believes that a strong private public partnership should be formed
to support the Energy Park concept outlined as part of the Office of
Environmental Management's efforts for footprint reduction of the
legacy DOE sites. GE believes that the installment of advanced light
water reactors and research and development to support advanced
recycling at the existing DOE sites in the Energy Park concept is a
logical application for these locations. These sites are well
understood from a permitting aspect and their existing workforce has
skills that would be directly transferrable to commercial nuclear power
applications. The Environmental Management office has received funding
under ARRA. GE supports near term actions as part of this program
including the community outreach, permitting, siting, design, and
license application development for new nuclear reactors.
Non-proliferation and Waste Minimization.--GE supports used nuclear
fuel recycling as a means to close the fuel cycle, to minimize nuclear
proliferation risks and provide an alternative to Yucca Mountain. As
the Nation explores solutions to nuclear waste issues, GE supports and
seeks an opportunity to participate in the soon to be formed Blue
Ribbon Waste Panel. The GE team has decades of experience in nuclear
methods and designs based on U.S. technology that are available to
close the nuclear fuel cycle. It is in the best interests of national
security that U.S. technology be used to close the fuel cycle in a
manner that does not result in separated plutonium.
ARPA-E; LOAN GUARANTEES
GE supports the DOE's budget request for $10 million in program
direction to support the new ARPA-E program ($400 million appropriated
through the ARRA) to advance disruptive, high-risk and high-potential
technologies.
GE also supports $43 million ($6 billion appropriated through the
ARRA) for the temporary Loan Guarantee Programs (LGP). Rapid
implementation of the LGP is central to the recovery of the renewable
energy industry, and these program operation and personnel funds
deserve full and immediate support.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance for Materials Manufacturing
Excellence (AMMEX)
The Alliance for Materials Manufacturing Excellence (AMMEX)
welcomes this opportunity to provide its input to the subcommittee on
the proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 for the Industrial
Technologies Program (ITP) at the Department of Energy. AMMEX is a
coalition of organizations representing the basic materials
manufacturing sector (aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass,
metal casting, steel) in the U.S. economy along with key stakeholders
in materials manufacturing, such as the Northeast Midwest Institute,
the National Association of State Energy Officials and the American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
We are writing to urge Congress to increase the funding to the ITP
to the level of $150 million and to restore the structure of the
program to one that emphasizes new process development in individual
materials industries, including the six historically funded by this
effort, as opposed to the currently proposed cross-cutting research
approach. These changes would bring the program into alignment with
Congress' intent in both section 452 (Energy Intensive Industries
Program) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was
signed into law on December 19, 2007, as well as the Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy Act of 2007, which passed the House unanimously on
October 22, 2007.
The member organizations of AMMEX have been partners with ITP since
the inception of the program's cooperative, industry-specific research
activities. These research activities are a true public-private
partnership. DOE and materials manufacturers jointly fund cutting-edge
research that addresses the needs of the Nation and materials
manufacturers. All projects have the shared goals of reducing energy
consumption, reducing environmental impact, and increasing the
competitive advantage of U.S. materials manufacturers.
Reducing our need for oil imports, developing an economy that is
sustainable in energy supply, and reducing our environmental impact are
important national policy goals. There is no more effective way to
achieve these goals than through energy efficiency. The lowest cost,
cleanest, and most reliable energy is the energy that is not consumed
because of improved efficiency. By reducing the energy intensity of
materials manufacturing and accelerating the delivery of new
technology, ITP has helped make U.S. materials manufacturers more
competitive in global markets, preserving and creating good-paying jobs
in the process. The program is unique because it selects only projects
with ``dual benefits'': a public benefit such as reduced emissions or
energy use justifies the Federal funding, and an industry benefit such
as a more efficient process or improved product justifies the
industrial funding.
U.S. materials manufacturing continues to face challenges resulting
from increased cost and decreased availability of traditional energy
supply resources. These challenges have stimulated innovation in the
materials manufacturing sector in order to create significant energy
improvements and to diversify energy supplies. While the innovations of
the past have brought materials manufacturing a long way, the sector
cannot go further without new innovations. To this end, the materials
manufacturing processes must be transformed; new processes and new
innovations must be developed which will consume far less energy and
that will be able to utilize diverse forms of energy.
To accomplish these goals, the Federal Government and industry will
need to re-embark upon a joint effort to broaden and accelerate
inherently high-risk research, development, and deployment of new
materials manufacturing processes that utilize diverse energy sources.
This effort will also allow the materials manufacturing sector to
lessen dependence on natural gas, oil, and conventional electricity
sources, thus benefiting consumers through contribution to a stable
energy market.
Dramatic increases in industrial energy prices and growing global
competition threaten the vitality and the future of U.S. materials
manufacturing. Unless this trend is reversed, American manufacturing
jobs in these key industries will increasingly move overseas.
Manufacturers have responded to such challenges in the past by applying
the power of innovation to create new products and processes that
sustain the foundation of the U.S. economy.
Our request for funding in fiscal year 2010 for ITP entails two
parts:
--An increase to a total program level of $150 million, as authorized
in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
--A re-structuring of the program so as to return to the structure
that was so successful from 1990 to 2003--a balanced portfolio
of research from the point of view of research impact; i.e., a
greater focus on energy intensive industrial processes. For the
2010 budget, we request that the Industries of the Future
industry-specific R&D be increased to $30 million. We further
recommend that in future budgets at least 50 percent of the
funding go to research into new process development where the
energy savings potential in industry is highest.
Figure 1 below is representative of the gains in energy efficiency
made by materials manufacturers since 1990, when they began partnering
with ITP.
This chart shows that materials manufacturing processes have become
increasingly efficient from 1990 to 2000, and that new process
developments are required to continue making similar gains in the
future.
Between 1990 and 1996 the program consisted largely of ``industry-
specific'' funding and averaged $100 million annually. There were some
``cross-cutting'' projects in this time, but they were a relatively
small percentage of the total. As the program grew, spending still
remained focused on industry-specific projects. Figure 2 below shows
the funding history of the DOE ITP program since 1998.
Figure Notes:
--IAC and Distributed Generation funding are subsets of ``Cross
Cutting RD&D''
--``Other Funding'' includes management and technical planning and
support, as well as other funding not listed under ``Industry-
Specific'' or ``Cross Cutting'' in budget documents. The $50
million ``Other Funding'' in 2009 is for information and
communications technology efficiency.
--2010 AMMEX recommendation includes: $30 million for Industry
Specific R&D, $65 million for Cross Cutting RD&D (including $8
million for the IAC program), and $55 million for Distributed
Generation.
By 2004, ITP was not only the target of drastic cuts, but remaining
funds were rebalanced to favor cross-cutting projects over industry-
specific projects as well. While Figure 1 shows that new process
developments are needed to improve the energy efficiency of materials
manufacturing industries, Figure 2 shows that these necessary funding
levels are not being met. A recent peer review of the program indicated
that the technology pipeline for R&D projects is now running dry. It is
imperative to fund these programs now, as it takes time to refill the
pipeline and achieve additional energy savings.
AMMEX members that DOE has recently supported have identified their
top new process development concepts, not listed in order of priority,
which would be pursued at the funding levels and structure defined
above:
Aluminum
--Improved energy-efficient burners and furnaces for aluminum
melting.
--Improved energy efficiency and recovery rates for recycling
technologies.
Chemicals
--Development of alternative feedstocks for the chemical industry to
reduce dependence on petroleum and natural gas derived
feedstocks.
--Nano-manufacturing scale-up methodologies for key unit operations:
synthesis, separation, purification, stabilization, and
assembly.
--Development of low-energy, low-capital membrane or hybrid
separations technology.
Glass
--Submerged Combustion Melter.
--Waste Heat Recovery and Use as Electrical or Chemical Energy.
--Increase glass strength (towards theoretical) to reduce weight and
energy per unit made.
Forest Products
--Energy-efficient pulping and papermaking.
--Eliminating use of fossil fuels in manufacturing.
--Significantly reducing fresh water consumption in pulp and paper
mills.
Metal Casting
--Net Shaped Manufacturing through Advanced Lost Foam Casting
technologies.
--Smart coatings and advanced surface treatments for energy efficient
tooling technologies.
--Disruptive approaches for nano-composites for lighter weight cast
components.
--High Strength Steels for improved service performance.
Steel
--Ironmaking by Molten Oxide Electrolysis.
--Ironmaking by Flash Smelting using Hydrogen.
--Demonstration of the Paired Straight Hearth Furnace Process.
Other industries, such as cement, would benefit from expanded R&D
as well, but have not been engaged with the Department.
The United States also faces serious shortages in the science and
engineering workforce that is needed to keep our Nation's competitive
edge in world markets through technology innovation and timely
application. There is a clear need for a reinvigoration of our
commitment to technology education. Advanced R&D projects are often
undertaken in conjunction with major American research universities.
These projects help to expose students to the kind of research
necessary to serve the future energy efficiency needs of industry.
Other ITP efforts such as the Industrial Assessment Center program
complement this R&D funding by helping to train this future workforce.
Our proposal to the subcommittee is an effort to both rebuild
America's materials manufacturing industries and revitalize our science
and engineering institutions. It builds a new public-private
partnership to support these twin goals, and will ensure that the U.S.
materials manufacturing industry will remain vital and competitive
through:
--Accelerating technology innovation to ensure the future
competitiveness, resource efficiency, and sustainability of our
domestic materials manufacturing industry;
--Building the vital intellectual infrastructure in American
universities and laboratories that will work in partnership
with the materials manufacturing industry; and
--Maintaining a healthy American materials manufacturing base, which
is vital to our national security.
On behalf of the AMMEX coalition, we thank you for the opportunity
to submit this statement. We look forward to continuing to work with
the subcommittee as you move forward on the fiscal year 2010
Appropriations legislation for the Department of Energy.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
the following testimony on the fiscal year 2010 appropriation for the
Department of Energy (DOE) science programs. The ASM is the largest
single life science organization in the world with more than 43,000
members. The ASM mission is to enhance the science of microbiology, to
gain a better understanding of life processes, and to promote the
application of this knowledge for improved health and environmental
well-being.
The DOE Office of Science funds basic research in support of the
DOE's mission of energy security, national security, and environmental
restoration. Research supported by the Office of Science encompasses
such diverse fields as materials sciences, chemistry, high energy and
nuclear physics, plasma science, biology, advanced computation, and
environmental studies.
The ASM supports the administration's pledge to substantially
increase funding for basic science research and scientific user
facilities and urges Congress to fund the DOE office of science at $5.2
billion for fiscal year 2010, an 8 percent increase.
We commend Congress for the substantial and much needed funding for
the DOE in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. The need remains, however, for a
steady and reliable increase of fiscal year appropriations to provide
real growth for DOE science budgets in future years.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (BER)
Operating within the DOE Office of Science, the BER division
facilitates the growth of a strong science based platform to continue
to work with national laboratories, universities and private
institutions to harness the capabilities of microbial and plant
systems. A fundamental task of the BER is supporting and providing
research for the President's National Energy Plan. Research from BER
contributes to developing cost-effective, renewable energy, increasing
the Nation's energy security, and works to slow or stop increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide among other crucial priorities.
The ASM urges Congress to support an increase for the BER on par
with the overall increase in fiscal year 2010 funding for the Office of
Science.
Research on microbes contributes advances to critical technologies
and processes necessary for addressing the Nation's great energy and
environmental challenges in a number of ways:
--Carbon Sequestration.--Microbes offer multiple possibilities for
enhancing carbon sequestration, a process that can reduce
CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. These options
include enhancing plant growth, some of which may be used for
biofuels, and promoting carbon storage belowground. The latter
process involves manipulation of microbial communities and
activities to help stabilize organic carbon in soils.
--Environmental Remediation.--Microbes play major roles in modifying
sub-surface environments, where many major pollutants
accumulate and are subsequently dispersed. Microbial activities
affect the chemical form and movement of many contaminants. The
work of various research groups has shown that microbes can be
manipulated to directly or indirectly provide potential cost-
effective bioremediation strategies for immobilizing
contaminants. For instance, two different microbes, Shewanella
and Geobacter, transform toxic metals such as uranium from a
soluble form that moves in groundwater, to an insoluble form
that can then be recovered for decontamination. These and other
microbes also decontaminate many other metals, radionuclides
and toxic chemicals.
--Renewable Energy.--A greater understanding of the process by which
crude oil is transformed into methane, or natural gas, opens
the door to recovering clean-burning methane directly from
deeply buried or in situ oil sands deposits. A recent study
demonstrated methane production from anaerobic hydrocarbon
degradation; these findings offer the possibility of
``feeding'' specific hydrocarbons to microbes and rapidly
accelerating their conversion into methane. Additional research
has shown that hydrogen can be produced from partly degraded
oil, and used with CO2 to form methane. This paves
the way for using the microbes to capture this CO2
as methane, which could then be recycled as fuel in a closed-
loop energy system.
Microbial enzymes are also important sources of catalysts for
conversion of plant biomass, including cellulose and lignins to
biofuels (e.g., ethanol and butanol). Continued support of basic
microbiological research is essential for ensuring that the potential
for biomass as a source of renewable, alternative fuels can be
realized.
