- ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

[Senate Hearing 111-954]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

S. Hrg. 111-954

Senate Hearings

Before the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

Energy and Water

Development

Appropriations

Fiscal Year
2011

th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 111

S. 3635

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Energy and Water Development Appropriations, 2011 (S. 3635)

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].

54-965 PDF

2011

S. Hrg. 111-954

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

=======================================================================

HEARINGS

before a

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

S. 3635

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011, 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.gpo.gov/fdsys

__________
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
Carolyn E. Apostolou (Minority)
Tyler Owens (Minority)
LaShawnda Smith (Minority)

Administrative Support

Molly Barackman-Eder
C O N T E N T S

----------

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Page

Department of Energy............................................. 1

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Deparment of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration.... 83

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 151
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 171

Nondepartmental Witnesses

Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 239
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 274
Department of Energy............................................. 298

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

----------

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2010

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Dorgan, Murray, Landrieu, Reed, Tester,
Bennett, Bond, and Alexander.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN CHU, SECRETARY

opening statement of senator byron l. dorgan

Senator Dorgan. We are going to call the hearing to order.
This is a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development.
Mr. Secretary, welcome to you.
The hearing today is to take testimony from Secretary Chu
on the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2011 budget request.
We will have other colleagues who will be joining us
momentarily.
And I wanted to mention at the start of the hearing that I
am necessarily going to have to leave. The President is signing
a piece of legislation that I authored at the White House. So I
will be leaving in about an hour, but we will have someone take
the chair at that point. Between now and then, we will have a
discussion about the budget request.
I would like to note that we will have Administrator
D'Agostino before the subcommittee on March 10 to discuss the
NNSA fiscal year 2011 budget request. That does not mean that
we cannot ask about that today, but because he is going to be
here, I just want people to be aware that we will have an
opportunity to discuss that budget in some detail in 2 weeks'
time.
Further, on March 11, we will have a hearing with the Corps
of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation on the fiscal year
2011 budget request for water agencies, another very important
hearing.
Today's hearing and next week's hearing on the NNSA budget
represent I think the good news for the subcommittee. Next
Thursday, when we hear from the Corps of Engineers and the
Bureau of Reclamation, we will be discussing budget cuts that
exceed $500 million. That is not such good news if one believes
water projects are both important investments in our country's
infrastructure and job-creation and necessary. We are going to
have a challenge of reconciling the overall budget request to
the subcommittee because we are not going to have a half-a-
billion-dollar cut for water projects when this subcommittee
completes its work. I would hope that would be the case.
The budget request of $28.9 billion for the Energy
Department is a generous 6 percent increase over the enacted
fiscal year 2010 bill. Much of that increase is within the
National Nuclear Security Administration's budget, which is up
about 13 percent. Excluding NNSA, the remaining DOE programs
are collectively up about 3 percent.
I am pleased that the administration agrees that energy
research is the key to maintaining our competitiveness
internationally, as well as increasing our energy security. We
need to continue to develop the technology that will allow us
to harvest usable energy from the wind and the sun, even as we
pursue responsible oil and gas development and ways to reduce
carbon emitted when we use coal.
The research that is required to get us to a cleaner energy
future happens in this Department, and I am excited about the
work that is coming out of the Department, Mr. Secretary.
I do have some concerns and questions about the budget
request, obviously, and we will talk about that. The
significant priority on funding within the EERE is where
programs are up collectively about $400 million. Only two
programs are down from last year. One is hydrogen and the other
is water power, and I have some concern, again, about the
hydrogen programs which I feel we should continue. I know that
you have continued those programs in this budget at a lower
rate.
The Office of Science also sees a 6 percent, or $295
million, increase in its program funding, and there are new
initiatives in science, including a proposed battery hub and a
new program on combustion engines.
Energy Frontier Research Centers and a fellowship program
are proposed for expansion. Both of those programs have only
been up for 2 years at this point. So they are now proposed to
be expanded.
The ARPA-E program is proposed at $300 million, and I think
that is an exciting program. I know that there was a
significant national gathering, Mr. Secretary, Monday and
Tuesday of this week. I am told it was very successful, but I
am a big supporter of this program and think it holds real
promise in its approach to back high-risk, but high-reward
technology in energy.
Nuclear energy sees a significant increase with over $150
million in new initiatives.
I am concerned that we have a lot of new initiatives that
we are proposing very significant increases to. I do not know
that we know specifically how some of these new initiatives are
working yet before we proceed with very large increases. We
would like to see longer-term spending plans for some of these
initiatives. NNSA, I might say, gives us the 5-year spending
plan. It would be nice to see that in some of the rest of the
areas.
One of the concerns I have in the budget is--and this will
not be a surprise to you, Secretary Chu, is regarding fossil
energy. Fossil energy is proposed for an $86 million decrease,
while other accounts receive a substantial increase. Coal
provides about 50 percent of our electricity generated today in
our country, and I believe that the use of coal, natural gas,
and oil will continue to be used for decades to come in this
country. So we have to find the means to use our fossil fuels
and develop the technologies, put a price on carbon, and do so
in a way that helps us mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. All
of that is critically important.
But I am concerned because the fossil energy account does
not show me new, substantive, elements in the budget to address
what I think is a critical need as well. I am a big fan of all
the renewables and this search for new technology and new
science, but I think it is important to keep our eye on the
ball with respect to fossil energy, which we are going to
continue to use.
I have said before, Secretary Chu, you are a creative and
innovative person who has demonstrated great skill in a lot of
areas and I think much of that creativity and innovation is
something we can see in your budget request. I am really
pleased that you are where you are and while we will have some
disagreements on the broader issues, I think that this budget
request moves us down the road in some very important areas as
well in a constructive way.
Let me call on Senator Bennett for an opening statement.

opening statement of senator robert f. bennett

Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Chu, we are delighted to have you here, along
with your team.
I find myself in agreement with many of things the chairman
has highlighted. The NNSA budget is something we will discuss
at another hearing. So I will not get into that.
But I agree with the chairman that energy research is
something that we clearly need to do in a wide variety of
areas, and investments in the energy sector are some of the
most important we can make.
Now, I am concerned with the priorities that I see in the
budget with respect to energy research, and let us talk about
some of those concerns.
Talk about unobligated balances. I am assuming the budget
request was considered without taking into account what was
funding from the stimulus bill, or the Recovery Act. Over a
year ago, with a promise of creating thousands of jobs and
increasing energy efficiency, reducing the nuclear waste
footprint--and these goals are far from being met. The
Department of Energy is sitting on a tremendous balance of
unspent funds. About $34 billion of the $36.7 billion
appropriated remains unspent, 93 percent, as well as over $1
billion in funds from prior year balances in numerous programs.
The money seems to be piling up down there from prior
appropriations bills.
As one example, with over $5 billion available in
weatherization funds, I cannot understand why your budget would
include a 43 percent increase in the amount provided in fiscal
year 2010 for this program, especially when the Department's
own estimates indicate that the stimulus funds will not be
spent until well in 2012.
Now, another aspect that I find troubling is the same one
the chairman has referred to, to slash the fossil energy R&D
program by more than 20 percent. Here you have got all of this
money unspent in this one area and then you are saying, well,
we are going to cut fossil energy R&D by more than 20 percent,
and this includes eliminating the natural gas technology's
account and the unconventional fossil energy's technology line
that we in this subcommittee included in last year's bill.
So I am glad the chairman raised this as an issue. Fossil
energy and particularly natural gas is the only energy that we
have that will bridge the gap between today and the clean
energy future that we are hoping for in, roughly, 30 to 40
years. And that is a significant timeframe, and to be cutting
back on the fuel that will allow us to deal with that timeframe
is something I think we need to discuss.
Now, if I can be specific with respect to my State on this
question of fossil fuel research, you are halting research on
unconventional resources in eastern Utah, southern Wyoming, and
western Colorado. Every energy expert says that in that pool of
shale oil, there is more oil than there is in Saudi Arabia, but
it needs some research to figure out how to get it out. But it
will remain virtually untapped if this research is not
performed.
Another area that concerned me is the sizable reduction to
hydropower. Solar and wind receive unsustainable increases. You
cannot spend that much money and you want to tax utilities to
generate $200 million. Well, that was a non-starter last year.
I think it will be a non-starter again this year. It leaves a
$200 million hole in your budget.
While I am in the West, let us talk about uranium sales. I
was very concerned that the Department unilaterally decided to
drop some of its inventory of uranium on the market this year,
bartering uranium in exchange for cleanup work at the
Portsmouth, Ohio site. Now, obviously, this caused great
consternation with uranium miners due to a potential for steep
drops in the price of uranium, and the spots sales approach is
a bad deal for the taxpayer in my view. The Department is
proposing increased appropriations for decontamination and
decommissioning work at Portsmouth in fiscal year 2011 in lieu
of continuing the bartering arrangement.
Now, I understand the Department has not stated with
certainty that it will discontinue the practice of dumping
uranium on the market, and certainty is what the uranium
industry or any other industry needs. Uncertainty always causes
difficulties and challenges, and I hope we can have an
opportunity to work together on this problem as we move
forward.
Now, on a more positive note, I think you are on the right
track with your 5 percent increase in nuclear energy and the
tripling of the loan guarantee authority for nuclear plant
construction. The demand for loan guarantees in nuclear
technology outstrips the current loan authority. It is going to
be critical in jump starting the nuclear industry, and I think
that is a key part of the path to energy that does not have
greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, while I am glad to see the increase and the tripling
of the loan guarantee, the loan guarantee program has been
mired in problems. And in the 5 years since it was authorized--
and that precedes your entry into the Department--only one
guarantee has been issued. Five conditional commitments have
been made, and it was the Department's intention to have 21
commitments by the end of 2009. According to GAO, the program
has been run in an ad hoc manner without any transparency to
the applicants and the situation where there are different
rules applied in different instances.
And we would like to know if you have the tools in hand to
make the program a success or whether you need additional
legislative fixes. If you do need additional legislative fixes,
let us know because I am supportive of providing the additional
guarantee and would love to see demonstrable improvements to
the program.
Contract administration and project management, with over
90 percent of your budget spent on contracts, improving
contract administration, obviously, has to be a very high level
issue. And DOE contract management has been on the GAO high
risk list of programs ripe for fraud, waste, and abuse since
1990. So again, this predates you and is not something that we
can lay at your feet, but it is something that you inherited.
And strengthening contract management includes the development
of high quality cost estimates early on. The surprise we
received a year ago when we held these hearings, Mr. Chairman,
about enormous pension liabilities seem as illustrative of the
problem you have when contracts are not managed properly.
And I am glad to hear that the Department is beginning to
get its arms around this problem, but we still do not know what
the pension liability is going to be for this year or for next
or how the Department plans to get this under control in the
future. And the amount to cover the shortfall is potentially in
the hundreds of millions of dollars. So this is something that
we are going to follow closely.
Now, to close, I have a bittersweet example of something I
am concerned about. The Moab tailings sites in my home State
have met all of its milestones. It has got a million tons of
tailings shipped and disposed of. It is coming in under budget
and ahead of schedule. And the project is slated to be
decreased to $8 million, or 20 percent, in this budget. And I
say, wait a minute. Is this a good deed that is going
unpunished as they are moving these tailings in a very
expeditious way and get rewarded for that by having a cut in
the budget and a suggestion that they will slow down the
excellent progress that they have established?
So, on that parochial note Mr. Chairman, thank you very
much for the opportunity to comment.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett, thank you very much.
Unless there is objection, I am going to welcome Secretary
Chu's testimony, and then we will have robust rounds of
questions. Senator Reed, does that work for you?
Senator Reed. All right.
Senator Dorgan. All right, and Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much and why
do you not proceed? Your entire statement will be made a part
of the permanent record and we would ask that you summarize.
Thank you very much.