GENOMICS: GTL
The Genomics.--GTL program supports basic research in plant and
microbial systems biology and explores microbes and plants at the
molecular cellular and community levels. The ASM supports an increase
in funding for GTL in fiscal year 2010 to allow it to continue to
advance DOE wide missions in environment, climate and energy.
The GTL goal remains to expand insights about fundamental
biological processes and a predictive understanding of how living
systems operate. This understanding, linked with DNA sequences and
widely available, will catalyze the translation of science to new
technologies for application in energy and environmental issues.
The GTL works with the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI), one of the
world's largest and most productive public genome sequencing centers,
to map genomes of microbes and fungi that degrade biomass or impact
plant productivity. This relationship has created a vital knowledge
base within the DOE from which scientists are able to purposefully
redesign proteins, biochemical pathways, and even entire plants or
microbes to help solve bioenergy challenges.
Three GTL Bioenergy Research Centers were established in 2007, the
Bioenergy Science Center, the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center,
and the JGI. These centers, which are actively working toward making
the production of biofuels more efficient, less costly, and
commercially viable; results of ongoing studies are changing the way we
think about biotechnology, and transforming how we power our Nation.
The centers are creating knowledge underlying three grand challenges
faced by biology within the DOE mission: (1) development of the next-
generation bioenergy crops; (2) discovery and design of enzymes, and
microbes with novel biomass degrading capabilities; and (3) discovery
and design of microbes that transform fuel production from biomass.
Meeting these challenges will benefit all biological research efforts.
Areas of emphasis in Genomics: GTL include:
Bioenergy Production.--A broad range of research has been
undertaken to optimize bioenergy production from a variety of renewable
sources. Past and ongoing research has made significant progress in a
number of areas: understanding the details of plant biomass structures
and how they might be manipulated to improve conversion to biofuels;
discovery of novel enzymes for improving conversion of biomass to
biofuels; understanding the details of plant and microbial metabolism
at a level that promotes controlled synthesis of desired end-products.
Environmental Remediation.--Research sponsored by Genomics: GTL has
made major progress in understanding the functions and behavior of
specific microbes (e.g., Geobacter and Shewanella) and microbial
communities that play important roles in strategies for remediating a
wide range of environmental problems, including clean-up of toxic
wastes and radioactive materials. This work integrates from microbial
genomes through the functions of microbes in the environment, and
provides a foundation for altering microbial activities for to solve
specific problems.
Carbon Cycling.--Microbes play major roles in the transformation of
carbon in natural systems. Some of these transformations can promote
carbon sequestration, while others produce greenhouse gases. Genomics:
GTL research helps understand how complex microbial communities
function in nature, and how these communities respond to changes and
stresses. This information is not only critical for developing
predictions of microbial responses to climate and other environmental
changes, but is essential for developing approaches for managing those
responses to minimize adverse impacts of change.
The ASM urges Congress to fully support the GTL program with
increased funding to JGI. In fiscal year 2009, the President's budget
request included $162.7 million in funding for GTL, but significantly
cut funding for JGI by $5 million. It is imperative to ensure that
funding increases are seen for both of these vital programs in fiscal
year 2010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION SCIENCES DIVISION
The Environmental Remediation Sciences Division (ERSD) within BER
sponsors and supports fundamental scientific research to understand the
complex physical, chemical, and biological properties of contaminated
sites in order to develop new solutions for environmental remediation.
DOE is responsible for the largest, most complex, and diverse
collection of environmental remediation challenges in the Nation. ERSD
supports two major activities: (1) the Environmental Remediation
Sciences Program (ERSP), which seeks to provide the fundamental
scientific knowledge needed to address challenging environmental
problems that impede the remediation of contaminated environmental
sites; and (2) the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL),
which is a national scientific user facility that provides integrated
experimental and computational resources for discovery and
technological innovation in the environmental molecular sciences to
support the needs of DOE and the Nation.
DOE's remediation challenges occur in the field where highly
interactive natural processes acting over a broad range of scales
control the fate and transport of contaminants. The ERSD goal is to
help provide the basis for development of innovative remediation
measures to support decisionmaking critical to long-term stewardship.
Of the 144 sites where DOE has remediation, waste management, or
nuclear materials and facility stabilization responsibilities, nearly
100 have soils, sediments, or groundwater contaminated with
radionuclides, metals, or organic materials.
The ASM urges Congress to fully support ERSD, which will help
support DOE's goal to ``provide sufficient scientific understanding
such that DOE sites would be able to incorporate physical, chemical and
biological processes into decisionmaking for environmental remediation
and long-term stewardship.''
ENERGY BIOSCIENCES
The ASM supports increased funding for the Energy Biosciences
program within the Basic Energy Sciences Division of Chemical Sciences,
Geosciences, and Biosciences. The Energy Biosciences (EB) program
within the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) division supports fundamental
research to promote the development of future energy-related
technologies. There is a specific emphasis in research on plant and
non-medical microbial energy transduction systems. The EB program
provides a fundamental understanding of the complex processes that
convert and store energy in living systems and impacts numerous DOE
interests, enhanced biofuel production strategies, next generation
energy conversion/storage devices, and efficient and environmentally-
friendly catalyst development in particular.
In fiscal year 2009, EB was divided into two separate programs:
Photosynthetic Systems.--This program is focused on fundamental
research to elucidate the specific mechanisms by which plants and
microbes convert solar energy into chemically-stored forms of energy.
Results from this new program will create a foundation for the
development of enhanced biological and engineered systems to harvest
solar energy, thus contributing to the Nation's goal of energy
independence.
Physical Biosciences.--This program combines tools and approaches
from the physical sciences with the disciplines of molecular biology
and biochemistry to create new understandings of the detailed
mechanisms for energy storage and use in plants and microbes. Results
for this new program will promote the development of improved systems
for harvesting energy in multiple forms and enhancing their use for
human needs.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Scientific research and subsequent discovery is vital for the
Nation to remain competitive in the global economy and ensuring support
for a well trained workforce of teachers and scientists at all levels,
is imperative. The ASM supports increased funding for Workforce
Development for Teachers and Scientists within the DOE Office of
Science which funds undergraduate research internships, graduate and
faculty fellowships, pre-college activities, laboratory equipment
programs, and teacher programs.
CONCLUSION
The ASM supports increased funding for the DOE Office of Science in
fiscal year 2010, and urges Congress to provide adequate funding for
the BER, ERSD, and Genomics: GTL, and the JGI, which are essential to
DOE's mission. The DOE Office of Science programs enhance United States
competitiveness through fundamental research and advanced scientific
breakthroughs that revolutionize the Nation's approach to challenging
energy and environment challenges.
The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
and would be pleased to assist the subcommittee as it considers the
fiscal year 2010 appropriation for the DOE.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
To the Chair and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to provide testimony on the importance and need for strong
Federal R&D efforts in the fields of oil and natural gas, coal, and
geothermal technologies. These activities reside in the U.S. Department
of Energy's fossil energy program (oil, natural gas, coal) and energy
efficiency and renewable energy program (geothermal). They are an
essential investment in this Nation's energy security.
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) is the
world's largest scientific and professional geological association. The
purpose of AAPG is to advance the science of geology, foster scientific
research, and promote technology. AAPG has nearly 34,000 members around
the world, with roughly two-thirds living and working in the United
States. These are the professional geoscientists in industry,
government, and academia who practice, regulate, and teach the science
and process of finding and producing energy resources from the Earth.
AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial role that
geosciences, and particularly petroleum geology play in energy security
and our society.
Our members have a big job. Fossil fuels supply 87 percent of the
world's total energy needs, down only 4 percent in the past quarter
century. Transportation represents about 30 percent of end use demand
and is dominated by liquid fuels derived from oil. Heating is another
30 percent and dominated by oil and natural gas. Electricity represents
the remaining 40 percent with a broadening portfolio of fuel sources.
Coal, nuclear, and natural gas currently dominate electricity
production, but alternatives like wind are growing rapidly. However,
because electricity demand is also growing, alternatives remain a small
fraction of total production.
Today's energy debate is often framed as a choice between fossil
fuels or alternative (non-fossil) fuels, or between fossil fuels and
the environment, but these are red herrings. Sustaining a healthy U.S.
and global economy, and thus enabling substantial investment in our
environment, requires a stable and continuous supply of fossil fuels
while simultaneously developing and expanding alternative and new
fuels. This is the bridge to our energy future. We need both, and the
process of building this bridge will take 25 to 40 years, perhaps
longer. Our Nation's energy policies and investments must reflect this
reality.
For example, President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget includes the
rollback of a series of tax provisions currently available to the oil
and gas industry, which is dominated today by the U.S. independent
producer. It also proposes assessing new fees and taxes on oil and
natural gas producers, and repealing the ultra-deepwater and
unconventional research programs.
Compounded by a weak economy and limited access to capital, these
proposed policies on top of an already heavily taxed industry would
have a chilling effect on oil and natural gas drilling, production, and
energy investment in this country, cost many jobs, and directly
undermine U.S. energy security.
The United States tried this experiment from 1980-1988 with the
windfall profits tax which, compounded with the drop in price of oil in
the 1980's, had a disastrous effect on drilling, industry employment
and U.S. energy production for nearly two decades to follow. We face a
very similar price situation now and cannot afford to repeat an
experiment that has already been tried and failed.
These either/or policy choices fail to recognize that as we bridge
to an alternative energy future, we must preserve and even strengthen
the fossil energy foundation underlying it. Research and development
investments are critical to developing alternative and new fuel
sources, but are also needed in fossil energy to develop the science
and technology to ensure their future availability.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAMS
The oil and natural gas technology research programs at DOE have
received grossly inadequate appropriations for many years. In fact, in
fiscal year 2009 Federal oil and natural gas R&D represented a
miniscule proportion of total energy R&D expenditures, while,
ironically, oil and natural gas combined contribute 65 percent to our
Nation's energy portfolio.
President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget request continues this
ill-advised pattern by proposing to eliminate DOE's petroleum-oil
technologies program, funded at $5 million in fiscal year 2009, and
increasing by $5 million the natural gas technologies program (for a
total program of $25 million) to study natural gas hydrates.
Instead, these programs should be increased substantially to ensure
the technology will be available to find, develop, and produce these
natural resources.
Criticisms of these research programs are frequently couched in
terms of ``corporate welfare'' or a notion that the private sector
should support all oil and natural gas research on its own. But these
charges reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of several important
trends:
--The transition to non-fossil fuel alternative energies will take
much longer than a few decades. Alternatives are currently more
expensive, less reliable and simply cannot meet the scale of
energy demand. To try to force the United States on a different
course than the rest of the world, at a cost of literally
trillions of dollars, will disadvantage the United States at a
minimum and worse further hurt the U.S. economy.
--Increasingly, domestic oil and natural gas production is shifting
to non-traditional (unconventional) resources, such as the
Barnett Shale in Texas or the Bakken formation in the Williston
basin. These resources are different from the conventional
resources of the past and hold great promise, but realizing
that potential requires significant R&D and technology
development. Each resource has unique challenges and if the
United States is to leverage their global potential it must
invest accordingly and substantially.
--Over the past decade the United States has added substantial
natural gas reserves with a net increase on the order of 15
trillion cubic feet (TCF) in the past 3 years owing to drilling
and expansion of shale gas. Proven reserves of dry natural gas,
including Prudhoe Bay, are about 300 TCF. Natural gas resource
estimates are 6-7 times the proven reserves. U.S. domestic
production of dry natural gas in 2008 was 20.6 TCF. Natural gas
is the largest source of domestically produced energy, slightly
greater than coal, substantially greater than oil, nuclear, and
all other sources. With the proper incentives, and combined
with a commitment to LNG, natural gas could support all of the
demand growth in power generation needed for several decades.
Such a shift in the fossil fuel mix would have a very positive
impact on reducing CO2 emissions growth.
--The U.S. oil and gas industry is in decline. Many of the top public
companies that built the U.S. energy advantage no longer exist.
Such names as Mobil, Amoco, Texaco, Phillips, Unocal, Arco,
Kerr McGee and others are gone as the result of mergers and
acquisitions. This decline has not stopped. All combined public
companies control less than 10 percent of the world's oil and
natural gas reserves; the remainder is controlled by national
oil companies (NOCs), many of them OPEC nations. These NOCs are
now leasing up resources globally and will become the
international oil companies of the future.
--Domestic oil and natural gas resources are increasingly developed
by independent producers, ranging from individuals to large
companies. They do not have the capacity or resources to
conduct independent research. They have, however, been willing
and able to quickly adopt and commercialize new technologies
when appropriate technology transfer occurs.
--Federal R&D has historically provided support for the Nation's
universities and colleges, which have proven to be a rich
source of technological innovation. But as Federal support for
oil and natural gas technologies has waned, so has the ability
to conduct this type of research and train the next generation
of U.S. scientists and engineers. This trend is particularly
worrisome, because developing nations are investing
significantly in fossil energy research and development and
U.S. universities are now heavily enrolled by non U.S.
students.
Given the important role that oil and particularly natural gas
currently play in our energy portfolio, we must rebuild and expand the
Nation's Federal R&D and training capacity for oil and natural gas
through a partnership of government, academia, and industry. These and
other trends demonstrate the need for a robust Federal oil and natural
gas program, one that is funded on the scale of coal, nuclear and
alternatives.
We request the subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies appropriate $500 million for oil and natural gas
technology programs to be administered by the Department of Energy's
Office of Fossil Energy to support research projects that target
increased production of domestic oil and natural gas resources.
COAL PROGRAM
The Nation's coal resource is vitally important to U.S. energy
security. AAPG supports significant research and development funding
for coal, including clean coal technologies such as carbon capture and
sequestration. We support the funding provided in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for coal research, and encourage Congress
to sustain this commitment in its fiscal year 2010 appropriations by
funding at fiscal year 2009 levels or higher.
Again, these investments must be balanced. In evaluating the DOE
coal program, I urge you to review the findings of the National
Academy's report entitled Coal: Research and Development to Support
National Energy Policy, released in June 2007. The study finds that
while there are significant uncertainties in U.S. coal reserve and
resource estimates, there is sufficient coal at current consumption to
last for more than 100 years.
However, there is a real need for more ``upstream'' coal research
to increase our understanding of the Nation's resource base. They
observe that currently, over 90 percent of Federal R&D spending for
coal is on the ``downstream'' side, focused on utilization, carbon
capture and sequestration, and transport and transmission. Only 10
percent goes to resource and reserve assessment, mining and processing,
environment/reclamation, and safety and health.
AAPG supports the $3.4 billion for coal R&D provided in the
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, and supports President
Obama's fiscal year 2010 request of $404 million.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
Geothermal energy is an important alternative energy resource that
provides baseload power to the Nation's electrical grid. Significant
expansion of geothermal power production may be possible through the
development of enhanced or engineered geothermal systems, but
developing and proving these technologies will require R&D investment.
AAPG supports the $400 million for geothermal energy R&D and
deployment in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009. AAPG
supports President Obama's fiscal year 2010 request for $50 million for
this program, and encourages Congress to appropriate at this level.
SUMMARY
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee. Building a bridge to our energy future requires
significant investment in new and alternative energy and fuel sources,
but it also requires significant R&D investment in fossil fuels, the
foundation of our global energy system, to ensure an orderly
transition.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association (NMA)
NMA RECOMMENDATIONS
Department of Energy--Office of Fossil Energy
Background.--NMA is disappointed that the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) fiscal year 2010 request severely reduced the overall fossil
energy budget, with steep declines in funding for coal programs. While
we recognize that the economic stimulus package enacted earlier this
year included demonstration project and Clean Coal Power Initiative
funding, we do not believe that such funding justifies the 20 percent
for all fossil energy programs including in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request. A cut of this magnitude will compromise advances in clean coal
and carbon capture and sequestration efforts.
Office of Fossil Energy
NMA fully supports and urges maximum funding for carbon capture and
storage (CCS) projects that avoid, reduce or store air pollutants and
greenhouse gases while contributing long-term economic growth and
international competitiveness. Substantial Federal funding for
continued research, development and demonstration of CCS technologies
will be required before CCS can be applied to large-scale commercial
power plants. The construction and operation of near-zero emission and
low carbon projects, such as the proposed FutureGen project in Mattoon,
Ill., are indispensable to demonstrate that the technology necessary to
meet domestic energy demands of the 21st century are available on a
commercial scale. NMA strongly supports the recent agreement between
the DOE and the FutureGen Alliance to proceed with a reconfigured
carbon capture and storage energy facility at Mattoon, Ill. We support
the use of $1.073 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act for use in this endeavor and look forward to working with the
Alliance and DOE to further advance CCS technologies.
Funding for basic research and development of new, innovative clean
coal technologies is necessary to continue the progress made over the
last 35 years. Regulated emissions from coal-based electricity
generation have decreased by nearly 40 percent since the 1970s while
the use of coal has tripled. Well funded basic coal research by DOE and
clean coal technology demonstrations undertaken by DOE-private sector
partnerships will continue this significant progress in energy
production and environmental improvement. Technological advancements
achieved in the base coal research and demonstration programs such as
gasification, advanced turbines and carbon sequestration provide the
component technologies that will ultimately be integrated into the
FutureGen project as recently reconfigured. NMA supports funding
several of these programs at levels higher than the President's
request, specifically $80 million for IGCC/gasification (DOE's
requested amount: $55 million), $45 million for advanced combustion
(DOE's request does not include direct funding) and $45 million for
advanced turbines (DOE's request: $31 million). We are, however,
pleased that DOE provides nearly $180 million for the Carbon
Sequestration Research & Development program and Carbon Sequestration
Injection Tests combined. We hope that DOE will work with industry to
identify specific programmatic activities and funding for these
programs. The increase in funding for these and other programs will
ensure the FutureGen project meets the intended goals outlined in DOE's
2004 report to Congress, ``FutureGen, Integrated Sequestration and
Hydrogen Research Initiative--Energy Independence through Carbon
Sequestration and Hydrogen from Coal.''
In addition, NMA recommends $3 million of funding for the Center
for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST), which is a consortium of
seven universities lead by Virginia Tech. CAST has developed many
advanced technologies that are used in industry to produce cleaner
fuels in an environmentally acceptable manner, with some having cross-
cutting applications in the minerals industry. Further development of
advanced separation technologies will help encourage developing
countries, such as China and India, to deploy affordable clean coal
technologies and reduce CO2 emissions. Research in Advanced
Separations is mandated by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, section 962.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Regulatory and Civil Works Programs
Background.--The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Regulatory
Branch plays a key role in the U.S. economy through the Corps annual
authorizations of approximately $200 billion of economic activity
through its regulatory program. NMA recommends that a portion of the
Corps' regulatory program funding be used to develop a more efficient
process for expediting permit decisions associated with surface coal
mining operations. In addition, NMA supports the inclusion of language
directing the Corps to dedicate sufficient personnel and financial
resources needed to support an efficient permit review process.
Regulatory Program
NMA supports increased funding for administering the Corps' Clean
Water Act (CWA) section 404 permit program and for devising an
efficient permitting program for authorizing surface coal mining
permits.
Civil Works Programs
NMA opposes the Corps' proposed concept of a new inland waterways
``lockage fee/tax,'' which would replace the current diesel fuel tax,
to fund improvements to the Nation's inland waterways system. A lockage
tax would more than double the taxes paid by the towing industry. The
coal industry ships approximately 185 million short tons of coal
annually on the inland waterways systems, therefore the cost of a new
tax will ultimately be borne by the consumers of coal-fueled
electricity. NMA opposes such a tax increase and urges Congress to
reject this proposal and maintain the current diesel fuel tax.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Wind Energy Association
INTRODUCTION
America's wind industry enjoyed a record year of growth last year,
deploying over 8,500 megawatts (MW) nationwide, which amounted to more
than 40 percent of the country's new electricity generating capacity.
Although wind is commercially deployable today, increased research,
development, and deployment (RD&D) funding could significantly reduce
its overall cost, improve reliability, and help keep America's domestic
wind industry competitive with other electric generation sources and
the wind industries in other countries.
To meet these goals, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)
requests that the subcommittee provide $105 million for the Department
of Energy's (DOE) Wind Energy Program for fiscal year 2010, an increase
of $30 million over the President's budget request. AWEA also requests
that the subcommittee provide the DOE Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability (OE) with the $208 million included in the
President's budget request. The President's budget request for OE
includes approximately $73 million for transmission development and
grid integration that could directly benefit wind deployment, including
$20 million specifically for ``transmission reliability and renewable
integration.''
IMPORTANCE AND BENEFITS OF WIND ENERGY RD&D
The DOE Wind Program has provided essential help to the wind
industry over the years by supporting technology development and
assisting in market acceptance of wind. The job is not done, however.
Wind power is still constrained by difficulties in market acceptance
and needed improvements in cost, performance, and reliability.
As wind energy meets more of our energy needs, it is crucial to
increase Federal funding to lower capital costs and improve turbine
reliability. DOE's 20 percent Wind Energy by 2030 report assumes that
capital costs decrease by 10 percent and that turbine efficiency
increases by 15 percent to reach the goal of providing 20 percent of
our Nation's electricity from wind by 2030. The need for continued
Federal investment in wind RD&D is made clear in the report when DOE
states, ``In a functional sense, wind turbines now stand roughly where
the U.S. automotive fleet stood in 1940.\1\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Energy, ``20% Wind Energy by 2030'' (July
2008), http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meeting the 20 percent goal by 2030 would provide a host of
benefits nationwide, including:
--Supporting 500,000 jobs, generating over $1 trillion in economic
impact by 2030;
--Reducing natural gas demand by approximately 7 billion cubic feet/
day, nearly half of the current consumption in the electric
sector;
--Decreasing natural gas prices by approximately 12 percent, saving
consumers approximately $128 billion through 2030;
--Avoiding 825 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the
electric sector in 2030, equivalent to 25 percent of expected
electric sector emissions; and
--Reducing cumulative water consumption in the electric sector by 17
percent in 2030 (one-third of which would come from the arid
West).
EXPLANATION OF APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
Last year, as part of an AWEA Research and Development (R&D)
Committee effort, a team of over 80 AWEA members and advisors from
industry, government, and academic institutions met to determine how
much funding would be needed to meet the goal of providing 20 percent
of our Nation's electricity from wind energy by 2030. Participants
determined that $217 million in annual Federal funding, combined with a
$224 million annual industry/State cost share, would be necessary to
support the research and development and related programs needed to
meet that goal. The group determined that $201 million should be
directed to DOE, with an additional $15.5 million for the Department of
Labor (DOL) for workforce development.
AWEA greatly appreciates DOE's designation of funding from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for wind energy RD&D and
transmission and systems integration. AWEA is also grateful for the
increases for the DOE Wind Program and OE transmission activities in
the President's fiscal year 2010 budget. The combined funding will
finance a number of key wind industry priorities to help overcome the
challenges to meet the 20 percent by 2030 vision. However, neither the
ARRA nor the President's budget appears to fully address a number of
key wind energy challenges.
Technology R&D funding through the ARRA and the President's budget
provides a much needed boost to bring down the cost of wind energy and
improve wind turbine efficiency. However, more funding is needed to
address issues related to wind turbine technology, siting and public
education, wind resource modeling and wind power plant efficiency
assessment. In April, Secretary Chu announced $93 million from the ARRA
for wind energy RD&D, including $45 million to build a wind turbine
drivetrain testing facility and $10 million for the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory's (NREL) National Wind Technology Center (NWTC). In
May, he announced $25 million to construct and fund first-year
operating expenses for the Massachusetts Wind Technology Testing Center
to test large wind turbine blades.
In total, the ARRA funding and the President's budget still fall
short of the $161 million in annual DOE, non-transmission funding
identified through the AWEA R&D Committee effort to meet the goal of
providing 20 percent of our Nation's electricity from wind energy by
2030. $45 million for the drivetrain testing facility will be used for
construction expenses, as will most of the $25 million provided for the
large blade test facility. The $10 million for the NWTC will fund
infrastructure improvements to the facility. As a result, a budget gap
of $30 million remains between the wind industry's RD&D needs and
fiscal year 2010 Federal funding for wind RD&D.
The President's fiscal year 2010 budget for the DOE Wind Program
includes just over $11 million for ``technology acceptance.'' Within
this category, one of the wind industry's top priorities is improving
radar and electro-magnetic fields assessment and mitigation. The
Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration, and other
Government agencies are concerned about the impact wind projects have
on radar systems. Funding mitigation methods is crucial for opening new
areas for wind energy development.
The wind industry has also identified the need to fund programs to
educate local policymakers and the general public. Such programs are
critically important to provide communities with reliable, objective
information about wind projects.
The working group mentioned above determined that $19 million is
needed to fund radar assessment and mitigation and the education of the
public and local decisionmakers on wind energy issues. Out of the $105
million request, AWEA would appreciate an increase of $8 million to
ensure that the DOE Wind Program's technology acceptance efforts meet
industry needs and to facilitate the installation of more wind energy
projects across the country.
Finally, as mentioned earlier, overcoming the transmission
challenges associated with grid integration and transmission expansion
is another top priority for the wind industry. Regardless of which
office receives funding for grid integration and transmission
development, it is crucial that OE and DOE's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) work together to assist
utilities in their efforts to produce grid integration solutions
related to wind variability while incorporating expertise in place at
DOE national laboratories, such as NREL. EERE, OE, and NREL should also
work closely with organizations like the Utility Wind Integration Group
(UWIG) to resolve grid integration challenges associated with wind
energy development.
GENERAL WIND INDUSTRY PRIORITIES
The wind industry generally supports Federal funding for the
following areas:
Wind Turbine Technology and Reliability.--This area should focus on
the development of wind turbine components to reduce capital costs,
improve performance, and enhance reliability to achieve the 20 percent
vision by 2030.