statement of hon. steven chu

Secretary Chu. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member
Bennett. I hope to respond to your questions later, but let me
first go through my remarks.
Senator Dorgan. You may respond as you wish in your opening
statement or as an adjunct to your opening statement as well.
Secretary Chu. Well, if there is time.
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Bennett, members of the
subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to be before you
today to talk about the President's budget request.
President Obama has stated that ``the Nation that leads the
world in creating new sources of clean energy will be the
Nation that leads the 21st century economy.'' And I share this
view.
The President's 2011 budget request for $28.4 billion for
the Department of Energy will help position the United States
to be a global leader in the new energy economy. The budget
request makes much-needed investments to harness the power of
American ingenuity. This request will create clean energy jobs,
expand the frontiers of science, reduce nuclear dangers, and
help curb the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.
The President's budget request includes an investment of
$2.4 billion in energy efficiency and renewable sources of
energy. It also proposes innovative energy efficiency and
renewable energy projects through $500 million in credit
subsidy that will support $3 billion to $5 billion in lending.
It expands the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit by $5 billion,
a program that was oversubscribed by three to one, to help
build a robust domestic manufacturing capacity for clean energy
technologies. Through this budget, we will increase research,
demonstration, and deployment of wind, solar, and geothermal
energies; make buildings and homes more efficient; develop
energy-efficient vehicles; and pursue carbon capture and
sequestration.
Nuclear energy must also be part of our clean energy mix.
Our budget request includes an additional $36 billion in loan
guarantee authority for the nuclear power sector, as well as
$495 million for nuclear energy research and development. On
February 16th, President Obama announced conditional
commitments for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees for
what will be the first nuclear powerplant to break ground in
nearly three decades.
We have many technologies in hand today to begin the
transition to a low-carbon economy, but we will need
breakthroughs and better technologies to meet our long-term
goals. The budget request invests in basic and applied research
and puts us on a path to doubling funding for science, a key
presidential priority.
The budget request supports the Department's three new
complementary approaches to marshalling the Nation's brightest
minds to accelerate energy breakthroughs.
We will continue funding the three Energy Innovation Hubs
introduced in 2010. In addition, we are proposing a new hub to
dramatically improve batteries and energy storage.
The Energy Frontier Research Centers program will be
expanded to capture new and emerging opportunities.
And the fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $300
million to pursue potentially transformative technologies
through the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.
We are also requesting $55 million to start RE-ENERGYSE
initiatives to support K through 20-plus science and
engineering education.
In addition to the health of our economy and our planet,
the Department of Energy is focused on the safety and security
of our people. Last April in Prague, President Obama outlined
an ambitious agenda to address the greatest threat to global
security, the danger of terrorists getting their hands on
nuclear weapons or the material to build them. The Department
is requesting a significant increase, more than $550 million in
new funding, for the NNSA Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
program to help meet the President's goals of securing all
vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in 4 years.
The President has also made clear that as long as nuclear
weapons continue to exist, it is essential we ensure the
safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile.
With the $7 billion in funds we have requested, we can upgrade
our infrastructure that has been allowed to decay in the past
decade, support the work of our national labs, and recruit the
skilled workforce we need.
The budget also protects public health and safety by
cleaning up the environmental legacy of the Nation's nuclear
weapons program. In 2010, the Department will discontinue its
application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a
license to construct a high-level waste geological repository
at Yucca Mountain.
To deal with our nuclear waste management needs, the
administration has announced an independent, bipartisan
commission, co-chaired by General Brent Scowcroft and
Congressman Lee Hamilton, to conduct a comprehensive review of
the back end of the fuel cycle and to provide recommendations
for a safe, long-term solution.
Building a clean energy future will not be easy, but it is
necessary for our economy and our security. As a scientist, I
am optimistic. I believe we can meet the challenge and lead the
world in the 21st century.