AWEA also recognizes the need to reduce the cost of offshore wind
energy technology to provide the estimated 54 gigawatts (GW) of the 300
GW needed to meet the 20 percent goal by 2030. For this reason, AWEA
requests that any funding for the DOE Wind Program above the $105
million request be provided for the development of offshore-specific
technology. Although the immediate needs for wind technology and
deployment are focused on land-based development, AWEA recognizes that
offshore wind development offers a substantial opportunity for
additional wind development.
Systems Integration.--This program area focuses on the power system
operations issues of integrating variable, non-dispatchable power
sources into the power system. Areas of special focus include
developing and promoting advanced forecasting methods, developing and
analyzing additional sources of system flexibility, expanding and
implementing power system operation tools, and supporting
interconnection-wide integration studies and plans.
Transmission Expansion.--Transmission expansion has been identified
as one of the key areas of focus for meeting the 20 percent by 2030
wind energy goal. This area of funding should focus on issues related
to expanding the transmission grid to increase access to wind resource
areas.
Education and Workforce Development.--NREL has identified the lack
of skilled workers as one of the biggest non-technical barriers to the
growth of renewable energy industries. In addition to educating
policymakers and stakeholders about wind power development, areas of
special focus include making sure that DOL and DOE work together to
increase the supply of professionals and technical specialists with
wind-energy specific knowledge.
Resource Modeling and Wind Power Plant Efficiency Assessment.--A
better understanding of wind resources and of turbine wake effects
would provide an immediate benefit for projects to be sited and
arranged to optimize energy yield and improve performance. Areas of
special focus include funding for test centers to better understand
wind flow models, research on the effect of wind turbines under unusual
atmospheric conditions, and funding for wake loss models.
Siting (Resources, Land Use, Environmental Interface).--Greater
funding for wind project siting issues would help the wind industry
avoid unnecessary wind deployment delays, thus helping the industry to
stay on track to meet the 20 percent vision by 2030. In general,
increased funding in this area should be targeted toward better
understanding the impact of wind turbines on wildlife and radar
installations and mitigating these impacts.
Small Wind (Turbines 100 Kilowatts and Smaller).--Greater Federal
funding for these systems would help the small wind industry serve end
users directly with domestic, on-site generation.
CONCLUSION
The President and Congress have called for a bolder commitment to
the development of domestic renewable energy resources, particularly
wind energy, to meet our Nation's growing energy needs. Continued
investments in wind energy RD&D are delivering value for taxpayers by
fostering the development of a domestic energy source that strengthens
our national security, provides economic development, spurs new high-
tech jobs, and helps protect the environment.
While the wind industry continues adding new generation capacity, a
number of challenges still exist. Continued support for DOE's wind
program is vital to helping wind become a more prominent energy source
that leads to a host of economic and environmental benefits. AWEA urges
the subcommittee to include $105 million for the DOE Wind Energy
Program in fiscal year 2010. Any additional funding above this amount
should be directed toward the advancement of offshore wind system
technology.
AWEA would also appreciate the subcommittee providing OE with the
$208 million included in the President's budget request. As mentioned
earlier, the President's budget request for OE includes approximately
$73 million that, at least in part, would benefit transmission
development and grid integration related to wind deployment, including
$20 million specifically for ``transmission reliability and renewable
integration.''
AWEA appreciates this opportunity to provide testimony on DOE's
fiscal year 2010 Wind Energy Program budget before the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. We thank
the subcommittee for its time and attention to our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists
On behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) we
submit this statement for the official record to support increased
funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science for fiscal
year 2010 that would keep the Office on a doubling path. The testimony
highlights the importance of biology, particularly plant biology, as
the Nation seeks to address vital issues including climate change and
energy security. We would also like to thank the subcommittee for its
consideration of this testimony and for its strong support for the
basic research mission of the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
The American Society of Plant Biologists is an organization of more
than 5,000 professional plant biologists, educators, graduate students,
and postdoctoral scientists. A strong voice for the global plant
science community, our mission--which is achieved through engagement in
the research, education, and public policy realms--is to promote the
growth and development of plant biology and plant biologists and to
foster and communicate research in plant biology. The Society publishes
the highly cited and respected journals Plant Physiology and The Plant
Cell, and it has produced and supported a range of materials intended
to demonstrate fundamental biological principles that can be easily and
inexpensively taught in school and university classrooms by using
plants.
FOOD, FUEL, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND HEALTH--PLANT BIOLOGY RESEARCH AND
AMERICA'S FUTURE
Plants are vital to our very existence. They harvest sunlight,
converting it to chemical energy for food and feed; they take up carbon
dioxide and produce oxygen; and they are almost always the primary
producers in the Earth's ecosystems. Indeed, basic plant biology
research is making many fundamental contributions in the areas of fuel
security and environmental stewardship; the continued and sustainable
development of better foods, fabrics, and building materials; and in
the understanding of basic biological principles that underpin
improvements in the health and nutrition of all Americans. To go
further, plant biology research can help the Nation both predict and
prepare for the impacts of climate change on American agriculture, and
it can make major contributions to our Nation's efforts to combat
global warming.
In particular, plant biology is at the center of numerous
scientific breakthroughs in the increasingly interdisciplinary world of
alternative energy research. For example, interfaces among plant
biology, engineering, chemistry, and physics represent critical
frontiers in both basic biofuels research and bioenergy production.
Similarly, with the increase in plant genome sequencing and functional
genomics, the interface of plant biology and computer science is
essential to our understanding of complex biological systems ranging
from single cells to entire ecosystems.
Despite the fact that plant biology research--the kind of research
funded by the DOE--underpins so many vital practical considerations for
our country, the amount invested in understanding the basic function
and mechanisms of plants is relatively small when compared with the
impact it has on multibillion dollar sectors of the economy like energy
and agriculture.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ASPB, as a spokesperson for the plant science community, is in an
excellent position to articulate the Nation's plant science priorities
as they relate to bioenergy and, specifically, with regard to
recommendations for bioenergy research funding through the Department
of Energy's Office of Science. Our recommendations, in no particular
order, are as follows:
--We commend the DOE Office of Science, through their Divisions of
Basic Energy Sciences (BES) and Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) for funding the Bioenergy Research Centers (BER)
and the recently awarded Energy Frontier Research Centers
(BES). Although these efforts are well designed and a
significant step forward, these large centers will not have a
monopoly on good ideas. Therefore, ASPB strongly encourages the
appropriation of additional funds for the DOE Office of Science
that would be specifically targeted to the funding of
individual or small group grants for bioenergy research, like
the Single-Investigator and Small-Group Research (SISGR)
projects funded through BES in fiscal year 2009.
--The DOE Office of Science is the primary funding agency for
physical science research. Past experience teaches us that many
major scientific and technical breakthroughs occur at the
interface between traditional scientific disciplines.
Therefore, ASPB recommends appropriations that would
specifically target the interface between plant biology and the
physical sciences to encourage multidisciplinary and cross-
disciplinary research that would address significant problems
in bioenergy research.
--Photosynthetic research is one clear example of an interface
between the physical sciences and biology. The DOE BER has been
the major source of funds for basic studies of photosynthesis,
which is the primary source of chemical energy on the planet.
After all, fossil fuels are just photosynthetic energy that was
trapped eons ago and converted through natural processes into
the forms in which we use it today. However, the current
funding available for photosynthetic research is not
commensurate with the central role that photosynthesis plays in
energy capture and carbon sequestration. Hence, ASPB calls for
an increase in appropriations to BER to expand its research
portfolio in the area of photosynthesis and carbon capture.
--Climate change is real and will have significant impacts on
agriculture and our way of life for the foreseeable future.
There are significant questions that must be answered as to how
climate change will impact food production and the environment.
There are also clear opportunities to use biological systems to
ameliorate climate change, such as through carbon sequestration
or modification of plants to resist environmental stress.
Therefore, ASPB calls for additional funding focused on studies
of the effect of climate change on agricultural cropping
systems, basic studies of effects on plant growth and
development, and targeted research focused on modification of
plants to resist climate change and for use in carbon
sequestration.
--Current estimates predict a significant shortfall in the needed
scientific and engineering workforce in the energy area. The
DOE Office of Science has traditionally not been a major
funding agency for education and training, other than that
which occurs through the funding of individual investigator and
center grants. Given the expected need for additional
scientists and engineers who are well-grounded in
interdisciplinary research and development activities, ASPB
calls for funding of specific programs (e.g., training grants)
that are targeted to provide this needed workforce over the
next 10 years and to adequately prepare them for careers in the
interdisciplinary energy research of the future.
--The revolution in biological technology that has given rise to the
various--omics subdisciplines has also generated enormous
datasets that reveal the tremendous complexity of biological
systems. Computational biology is a relatively new discipline
that arose from the interface of computer science and biology.
These new technologies and approaches provide the only means by
which these large biological datasets can be integrated and
mined for new, relevant biological knowledge. Therefore, as
discussed in item two above, ASPB calls for additional funding
that would target this interface between biology and computer
science. Specifically, we call for additional funding to
develop computational platforms to develop a systems-level view
of biology through the integration of data obtained from a
variety of functional genomics approaches. This is clearly a
``grand challenge'' that is currently limiting the utility of
this information. Additionally, we call for the funding of
robust education and professional development programs,
including training grants, that target the interface between
computer and biological science.
--Considerable research interest is now being paid to the use of
plant biomass for energy production. Progress in this area has
been strongly affected by the ``fuel vs. food'' debate, which
arose from the current emphasis on the use of corn for ethanol
production. A response to this debate has been to switch the
focus to plants that can be grown exclusively for biomass
(e.g., switchgrass, miscanthus, etc). However, if these crops
are to be used to their full potential, considerable effort
must be expended to improve our understanding of their basic
biology and development, as well as their agronomic
performance. Unlike our current, major crops (e.g., soybean,
corn), these novel crops have not benefitted from the many
years of improvements in crop management and breeding--
improvements that, among other things, have vastly increased
yield and agronomic efficiency. Although similar efforts to
improve targeted bioenergy crops are just beginning, we have
established very aggressive goals for the use of these crops to
meet the Nation's fuel needs. Therefore, ASPB calls for
additional funding that would be targeted to efforts to
increase the utility and agronomic performance of bioenergy
crops.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony on behalf of the
American Society of Plant Biologists. Please do not hesitate to contact
the American Society of Plant Biologists if we can be of any assistance
in the future. For more information about the American Society of Plant
Biologists, please see www.aspb.org.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America, and the Soil Science Society of America
Dear Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Bennett and members of the
subcommittee, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science
Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA)
are pleased to submit the following funding recommendations for the
Department of Energy for fiscal year 2010. For the Office of Science,
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding level of $5.0 billion, a 4.8
percent increase over fiscal year 2009 ($4.722 billion). For the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, we recommend a funding level
of $2.061 billion, a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2009.
Specifics for each of these and other budget areas follow below.
With more than 25,000 members and practicing professionals, ASA,
CSSA, and SSSA are the largest life science professional societies in
the United States dedicated to the agronomic, crop and soil sciences.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA play a major role in promoting progress in these
sciences through the publication of quality journals and books,
convening meetings and workshops, developing educational, training, and
public information programs, providing scientific advice to inform
public policy, and promoting ethical conduct among practitioners of
agronomy and crop and soil sciences.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF SCIENCE
The American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America,
and Soil Science Society of America (ASA, CSSA, and SSSA) thank the
Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee (subcommittee) for
providing $1.6 billion from Public Law 111-5, the ``American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (act)'' for research funding through DOE's
Office of Science, which oversees the Nation's research programs in
climate science, advanced computing, and biofuels areas crucial to our
energy future. The act also provides $2.5 billion for Research,
Development, and Demonstration at universities, companies, and national
laboratories for which we are very grateful.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA understand the challenges the Senate Energy and
Water Appropriations Subcommittee faces with the tight budget for
fiscal year 2010. We also recognize that the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill has many valuable and necessary components, and we
applaud the subcommittee for funding the DOE Office of Science in the
fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill at $4.772 billion. For
fiscal year 2010, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding level of $5.0
billion, a 4.8 percent increase over fiscal year 2009. Under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58), the Office of Science was
authorized to receive $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2009.
The Office of Science supports graduate students and postdoctoral
researchers early in their careers. Nearly one-third of its research
funding goes to support research at more than 300 colleges and
universities nationwide. Moreover, approximately half the users at
Office of Science user facilities are from colleges and universities,
providing further support to their researchers. The Office of Science
also reaches out to America's youth in grades K-12 and their teachers
to help improve students' knowledge of science and mathematics and
their understanding of global energy and environmental challenges. This
recommended funding level of $5.0 billion is critical to ensuring our
future energy self-sufficiency and as a means to address major
environmental challenges including global climate change. Finally, a
funding level of $5.0 billion will allow the Office of Science to:
maintain and strengthen DOE's core research programs at both the DOE
national laboratories and at universities; provide support for 1,000
PhDs, postdoctoral associates, and graduate students in fiscal year
2010; ensure maximum utilization of DOE research facilities; allow the
Office of Science to develop and construct the next generation
facilities necessary to maintain U.S. preeminence in scientific
research; and enable DOE to continue to pursue the tremendous
scientific opportunities outlined in the Office of Science Strategic
Plan and in its 20 Year Scientific Facilities Plan.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
Within the Office of Science, the Basic Energy Sciences (BES)
Program is a multipurpose, scientific research effort that fosters and
supports fundamental research to expand the scientific foundations for
new and improved energy technologies and for understanding and
mitigating the environmental impacts of energy use. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA
support a fiscal year 2010 funding level of $1.682 billion, a 7 percent
increase over fiscal year 2009, for BES.
The portfolio of programs at BES supports research in the natural
sciences by focusing basic (discovery) research on, among other
disciplines, biosciences, chemistry and geosciences. Practically every
element of energy resources, production, conversion and waste
mitigation is addressed in basic research supported by BES programs.
Research in chemistry has lead to the development of new solar
photoconversion processes and new tools for environmental remediation
and waste management. Research in geosciences leads to advanced
monitoring and measurement techniques for reservoir definition.
Research in the molecular and biochemical nature of photosynthesis aids
the development of solar photo-energy conversion.
Within the Basic Energy Sciences Program, the Chemical Sciences,
Geosciences, and Energy Biosciences subprogram supports fundamental
research in geochemistry, geophysics and biosciences. ASA, CSSA, and
SSSA recommend $317,910,910 a 7 percent increase over the fiscal year
2009 funding level. The Geosciences Research Program supports research
focused at developing an understanding of fundamental Earth processes
that can be used as a foundation for efficient, effective, and
environmentally sound use of energy resources, and provide an improved
scientific basis for advanced energy and environmental technologies.
The Biosciences Research Program supports basic research in molecular
level studies on solar energy capture through natural photosynthesis;
the mechanisms and regulation of carbon fixation and carbon energy
storage; the synthesis, degradation, and molecular interconversions of
complex hydrocarbons and carbohydrates; and the study of novel
biosystems and their potential for materials synthesis, chemical
catalysis, and materials synthesized at the nanoscale.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) Program, is a key component to developing and delivering
the knowledge needed to support the President's plan to make America
energy independent. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support a 7 percent increase
for BER which would bring the funding level to $643,647,800 for fiscal
year 2010. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support a variety of programs within BER
including the Life Sciences subprogram which supports Carbon
Sequestration Research (we recommend $8 million for fiscal year 2010),
and the Genomes to Life (GTL) program. Within Genomes to Life are
programs supportive of bioenergy development including GTL Foundation
Research, GTL Sequencing, GTL Bioethanol Research, and GTL Bioenergy
Research Centers, all playing an important role in achieving energy
independence for America. Also within BER is the Environmental
Remediation subprogram and its Environmental Remediation Sciences
Research program, both critical programs to advancing tools needed to
clean up contaminated sites. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding
level of $190,381,000, a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2010 for
Climate Change Research subprogram. This subprogram supports important
areas of climate change research including: Climate Forcing which
supports the Terrestrial Carbon Processes program and the Ameriflux
network of research sites (which should receive $17 million in
funding), as understanding the role that terrestrial ecosystems play in
capturing and storing carbon is essential to developing strategies to
mitigate global climate change. An additional program of high
importance within the Climate Change Research subprogram is the Climate
Change Response and its associated programs--Ecosystem Function and
Response, and Education. Finally, also under the Climate Change
Research subprogram is the Climate Change Mitigation program, part of
BER's support to the Climate Change Technology Program, which will
continue to focus only on terrestrial carbon sequestration.
department of energy office of energy efficiency and renewable energy
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) manages
America's investment in the research and development (RD&D) of DOE's
diverse energy efficiency and renewable energy applied science
portfolio. For the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, we
recommend a funding level of $2.061 billion, a 7 percent increase over
fiscal year 2009. The fiscal year 2010 EERE budget should continue to
maintain focus on key components of the AEI and Twenty in Ten including
the Biofuels Initiative to develop affordable, bio-based transportation
fuels from a wider variety of feedstocks and agricultural waste
products.
Note: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA strongly oppose the use by the Department
of the terms ``agricultural wastes'' or ``crop wastes'' when referring
to crop residue. Crop residues, e.g., corn stover, etc. play a very
important role in nutrient cycling, erosion control and organic matter
development. Recent studies have shown that excessive removal of crop
residues from agricultural lands can lead to a decline in soil quality.
By no means should they ever be referred to as ``wastes''.
BIOMASS AND BIOREFINERY SYSTEMS
Within EERE, the Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D program plays
an important role providing support for Regional Biomass Feedstock
Development Partnerships and Infrastructure Core R&D programs, both
within Feedstock Infrastructure. For the Biomass and Biorefinery
Systems R&D program, we recommend a 7 percent increase for fiscal year
2010 which would bring funding to $190,381,000. The mission of the
Biomass Program is to develop and transform our domestic, renewable,
and abundant biomass resources into cost-competitive, high performance
biofuels, bioproducts and biopower through targeted RD&D leveraged by
public and private partnerships. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support $18
million in funding for the Feedstock Infrastructure program.
CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA urge the subcommittee to continue to provide
strong support for Climate Change Research to the following programs as
follows: Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), $150 million; Climate
Change Research Initiative (CCRI), $25,672,000; and Climate Change
Technology Program (CCTP), $850,301,000. These three programs together
will increase our understanding of the impacts of global climate change
and also develop tools and technologies to mitigate these impacts.
BASIC AND APPLIED R&D COORDINATION
The Office of Science continues to coordinate basic research
efforts in many areas with the Department's applied technology offices.
Within this area is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage R&D for which we
recommend $20,055,000.
NATIONAL LABORATORIES
The Office of Science manages 10 world-class laboratories, which
often are called the ``crown jewels'' of our national research
infrastructure. The national laboratory system, created over a half-
century ago, is the most comprehensive research system of its kind in
the world. Five are multi-program facilities including the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY (NETL)
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA urge the subcommittee to direct the Department
to increase funding for its terrestrial carbon sequestration program,
specifically The Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, whose
collaborations are essential to maintain.
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY (ORNL)
ORNL is one of the world's premier centers for R&D on energy
production, distribution, and use and on the effects of energy
technologies and decisions on society.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Bennett, and members of the
subcommittee, I represent the Center for Advanced Separation
Technologies (CAST), which is a consortium of five universities with
strong programs in coal mining and processing. I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this testimony requesting that your subcommittee
add $3 million to the 2010 Fuels Program budget, Fossil Energy Research
and Development, U.S. Department of Energy, for advanced separations
research. Research in advanced separations technology development is
authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, title IX, subtitle F, sec.
962. I am joined in this statement by my colleagues from four other
member universities: Richard A. Bajura, West Virginia University; Rick
Q. Honaker, University of Kentucky; Peter H. Knudsen, Montana Tech of
the University of Montana; Jan D. Miller, University of Utah.
funding request for center for advanced separation technologies
Fossil energy accounts for 86 percent of the energy used in the
United States and the world. Due to concerns for global warming, the
U.S. Government is making major investments in developing renewable
energy resources and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)
technologies. However, it will take a while for many of the new
technologies to come on line. Therefore, CAST will continue to develop
advanced technologies that can be used to produce fossil fuels with
minimal environmental impacts and to capture the harmful effluents
generated from the utilization of fossil fuels.
Between 1990 and 2008, U.S. emissions of CO2 from fossil
fuel combustion grew by 27 percent. But the emissions in China rose 150
percent, from 2.3 to 5.9 billion tons. China's CO2 emissions
are now estimated to be about 24 percent of the global total,
surpassing the U.S. contribution of 21 percent (State of the World
2009). It is projected that by 2030 developing countries will account
for more than 75 percent of the increase in global CO2
emissions. Thus, the United States must engage developing countries in
its effort to curb CO2 emissions.
A serious problem in China and India is that much of the coal is
burned as mined without cleaning, causing low thermal efficiencies. In
these two countries, the thermal efficiencies for power generation are
29 percent in average as compared to 38 percent in the United States.
By increasing the efficiency to 33 percent by way of improving coal
quality, the CO2 emissions in China can be reduced by 20
percent. According to a recent IEA report, India could reduce
CO2 emissions by 55 percent using state-of-the-art
technologies relating to coal quality, boiler/generator design,
instrumentation and control, and high voltage distribution systems
(Couch, 2002). Unfortunately, much of the coal burned in India is of
low quality, assaying 35-42 percent ash, while the ash contents of the
coals burned for power generation are mostly less than 8 percent.
Helping China and India improve the quality of their coal burned for
power generation would be the first step toward deploying clean coal
technologies (CCT) and reducing CO2 emissions substantially.
It is, therefore, the objective of CAST research to develop
advanced technologies that can be used to remove various impurities
from coal, so that it can be burned more cleanly and efficiently. These
technologies can also be used to minimize the problems associated with
waste disposal at mine sites and power plants, and help reduce
CO2 emissions in developing countries. It is also the
objective to study and develop methods of extracting other fossil
energy resources, such as oil sands, oil shale, and methane hydrates in
environmentally acceptable manner.
SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENT
Cleaning coal becomes more difficult and costly as the size of coal
particles becomes smaller. Therefore, many companies discard coal fines
to impoundments along with the water that is used for their washing
operations, or inject the coal-water slurries into abandoned,
underground mines. The latter practice has been drawing criticism, as
the water containing toxic elements (and sometimes the slurry itself)
contaminates drinking water (Smith, V., AP News, March 21, 2009). The
fine coal impoundments also pose environmental threats as they
occasionally fail, releasing billions of gallons of slurry into the
neighborhoods and rivers. Recognizing the seriousness of these
problems, CAST has been developing a series of advanced fine coal
cleaning technologies over the years. During the last few years, we
have been focusing on developing methods of removing water (dewatering)
from fine coal slurry, which is regarded one of the most
technologically challenging problems for the coal industry. During
2008-2009, CAST has completed testing the hyperbaric centrifugal
dewatering technology in operating plants. The results of the
successful test program have been highlighted in Techline, DOE's web
newsletter, in February 2009. Industry leaders consider this new
development as the most significant technological breakthrough in 20
years.
CAST is also well known for its expertise in separating fine coal
from ash-forming minerals. One success story was the development of the
MicrocelTM flotation technology, which is widely used around
the world. During the last 2 years, FLSmidth Minerals, Salt Lake City,
Utah, which is one of the world's largest mining equipment companies,
has provided $900,000 of research funding to develop a mathematical
model for the separation process. This industrial funding was provided
as a matching fund against the $250,000 of CAST fund allocated for this
project. The results of the project will be used to help the company
improve the designs of the currently marketed flotation machines.
Indian coal is notoriously difficult to clean, because ash-forming
minerals are finely disseminated in the coal matrix. Using conventional
methods, it is difficult to reduce the ash content to below 12-14
percent by weight even for high-quality metallurgical coals. With the
help of the U.S. Department of Energy, CAST is negotiating a $1.2
million research contract with Coal India Limited (CIL), in which a 75-
tonnes per hour coal cleaning plant is designed, constructed by CIL,
and demonstrated. The plant will be using the advanced technologies
developed at CAST to reduce the ash content to below 8 percent.
In addition, CAST is testing a pilot-scale dry coal cleaning
technology in India. This project is funded by the Department of State
(DOS) in the amount of $1.1 million as part of the Asia Pacific
Partnership (APP) for Clean Development and Climate program. The pilot-
scale test unit has been shipped to India for on-site testing, which
will begin within a month. The objective of this project and the one
described in the forgoing paragraph is to help India clean coal before
burning, which is considered the lowest-cost option to reduce
CO2 emissions in the country.
CAST research activities helped the fossil energy industries in
Utah, including coal, oil sand and oil shale industries. For example,
CAST funds have helped to sustain the development of new technology for
the efficient utilization of western coal by Ambre Energy, North
America, a Salt Lake City based company. Ambre Energy has licensed a
University of Utah technology as part of their plans to construct a
$300 million plant which will include, among others the production of
advanced transportation fuels from western coal resources.
In the areas of post-combustion clean-up, CAST has developed
metallic filters that can remove mercury from the flue gas generated at
coal-fired power plants. Based on the successful laboratory test
results, the mercury filters were tested at the PPL's Colstrip power
plant in Montana. The removal efficiency was greater than 90 percent,
verifying laboratory experiments. The mercury absorbed on the metallic
filters were stripped off by an in situ thermal treatment, so that the
filter can be reused and the mercury be collected for commercial use.
All of the fossil fuels, including coal, oil, natural gas, methane
in hydrate, kerogen in oil shale, and bitumen in oil sands, are
naturally hydrophobic. During 2008-2009, CAST has made significant
advancements in the basic understanding of the nature of hydrophobicity
and hydrophobic interactions. The results will be useful not only for
developing these energy resources but also for separating different
gases from each other. It is possible to convert one type of gas to
hydrate (solid) leaving the others in gaseous form, thereby achieving
separation.
PROPOSED WORK
Although coal is regarded as ``dirty'' fuel, it will take some time
before clean, renewable fuels can replace coal substantially. According
to the 2008 International Energy Outlook (EIA, September 2008), coal
consumption will increase faster than any other energy resource,
particularly in China. Therefore, it is important to continue to
develop methods of recovering and utilizing coal with minimal
environmental impacts. To meet this objective, CAST will develop
technologies that can be used to minimize the environmental problems
both at mine sites (e.g., refuse pond and runoff water from valley-fill
mining operations) and coal-burning power plants (e.g. ash pond,
mercury emissions, and CO2 emissions).