prepared statement

President Obama and I look forward to working with this
subcommittee and this Congress to build a stronger, safer, more
prosperous future. Thank you. I am pleased to take questions at
this time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steven Chu
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Bennett, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the
Department of Energy.
President Obama has stated, ``The nation that leads the world in
creating new sources of clean energy will be the nation that leads the
21st century global economy.'' I fervently share this view. The
President's fiscal year 2011 budget request of $28.4 billion will help
position the United States to be the global leader in the new energy
economy. The budget request makes much-needed investments to harness
the power of American ingenuity. This request will create clean energy
jobs, expand the frontiers of science, reduce nuclear dangers, and help
curb the carbon pollution that threatens our planet. As part of this
administration's commitment to fiscal responsibility, the Department of
Energy is also proposing several program reductions and terminations.
american recovery and reinvestment act
The fiscal year 2011 budget request builds on the investments in
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Through the $36.7 billion
the Department received from the Recovery Act, we are putting Americans
to work, while helping to build a clean energy economy, spur energy
innovation, and reduce our dependence on oil. We've begun to make our
homes and offices more energy efficient, modernize our grid, and invest
in key renewable energy projects. Getting this money out the door
quickly, carefully, and transparently has been and will continue to be
a top priority for me.
fiscal year 2011 budget supports strategic priorities
To continue the progress we have made, the fiscal year 2011 budget
request supports the Department's strategic priorities of:
--Transitioning to a low-carbon economy by developing and deploying
clean and efficient energy technologies, increasing generation
capacity and improving our transmission capabilities;
--Investing in scientific discovery and innovation to find solutions
to pressing energy challenges and maintain American economic
competitiveness; and
--Enhancing national security by ensuring the safety, security and
effectiveness of the nuclear stockpile without testing. The
budget request also includes funds to work with our
international partners to secure vulnerable nuclear material
around the world within 4 years, and advance our nuclear legacy
cleanup.
These strategic priorities will be enabled by a continued
commitment to improving the management and fiscal performance of the
Department.
energy
To transition to a low-carbon future, we must change the way we
generate and use energy. The President's budget request invests in
clean energy priorities, including an investment of $2.4 billion in
energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy. It also promotes
innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy projects through $500
million in credit subsidy that will support $3 to $5 billion in
lending. It expands the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit by $5 billion
to help build a robust domestic manufacturing capacity for clean energy
technologies. Through this budget, we will increase research,
demonstration, and deployment of wind, solar and geothermal energies;
make buildings and homes more efficient; develop energy efficient
vehicles; and pursue carbon capture and sequestration.
Nuclear energy must also be a part of our clean energy mix. During
his State of the Union address, President Obama said, ``To create more
of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency,
more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe,
clean nuclear power plants in this country.'' The President and I are
committed to restarting our domestic nuclear industry. Our budget
request includes an additional $36 billion in loan guarantee authority
for the nuclear power sector to help construct the first new nuclear
plants in decades, as well as $495 million for research and development
to support the competitiveness, safety and proliferation resistance of
nuclear energy in the United States and abroad. On February 16,
President Obama announced conditional commitments for more than $8
billion in loan guarantees for what will be the first U.S. nuclear
power plant to break ground in nearly three decades.
innovation
We have many technologies in hand today to begin the transition to
a low-carbon economy, but we will need breakthroughs and better
technologies to meet our long-term goals. The budget request invests in
basic and applied research and puts us on the path to doubling funding
for science, a key presidential priority. We are also requesting $55
million to start the RE-ENERGYSE initiative to help educate the next
generation of scientists and engineers.
The budget request also supports the Department's three new,
complementary approaches to marshalling the Nation's brightest minds to
accelerate energy breakthroughs.
The first approach is the Energy Innovation Hubs. The Hubs are
multidisciplinary, goal-oriented, and will be managed by top teams of
scientists and engineers with enough resources and authority to move
quickly in response to new developments. They are to be modeled after
laboratories such as MIT's Radiation Laboratory, which developed radar
during World War II, and Bell Laboratories when it invented and
developed the transistor. Ideally, this work will be conducted under
one roof. The Department will continue funding the three Energy
Innovation Hubs introduced in fiscal year 2010. In addition, we are
proposing a new Hub to dramatically improve batteries and energy
storage.
The second approach is the Energy Frontier Research Centers. The
EFRCs are mainly university-based, problem-oriented research. We have
identified key scientific barriers to energy breakthroughs, and we
believe we can clear these roadblocks faster by linking together small
groups of researchers across departments, schools, and institutions.
The Department proposes expanding the Energy Frontier Research Centers
to capture emerging opportunities in new materials and basic research
for energy needs.
The third funding approach is the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). ARPA-E is technology-oriented. We are seeking
the boldest and best ideas for potentially transformative energy
technologies and funding them to see if they work. The fiscal year 2011
budget request includes $300 million for ARPA-E. ARPA-E is also
dedicated to the market adoption of these new technologies. This week,
ARPA-E sponsored a very successful conference here in Washington to
bring together our Nation's energy innovators. I want to thank Chairman
Dorgan for attending this event.
security
In addition to the health of our economy and our planet, the
Department of Energy is focused on the safety and security of our
people. Last April in Prague, President Obama outlined an ambitious
agenda to address the greatest threat to global security--the danger of
terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons or the material to
build them. The Department is requesting a significant increase in the
budget--more than $550 million in new funding--for the NNSA Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation program to help meet the President's goal of
securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in 4 years.
The President has also made clear that, as long as nuclear weapons
continue to exist, it is essential that we ensure the safety, security
and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile. With the $7 billion in
funds we have requested, we can upgrade our infrastructure that has
been allowed to decay in the past decade, support the cutting-edge work
of our National Labs, and recruit the skilled workforce we need today
and in the future. Over the next 5 years, we intend to boost this
funding by more than $5 billion. Even in a time of tough budget
decisions, we must make this investment for the sake of our security.
The budget request also protects public health and safety by
cleaning up the environmental legacy of the Nation's nuclear weapons
program. In 2010 the Department will discontinue its application to the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to construct a high-
level waste geologic repository at Yucca Mountain.
Both the President and I have made clear that Yucca Mountain is not
an option. To deal with our nuclear waste management needs, the
administration has brought together a range of experts to conduct a
comprehensive review of the back end of the fuel cycle. The Blue Ribbon
Commission announced recently, and co-chaired by General Brent
Scowcroft and Congressman Lee Hamilton, will provide recommendations
for developing a safe, long-term solution to managing the Nation's used
nuclear fuel and its nuclear waste.
As part of our comprehensive strategy to restart the nuclear
industry, we also propose breaking down artificial stovepipes and
merging the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management into the
Office of Nuclear Energy.
management
Finally, in order to transform the way Americans generate and use
energy, we must transform the Department itself. As part of the Obama
administration's reform agenda, the budget request includes $2 million
to establish a new Management Reform initiative to provide strategic
direction, coordination and oversight of reform initiatives. This
initiative will report directly to me and will receive close personal
attention. We made important reforms when we began to implement the
Recovery Act, and now we need to institutionalize those reforms and
apply them across the Department.
Additionally, we are committed to being good stewards of the
taxpayers' money. As we developed the budget, we looked to eliminate or
reduce programs where we could. For example, we eliminated more than
$2.7 billion in tax subsidies for oil, coal and gas industries. This
step is estimated to generate more than $38.8 billion in revenue for
the Federal Government over the next 10 years.
Building a clean energy future won't be easy, but it is necessary
for our economy and our security. As a scientist, I am an optimist, and
I believe that we can meet this challenge and lead the world in the
21st century.
highlights of the fiscal year 2011 department of energy budget
The Department's fiscal year 2011 budget request of $28.4 billion,
a 6.8 percent or $1.8 billion increase from fiscal year 2010, supports
the President's commitment to respond in a considered, yet expeditious
manner to the challenges of rebuilding the economy, maintaining nuclear
deterrence, securing nuclear materials, improving energy efficiency,
incentivizing production of renewable energy, and curbing greenhouse
gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Together with the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and
fiscal year 2010 budget, the fiscal year 2011 budget request supports
investment for a multi-year effort to address these interconnected
challenges.
The fiscal year 2011 budget builds on the $36.7 billion in Recovery
Act funding. By the end of fiscal year 2010, the Department expects to
obligate 100 percent and outlay roughly 35-40 percent of Recovery Act
funds. In developing the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the
Department has taken these investments into account. Recovery Act
investments in energy conservation and renewable energy sources ($16.8
billion), environmental management ($6 billion), funds supporting loan
guarantees for renewable energy and electric power transmission
projects ($4 billion), grid modernization ($4.5 billion), carbon
capture and sequestration ($3.4 billion), basic science research ($1.6
billion), and the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects
Agency--Energy ($0.4 billion) will continue to strengthen the economy
by providing much-needed investment, by saving or creating tens of
thousands of direct jobs, cutting carbon emissions, and reducing U.S.
dependence on oil.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget supports our three
strategic priorities:
--Innovation.--Investing in science, discovery and innovation to
provide solutions to pressing energy challenges
--Energy.--Providing clean, secure energy and promoting economic
prosperity through energy efficiency and domestic forms of
energy
--Security.--Safeguarding nuclear and radiological materials,
advancing responsible legacy cleanup, and maintaining nuclear
deterrence
These strategic priorities will be enabled by a continued
commitment to management excellence:
--Management.--Transforming the culture of the Department with a
results-oriented approach
Innovation--Investing in Science, Discovery and Innovation to Provide
Solutions to Pressing Energy Challenges
As President Obama made clear in his remarks to the National
Academy of Sciences in April 2009, the public sector must invest in
research and innovation not only because the private sector is
sometimes reluctant to take large risks, but because the rewards will
be broadly shared across the economy. Leading requires assembling a
critical mass of the best scientists and engineers to engage in
mission-oriented, cross-disciplinary approaches to addressing current
and future energy challenges. To develop clean energy solutions and
maintain nuclear security, the Department must cultivate the science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce of the next
generation. The fiscal year 2011 budget request of $55 million for RE-
ENERGYSE (Regaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge) supports
K-20+ science and engineering education.
With every initiative the Department undertakes, sound science must
be at the core. In fiscal year 2011 the Department will increasingly
emphasize cross-cutting initiatives to link science throughout the
Department, specifically with energy and national security programs.
These cross-cutting initiatives will enhance science capabilities to
create knowledge and innovative technologies that can be brought to
bear on national energy and security issues, leverage world-class
science and engineering expertise to establish global leadership as
clean energy innovators, and employ use-inspired research to reduce the
cost and time to bring technologies to market at scale. The Department
believes that it will deliver solutions more quickly and efficiently
through our efforts to break down the traditional stovepipes and
operate in a more integrated and coordinated manner. The fiscal year
2011 budget continues to address the President's priorities in an
integrated and efficient manner, and to deliver results for the
American taxpayer.
The Department continues its strong commitment to basic research
and supports the President's Plan for Science and Innovation by
requesting funding for the Office of Science at $5.1 billion, a 4.4
percent or $218 million increase from fiscal year 2010. The fiscal year
2011 budget request will support the training of students and
researchers in fields critical to national competitiveness and
innovation, and will support investments in areas of research essential
for a clean energy future. The President's Plan commits to doubling
Federal investment in basic research at select agencies. The Department
supports an overarching commitment to science by investing in basic and
applied research, creating new incentives for private innovation and
promoting breakthroughs in energy.
To help achieve the game-changing breakthroughs needed to continue
leading the global economy, the fiscal year 2011 budget request
includes $300 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
(ARPA-E). Introduced in fiscal year 2009, ARPA-E is responsible for
enabling specific high-risk and high-payoff transformational research
and development projects. Beyond simply funding transformational
research that creates revolutionary technologies, ARPA-E is dedicated
to the market adoption of those new technologies to meet the Nation's
long-term energy challenges. This funding, along with the $400 million
made available through the Recovery Act, will provide sustained
investment in this pioneering program.
The Department will continue funding the three Energy Innovation
Hubs introduced in fiscal year 2010 to focus on developing fuels that
can be produced directly from sunlight, improving energy efficient
building systems design, and using modeling and simulation tools to
create a virtual model of an operating advanced nuclear reactor. In
addition, DOE is proposing a new Hub to focus on batteries and energy
storage. Each of these Hubs will bring together a multidisciplinary
team of researchers in an effort to speed research and shorten the path
from scientific discovery to technological development and commercial
deployment of highly promising energy-related technologies.
Complementing the Hubs, the Department proposes expanding the
Energy Frontier Research Centers in fiscal year 2011 to capture new,
emerging opportunities by furthering its scientific reach and potential
technological impact by competitively soliciting in two categories:
discovery and development of new materials critical to science
frontiers and technology innovations, and basic research for energy
needs.
Energy--Providing Clean, Secure Energy and Promoting Economic
Prosperity through Energy Efficiency and Domestic Forms of
Energy
In Copenhagen, President Obama emphasized that climate change is a
grave and growing danger. The imperative now is to develop the capacity
to confront the challenges climate change poses and seize the
opportunity to be the global leader in the clean energy economy.
Meeting the administration's goal to reduce carbon emissions by more
than 80 percent by 2050 will be achieved by addressing supply and
demand through increased energy efficiency, renewable generation, and
grid modernization, as well as improvements in existing technologies
and information analysis. An important tool that will continue to be
used to address these issues will be loan guarantees. The Department's
fiscal year 2011 budget request, building on the fiscal year 2010
budget and the Recovery Act, invests in the research, development, and
deployment of technologies that will position the United States to lead
international efforts to confront climate change now and in the future.
The long-term economic recovery will be sustained by these continued
investments in the new energy economy.
Loan Guarantees
The Loan Guarantee Program Office (LGPO) is a vital tool for
promoting innovation in the energy sector across a broad portfolio of
clean and efficient energy technologies. In fiscal year 2011, the
Department is requesting funding and authority to support approximately
$40 billion in additional loan authority for innovative energy
technology development. During fiscal year 2010, the LGPO streamlined
the application review process. The new authority requested will help
the Department to encourage and accelerate the availability of loans to
leverage private sector investment in clean energy projects that will
save and create jobs and stimulate the economy.
Energy Efficiency
In August 2009, President Obama said, ``If we want to reduce our
dependence on oil, put Americans back to work and reassert our
manufacturing sector as one of the greatest in the world, we must
produce the advanced, efficient vehicles of the future.'' In fiscal
year 2011, the Department will promote energy efficiency in vehicles
technologies, at $325 million. No less important to achieving the
President's stated ambitions is decreasing energy consumption through
developing and advancing building technologies ($231 million) and
industrial technologies ($100 million). Federal assistance for State-
level programs, such as State Energy Program grants ($75 million, a 50
percent increase from fiscal year 2010) and Weatherization Assistance
grants ($300 million, a 43 percent increase from fiscal year 2010),
will help States and individuals take advantage of efficiency measures
for buildings and homes, lower energy costs and greenhouse gas
emissions, and develop an ever-evolving, technically proficient
workforce.
Clean, Renewable Energy Generation
The fiscal year 2011 budget request will modernize the Nation's
energy infrastructure by investing in a variety of renewable sources
such as solar ($302 million), wind ($123 million), water ($41 million),
hydrogen ($137 million), biomass ($220 million) and geothermal ($55
million). These sources of energy reduce the production of greenhouse
gas emissions and continue the pursuit of a clean energy economy built
on the next generation of domestic production. The Department is also
continuing to promote domestic clean energy through the four Power
Marketing Administrations, which market and deliver electricity
primarily generated by hydroelectric dams.
Grid Modernization
In support of the modernization of the electricity grid, the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget requests $144 million for research
and development to improve reliability, efficiency, flexibility, and
security of electricity transmission and distribution networks. The
``Smart Grid'' will integrate new and improved technologies into the
energy mix, ensuring reliability, integration of renewable energy
resources, and improving security.
While investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy generation,
and grid modernization are fundamental steps necessary for creating a
clean energy economy; investing in the improvement of existing sources
of energy will provide a bridge between current and future
technologies. These technologies are already a major segment of the
energy mix and will play a critical role in providing a solid
foundation that will make possible the creation of this new economy.
Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy currently supplies approximately 20 percent of the
Nation's electricity and 70 percent of the Nation's clean, non-carbon
electricity. The request for the Office of Nuclear Energy includes $495
million for research, development, and demonstration in addition to
investments in supportive infrastructure. Work on advanced reactor
technologies, fuel cycle technologies, waste management, and cross-
cutting technologies and transformative concepts will help ensure that
nuclear energy remains a safe, secure, economical source of clean
energy. The Department will also promote nuclear energy through the
Loan Guarantee Program, which is requesting an additional $36 billion