In addition to the hyperbaric centrifuge described above, CAST has
been developing a novel technology that can remove water, ash, and
other impurities simultaneously. Laboratory tests showed that this new
technology can produce clean coal with lower moisture and lower ash
contents at higher coal recoveries than can be achieved by using a
combination of the Microcel and the centrifuge technologies. The new
technology can, therefore, be implemented at lower capital cost and
will be particularly useful for recovering coal from fine coal
impoundments. During 2009-2010, the new process will be tested on a
bench-scale continuous mode. Several companies have expresses strong
interest in commercializing this new technology.
An important part of developing coal cleaning technologies is
technology transfer. Therefore, CAST will devote considerable resources
for on-site testing, problem solving, and offering short-courses and
seminars for plant operators. Keeping industry operators abreast of
CAST research will expedite the technology transfer and help the U.S.
companies maintain a clean environment near mine sites.
Using the improved understanding of the basic sciences involved in
gas hydrate formation, CAST will also develop methods of separating
gases from each other. The methods will be based on solidifying one-
type of gas as hydrate while keeping the others in gaseous form. For
example, CO2 and nitrogen present in combustion gases can be
readily separated from each other by the selective hydrate formation
method. One problem associated with the approach is the slow kinetics
of hydrate formation. It is, therefore, proposed to find ways to
increase the kinetics by using additives. The gas-gas separation
process by forming hydrates can have higher capacity and lower cost
than other methods.
The proposed research can also lead to the development of efficient
methods for extracting methane from hydrate resources. The National
Energy Technology Laboratory is spearheading a program to extract
methane from the Alaskan North Slope with the objective of producing
methane by 2015. CAST will explore the possibility of extracting
methane from marine hydrate resources. It is estimated that the United
States has 200,000 Tcf of methane as hydrate, while the proven reserve
for dry natural gas is only 238 Tcf. The Blake Ridge deposit alone, off
the shores of the Carolinas, has 1,300 Tcf of methane. Thus, the
research on gas hydrate will lead to the development of unconventional
gas resources, development of efficient gas-gas separation methods,
sequestration of CO2 as hydrate, and transport and storage
of methane and hydrogen.
FUNDING REQUEST
It is requested that $3 million of funding for CAST be added to the
fiscal year 2010 Fuels Program budget, Fossil Energy R&D, U.S.
Department of Energy. Continued funding will allow CAST to develop
advanced technologies for producing domestic energy resources in an
environmentally acceptable manner, while helping developing countries
reduce CO2 emissions. The new technologies can also minimize
concerns related to ash and refuse ponds and the runoff water at
valley-fill mining operations. In addition, the new gas-gas separations
technologies will have crosscutting applications for a wide spectrum of
the Fossil Energy R&D programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends Committee on National Legislation
(Quakers)
The Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) thanks the
subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this testimony for the
record. We appreciate the subcommittee's transparency and willingness
to open its proceedings to the public. The Washington Post paraphrased
NNSA Administrator Thomas D'Agostino's testimony before the House
Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on March 24 as
saying, ``the number of new plutonium triggers that will be needed to
keep the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile reliable and secure has
steadily dropped from 450 a year to 20.''
Decreased demand, paired with President Obama's call for drastic
reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, requires for changes at NNSA.
Our testimony centers on the need to restructure the NNSA budget in
order to meet today's security demands by adequately funding nuclear
nonproliferation programs, supporting disablement and dismantlement
programs in North Korea, reforming spending on the nuclear weapons
complex, and discontinuing new nuclear weapons programs.
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS
The subcommittee's commitment to nuclear nonproliferation programs
has increased international security. The best example of that
commitment is the increased funding allocated to the Global Threat
Reduction Initiative (GTRI) in the omnibus appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2009. Testifying before the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development last year (April 30,
2008), former NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation William Tobey pointed out the successes of GTRI:
The GTRI program, and its antecedents, have removed approximately
68 nuclear bombs' worth of highly enriched uranium and secured more
than 600 radiological sites around the world, collectively containing
over 9 million curies, enough radiation for approximately 8,500 dirty
bombs. In the United States the GTRI program has removed over 16,000
at-risk radiological sources, totaling more than 175,000 curies--enough
for more than 370 dirty bombs.
A graph of funding for GTRI over the past 4 years shows why the
program has succeeded. We thank the subcommittee for supporting GTRI
and believe, as is evidenced by Deputy Administrator Tobey's testimony,
that the marginal benefit to international security from every dollar
spent on nuclear nonproliferation programs is greater than that of any
other dollar spent on national defense.
Other nuclear nonproliferation programs, such as the International
Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation Program (MPC&A), which
secures weapons-usable nuclear material in other countries, are in need
of similar funding increases to accelerate the speed of finding and
securing nuclear material, and upgrading the infrastructure which keeps
weapons-grade material out of the wrong hands. As you can see, the
previous administration's requests for MPC&A funding has been just
above stagnant over the past several years. This year, Congress cut
funds for MPC&A by $230 million because the program is winding down in
Russia. Nevertheless, we believe the program should be expanded beyond
Russia. Increasing and expanding MPC&A could be critical to achieving
President Obama's goal to account for and secure all nuclear warheads
and loose nuclear material around the world by the end of his first
term.
We call on the subcommittee to make sufficient investments in the
next generation of nuclear nonproliferation scientists. President Obama
has stated that a top priority of his administration will be
negotiating a verifiable fissile material cutoff treaty. Without
expanding the pool of safeguards and other nonproliferation experts and
drawing new talent into the field, the President's goal will not be
achieved.
Administrator D'Agostino testified before the House Appropriations
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee that the Federal Government
has been unable to lure top tier scientific talent at institutions of
higher learning away from the private sector. The Administrator pointed
to fields such as radioanalytic chemistry, in which graduates could
seek research careers in nuclear forensics. Instead, these students are
increasingly choosing lucrative offers from private industry over the
opportunity to serve the country. The subcommittee must determine ways
to reverse this trend.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX
Administrator D'Agostino was blunt in pointing out that, ``We must
stop pouring money into an old, cold war complex that is too big and
too expensive.'' We could not agree more strongly. The discourse over
the size and scope of the nuclear weapons complex in recent years has
mirrored moral, political, and global realities that nuclear weapons
are becoming obsolete.
The numbers are striking. In 2005, NNSA proposed a new plutonium
production facility with a capacity of 450 pits per year. In 2006, this
figure was reduced to a capacity of 125 pits per year. Again, in 2007,
the estimated necessary capacity was reduced to 80 pits per year.
Administrator D'Agostino's testimony indicated that due to the changes
on nuclear policy set forth by President Obama, NNSA is operating at
the minimum production capacity of 20 pits per year. Simply put, with
every passing year, the need for a large-scale capacity to produce
plutonium pits bounds toward zero.
We recommend abandoning expensive plans to build new plutonium
production facilities and focusing on how to secure existing facilities
while decreasing pit production capacities as the country reduces its
nuclear stockpile and pushes nuclear weapons toward irrelevance.
NEW NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Proponents of new nuclear weapons have been unable in past years to
justify to lawmakers a need for programs like the nuclear ``bunker
buster'' and so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead. Congress has
declined to fund these programs year after year, culminating with a
line in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus appropriations bill, ``Development
work on the Reliable Replacement Warhead will cease.''
Developing new nuclear weapons sends the wrong message to other
nations. Rather than leading the way on the path to a nuclear weapons
free world, the United States would be perceived as taking provocative
actions and possibly spur reactions that increase global nuclear
proliferation.
The subcommittee's scrutiny of nuclear weapons programs in a
bipartisan basis has led to responsible decisions that avoid sending
these mixed messages and demonstrate the leadership necessary to move
forward on the bold changes necessary to achieve the elimination of
nuclear weapons.
NORTH KOREAN DISABLEMENT AND DISMANTLEMENT
Last year, the Bush administration secured a waiver to the 1994
Glenn amendment to enable the National Nuclear Security Administration
to provide assistance for the disablement and dismantlement of North
Korea's nuclear facilities. However, the waiver, which passed in a
supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 (Public Law 110-
252, sec. 1405), has not been implemented. The Obama administration
must implement this waiver to allow for these activities to occur. We
ask that the subcommittee encourage the administration to implement the
waiver despite North Korea's recent actions. Should the six party talks
with North Korea resume and inspectors be allowed back into North
Korea, delays in implementing the waiver would only slow disablement
and dismantlement programs.
Additionally, we urge the subcommittee to fund dismantlement and
disablement activities in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental
appropriations bill and the fiscal year 2010 budget at the level of the
administration's request.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Southern Company Generation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, Southern Company
operates the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Carbon
Capture Center (NCCC) at the Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF)
in Wilsonville, AL (http://psdf.southernco.com) for DOE's National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and several industrial
participants.\1\ The PSDF was conceived as the premier advanced coal
power generation research and development (R&D) facility in the world.
It has fulfilled this expectation. I would like to thank the Senate for
its past support of the PSDF and request the subcommittee's continued
support as the PSDF responds to the need for developing cost-effective
carbon dioxide (CO2) capture technology for coal fueled
power generation. This statement supports the administration's budget
request for DOE coal R&D which includes about $41.5 million for work at
the PSDF. These funds are necessary to conduct the future test program
developed in collaboration with DOE which includes wide-ranging support
of the DOE Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap. The future focus of
the PSDF is to conduct sufficient R&D to advance emerging
CO2 control technologies to commercial scale for effective
integration into either combustion or Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle (IGCC) processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current PSDF participants include Southern Company, the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), American Electric Power,
Luminant, Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Inc., and Rio Tinto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key feature of the PSDF is its ability to test new carbon capture
technologies for coal-based power generation systems at an integrated,
semi-commercial scale. Integrated operation allows the effects of
system interactions, typically missed in un-integrated pilot-scale
testing, to be understood. The semi-commercial scale allows the
maintenance, safety, and reliability issues of a technology to be
investigated at a cost that is far lower than the cost of commercial-
scale testing. Capable of operating at pilot to near-demonstration
scales, the PSDF is large enough to produce data to support commercial
plant designs, yet small enough to be cost-effective and adaptable to a
variety of technology research needs.
In addition to semi-commercial scale testing, the PSDF will serve
as a test bed for cost-effective technology screening by providing
slipstreams of actual syngas from coal gasification and flue gas from
coal combustion. Future test work at the PSDF will include the scale-up
and continued development of several CO2 capture
technologies being developed either at DOE's NETL facility, at private
R&D laboratories or at the PSDF. The DOE program for CO2
capture in coal-fueled powerplants is divided into three areas: post-
combustion capture for conventional pulverized coal plants, pre-
combustion capture for coal gasification powerplants, and oxy-
combustion processes which produce a more CO2-rich flue gas
than conventional combustion for easier CO2 capture. The
PSDF's CO2 capture efforts would address all three areas.
Southern Company also supports the goals of the Clean Coal
Technology Roadmaps developed by DOE, EPRI, and the Coal Utilization
Research Council (CURC). These Roadmaps identify the technical,
economic, and environmental performance that advanced clean coal
technologies can achieve over the next 20 years. Over this time period
coal-fired power generation efficiency can be increased to over 50
percent (compared to the current fleet average of 32 percent) while
producing de minimis emissions and developing cost-effective
technologies for CO2 management.
SUMMARY
The United States has historically been a leader in energy
research. Adequate funding for fossil energy research and development
programs, including environmental and climate change technologies will
provide our country with secure and reliable energy from domestic
resources while protecting our environment. Current DOE fossil energy
research and development programs for coal, if adequately funded, will
assure that a wide range of electric generation options are available
for future needs. Congress faces difficult choices when examining near-
term effects on the Federal budget of funding energy research. However,
continued support for advanced coal-based energy research is essential
to the long-term environmental and economic well being of the U.S.
Prior DOE clean coal technology research has already provided the basis
for $100 billion in consumer benefits at a cost of less than $4
billion. Funding the administration's budget request for DOE coal R&D
and long-term support of the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap can lead to
additional consumer benefits of between $360 billion and $1.38
trillion.\2\ But, for benefits to be realized from advanced coal R&D,
the critically important R&D program outlined in the Clean Coal
Technology Roadmap must be conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPRI Report No. 1006954, ``Market-Based Valuation of Coal
Generation and Coal R&D in the U.S. Electric Sector'', May 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the key national assets for achieving these benefits is the
PSDF. The fiscal year 2010 funding for the PSDF needs to be about $41.5
million to support construction of new facilities to test technologies
that are critical to the goals of the DOE Carbon Sequestration
Technology Roadmap and to the success of the development of cost-
effective climate change technologies that will enable the continued
use of coal to supply the Nation's energy needs. The major
accomplishments at the PSDF to date and the future test program planned
by DOE and the PSDF's industrial participants are summarized below.