in loan authority for nuclear power in fiscal year 2011 (for a total of
$54.5 billion).
Clean and Abundant Fossil Energy
The world will continue to rely on coal fired electrical generation
to meet energy demand. It is imperative that the United States develop
the technology to ensure that base-load electricity generation is as
clean and reliable as possible. The Office of Fossil Energy will invest
$438 million in the research and development of advanced coal-fueled
power systems and carbon capture and storage technologies. This will
allow the continued use of the abundant domestic coal resources in the
United States while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Accurate energy information and analysis play a critical role in
promoting efficient energy markets and informing policy-making and
strategic planning. This budget requests a total of $129 million for
the Energy Information Administration, the statutory statistical agency
within the Department, to improve energy data and analysis programs.
Security--Safeguarding Nuclear and Radiological Materials, Advancing
Responsible Legacy Cleanup and Maintaining Nuclear Deterrence
Reduces the Risk of Proliferation
In an April 2009 speech in Prague, the President called the threat
of nuclear proliferation ``the most immediate and extreme threat to
global security'' and announced his support for a new international
effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world
within 4 years. The fiscal year 2011 budget for the NNSA Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation program supports this effort, recognizing the
urgency of the threat and making the full commitment to global
cooperation that is essential to addressing this threat. The budget
provides $2.7 billion in fiscal year 2011, and $13.7 billion through
fiscal year 2015 to detect, secure, and dispose of dangerous nuclear
and radiological material worldwide. This request is an increase of 26
percent or $550 million from fiscal year 2010. The budget supports
cooperative nonproliferation initiatives with foreign governments and
the effort and expertise to forge them into durable international
partnerships, achieving the objective of a world without nuclear
weapons. The budget continues the installation of radiation detection
equipment at international border crossings and Megaports,
significantly expands materials protection and control security
upgrades at selected sites in foreign countries to address outsider and
insider threats, and accelerates the pace of highly enriched uranium
research reactor conversions with an urgent focus to develop the
capability to produce the medical isotope molybdenum-99 in the United
States using low enriched uranium. The fiscal year 2011 budget request
provides $4.4 billion over 5 years for Fissile Materials Disposition
including the construction of U.S. facilities for the disposition of
U.S. weapons-grade plutonium in fulfillment of our commitment with the
Russian Federation under the Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement of September 2000, and provides the first $100 million of a
$400 million U.S. commitment to advance the construction of plutonium
disposition facilities in the Russian Federation. The fiscal year 2011
budget request also supports a funding increase for Nonproliferation
and Verification Research and Development for new technologies in
support of treaty monitoring and verification.
Leverages Science to Maintain Nuclear Deterrence
The fiscal year 2011 budget request advances the Department's
commitment to the national security interests of the United States
through stewardship of a safe, secure and effective nuclear weapons
stockpile without the use of underground nuclear testing. 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. NNSA is taking steps to move in this direction,
including functioning as a national science, technology, and
engineering resource to other agencies with national security
responsibilities. NNSA must ensure our evolving strategic posture
places the stewardship of our nuclear stockpile, nonproliferation
programs, counterterrorism, missile defenses, and the international
arms control objectives into one comprehensive strategy that protects
the American people and our allies. Through the NNSA, the Department
requests $7.0 billion for the Weapons Activities appropriation, a 9.8
percent or $624 million increase from the fiscal year 2010
appropriation. This increase provides a strong basis for transitioning
to a smaller nuclear stockpile, strengthens the science, technology and
engineering base, modernizes key nuclear facilities, and streamlines
the enterprise's physical and operational footprint.
These investments will enable execution of a comprehensive nuclear
defense strategy based on current and projected global threats that
relies less on nuclear weapons, yet enhances national security by
strengthening the NNSA's nuclear security programs. This improved NNSA
capability base will mitigate the concerns regarding ratification of
the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty. The fiscal year 2011 request for Weapons Activities
has four major components. The request for Stockpile Support increases,
reflecting the President's commitment to maintain the safety, security
and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent without underground nuclear
testing, consistent with the principles of the Stockpile Management
Program outlined in section 3113(a)(2) of the National Defense
Authorization Act of fiscal year 2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524). The request for
Science, Technology and Engineering increases by over 10 percent, and
provides the funding necessary to protect and advance the scientific
capabilities at the U.S. nuclear security laboratories supporting the
stockpile and broader national security and energy issues. The budget
request for infrastructure supports the operation and maintenance of
the Government-owned, contractor-operated facilities in the nuclear
security enterprise, as well as special capabilities for secure
transportation and construction. The security and counterterrorism
component of the budget provides for physical and cyber security in the
NNSA enterprise, as well as emergency response assets and NNSA's
focused research and development contribution to the Nation's
counterterrorism efforts.
Advances Responsible Environmental Cleanup
The fiscal year 2011 budget includes $6 billion for the Office of
Environmental Management to protect public health and safety by
cleaning up hazardous, radioactive legacy waste from the Manhattan
Project and the cold war. This funding will allow the program to
continue to accelerate cleaning up and closing sites, focusing on
activities with the greatest risk reduction.
As the Department continues to make progress in completing clean-
up, the fiscal year 2011 budget request of $189 million for the Office
of Legacy Management supports the Department's long-term stewardship
responsibilities and payment of pensions and benefits for former
contractor workers after site closure.
The administration has determined that the Yucca Mountain
repository is not a workable option and has decided to terminate the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The core functions and
staff to support efforts under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to meet the
obligation of the Government will transfer to the Office of Nuclear
Energy by the end of fiscal year 2010.
Management--Transforming the Culture of the Department With a Results-
Oriented Approach
In order to transform the way Americans use and produce energy, we
must transform the Department of Energy. The Department is committed to
strengthening its management culture and increasing its focus on
results. The implementation of the Recovery Act provided the Department
with an opportunity to continue to refine best practices in management,
accountability, operations, and transparency. These best practices will
be applied in executing the fiscal year 2011 budget.
To achieve our strategic priorities, the Department requests a net
of $169 million for departmental administration. These funds, along
with resources in individual program offices, will help transform key
functional areas such as human, financial, project, and information
technology management. The request includes $2 million for Management
Reform within the Office of the Secretary, which will provide the
Department with strategic direction, coordination, and oversight of
reform initiatives.
department of energy fiscal year 2011 program office highlights
Office of Science--Supporting Cutting-Edge Foundational Scientific
Research
The Department of Energy's Office of Science (SC) delivers
discoveries and scientific tools that transform our understanding of
energy and matter and advance the national, economic, and energy
security of the United States. SC is a primary sponsor of basic
research in the United States, leading the Nation to support the
physical sciences in a broad array of research subjects in order to
improve energy security and address issues ancillary to energy, such as
climate change, genomics, and life sciences. In fiscal year 2011, the
Department requests $5.1 billion, an increase of 4.4 percent over the
enacted fiscal year 2010 appropriation, to invest in science research.
The fiscal year 2011 request supports the President's Plan for Science
and Innovation, which encompasses the entire SC budget, as part of a
strategy to double overall basic research funding at select agencies.
As part of this plan, the budget request supports the training of
students and researchers in fields critical to our national
competitiveness and innovation economy, and supports investments in
areas of research critical to our clean energy future and to making the
United States a leader on climate change.
SC is addressing critical societal challenges and key missions of
the Department of Energy through significant improvements in existing
technologies and development of new energy technologies. SC will
accomplish this by: (1) sustained investments in exploratory and high-
risk research in traditional and emerging disciplines, including the
development of new tools and facilities; (2) focused investments in
high-priority research areas; and (3) investments that train new
generations of scientists and engineers to be leaders in the 21st
century. The fiscal year 2011 budget request supports all three of
these investment strategies.
Two of the four Energy Innovation Hubs being requested in fiscal
year 2011 are through the Office of Science; these Hubs will bring
together teams of experts from multiple disciplines to focus on two
grand challenges in energy: (1) Fuels from Sunlight, a Hub established
in fiscal year 2010 and (2) Batteries and Energy Storage, a new Hub in
the fiscal year 2011 request.
The Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC) program will be
expanded in the fiscal year 2011 request to capture new, emerging
opportunities by furthering its scientific reach and potential
technological impact. New EFRCs will be competitively solicited in two
categories: discovery and development of new materials that are
critical to both science frontiers and technology innovations, and
basic research for energy needs in a limited number of areas that are
underrepresented in the 46 original EFRC awards.
The fiscal year 2011 request for the U.S. ITER Project ($80
million, a decrease of $55 million from fiscal year 2010) is a
reflection of the pace of ITER construction as of the end of 2009. The
administration is engaged in a range of efforts to implement management
reforms at the ITER organization and accelerate ITER construction while
minimizing the overall cost of the construction phase for the United
States and the other ITER members.
The Office of Science supports investigators from more than 300
academic institutions and from all of the DOE laboratories. The fiscal
year 2011 budget request will support approximately 27,000 Ph.D.s,
graduate students, undergraduates, engineers, and technicians. Nearly
26,000 researchers from universities, national laboratories, industry,
and international partners are expected to use SC scientific user
facilities in fiscal year 2011.
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy--Transformational Research and
Development
The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $300 million for the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), a program launched
in fiscal year 2009 that sponsors specific high-risk and high-payoff
transformational research and development projects that overcome the
long-term technological barriers in the development of energy
technologies to meet the Nation's energy challenges, but that industry
will not support at such an early stage. An essential component of
ARPA-E's culture is an overarching focus on accelerating science to
market. Beyond simply funding transformational research creating
revolutionary technologies, ARPA-E is dedicated to the market adoption
of those new technologies that will fuel the economy, create new jobs,
reduce energy imports, improve energy efficiency, reduce energy-related
emissions, and ensure that the U.S. maintains a technological lead in
developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Developing and
Deploying Clean, Reliable Energy
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
strengthens the energy security, environmental quality, and economic
vitality of the United States through the research, development,
demonstration and deployment (RDD&D) of clean energy technologies and
generation and advances in energy efficiency. EERE's activities are
critical to creating a low carbon economy and sustaining strong
economic growth and job creation while dramatically reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and energy imports. EERE programs link advances in basic
research and the creation of commercially successful products and
services to ensure delivery to the marketplace for general use and
implementation.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request of $2.4 billion, an increase of
5 percent over fiscal year 2010, is aimed at accelerating revolutionary
change in the Nation's energy economy. The request includes programs
associated with meeting the President's goals of investing in the next
generation of clean energy technologies, vehicles and fuels, and energy
efficiency measures that reduce energy use in Federal agencies and the
industrial and building sectors.
Clean, Renewable Energy Generation
The fiscal year 2011 budget request continues to work to transform
the Nation's energy infrastructure by investing over $650 million in a
variety of renewable sources of electrical generation such as solar
($302 million, a 22 percent increase over fiscal year 2010), and wind
($123 million, a 53 percent increase over fiscal year 2010), as well as
deploy clean technologies to reduce our dependence on oil. The request
includes expansions on Concentrating Solar Power, biopower and off-
shore wind, which will provide new, additional avenues for clean energy
development and deployment. These technologies will reduce the
production of greenhouse gas emissions and revitalize an economy built
on the next generation of domestic production.
Energy Efficiency
The Department implements a number of efforts to increase energy
efficiency and conservation in homes, transportation, and industry. The
fiscal year 2011 budget requests $758 million to accelerate deployment
of clean, cost-effective, and rapidly deployable energy conservation
measures in order to reduce energy consumption in residential and
commercial buildings, and the industrial and Federal sectors. The
Department will invest $231 million in the Building Technologies
program, a 16 percent increase over fiscal year 2010 for built
environment R&D. Federal assistance for State-level programs such as
State Energy Program grants ($75 million) and Weatherization Assistance
Program ($300 million), will continue to help citizens implement energy
conservation measures, lower energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions,
and build a technical workforce. The fiscal year 2011 request also
includes $545 million to accelerate research, development and
deployment of advanced fuels and vehicles to reduce the use of
petroleum and greenhouse gas emissions. The fiscal year 2011 budget
complements the Recovery Act funding for these programs ($3.1 billion
for State Energy Programs, $5 billion for Weatherization Assistance, $2
billion for Advanced Battery Manufacturing and $400 million for
Transportation Electrification).
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability--Moving Toward a
More Intelligent Grid to Power the Digital Economy
The fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) budget is $186 million, an
increase of 8 percent over fiscal year 2010. These funds will build on
the ``Smart Grid'' investments and other activities.
The ability of the United States to meet the growing demand for
reliable electricity is challenged by an aging power grid under
mounting stress. Despite the increasing demand for reliable power
brought on by the modern digital economy, the power grid in the United
States has suffered from a long period of underinvestment. Much of the
power delivery system was built on technology developed over 50 years
ago and thus responds to disturbances with speed limited by the
technology of that period. This limitation increases the vulnerability
of the power system to outages that can spread quickly and impact whole
regions. Breakthroughs in digital network controls, transmission,
distribution, and energy storage will make the power grid more
efficient, alleviating the stress on the system, as well as enable
greater use of clean and distributed energy sources. The return on
these investments will come from a reduction in economic losses caused
by power outages and the delay or avoidance of costly investment in new
generation and transmission infrastructure.
The budget request provides $144 million for research and
development, which supports development of technologies that will
improve the reliability, efficiency, flexibility, functionality, and
security of the Nation's electricity delivery system. It accelerates
investment in energy storage capabilities and funds two new research
initiatives: Advanced Modeling Grid Research, to develop grid-modeling
capabilities using the large volumes of data generated by advanced
sensors deployed on the grid; and Power Electronics, to develop new
power control devices in collaboration with universities. The proposal
also continues to support the development of ``Smart Grid''
technologies and cyber security systems for the power grid.
The budget request continues support for Permitting, Siting, and
Analysis ($6.4 million) to assist States, regional entities, and other
Federal agencies in developing policies and programs aimed at
modernizing the power grid; and for Infrastructure Security and Energy
Restoration ($6.2 million) to enhance the reliability and resiliency of
U.S. critical infrastructure and facilitate its recovery from energy
supply disruptions.
Office of Environmental Management--Reducing Risks and Making Progress
The mission of the Office of Environmental Management (EM) is to
complete the safe cleanup of the environmental legacy brought about
from over six decades of nuclear weapons development, production, and
Government-sponsored nuclear energy research. This cleanup effort is
the largest in the world, originally involving 2 million acres at 107
sites in 35 states, dealing with some of the most dangerous materials
known to man.
EM continues to pursue its cleanup objectives within the overall
framework of achieving the greatest comparative risk reduction benefit
and overlaying regulatory compliance commitments and best business
practices to maximize cleanup progress. To support this approach, EM
has prioritized its cleanup activities:
--Activities to maintain a safe and secure posture in the EM complex
--Radioactive tank waste stabilization, treatment, and disposal
--Used 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 and decommissioning
The fiscal year 2011 budget request for $6.0 billion will fund
activities to maintain a safe and secure posture in the EM complex and
make progress against program goals and compliance commitments,
including reduction of highest risks to the environment and public
health, use of science and technology to reduce life cycle costs, and
reduction of EM's geographic footprint by 40 percent by 2011. EM
continues to move forward with the development of the capability for
dispositioning tank waste, nuclear materials, and used nuclear fuel.
The budget request includes the construction and operation of three
unique and complex tank waste processing plants to treat approximately
88 million gallons of radioactive tank waste for ultimate disposal. It
will also fund the solid waste disposal infrastructure needed to
support disposal of transuranic and low-level wastes generated by high-
risk activities and the footprint reduction activities. In addition to
the fiscal year 2011 budget request, EM will continue to expend the $6
billion in Recovery Act funding provided by Congress to complete lower-
risk footprint reduction and near-term completion cleanup activities.
EM carries out its cleanup activities with the interests of
stakeholders in mind. Most importantly, EM will continue to fulfill its
responsibilities by conducting cleanup within a ``Safety First''
culture that integrates environment, safety, and health requirements
and controls into all work activities to ensure protection to the
workers, public, and the environment, and adheres to sound project and
contract management principles. EM is also strengthening its project
and planning analyses to better assess existing priorities and identify
opportunities to accelerate cleanup work. Working collaboratively with
the sites, EM continues to seek aggressive but achievable strategies
for accelerating cleanup of discrete sites or segments of work. In
addition, functional and cross-site activities such as elimination of
specific groundwater contaminants, waste or material processing
campaigns, or achievement of interim or final end-states are being
evaluated.
After the EM program completes cleanup and closure of sites that no
longer have an ongoing DOE mission, post closure stewardship activities
are transferred to the Office of Legacy Management (LM). LM also
receives sites remediated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program) and private licensees (Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, title II sites). Post closure