PSDF ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The PSDF test-bed has operated successfully for many years in
support of U.S.-DOE's advanced coal program. Skilled staff from
disciplines essential for a successful research program has gained
experience by designing and operating the test equipment and by working
with vendors to develop and improve their technologies. The PSDF has
developed testing and technology transfer relationships with over 50
vendors to ensure that test results and improvements developed at the
PSDF are incorporated into future plants. In some instances, testing
has eliminated technologies from further consideration. Such screening
is valuable in that it concentrates R&D effort on those technologies
most likely to succeed and is an essential part of managing the U.S.-
DOE's financial resources. Major subsystems tested and some highlights
of the test program at the PSDF include:
Transport Reactor.--The transport reactor has been operated
successfully on sub-bituminous, bituminous, and lignite coals as a
pressurized combustor and as a gasifier in both oxygen- and air-blown
modes and has exceeded its primary purpose of generating gases for
downstream testing. Since modifications were made in 2006, subsequent
testing with air-blown gasifier operations has indicated substantial
improvements in syngas heating value and carbon conversion. This
transport technology is projected to be the lowest capital cost coal-
based power generation option, while providing the lowest cost of
electricity and excellent environmental performance.
Advanced Particulate Control.--Two advanced particulate removal
devices and 28 different filter elements types have been tested to
clean the product gases, and material property testing is routinely
conducted to assess their suitability under long-term operation. The
material requirements have been shared with vendors to aid their filter
development programs.
Filter Safe-Guard Device.--To enhance reliability and protect
downstream components, ``safe-guard'' devices that reliably seal off
failed filter elements have been successfully developed.
Coal Feed and Ash Removal Subsystems.--A key to successful
pressurized gasifier operation is reliable operation of the coal feed
system and ash removal systems. Developmental work on the pressurized
coal feed systems has increased the understanding and optimization of
their performance. Modifications developed at the PSDF and shared with
equipment suppliers allow current coal feed equipment to perform in a
commercially acceptable manner. An innovative, continuous process has
also been designed and successfully tested that reduces capital and
maintenance costs and improves the reliability of fine and coarse ash
removal.
Syngas Cooler.--Syngas cooling is of considerable importance to the
gasification industry. Devices to inhibit erosion, made from several
different materials, were tested at the inlet of the gas cooler and one
ceramic material has been shown to perform well in this application.
Advanced Syngas Cleanup.--A slipstream unit has provided a very
flexible test platform for testing numerous syngas contaminant removal
technologies to improve environmental footprint and reduce costs in
IGCC gas clean-up.
Sensors and Automation.--Significant progress with sensor
development and process automation has been achieved. More than 20
instrumentation vendors have worked with the PSDF to develop and test
their instruments under realistic conditions. Development of reliable
and accurate sensors for the gasification process has concentrated on
coal feed, Transport Gasifier, and filter systems. Automatic
temperature control of the Transport Reactor has been successfully
implemented.
Fuel Cell.--Two test campaigns were successfully completed on 0.5
kW solid oxide fuel cells manufactured by Delphi on syngas from the
transport gasifier marking the first time that a solid oxide fuel cell
(SOFC) has been operated on coal-derived syngas. In addition, a NETL-
erected SOFC multi-cell array test skid was used at PSDF to
successfully conduct parallel testing of many cells directly on coal
syngas.
CO2 Capture.--Slipstream CO2 capture testing
has been completed on both simulated and actual syngas and results have
been used to design larger test equipment.
PSDF FUTURE TEST PROGRAM
Developing technology options that will reduce CO2
emissions is a primary goal for future work at PSDF. These technologies
will be screened in close collaboration with NETL for selection for
testing at the PSDF. This facility will serve as a productive test-bed
for developing advanced technology and is capable of operating from
bench- and pilot-scale to near demonstration scales allowing results to
be scaled to commercial application. The PSDF will concentrate on
developing cost-effective, commercially viable carbon capture
technology for coal-fueled powerplants through scale-up and continued
development of several technologies (including for example those being
developed either at DOE's facilities or by third party technology
developers).
For both new and existing powerplants, post-combustion capture
technology must be made more efficient and cost-effective. In post-
combustion capture, CO2 is separated from the flue gas in a
conventional coal-combustion powerplant downstream of the pulverized
coal boiler. Many technologies are under consideration for post-
combustion capture, but these technologies need to be proven and
integrated in an industrial powerplant setting. Activities at the PSDF
for post-combustion capture technology will include:
Pilot-Scale Test Modules.--Pilot-scale test modules of advanced
post-combustion technologies will be designed, installed, and operated
in an existing pulverized coal plant adjacent to the PSDF. The flexible
design of these test modules will allow the testing of a wide range of
technologies on actual flue gas.
Technology Screening.--Available solvents developed by NETL, PSDF
and others will be screened to assess readiness for testing at the site
using improved contacting devices that are now under development.
Alternative Solvent Processes.--Alternative solvents with lower
heats of regeneration and more compact, lower cost gas-liquid
contacting equipment will be developed and tested.
Advanced Technology.--Compact membrane contactors and solid phase
CO2 sorbents that are currently being investigated by DOE-
NETL and private companies will be assessed and installed. PSDF will
provide a scaled-up testing platform for these technologies as
development progress warrants.
In pre-combustion capture, CO2 is separated from the
syngas in a coal gasification powerplant upstream of combustion in the
gas turbine. Research & development activities at PSDF for pre-
combustion capture technology for application to gasification-based
power generation include:
Advanced CO2 Capture Systems.--New solvents and gas-
liquid contacting devices will be evaluated on air-blown and oxygen-
blown syngas. New sorbent-based or membrane-based CO2
separation technologies will be scaled-up and tested based on progress
in fundamental R&D by third party developers.
Water Gas Shift Enhancements.--New water gas shift reactor
configurations and sizes are planned for testing at the PSDF. The
operation of shift catalysts when exposed to syngas at the PSDF will be
optimized and their technical and economic performance will be
evaluated.
Advanced Syngas Cleanup.--New advanced syngas cleanup systems will
be tested for reducing hydrogen sulfide, hydrochloric acid, ammonia,
and mercury to near-zero levels.
In order to develop a cost-effective advanced coal powerplant with
CO2 capture, all process blocks within the powerplant must
be optimized in addition to the capture block. Including CO2
capture in an advanced coal powerplant will increase the plant cost of
electricity (COE), so opportunities to reduce cost in every part of the
process will be explored. Although highest priority will be given to
low-cost CO2 capture process development, projects that
reduce overall process capital and operating costs will also be
included in the PSDF test plan to partially offset incremental cost
increases due to the addition of CO2 capture. These cost
reduction projects include technology development for syngas cleanup,
particulate control, fuel cells, sensors and controls, materials, and
feeders.
______
Prepared Statement of ASME
Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee, the
ASME Energy Committee is pleased to provide this testimony on the
fiscal year 2010 budget request for research and development programs
in the Department of Energy (DOE).
INTRODUCTION TO ASME AND THE ASME ENERGY COMMITTEE
The 127,000-member ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide educational and
technical Society. It conducts one of the world's largest technical
publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical conferences and 200
professional development courses each year, and sets some 600
industrial and manufacturing standards. The Energy Committee of ASME's
Technical Communities comprises 30 members from 17 divisions of ASME,
representing approximately 40,000 of ASME's members.
ASME has long advocated a balanced energy supply mix to meet the
Nation's energy needs, including advanced coal, petroleum, nuclear,
natural gas, biomass, solar, wind and hydroelectric power, and energy
efficient building and transportation technologies. Only such a
portfolio will allow the United States to maintain its quality of life
while addressing future environmental and security challenges.
Sustained growth will also require stability in licensing and
permitting processes not only for power stations but also for
transmission and transportation systems.
A forward-looking energy policy will require enhanced, sustained
levels of funding for R&D as well as Government policies that encourage
deployment and commercialization. While the Energy Committee supports
much of the fiscal year 2010 budget request, especially the increases
in funds for fundamental scientific research, we wish to reemphasize
that a balanced approach to our energy needs is critical and we are
concerned about the decrease in funding for nuclear energy, which is
essential to meeting our national energy needs.
CRITICAL ISSUES
The Energy Committee would like to point out some critical energy
issues:
--Additional investment guarantees for construction of new clean and
especially nuclear facilities must be enacted in future energy
legislation. These guarantees will enable lower financing costs
for a variety of energy technologies leading to lower energy
costs for the American public. Extending these programs further
into the future will allow a reasoned rate of increase in
construction and application of these technologies for electric
generation.
--There is a critical shortage of trained persons in the workforce at
all levels. This includes persons in the various building
trades that will be involved in the construction of our energy
systems, persons in the manufacturing industry that will
manufacture the components that make up our energy systems,
persons who will be available to operate and maintain the
energy systems when they are built, and persons trained as
engineers and scientists at all levels who will perform the R&D
and design functions for all energy systems. A recent
initiative, ``Regaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering
Edge'' or ``RE-ENERGYSE,'' a program being conducted jointly by
the DOE EERE and the National Science Foundation (NSF) and
geared to young scientists and engineers, is a positive step
toward addressing this chronic issue.
FOSSIL ENERGY
The fiscal year 2010 budget request of $884 million for fossil
energy represents a $513 million decrease over the fiscal year 2009
appropriation. Fossil Energy Research and Development would be reduced
$112 million to $403 million. The R&D budget for oil and natural gas
related research has been eliminated. It should be noted that the DOE
Office of Fossil Energy received $3.4 billion for Research and
Development as part of ARRA, for research, development and deployment
of carbon capture and sequestration, therefore the ASME Energy
Committee supports this funding request. The Energy Committee supports
the current proposed funding for coal research programs at $617 million
for fiscal year 2010. The effective use of coal in today's environment
demands an increase in efficiency and a decrease in release of
environmentally harmful waste streams. A large portion of this effort
right now is the Clean Coal Program Initiative (CCPI), which received
$1.5 billion as part of ARRA and therefore, did not request any
additional funding for fiscal year 2010. This approach builds on
technological R&D advancements in IGCC and CCS technology achieved over
the past 5 years and provides commercial-scale demonstration
opportunities for fossil energy powerplants.
The use of more efficient processes for coal use, such as advanced
integrated gasification combined cycle technology, combined with carbon
sequestration will allow the United States to utilize its coal
resources in a more environmentally sound and cost effective manner. We
encourage strong and consistent funding for these programs now and in
future years.
ADVANCED FUELS RESEARCH
The Energy Committee agrees that the advanced fuels research should
be aimed at fuels used in the transportation system. We believe that
the development of transportation fuel systems that are not petroleum
based is a critical part of our future national energy policy. The
fiscal year 2010 budget for biomass and bio-refinery systems R&D is
increased by $18 million to $235 million. The Energy Committee
encourages Congress to ensure that these research programs continue to
receive adequate funding. We are also pleased to see the increase to
$330 million in the effort related to vehicle technologies with a
program emphasis on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
NUCLEAR ENERGY
The Energy Committee is discouraged to see a steep decrease in the
DOE Nuclear Energy budget to $844 million in fiscal year 2010. Even
with the reduction of the MOX fuel fabrication facility from the
Nuclear Energy budget, placing it back with the Nuclear National
Security Administration (NNSA), the nuclear R&D portion of the budget
request is reduced by $112 million to $403 million for fiscal year
2010. Because of the sharp reduction in funding, and the decision to
exclude the Office of Nuclear Energy from ARRA, the Committee strongly
recommends restoring funding for DOE Office of Nuclear Energy to at
least the levels appropriated in fiscal year 2009. Nuclear power, as a
non-greenhouse gas-emitting resource, is a critical component of a
diverse U.S. power generation mix and should play a larger role in the
Nation's base power supply. Sustained increases in nuclear power
research are justified by the imperative of low cost, low emissions
electricity.
Proposed increases in the Nuclear Energy budget are most evident in
the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, $191 million, Fuel Cycle R&D,
$192 million, and Nuclear Power 2010 program at $20 million. The
primary decrease is in the Generation IV Nuclear Systems Initiative
which is $45 million. The Energy Committee believes that nuclear
generated electricity is important to the Nation, especially in a more
carbon conscious environment. Therefore continued R&D looking at
advanced nuclear systems is critical.
The GNEP program, before its cessation in the fiscal year 2009
Omnibus Appropriations bill, was a vital means to enhancing the future
of safe, reliable, nuclear energy through the establishment of
international centers for nuclear fuel cycle services for nations both
large and small. Although no funding is provided for GNEP, the Advanced
Fuel Cycle Initiative, now called Fuel Cycle R&D, would receive $192
million in funding in fiscal year 2010. The Energy Committee concurs
with the DOE goal to establish a full scale demonstration of the
required facilities, including a burner reactor and fuel recycle plant
that will not produce a pure plutonium product stream. The ASME Energy
Committee is disappointed with the cancellation of the GNEP program and
urges Congress and the administration to reconsider the discontinuation
of GNEP. GNEP was established as an international effort and many
international partners had agreed to participate. This is consistent
with efforts to establish an international nuclear fuel bank.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) manages
America's investment in research, development and deployment of the
Department of Energy's (DOE) diverse energy efficiency and renewable
energy applied science portfolio. It should be noted that the DOE EERE
received $16.5 billion as part of ARRA, including $2.5 billion for
Research and Development. The fiscal year 2010 request of $2.02
billion, $570 million above the fiscal year 2009 appropriated amount,
provides a broad and balanced portfolio of solutions to address the
urgent energy and environmental challenges currently facing our Nation.