stewardship includes long-term surveillance and maintenance activities
such as groundwater monitoring, disposal cell maintenance, records
management, and management of natural resources at sites where active
remediation has been completed. At some sites the program includes
management and administration of pension and post-retirement benefits
for contractor retirees.
The administration has determined that developing a repository at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is not a workable option and has decided to
terminate the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW). The
Nation needs a different solution for nuclear waste disposal. As a
result, in 2010, the Department will discontinue its application to the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to construct a high-
level waste geologic repository at Yucca Mountain and establish a Blue
Ribbon Commission to inform the administration as it develops a new
strategy for nuclear waste management and disposal. All funding for
development of the Yucca Mountain facility and RW will be eliminated by
the end of fiscal year 2010. The administration remains committed to
fulfilling its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The
Office of Nuclear Energy will develop an integrated approach to improve
the waste management options for the Nation and support the Blue Ribbon
Commission. Ongoing responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act, including administration of the Nuclear Waste Fund and the
Standard Contract, will continue under the Office of Nuclear Energy,
which will lead future waste management activities.
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program and Advanced Technology
Vehicle Manufacturing Program--Supporting Investment in
Innovation and Manufacturing
To encourage the early commercial production and use of new or
significantly improved technologies in energy projects, the Department
is requesting an additional $36 billion in authority to guarantee loans
for nuclear power facilities and $500 million in appropriated credit
subsidy for the cost of loan guarantees for renewable energy systems
and efficient end-use energy technology projects under section 1703 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The additional loan authority for
nuclear power projects will promote near-term deployment of new plants
and support an increasing role for private sector financing. The
additional credit subsidy will allow for investment in the innovative
renewable and efficiency technologies that are critical to meeting the
administration's goals for affordable, clean energy, technical
leadership, and global competitiveness.
The fiscal year 2011 budget also requests $58 million to evaluate
applications received under the eight solicitations released to date
and to ensure efficient and effective management of the Loan Guarantee
Program. This request will be offset by collections authorized under
title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-8).
The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program requests $10
million to support ongoing loan and loan monitoring activities
associated with the program mission of making loans to automobile and
automobile part manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping, expanding,
or establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to
produce advanced technology vehicles or qualified components, and for
associated engineering integration costs.
Office of Nuclear Energy--Investing in Energy Security and Technical
Leadership
The Department is requesting $912 million for the Office of Nuclear
Energy (NE) in fiscal year 2011 --an increase of 5 percent over the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level. NE's funding supports the advancement
of nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the Nation's energy,
environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical,
cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers through
research, development, and demonstration as appropriate.
Currently, nuclear energy supplies approximately 20 percent of the
Nation's electricity and over 70 percent of clean, non-carbon producing
electricity. Over 100 nuclear power plants are offering reliable and
affordable baseload electricity in the United States, and they are
doing so without air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. NE is
working to develop innovative and transformative technologies to
improve the competitiveness, safety and proliferation resistance of
nuclear energy to support its continued use.
The fiscal year 2011 budget supports a reorganized and refocused
set of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) activities. This
program is built around exploring, through RD&D: technology and other
solutions that can improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and
extend the life of current reactors; improvements in the affordability
of new reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the
administration's energy security and climate change goals;
understanding of options for nuclear energy to contribute to reduced
carbon emissions outside the electricity sector; development of
sustainable nuclear fuel cycles; and minimization of risks of nuclear
proliferation and terrorism.
NE is requesting $195 million for Reactor Concepts Research,
Development and Deployment. This program seeks to develop new and
advanced reactor designs and technologies. Work will continue on
design, licensing and R&D for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant to
demonstrate gas-cooled reactor technology in the United States. The
program also supports research on Generation IV and other advanced
designs and efforts to extend the life of existing light water
reactors. In fiscal year 2011, NE will initiate a new effort focused on
small modular reactors, a technology the Department believes has
promise to help meet energy security goals.
The fiscal year 2011 request includes $201 million for Fuel Cycle
Research and Development to perform long-term, results-oriented
science-based R&D to improve fuel cycle and waste management
technologies to enable a safe, secure, and economic fuel cycle. The
budget also requests $99 million to support a new R&D program, Nuclear
Energy Enabling Technologies, focused on the development of cross-
cutting and transformative technologies relevant to multiple reactor
and fuel cycle concepts. The Crosscutting Technology Development
activity provides crosscutting R&D support for nuclear energy concepts
in areas such as reactor materials and creative approaches to further
reduce proliferation risks. The Transformative Nuclear Concepts R&D
activity will support, via an open, competitive solicitation process,
investigator-initiated projects that relate to any aspect of nuclear
energy generation including, but not limited to, reactor and power
conversion technologies, enrichment, fuels and fuel management, waste
disposal, and nonproliferation, to ensure that good ideas have
sufficient outlet for exploration.
The Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation will apply
existing modeling and simulation capabilities to create a ``virtual''
reactor user environment to simulate an operating reactor. NE will also
continue its commitments to investing in university research,
international cooperation, and the Nation's nuclear infrastructure--
important foundations to support continued technical advancement.
Office of Fossil Energy--Abundant and Affordable Energy for the 21st
Century
The fiscal year 2011 budget request of $760 million for the Office
of Fossil Energy (FE) will help ensure that the United States can
continue to rely on clean, affordable energy from traditional domestic
fuel resources. The United States has 25 percent of the world's coal
reserves, and fossil fuels currently supply 86 percent of the Nation's
energy.
The Department is committed to advancing Carbon Capture and Storage
(CCS) technologies in order to promote a cleaner and more efficient use
of fossil fuels. In addition to significant Recovery Act funds,
Advanced CCS with $438 million requested in fiscal year 2011 is the
foundation of the Department's clean coal research program which seeks
to establish the capability of producing electricity from coal with
near-zero atmospheric emissions.
In addition, $150 million of FE's $760 million request will be used
to promote national energy security through the continued operations of
both the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve programs. These programs protect the Nation and the public
against economic damages from potential disruptions in foreign and
domestic petroleum supplies.
Energy Information Administration--Providing Independent Statistics and
Analysis
The fiscal year 2011 request for the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) is $128.8 million, which is an $18.2 million
increase over the fiscal year 2010 current appropriation. EIA conducts
a comprehensive data collection program through more than 60 surveys
that cover the full spectrum of energy sources, end uses, and energy
flows; generates short- and long-term domestic and international energy
projections; and performs informative energy analyses. EIA disseminates
its data products, analyses, reports, and other information services to
customers and stakeholders primarily through its Web site.
The increased funding improves EIA's capability to close energy
information gaps, strengthen analysis, and address significant data
quality issues. It provides for an expanded survey of energy
consumption in commercial buildings that will provide more baseline
information critical to understanding energy use. That survey also is a
basis for benchmarking and performance measurement for energy
efficiency programs. The budget request also provides for: expanded
analysis of energy market behavior and data to address the increasingly
important interrelationship of energy and financial markets; continued
implementation of improvements in data coverage, quality and
integration; upgrades to the National Energy Model; and initiation of
efforts to track and analyze the adoption of ``Smart Grid''
technologies and dynamic electricity pricing plans.
The National Nuclear Security Administration--Ensuring America's
Nuclear Security and Reducing the Global Threat of Nuclear
Proliferation
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) continues
significant efforts to meet administration priorities, leveraging
science to promote U.S. national security objectives. The fiscal year
2011 President's budget request is $11.2 billion, an increase of 13
percent from the enacted fiscal year 2010 appropriation. The fiscal
year 2011-2015 President's Request for the NNSA is a significant
funding increase over fiscal year 2010 levels, reflecting the
President's priorities on global nuclear nonproliferation and for
strengthening the nuclear security posture of the United States to meet
defense and homeland security-related objectives:
--Broaden and strengthen the NNSA's science, technology and
engineering mission to meet national security needs
--Work with global partners to secure all vulnerable nuclear
materials around the world within 4 years
--Work toward a world with no nuclear weapons. Until that goal is
achieved, ensure the U.S. nuclear deterrent remains safe,
secure and effective
--Transform the Nation's cold-war era weapons complex into a 21st
century national security enterprise
--Provide safe and effective nuclear propulsion for U.S. navy
warships
The fiscal year 2011 budget request of $7.01 billion for the
Weapons Activities appropriation provides funding for a wide range of
programs. Some activities provide direct support for maintaining the
nuclear weapon stockpile, including stockpile surveillance, annual
assessments, life extension programs, and warhead dismantlement.
Science, Technology and Engineering programs are focused on long-term
vitality in science and engineering, and on performing R&D to sustain
current and future stockpile stewardship capabilities without the need
for underground nuclear testing. These programs also provide a base
capability to support scientific research needed by other elements of
the Department, to the Federal Government national security community,
and the academic and industrial communities. Infrastructure programs
support facilities and operations at the Government-owned, contractor-
operated sites, including activities to maintain and steward the health
of these sites for the long term. Security and counterterrorism
activities leverage the unique nuclear security expertise and resources
maintained by NNSA to other Departmental offices and to the Nation.
The Weapons Activities request is an increase of 9.8 percent over
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. This level is sustained and
increased in the later out-years. The multi-year increase is necessary
to reflect the President's commitment to maintain the safety, security
and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent without underground nuclear
testing, consistent with the principles of the Stockpile Management
Program outlined in section 3113(a)(2) of the National Defense
Authorization Act of fiscal year 2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524). Increases are
provided which directly support of the nuclear weapon stockpile, for
scientific, technical and engineering activities related to maintenance
assessment and certification capabilities, and for recapitalization of
key nuclear facilities. The President's request provides funding
necessary to protect the human capital base at the national
laboratories--including the ability to design and certify nuclear
weapons--through a stockpile stewardship program that fully exercises
these capabilities. Security and nuclear counterterrorism activities
decrease about 3 percent from the fiscal year 2010 appropriated levels,
leveraging the continuing efficiencies in the Defense Nuclear Security
budget.
The fiscal year 2011 request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
is $2.7 billion, an increase of 25.8 percent over the fiscal year 2010
appropriation. The increase is driven by the imperative for U.S.
leadership in nonproliferation initiatives both here and abroad. In
addition to the programs funded solely by the NNSA, our programs
support the Department of Energy mission to protect our national
security by preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear
materials to terrorist organizations and rogue states. These efforts
are implemented in part through the Global Partnership Against the
Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, formed at the G8
Kananaskis Summit in June 2002, and the Global Initiative to Combat
Nuclear Terrorism, launched in Rabat, Morocco, in October 2006.
The fiscal year 2011 President's request for International Nuclear
Materials Protection and Cooperation reflects selective new security
upgrades to buildings and areas that were added to the cooperation
after the Bratislava Summit, additional Second Line of Defense sites,
and sustainability support for MPC&A upgrades. The Global Threat
Reduction Initiative increases by 68 percent in support of the
international effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the
world within 4 years. The Fissile Materials Disposition program
increases by 47 percent reflecting continuing domestic construction of
the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility and the Waste Solidification
Building, as well as design documentation for a related pit disassembly
and conversion capability. A portion of the funding increase results
from the transfer of funding associated with the latter activity from
the Weapons Activities appropriation starting in 2011.
The President's request of $1.1 billion for Naval Reactors is an
increase of 13.3 percent over the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level.
The program supports the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet, comprised of all of
the Navy's submarines and aircraft carriers, including 52 attack
submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 guided missile
submarines, and 11 aircraft carriers. These ships are relied on every
day, all over the world, to protect our national interests. Starting in
fiscal year 2010, there are major new missions for the NNSA Naval
Reactors program. A significant funding increase is requested for the
OHIO Class submarine replacement and for the related activity which
will demonstrate new submarine reactor plant technologies as part of
the refueling of the land-based prototype reactor. R&D is underway now,
and funding during this Future Years Nuclear Security Program is
critical to support the long manufacturing spans for procurement of
reactor plant components in 2017, and ship procurement in 2019.
Resources are also included in fiscal year 2011 to support commencement
of design work for the recapitalization of used nuclear fuel
infrastructure.
The Office of the Administrator appropriation provides for Federal
program direction and support for NNSA's Headquarters and field
installations. The fiscal year 2011 request is $448.3 million, a 6.5
percent increase over the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. This provides
for well-managed, inclusive, responsive, and accountable organization
through the strategic management of human capital, enhanced cost-
effective utilization of information technology, and integration of
budget and performance through transparent financial management
practices.
Management--Transforming the Culture of the Department with a Results-
Oriented Approach
To transform the way Americans use and produce energy, we need to
transform the Department of Energy. Because the mission of the
Department is vital and urgent, it must be pursued using a results-
oriented approach that is safe, fiscally responsible, and legally and
ethically sound. The Department has developed strong management and
oversight capabilities during implementation of the Recovery Act, and
these lessons will be applied to the fiscal year 2011 budget. The
budget request of $337 million for corporate management includes $75
million for the Office of Management, $102 million for the Office of
the Chief Information Officer, $43 million for the Inspector General's
office, $62.7 million for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer,
$37 million for the Office of General Counsel, and $2 million for
Management Reform within the Office of the Secretary. The Management
Reform effort will provide the Department with strategic direction,
coordination, and oversight of management initiatives. The primary
mission of this new office is to identify operational efficiencies to
free up resources for priority mission activities. The Department is
also requesting $12 million for a new Acquisition Workforce Improvement
initiative which will be utilized to increase the size and improve the
training of our acquisition professionals.
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. To accomplish this goal, the Department will develop
different 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.
To improve stewardship of taxpayer dollars, the Department will
continue to issue audited financial statements in an accelerated
timeframe and provide assurance that the Department's financial
management meets the highest standards of integrity. The Department's
fiscal year 2009 financial statements were reviewed by independent
auditors and received an unqualified opinion. This was made possible by
implementing an aggressive plan to mitigate and remediate a number of
financial management challenges that were identified by the Department
and its independent auditors. In addition, the Department continues to
strengthen the execution of program funding dollars by having regular
execution reviews that will ensure funding is processed, approved and
spent quickly and responsibly. The Department in fiscal year 2011 will
continue its effort to build and improve its integrated business
management system.
The Department is continuing to make progress in improving project
management and is implementing an action plan with scheduled milestones
and aggressive performance metrics. The focus of the action plan is to
successfully address the root causes of the major challenges to
planning and managing Department projects. The action plan identifies
eight measures that, when completed, will result in significant,
measurable, and sustainable improvements in the Department's contract
and project management performance and culture.
To improve financial performance in project management, the
Department has increased the use of Earned Value Management (EVM)
techniques within program offices. These techniques objectively track
physical accomplishment of work and provide early warning of
performance problems. A certification process was instituted for
contractors' EVM systems to improve the definition of project scope,
communicate objective progress to stakeholders and keep project teams
focused on achieving progress. Currently, 70 percent of the
Department's capital asset projects have certified EVM systems.
The Department continues to strengthen information technology
management by consistent execution of robust IT Capital Planning and
Investment Control oversight and reporting processes designed to ensure
successful investment performance, including the use of EVM Systems as
appropriate, and the remediation of poorly performing investments.
Through the establishment and use of an Enterprise Architecture that
aligns to the Federal Enterprise Architecture, the Department has
ensured that all IT investments follow a comprehensive Modernization
Roadmap.
The Department continues to take significant actions to improve its
cyber security posture by implementing its Cyber Security
Revitalization Plan to address long-standing, systemic weaknesses in
the Department's information and information systems. Specifically, the
Department seeks to ensure that 100 percent of operational information
technology systems are certified and accredited as secure and that the
Department's Inspector General has rated the certification and
accreditation process as ``satisfactory.'' Additional steps will be
taken to ensure that electronic classified and personally identifiable
information are secure.
conclusion
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to present the
fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Department of Energy. I will be
happy to take any questions that members of the subcommittee may have.

Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.
I have a number of questions, and I assume I will not get
through all of them. But let me try to see if we can determine
what is happening here.

FUTUREGEN

This subcommittee has been wrestling with the question of
FutureGen. Is it on? Is it off? Does it need to be funded? Does
it not? If so, how will the money be used? So where are you on
the decisionmaking process about FutureGen?
Secretary Chu. We are working with the alliance. We put an
offer to the alliance and we are working with them in hopes
that they can come up with the necessary assets needed. This is
in progress. We have extended the deadline because we are going
to give them more time, but I think the deadline is coming up
in the next couple weeks and then we will have to make a
determination at that time.
Senator Dorgan. Do you feel that we are losing time,
though? FutureGen was sort of the new thing. As I indicated in
my opening statement, we have a significant need to do the
research to try to evaluate how we build electric generating
plants that are going to capture carbon and do certain things
with it. We have, obviously, lost time because the previous
administration at one point decided to discontinue it, shut it
down, and your administration has now for a year or so been
trying to study it.
Secretary Chu. Not so much trying to study it, trying to
see if the alliance can put together a proposal that would be
acceptable.
But let me also say that I share your sense of urgency in
getting carbon capture and sequestration technologies going. It
is our stated goal that perhaps within 8-10 years, this would
be ready for deployment and something that is economically
viable.
We have, through the Recovery Act--and this reflects the
comments both you and Ranking Member Bennett made--invested
over $4 billion in several pilot plants or pilot plant
demonstrations, experiments for carbon capture and
sequestration. The good news is that $4 billion has been
matched by $6 billion or $7 billion of private sector money. So
we know that the private sector has also gotten interested and
committed to this.
There are a number of projects now that are becoming
competitive with FutureGen in the sense of the amount of carbon
sequestered and things like that. We still want FutureGen to go
forward, but it really depends on whether this package----
Senator Dorgan. But in a broader sense, do you feel like
the reduction in funds in the fossil energy account reflects
less attention to and less interest in that area of energy?
Secretary Chu. No, we do not. There is essentially $4
billion plus $6 billion--$10 billion total investment in
various forms of carbon capture and sequestration. In the
following budget you will see an increase as we work through
those demonstrations.

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Senator Dorgan. Let me ask about electric vehicles. Senator
Alexander and I and others are putting together an electric
vehicles piece of legislation. We have been working on it and
are, I think, fairly close to introducing it.
The President set a goal of having 1 million electric
vehicles on the road by 2015. What are the things that you are
doing and what should we see in this budget that reflects that?
What percent of the advanced vehicle technology budget is going
into electric drive vehicles, for example?
Secretary Chu. We are investing a considerable amount in
electric vehicles. As you know, the single most important thing
is a better battery, a battery with higher energy density, a
battery with higher energy per unit volume, and a battery that
lasts the life of the car, let us say, 15 years if it
moderately discharges, and a battery that costs a lot less.
I would see a big up-tick, a significant up-tick in the
market when we have that battery. I am optimistic that we will
have the battery like that, but whether it is 1 year, 2 years,
3 years from today I do not know. We are heavily investing in
battery research. The goal of the hub proposed for fiscal year
2011 is to get a battery that is dramatically better than the
ones being prototyped today.
But in addition to that, we are also investing in advanced
battery manufacturing. This is something where the United
States has fallen off, even though we actually invented a lot
of the technology that went into the lithium ion battery, it
was perfected by Sony. If you buy a hybrid car today, 98
percent of the high technology batteries will have been
manufactured in Asia. With the Advanced Battery Manufacturing
Technology grants we have been giving, we hope to recapture a
lot of that market.
Senator Dorgan. But that is true of almost everything we
invent. It migrates very quickly. In the last 20 years, what we
have seen is a mass migration of that which we invent to be
produced elsewhere.

BIOFUEL BLENDS

Can you describe what you expect to see happen with the
testing of higher biofuel blends, particularly E15, on
vehicles. When do you think the administration can give us an
answer on that, and what about legacy vehicles?
Secretary Chu. I personally looked into this several months
ago to try to see what we could do to accelerate the testing.
There are a number of models we wanted to test and you have to
put on a significant number of miles to test the vehicles. So
the testing is going 24/7. I think it is going to be sometime
late spring, maybe early summer where we can make a
determination whether E15 would be viable in the vehicles.
We are also testing deployed vehicles. And so that is the
real issue, whether this 15 percent blend would do something
that would affect the long-term and make the cars last as long
as they initially would have.
So perhaps by late spring, we will be done. That is what I
recall from the last time I looked.
Senator Dorgan. All right.

HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES

Finally, for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, as you
know, you are proposing a cut. Last year you proposed the
elimination of all of those accounts. I think we are going to
shut down 190, roughly, contracts. You are proposing a cut.
You know, the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is run on
electricity. As we move toward an electric-drive system, it
seems to me the continued work in hydrogen fuel cells is very
important work.
Can you provide for the subcommittee a summary of existing
programs that would be discontinued or significantly scaled
back in order to make these cute possible?
Secretary Chu. Yes, I will do that.
There was a difference of opinion last year. We have
increased the hydrogen technology request over fiscal year
2010, but it is still a decrease from what was appropriated. We
are minimizing the discontinuity in the existing programs.
I might say privately among some of the technical people in
the oil companies, they recognize that this is something that
might be 20 years plus away from a mass adoption. And so I am
entering discussions privately with them to say, okay, can you
start to band together because it is something so far in the
future it makes sense to have consortiums work on it.
Senator Dorgan. Yes. Except as a scientist, you know that
that which seems far into the future becomes nearer and nearer
the more work is done, and often we discover that the future
was much closer than we thought and I would expect that to be
the case here as well.
I have many questions, but again, my colleagues are here
and I want them to have time for questions. So I will submit
questions in writing to you, and as I indicated, I have to go
to the White House for a signing ceremony, so when I leave,
Senator Tester will take the chair.
But, Senator Bennett, did you wish to inquire?
Senator Bennett. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

WEATHERIZATION GRANTS

Going down the list, I outlined in my opening statement let
us talk about weatherization grants and why is the pace so slow
in getting these funds out, and why are there still unresolved
tax issues for the smart grid grantees, more than a year later
after we enacted that?
The big question, why is the Department requesting any
funds for weatherization grants when you have $4.5 billion from
the Recovery Act, in addition to the fiscal year 2009 and
fiscal year 2010 appropriations that have piled up that have
not been spent? You have got more than $5 billion in total, and
yet you are asking for more with all of these delays. Can you
help us understand all that?
Secretary Chu. Well, it is not that we wanted to put pain
on ourselves.
Seriously, let me tell you about the weatherization grants.
As you noted, it was $5 billion. It is a formula block grant.
It goes to States.
There were beginning hiccups. The biggest hiccup was the
Davis-Bacon wage issue. That had to be resolved with
cooperation from the Labor Department. The Davis-Bacon issues
took a longer time than either Departments had expected, but
those are resolved.
So what has happened up until the end of 2009, I will agree
with you that initial progress was slow. Starting in September
2009, we started urging the States and tried to help them
accelerate their costing of the funds. We believe that apart
from a few States, they are getting on track to up the
spending. This is demonstrated by what we now have in January.
We went from quarterly reporting to monthly reporting.
There was resistance both by the States and by others,
Paperwork Act issues. But what we found is, as we started to
move into monthly reporting, those States that were the
furthest behind actually started to move.
So a number of things like that were holding us up.
There is an IG report that perhaps you have read which I
think gives a very balanced view of why initial progress was
delayed. It does indicate that the Department of Energy was
doing everything within its power over the last 6 months to
help the States get this money out.
Now, in answer to your question, why are we asking for more
weatherization money--there are other programs we have now
begun. The weatherization money is for low-income housing. It
will weatherize within the low-income housing sector, perhaps
500,000 to 600,000 homes. The sector in the United States--
there are 130 million homes of which probably 80 million to 90
million homes could benefit from weatherization.
What we are now trying to do is start programs that will be
largely highly leveraged, ideally self-financed because energy
efficiency really does mean energy savings. And we want to
start programs and we are beginning to pilot some of these with
our current weatherization money to get this going in the
United States.
So ultimately, we feel that energy efficiency should be a
social norm, but fundamentally it saves money and that money
goes in the pockets of homeowners and businesses and it goes
back into the economy.
Very quickly, the tax issue with the Smart Grid is being
resolved. That is something we have to negotiate with Treasury
and other agencies. We hope, perhaps within a few weeks, that
will be completely resolved and we can go forward.
Senator Bennett. Okay.
Well, do you still think then that the appropriations you
are asking for is necessary to reach that goal? And with all
the money you have still got, you----
Secretary Chu. Yes. Despite the slow start, the goal we
have is that by 2011, mid-2011, we will have costed the money.
It has essentially all been allocated.
But again, it takes time to start these programs. Once
these programs have ramped up, you have got people. You have
got caulkers. You have got insulators. You have got energy
auditors out there. You want to keep the momentum going. We
have ramped up. And we need to sustain that.
Senator Bennett. Is there a ceiling? You talk about
primarily low-income housing. Is there an income ceiling where
we say, well, if you earn this much, the Feds will not
weatherize your home? That is your responsibility.
Secretary Chu. In the current weatherization statute, there
is. It is 200 percent above the poverty level. And most middle-
income homes cannot be touched by that. And so that is, again,
why we think eligibility for weatherization funding essentially
could be expanded to mid- to low-income housing.
Senator Bennett. I have some constituents that will raise
questions about the constitutionality of that.
Secretary Chu. Of the Recovery Act?
Senator Bennett. No, of saying, okay, the Federal
Government will use Federal power and Federal dollars to do
this for one portion of the citizenship and not the other. But
that is a constitutional question for another time.
Secretary Chu. Right. By the way, that is in the Recovery
Act. The weatherization program we are proposing does not have
that ceiling.
Senator Bennett. Okay.

LOAN GUARANTEES

Let us talk about the loan guarantees. DOE had planned to
make a minimum of 21 condition commitments for projects
supported under the Recovery Act by the end of 2009. Instead,
you have made a total of four, and you made some additional
commitments since then but still far short of the target.
Can you tell us what the problems are there in terms of
meeting the plan----
Secretary Chu. Sure.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. And what steps are being
taken?
Secretary Chu. If you include the Advanced Technology
Vehicle Manufacturing loans, I believe we are up to 11 since
the first conditional loan was announced to Solyndra. As you
pointed out, the loan program was authorized in 2005. I believe
it was appropriated in the beginning of 2006. And when my team
took over in 2009, not a single loan had gone out. So we have
made 11. There are more in the pipeline to be announced soon.
We are spending a lot of time thinking about it--so we went
from 0 to 11 or so.
We are examining how to streamline the processes. There are
issues in terms of legislative fixes. For example, the 1705
loan program, could also allow loans to energy efficiency
technologies and energy efficiency companies. Right now it is
limited to renewable energies--because there are a number of
loan applicants that we think would be well qualified.
The issues with the loan programs are fundamentally, given
the way it is constructed, we are obligated to protect the
taxpayer, which means that there are negotiations to find out
what these companies have in their assets, and assess the
ability of the companies to repay the loans. For example, if
one compares the first nuclear loan we gave, which these are
solid companies with a lot of assets, minimal credit subsidies
are required. So those loans we believe are very solid. The
probability of payback, costing nothing to the taxpayer, is
quite high. In fact, we have made the case to OMB that it will
cost nothing to the taxpayer.
Senator Bennett. Let me give you a particular example.
AREVA in Idaho submitted an application years ago for a front-
end nuclear fuel project, was given every indication, I
understand, back in October that due diligence had been
completed and word would be coming any day. And now we are in
March and they are still waiting.
Do you have any idea why that particular one has been held
up so much? That is in the West in the area where I am
concerned.
Secretary Chu. We are closing in on that. To be quite
candid, sometimes the delays surprise me a little bit, but
until I get into what the delays are about, the nuclear loans--
I personally thought the first nuclear loan could have been
announced--I thought it would have been announced by November.
So these are very big deals, hundreds of millions of dollars to
billions of dollars, and there are complications. But we are
closing in on the AREVA one as quickly as we can.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Senator Bennett. We will come
back to you if you have additional questions.
Senator Reed, I want to go to you and then Senator Tester
has indicated he will close. We will come back to Senator
Bennett. But Senator Tester is going to close the hearing as
well. So we will have ample time at the end of the hearing.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary.