Most of the key EERE programs, including Biomass, Solar, Wind,
Geothermal, Building Technologies, Vehicle Technologies, and Industrial
technologies, have received sizable increases in funding to support the
growth of renewable energy that the United States needs. The potential
to reduce the production of greenhouse gases and to meet the growing
need for domestically produced energy justifies sustained and increased
support for these programs.
The Fuel Cell Technologies program, formerly known as the Hydrogen
technology program has been reduced $100 million from the fiscal year
2009 appropriation. While the administration has publicly indicated
that they view the probability of fuel cell vehicles as ``low'', this
program is a key driver in the development of fuel cell technology. The
Energy Committee encourages restoring funding to the Hydrogen Program
consistent with the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. The other
technology program to receive a cut was the Water Power Program, which
is now requested to receive $30 million in fiscal year 2010--a 25
percent or $10 million cut from fiscal year 2009. While relatively
small, this program supports R&D for wave and ocean energy technologies
as well as conventional and pumped storage hydropower. Water power will
contribute significantly to the eventual transition to clean and
renewable power generation in the United States. The Energy Committee
encourages restoring funding to the Water Power Program consistent with
the fiscal year 2009 appropriation.
The integration of renewable electric generating systems into the
operation of the electricity distribution system is critical to
economic operation of these systems. DOE's support of R&D into
distributed systems integration began in fiscal year 2007. The Energy
Committee believes that R&D related to the integration of the electric
grid and its control as a national system is imperative to the growth
of renewable energy generating technologies and we encourage full
funding for such research.
SCIENCE AND ADVANCED ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAMS
The Energy Committee is pleased by the increased request for the
Office of Science (OS) which restores the funding trajectory mandated
in the America Competes Act of 2007. It should be noted that the DOE
Office of Science received $1.6 billion as part of ARRA. The fiscal
year 2010 budget proposal of $4.94 billion is an increase of $184
million over the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. OS programs in high
energy physics, fusion energy sciences, biological and environmental
research, basic energy sciences, and advanced scientific computing,
serves, in some small way, every student in the country. These funds
support not only research at the DOE Laboratories but also work at a
large number of universities and colleges. We believe that basic energy
research will also improve U.S. energy security over the long term,
through its support for R&D on cellulosic ethanol, advanced battery
systems, and fusion.
OTHER DOE PROGRAMS
DOE is also very active in areas outside of R&D. The environmental
remediation program that funds the decommissioning and decontamination
of old DOE facilities is one such program. The Energy Committee
questions the advisability of all of the budget decreases in this
program. The coming resurgence in the commercial nuclear arena is
likely to deplete the trained professionals available for this program
as engineers choose to move to the more stable commercial environment.
Congress should appropriate the budget to ensure that this work is
accomplished in an expeditious manner.
CONCLUSION
Members of the ASME Energy Committee consider the issues related to
energy to be one of the most important issues facing our Nation. The
need for a strong and coherent energy policy is apparent. We applaud
the administration and Congress for their understanding of the
important role that scientific and engineering breakthroughs will play
in meeting our energy challenges. In order to promote such innovation,
strong support for energy research will be necessary across a broad
portfolio of technology options. DOE research can play a critical role
in allowing the United States to use our current resources more
effectively and to create more advanced energy technologies.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding both the
R&D and other parts of the proposed budget for the DOE. The ASME Energy
Committee is pleased to respond to additional requests for additional
information or perspectives on other aspects of our Nation's energy
programs.
This statement represents the views of the Energy Committee of
ASME's Technical Communities and is not necessarily a position of ASME
as a whole.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 88
Alliance for Materials Manufacturing Excellence (AMMEX), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 216
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 222
American Society for Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the..... 220
American Society of Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the.......... 231
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 164
American Society of Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the.. 229
American Wind Energy Association, Prepared Statement of the...... 226
APS, Prepared Statement of....................................... 196
Archuleta, Deanna, Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior..... 106
Prepared Statement of........................................ 107
ASME, Prepared Statement of...................................... 242
Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 184
Baker, Ken, Principal Assistant Deputy Administrator for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security
Administration, Department of Energy........................... 51
Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah:
Opening Statements of........................................ 2, 53
Questions Submitted by...................38, 79, 143, 145, 152, 154
Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA), Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 206
Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 166
Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 179
Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri,
Statement of................................................... 121
Calaveras County Water District, Prepared Statement of the....... 172
California State Coastal Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.. 167
Center for Advanced Separation Technologies, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Prepared Statement of the...... 234
Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 196
Chu, Hon. Steven, Secretary, Department of Energy................ 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 5
Statement of................................................. 3
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 45
Statement of................................................. 94
Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 197
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 199
Connor, Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 111
Prepared Statement of........................................ 113
Questions Submitted to....................................... 149
Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the....... 231
D'Agostino, Hon. Thomas P., Under Secretary for Nuclear Security
and Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration,
Department of Energy........................................... 51
Prepared Statement of........................................ 57
Statement of................................................. 54
Denver Water, Prepared Statement of.............................. 198
Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota:
Opening Statements of.....................................1, 51, 91
Questions Submitted by.................................34, 134, 149
Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of the........ 184
.................................................................
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 204
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 76
Statement of................................................. 53
Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System (Public Law 106-382),
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 184
Freudenthal, Dave, Governor, State of Wyoming, Prepared Statement
of............................................................. 181
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 236
Gas Turbine Association (GTA), Prepared Statement of the......... 201
GE Energy, Prepared Statement of................................. 213
Grand Valley Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of the.. 198
Harencak, Brigadier General Garrett, Principal Assistant Deputy
Administrator for Military Application, Office of Defense
Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department
of Energy...................................................... 51
Huntsman, Jon M., Jr., Governor, State of Utah, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 181
Integrated Building and Construction Solutions (IBACOS), Inc.,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 211
Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of the........ 174
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions
Submitted by.................................................139, 145
Little River Drainage District, Prepared Statement of the........ 176
Murray, Reed R., Program Director, Central Utah Project
Completion Act Office, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the
Interior....................................................... 106
Prepared Statement of........................................ 110
Questions Submitted to....................................... 154
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions
Submitted by..................................................35, 150
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the. 193
National Mining Association (NMA), Prepared Statement of the..... 225
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 196
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 195
Presler, Mayor Sara, City of Flagstaff, Arizona, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 177
Red River Valley Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 157
Richardson, Bill, Governor, State of New Mexico, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 182
Ritter, Bill, Jr., Governor, State of Colorado, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 182
Salt, Terrence C., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, Corps
of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense--Civil................................................. 91
Prepared Statement of........................................ 97
Questions Submitted to....................................... 134
Statement of................................................. 95
Santa Clara Valley Water District, Prepared Statements of the..170, 196
Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the....... 231
Southern Company Generation, Prepared Statement of............... 239
Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............. 183
State Teachers' Retirement System, State of California, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 209
Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 78
The Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of.................... 161
Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 200
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 201
Utah Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 198
Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert, Chief of Engineers, Corps
of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense--Civil................................................. 102
Prepared Statement of........................................ 103
Questions Submitted to....................................... 145
Voinovich, Senator George V., U.S. Senator From Ohio, Questions
Submitted by.............................................46, 144, 147
Wyoming Water Association (WWA), Prepared Statement of the....... 183
Wolf, Bob, Director of Program and Budget, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 111
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 134
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act........................... 100
Budget:
Priorities................................................... 127
Process...................................................... 118
Request...................................................... 144
Center Hill and Wolf Creek Dams.................................. 132
Chickamauga Lock................................................. 131
Civil Works Program.............................................. 145
Construction Program............................................. 104
Earmarks......................................................... 135
Economic Recovery Act............................................ 125
Environmental Restoration........................................ 119
Everglades....................................................... 136
Fiscal Year 2010 Discretionary Funding Program................... 98
Flood Relief Authority........................................... 122
Fort Peck Reservoir.............................................. 128
Great Lakes...................................................... 147
Inland Waterways:
Legislation.................................................. 99
Trust Fund................................................... 136
Investigations Program........................................... 104
Missouri River................................................... 121
Recovery:
Implementation Committee................................. 129
Plan..................................................... 127
Norfolk Harbor, Craney Island, VA................................ 135
Objective Performance Guidelines................................. 123
Operation and Maintenance Program................................ 104
Other Initiatives................................................ 99
Ozark-Jeta Taylor:
Hydropower Rehabilitation.................................... 143
Power Plant, AR.............................................. 135
Planning Improvements and Performance-based Budgeting............ 100
Red River Valley Flooding........................................ 133
Summary of Fiscal Year 2010 Program Budget....................... 103
Terminating Projects............................................. 125
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act....................... 144
Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation................... 105
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Accelerating Loan Guarantees..................................... 31
Additional Committee Questions................................... 34
ARPA-E........................................................... 40
Blue Ribbon Commission........................................... 14
Clean Up Funding................................................. 45
CO2 Sequestration..................................... 21
Cyber Security................................................... 44
Decarbonizing Coal............................................... 32
Desert Protection................................................ 22
Energy Innovation Hubs........................................... 43
Fossil Energy--FutureGen......................................... 39
Fostering the Revolution in Energy Supply and Demand While
Positioning the United States to Lead on Global Climate Change
Policy......................................................... 8
Funding Allocations.............................................. 12
Geothermal....................................................... 26
Hydrogen......................................................... 13
Fuel Cells................................................... 29
Idaho National Lab--Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP)......... 42
Improving the Management of the Department....................... 11
Industry Letter.................................................. 38
Innovation Hubs.................................................. 18
Investing in Science to Achieve Transformational Discoveries..... 6
Loan Guarantee Program........................................... 20
Loan Guarantees.................................................. 15
Loan Program--3.5 Years and No Rewards....................... 38
Maintaining the Nuclear Deterrent, Reducing the Risk of Nuclear
Proliferation, and Advancing Nuclear Legacy Clean-up........... 10
Not all Science Funding is Equal--Especially at the Weapons Labs. 38
Nuclear:
Energy....................................................... 41
Power........................................................ 15
Pensions.........................................................30, 42
Recovery Funds................................................... 17
Recycling Spent Fuel............................................. 31
Renewable Portfolio Standard..................................... 33
Science.......................................................... 40
Strategic Petroleum Reserve...................................... 25
The Need for Scientific Leadership Within the NNSA............... 39
Uranium Taxes.................................................... 44
Waste Cleanup.................................................... 23
Water Power...................................................... 24
Weatherization...................................................27, 44
Wind:
And Grid Investments......................................... 26
Dynamometer.................................................. 30
Energy....................................................... 20
Yucca Mountain................................................... 42
National Nuclear Security Administration
Additional Committee Questions................................... 76
Advanced Computing............................................... 82
Costs and Results of Nuclear Laboratory Privatization............ 72
Cut to Nonproliferation and Detection Research and Development... 84
Cyber Security................................................... 86
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Overview........................ 60
Does This Administration Support Improved Weapons Use-Denial
Strate-
gies?.......................................................... 82
Future of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center.................. 66
Highly Enriched Uranium in Russia................................ 85
Impact of Flat-funding on Weapons and Non-proliferation Programs. 69
Laser-powered Fusion Energy...................................... 74
Naval Reactors................................................... 86
Overview..................................................... 61
Not All Science Funding is Equal--Especially at the Weapons Labs. 79
Nuclear:
Non-proliferation............................................ 68
Efforts.................................................. 77
Posture Review, Weapons Treaty Negotiation, and Stockpile
Reduction.................................................. 71
Weapons...................................................... 76
Part:
1--Zia....................................................... 83
2--Sequoia................................................... 84
Pension Shortfalls............................................... 87
Research Integration Between the Department of Energy and
National Nuclear Security Administration....................... 70
Science Funding Trends........................................... 67
Security......................................................... 86
Strategic Posture Commission--Investment in Infrastructure....... 80
Transferring the Tritium Mission is a Waste of Taxpayer Dollars.. 81
Weapons:
Activities Overview.......................................... 58
Labs......................................................... 77
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Additional Committee Questions................................... 134
Aging Infrastructure............................................. 150
Bureau of Reclamation............................................ 106
California Bay-Delta Restoration Fund (CALFED)................... 117
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.......................... 116
Desalination Research and Development............................ 153
Drought Assistance............................................... 124
Fiscal Year 2010 Planned Activities.............................. 117
Odessa Subarea Special Study..................................... 150
Overview of the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget.......................... 108
Pick Sloan Legislative Proposal (Bureau of Reclamation).......... 110
Policy and Administration........................................ 116
Project Evaluation............................................... 120
Quagga Mussels................................................... 152
Rural Water...................................................... 149
Infrastructure............................................... 130
Saint Mary's Canal Project....................................... 129
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund............................... 117
Tackling Climate Impacts......................................... 109
The First 100 Days............................................... 108
Title XVI........................................................ 149
Washington State ARRA Funded Projects............................ 151
Water:
And Related Resources........................................ 113
Conservation Initiative...................................... 109
-