OFFSHORE WIND POWER

As you know--and we have had a chance to talk about the
aspects of this--my State, Rhode Island, is deeply committed to
wind power, offshore wind power, not only for environmental
reasons, but also for economic reasons. We have 13 percent
unemployment and this could be a way to help us move forward in
the future. The State, through the great help of the chairman,
has received money to conduct an ocean special area management
plan to assist in siting offshore wind projects. They are well
positioned to do that. They have a selected contractor,
Deepwater Wind, and we hope we can do this. We are working hard
with not only DOE but also the Minerals Management Service and
the Department of Transportation. We have got a grant for a
shore-side facility that could be a fabrication point.
But I was heartened to see that your budget includes $49
million for offshore wind technology. Can you just generally
elaborate on what you would like to do with that? And frankly,
if you would like to help us, that would be even better.
Secretary Chu. The reason we have asked for this budget is
because we believe there are a lot of resources in offshore
wind. Now, the down side of offshore wind, as you well know, is
that the maintenance of it is much more costly. The up side is
that the newer turbines are getting more and more reliable. But
fundamentally, you really want those turbines to have a mean
time of failure that pushes 20 years because once the turbine
goes down because of the choppy seas, it becomes very expensive
to fix, and you cannot fix it immediately. You have to wait for
proper conditions.
But having said all that, the United States has incredible
resources in offshore wind, both off the Atlantic coast and in
some of the Great Lakes areas. We do anticipate that the
reliability of these large turbines is going to get better and
better and better. So we think it is now time to start getting
this piloting going to nurture it along.
Senator Reed. Can you comment upon your coordination with
the Minerals Management Service, with NOAA, and with the other
agencies, the stakeholders? Are you working actively with them
in a----
Secretary Chu. Well, certainly the primary coordination is
with Interior and Secretary Salazar because the Interior
actually controls that land. But we are very keen on trying to
get this developed in a timely manner but that makes good
economic sense as well. But as I said, we think it is going in
the right direction. The other thing I should add is there are
two other things that are good about offshore wind. First, they
are closer to population centers, and second, you actually have
a higher what I call duty cycle. The wind is steadier in the
oceans. So the capital investment, the nameplate, electricity
generation of a turbine offshore--you can actually reap more
electrical power over a period of time.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
I know that your Assistant Secretary, Ms. Zoi, is very much
interested in this, and I would encourage her to contact Rhode
Island, perhaps even visit, to see what we are doing. That
might help sort of this whole process of coordination.

INTERNATIONAL WIND POWER TECHNOLOGY

My final point--and this has been an issue that has come up
in the context of the recovery plan. Because other nations have
been much more aggressive in promoting wind power, the
consequence is that they have a lot of this technology. We are
sort of in an unfortunate position of trying to harness wind
but having to rely upon foreign-produced and fabricated
turbines, towers, et cetera.
One of the questions is not only getting the wind towers up
but how can we help jump start the industry here in the United
States. In the longer term, we want the good, clean energy but
we want the jobs as well. Is that consciously being considered
by you and your colleagues?
Secretary Chu. Very much so. Thank you for giving me this
opportunity to explain some of this.
Because of long-term fiscal policies in Europe in the 1980s
and 1990s, the technology for wind migrated from our shores to
Europe, Germany, and Denmark in particular. Right now, as we
show that the United States is getting serious about deploying
wind that migration is reversing. So what is happening is many
of these companies--for example, Vestas. I toured a Vestas
plant. They are investing hundreds of millions of dollars and
plan up to $2 billion of investment in Colorado to serve the
entire North American region.
Now, it is Vestas-United States. Right now, the value of
the turbines being produced in Vestas is over 50 percent. It is
something like 60 percent of all the material is being produced
in the United States with their goal of getting it over 80-90
percent.
There is a very sound, economical reason why they want to
do this. You want to set up a manufacturing plant where the
market is stable so the company is not liable to currency
swings. It is a more predictable business model. You want to
set up local supply chains because it actually makes good
sense. It is less costly.
They said the only aspect where they do not think they can
have a U.S. supplier, but it might take a year or two, is the
paint. They have to get the paint from Germany. This is a very
special, long-lived, very durable paint. But they said we are
trying to qualify some U.S. paints.
So the idea of these companies--it just like GM makes a
manufacturing plant in China. They have the same motivation.
Currency swings, local suppliers, all these other things. So if
the United States puts in fiscal policies that allow a market
to flourish, the manufacturing will naturally migrate to the
United States and the parts will migrate to the United States.
So I think there is a lot of people out there who say, well,
wait a minute. This is a foreign company. But you know--all the
labor and the installation will be in the United States. If 80
percent, 70 percent of the parts are in the United States,
which is not that dissimilar from you buy a car from Chrysler
and ask how many parts are made in the United States. It could
be 70 percent, maybe 80 percent.
So what happens is that is sort of the goal we are going
to, and that is actually what these wind manufacturers want to
do as well. So again, a market pool means they will invest in
the United States which means jobs in the United States.
Senator Reed. There is another aspect, I think, with the
offshore, is that because of the large size of these towers and
blades, et cetera, to transport them from the interior of the
country is very expensive and impossible because of the
constrictions of roads. So there is an opportunity again in
Rhode Island to have the fabrication right there, not just for
Rhode Island, but for the entire east coast.
I agree with you in the sense that initially there might be
some significance of overseas products, but eventually I think
that we can find capable American vendors.
So again, I think we should pursue this on all fronts.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Chu. Thank you.
Senator Tester [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Thank you for being here, Secretary Chu. I have a few
questions.

HYDROPOWER

First of all, as you well know, Montana covers the gamut
for energy production from renewable to conventional sources.
One of the areas that we produce a lot, as in all of the West,
is in hydropower. In fact, in 2007, I believe about 40 percent
of our electricity was from water. We have a lot of opportunity
with water, a lot of opportunity that has not been tapped yet
in smaller projects that will produce smaller amounts of
energy, but if you get enough of them, it will produce a lot of
energy in hydro whether it is irrigation ditches or low-head
hydro, whatever it may be.
The DOE's power budget in hydro has been cut by about 20
percent. And correct me if I am wrong. And I was wondering why
that is the case, if there is a lack of opportunity in hydro
from the Department's standpoint or whatever the reason might
be.
Secretary Chu. Well, on this subject, I would certainly be
willing to work with you on hydropower. I do believe hydropower
is proven technology. It is clean. A DOE internal study said
that we probably have 70 gigawatts additional hydropower by
just replacing turbines with more efficient turbines, putting
turbines on flood control dams, and under the river. So that
means no large new reservoirs. That is a lot of power. That is
a lot of clean power. So I will certainly work with you and
your staff on----
Senator Tester. Thank you. And the bottom line is you do
not see that potential cut reducing our options when it comes
to hydro?
Secretary Chu. As I said, we can work with you on
developing a compromise.
Senator Tester. Okay, sounds good.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

Some of the previous questioners talked about energy. The
chairman talked about hydrogen fuel cells and other things, and
you talked about technology being off a long ways in many
areas.
I am curious to get your perspective as to whether you see
this country ever becoming energy-independent. Is that within
our wherewithal?
Secretary Chu. Well, completely energy-independent--it will
take some decades, but certainly decreasing our dependency on
foreign oil is something that I believe we can do, as everyone
in this room well knows, oil especially, since we are now
importing about 55 percent of the oil. So a strategy of better
fuel economy, biofuels, electrification of vehicles, all those
things will decrease our dependency.
Senator Tester. What is the major roadblock in--let us just
take transportation fuels, as you had mentioned, where we
import 50 percent. I have actually heard higher numbers than
that.
Secretary Chu. Fifty-five.
Senator Tester. What is the major roadblock with achieving
our independence with transportation fuels in a faster way, and
does this budget address that roadblock or those several
roadblocks?
Secretary Chu. Well, I think it does. I think of those
things that I told you about--now, I think the oil and gas
industry, in developing domestic sources of supply, and they
are large, successful, well-funded companies. And so we believe
that especially the oil industry has the wherewithal to do
this.
We feel the Department of Energy's role--and this goes to
Ranking Member Bennett's question as well--is to look at
research in developing unconventional sources like natural gas
sources before the industry wants to pick it up. Shale gas is a
prime example of that. We started investing in shale gas
research in 1978, stopped it in 1991. In 1990, Schlumberger
picked up research on shale gas. And so that transition over to
commercial companies is what we want to see. If it is a very
beginning, very researchy thing, we say, okay, let us do that,
but as soon as the oil and gas industry begins to pick it up,
then we say, let us invest in other things.
Senator Tester. Okay. I have got a bunch more questions,
but I am going to be here for a while so I can come back.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You look
great in that seat.

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

I want to thank Secretary Chu for coming today, and I want
to start out by asking you a few questions about some decisions
that the administration has made on Yucca Mountain that I have
been very dismayed by, including the decision that was made
just yesterday to withdraw your Department's Nuclear Regulatory
Commission license application for Yucca Mountain.
Now, I have read your written statement, and I have to say
I think there is really something missing. Three times in there
you say that Yucca Mountain is ``not a workable option for
nuclear waste disposal.'' But what seems to be missing is the
why, and that is really an important question and it is one the
communities around the country, including in my home State in
the tri-cities area, people who have really borne the burden of
producing and cleaning up this nuclear waste, deserve to have
answered.
So I wanted to ask you today who was consulted in making
the decision that Yucca Mountain is no longer a viable option.
Secretary Chu. Well, one has to go back and look at the
entire history of the choice of Yucca Mountain, the Nuclear
Waste Act, all of those things. What one finds is that other
things, other knowledge, other conditions, as they evolved,
made it look increasingly not like an ideal choice.
Senator Murray. Was there scientific evidence that was used
in determining this?
Secretary Chu. Well, it is an unfolding of issues that
continued, and I would be happy to talk to you in detail about
some of the issues. But the President has made it very clear
that it is not an option.
Senator Murray. Was there any scientific evidence that was
used?
Secretary Chu. Well, let me give you one example. The
conditions in Yucca Mountain initially--and then they were
changed--the Supreme Court ruling says that it is not 10,000
years. It could be up to a million years. Then all of a sudden,
that puts a new dimension on Yucca Mountain. Climate is hard to
predict over a million years.
Senator Murray. For any site.
Secretary Chu. Right, for any site.
Senator Murray. So why was Yucca Mountain different?
Secretary Chu. Because there are other geological sites
where we can do radioactive dating and we know they are
inherently stable. Let me give you one example. There is a salt
dome site--these things have been around for tens of millions
of years. The difference with salt dome sites is you stick
radioactive waste in there. The salt diffuses around it. Even
though the continents are drifting all around the globe, those
things have been stable for tens of millions of years, up to
hundreds of millions of years. That is a very different type of
site than Yucca Mountain which has fissures and that rock can
be saturated with water if the climate changes.
Senator Murray. Well, did your Department ask for input
from communities like Hanford where waste destined for Yucca
Mountain is currently temporarily being stored?
Secretary Chu. No, we did not, but we take our
responsibility for the waste problem at Hanford, Washington,
and all the States very, very seriously. We believe that we can
handle that.
But again, let me just continue and go back to the Yucca
Mountain. So all of a sudden, something changes and you say,
well the fix is a multi-multi-billion-dollar titanium shield
that is installed under the ground for Yucca Mountain. So then
as these things go on, you are beginning to think are you
beginning to pour good money after bad.
So the whole intent of the blue ribbon panel is to step
back and look at it. Why were the salt domes ignored in the
past? Well, initially if you put them in the ground, the salt
oozes around it and closes, you cannot get it back. So this
long-term geological repository where you cannot get it back is
actually in a certain sense an ideal place for long-term,
forever waste disposal, geologically stable over tens of
millions of years, cannot get it back. So that is the intent of
the blue ribbon panel.
Let us step back----
Senator Murray. But I would assume that a blue ribbon panel
would not just say we are going to take this one off the table.
We are going to look at other ones that we have not spent a lot
of money on, and they could have problems too.
You know, over the last 30 years, Congress, independent
studies, previous administrations have all pointed to and voted
for and funded Yucca Mountain as the Nation's best option for a
nuclear repository. In concert with those decisions, billions
of dollars and countless work hours have been spent at Hanford
and nuclear waste sites across the country in an effort to
treat and package nuclear waste that will be sent there.
Without a repository, these sites and communities that support
them have now really been left in limbo.
The question I want to ask you is what are you going to say
to these communities today about why you have decided to go
back on nearly 30 years of planning? And what can you do to
assure them that the sites that they are now working to clean
up will not become the final repository for this waste because
we have taken some options off the table?
Secretary Chu. The Department of Energy has a legal
obligation to move that material. We take that obligation very
seriously. So I think that is the assurance. There is more
assurance as you well know. There are ways of dealing with it
if we fail to live up to our responsibility.
But going back to this issue of Yucca Mountain, we believe
we have a path forward. We have a very distinguished bipartisan
panel that is charged with review. They are going to be meeting
at the end of this month, and the two chairs are very eager to
get on with it and to give advice to me, the President, and
Congress which could include advice on changes in the
legislation to allow for a comprehensive, sensible approach to
the back end of the fuel cycle.
Again, Yucca Mountain is not the ideal site, given what we
know today and given what we believe can be developed in the
next 50 years.
Senator Murray. Well, this is really disturbing to me
because now we have pushed this down 2 more years and we have
taken one of the sites off. You have told them do not even look
at this in comparison to all these other ones you are going to
look at. This leaves everybody just in complete limbo after 30
years of working on this, and I would like to ask you to
provide this subcommittee and my office with an impact analysis
which includes the cost and schedule impacts to Hanford cleanup
and the other nuclear sites in my State.
Secretary Chu. All right.
Senator Murray. I just think it is irresponsible for the
Department of Energy to discontinue the Yucca program
altogether, its funding, licensing, and design. I believe that
this has to be a decision based on science and moral
responsibility. We have to clean up this waste. It has to go
somewhere and we cannot just unilaterally take one site out of
the equation when we are looking at where this is going to go
or we are going to find ourselves 2 years down the road in this
same place and all the waste sitting in Hanford that is
temporary storage is going to have no further answer. So I am
really disturbed about this and want to get that information
from you.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just have one more question here.

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

On the whole issue of EM, last year I wrote a press report
that EM was going to be cut by $1 billion. Now, fortunately,
that did not happen. But the funding still for this fiscal year
is inadequate to meet all the needs at Hanford. Particularly I
am worried about the $50 million shortfall for groundwater
cleanup. This is really frustrating. I know there were
increases in other parts of the energy budget. You know, all
the new stuff out there is wonderful. We all want to fund it.
But the legacy projects within DOE are absolutely critical, and
these budgets are not put together just by wishing or magic.
DOE works with the regulators. They work with the communities.
They agree on the milestones and parts of those are the funding
requirements that Congress then has to follow up with and the
administration has to pay for. And we have got to have a
Government that backs up its promises and commitments with real
money.
So I just wanted to ask you, while you were here, how a
base budget that is inadequate to meet the work plans
illustrates a commitment to these communities that we are going
to clean up these sites.
Secretary Chu. Well, Ines Triay, my Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management, tells me that the budget request of
roughly $6 billion is adequate to meet our legal obligations.
As you know, I have consistently fought to sustain these
programs.
Senator Murray. Well, we still have shortages in some
areas. Truly, you were out. You visited Hanford. It is an
enormous site. It is a legacy project from another war, and we
cannot ignore it and we have to meet the milestones and we need
to fund it. I appreciate that the billion-dollar cut did not go
through, but we still have some shortfalls.
And I am worried about next year too because everybody
keeps thinking, well, nobody will pay attention to these EM
projects out there. If we do not pay attention to those, if we
do not meet the milestones and the legal obligations, the
disaster that will hit this country is much, much larger than
the cost that we have today. So we have got to keep those
commitments.
Secretary Chu. Mr. Chairman, can I have 30 seconds.
We are maintaining the budgets, but it is much more complex
than that. We are working very hard to make sure that the
contractors can do better than they have done in the past.
Senator Bennett had noted that many of the things in the
Department of Energy have been over budget, over time. It is
actually true of EM. It is not true of the Office of Science.
And so when I walked in the door, since the Office of Science
actually does big projects on budget, on time, the best
practices in that office now are being actively transferred
over to Environmental Management and a little bit to NNSA. So
we are working very hard to make sure that every precious
dollar that we are spending in EM goes as far as it can. That
is the other way we hope to accelerate these processes.
Senator Tester. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Secretary, thank you for your leadership at this
quite exciting and uplifting time in this particular area for
our country and the world.
I have three questions. I am going to try my best to get
them all in.

NATURAL GAS

As you are aware, Louisiana has been at the center of a
domestic energy revolution as it pertains to the shale gas
revolution. This technology, new technology, has unlocked shale
gas resource space. The United States suddenly finds itself
with four times the volume of gas than we thought we had just a
few years ago.
I want to ask you what you think about the implications of
these natural gas finds both onshore, which are pretty
extraordinary, as well as our continued exploration and
discovery offshore.
And as you may be aware, the Congressional Research Service
recently released a report that said simply by utilizing
natural gas-fired plants that are constructed today, as opposed
to other plants, to fill the energy needs today, we could
reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 19 percent. I found that
quite startling and encouraging.
So could you comment on how this new discovery, new
technology is informing your thinking as you move forward?
Secretary Chu. Well, the ability to recover gas from shale
rock is something that opens up the possibilities. I do believe
that natural gas is a necessary transition fuel to a low-carbon
economy. Right now, if you burn natural gas compared to
uncaptured and sequestered coal, it is about a factor of 2 less
carbon dioxide per unit of electricity generated. So that is
good.
But let me also add that in order to reach the climate
goals we need in the world, by mid-century we are going to be
having to capture the carbon from both natural gas plants and
coal plants.
The discoveries and the demonstration of recoverability is
something which will hopefully keep the natural gas prices
down, and for that reason--the biggest uncertainty, as you well
know, to a power company is the volatility of the natural gas
prices.
So now, I heard slightly different numbers, between a 3
percent increase to doubling of the natural gas reserves
because of the shale gas. But no matter, let us take doubling
as a compromise. That is a lot. It means that we probably have
natural gas supplies that could last a century. So these are
good things. We still want to use that more cleanly.
I should also add that natural gas is also a transition
fuel for a different reason that is probably not appreciated.
If you have renewable energy, sun and wind, within a matter of
minutes to hours, that generation can literally disappear. You
can Google Bonneville Power Administration, and they give the
last 7 days of wind production, and it is a running clock
updated every minute. And it wobbles up and down.
Now, when the wind stops blowing or tapers off, you have
minutes to perhaps an hour to respond. And in so doing, you
asked what sources of energy can respond; hydro and natural
gas. One does not ramp up nuclear powerplants rapidly, nor does
one want to ramp up coal plants. So for that reason, the rapid
response of natural gas is something that is also part of the
transition.
Finally, let me add one of the technologies we are looking
at, which is compressed air storage. You take wind or other
renewable energy or even nuclear energy at nighttime, you use
that. You compress air. You bring the air back and help it spin
a turbine, but you want to use natural gas to boost it. Now,
the wonderful thing is you can probably--70 percent of the
electricity needed to compress the air, pump it into a cave and
have it come out can be used to generate electricity. You only
lose 30 percent and some people say, with newer designs,
perhaps even less. So there again, natural gas has a role in
actually helping generate renewable energy use. So these are
all reasons why----
Senator Landrieu. Well, I really appreciate that because,
as you know, Senator Saxby Chambliss and I have formed the
Natural Gas Caucus and it is not because we are anti-oil or
anti-coal, which we also represent the interests of oil and
coal and want to make sure that they have a place in the
future, as they have had significantly in the past and the
present.
But we think the properties and the potential for natural
gas are very significant, and I am very grateful for you
basically outlining two or three, not the least of which could
potentially be using natural gas, compressed natural gas in
vehicles, which brings me to my next question. And I appreciate
that.

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM

Your Department is leading the effort to disburse $25
billion in investments, which score to our budget at about $7
billion, but it is significant for new vehicles, the program
you recently announced. As you know, many States have an
interest, and Louisiana has been working in conjunction with
our Department of Economic Development on an exciting potential
new model for a vehicle that is in the queue for support.
Can you just give an update about that program? I
understand you have $25 billion to allocate. You might have
done this in your opening, and I am sorry if I am going over
ground already covered. But kind of an update of where you are
and what is your general view of the kind of applications you
are seeing. Are you excited about what you are seeing? Are you
encouraged? And then any particular comments on the Louisiana
proposal I would appreciate hearing.
Secretary Chu. Well, just as a point of information, are
you asking a question about our overall advanced automobile----
Senator Landrieu. Yes, automobile program, the ATVM
program.
Secretary Chu. Yes. I am seeing some very good signs.
We, in some sectors, had fallen behind other countries in
the most advanced fuel-efficient vehicles, but I think the
American car manufacturers are determined to catch up and
surpass them. There are developments across the whole gamut,
from improvements in conventional internal combustion and
unconventional internal combustion in the sense of direct fuel
injection. Much more economical engines.
Electrification, the weak point is the batteries. Both the
major car manufacturers and little start-ups, I think, have
made progress. I would be personally hopeful that within a few
years the energy density in batteries could double, but we
actually need, I believe, perhaps a quadrupling of the energy
density before it is simply adopted mass market. So you have
the range and the battery does not take up the space that the
current batteries do take up.
We are in the process of developing--again, since this is
research and development, one cannot give a timeline--batteries
that also last much longer. The Prius battery, the current
metal hydride batteries in a Prius are kept within 10 percent
of half charged. They are 55 percent to 45 percent. If you take
that battery and drain it deeply and then recharge it, the
lifetime goes down very quickly and you probably had that
experience in your own laptop computer. If you drain the
battery hundreds of times, you will find that that laptop
battery no longer has the capacity it once did, let us say, a
year or 2 ago. So the lifetime of the battery is an issue. You
want the battery to last the lifetime of the car.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. I know my time is up, but Mr.
Secretary, the battery technology is so interesting for all of
us, but there are opportunities for plug-in, opportunities for
new infrastructure for plug-in, with the current battery
technology that we have now. Is that not correct?
Secretary Chu. No. I think the Chevy Volt battery takes up
a huge part of the car, and so GM started this where they went
in with the intent of developing the technology more
aggressively. So as the Chevy Volt and the Nissan LEAF and all
these other--well, the Nissan LEAF is not a plug-in hybrid, but
the Chevy Volt is. So of the plug-in hybrids, we still have
room for improvement. Again, I think the good news is that it
is happening. The development of batteries has accelerated.
Senator Landrieu. Well, thank you very much and thank you
for your focus on our program which is a little different than
the electric vehicles but we think extremely exciting and the
possibility. So thank you for your attention and your staff's
attention.
Senator Tester. Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Chu, I want to thank you for your exceptional service
in your job and complement the President and you on his recent
comments on nuclear power. I completely agree with Senator
Murray about Yucca Mountain, but the President's comments about
a new generation of nuclear power, the quality of his nominees
and appointees for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and for
the Commission on Recycling Used Fuel, the approval of the loan
guarantees. All are an important step forward in that, and I
know you played a major role in it and I congratulate you for
it.

LOAN GUARANTEES

Do you think it would be a good idea over the next few
years for Congress and the administration to move toward a
technology-neutral, low-carbon set of short-term subsidies,
policies, loan guarantees and standards rather than picking and
choosing individual types of clean energy?
Secretary Chu. Yes and no. If you have a very new
technology that you think over a period of 10 or 20 years could
become competitive, then it does make sense to nurture that
technology. Under no circumstances, I believe should you
nurture a technology where you say over this time period--let
us say 10 or 15 years--where it would need subsidy forever. But
virtually every technology, as it begins and emerges--and it is
also true of nuclear--wind, solar--these things needed a little
nurturing, but then after a while you say, okay, eventually you
have to stand on your own and you have to know that you are
going to have to stand----
Senator Alexander. So after a while we get to it.
We did a little computation of--we asked the Energy
Information Administration--wind power gets 25 times as much
Government subsidy per megawatt hour as all other forms of
electricity combined. You know, we put in a production tax
credit in 1992 and it just keeps going, and we had four
Democratic Senators yesterday point out how $2 billion in
stimulus funding was creating jobs in China to build wind
turbines, which they did not like.
So that is why Senator Webb and I on our loan guarantee--I
am very delighted with your approval of loan guarantees for
nuclear. But in our legislation, we make it for all low-carbon
forms of energy. So there is some subsidy, some policy, and
some standard. The renewable fuel standard, for example,
excludes nuclear power and some other forms of clean energy and
in a way distorts the market, making it more difficult for
investor-owned utilities to build nuclear plants based upon
market-based decisions.

NUCLEAR WASTE

But if I may keep going so I do not take too much time
here. I mentioned the quality of your appointees to the
Commission on Used Nuclear Fuel. While you decide what to do,
you can still continue aggressive research in the recycling of
used nuclear fuel. Can you not? And do you plan to do that?
Secretary Chu. Yes. We have a budget of over $400 million,
close to $500 million that we have proposed to Congress.
Included in that budget are new reactor designs that could
potentially burn down, harvest much more of the energy content,
small modular reactors, beginning with conventional light water
but going forward where these small modular reactors would be
totally prefabricated and built in a factory and shipped
successfully in the United States where the location of a
powerplant could not handle a 1.5 gigawatt power line, many,
many things like that.
Included in that is research in reprocessing fuel, a well
as research in advanced reactors with higher energy neutrons
that can burn down the long-lived waste. The whole idea there
is to greatly reduce the amount of nuclear waste to greatly
harvest much more of the energy of the uranium, all those
things. So we plan a very comprehensive program going forward
in all those areas.
Senator Alexander. Senator Bond has an interview he wants
to get to. So I will not ask you to answer any of these, but I
will state these questions quickly.
I would like to ask you to respond to a question about what
you think the risk of loss is for the loan guarantees for
nuclear powerplants. I think it is small. Others have said it
is large.
Second, I hope that you will keep high on your agenda the
uranium processing facility at Oak Ridge which this
subcommittee approved design for, and the sooner we get it
done, the quicker we can reduce the annual overhead costs at
Oak Ridge.
Third and finally, I hope you will keep in mind the
efficiency of third-party financing for facilities at places
like the Oak Ridge Laboratory in Y-12. We can build buildings
cheaper and faster if we allow other people to build them and
rent from them. Sometimes that gets hung up in the Department
of Energy or the Office of Management and Budget. We have had
good success with that at Oak Ridge, and I hope when that comes
before you, that you will pay close attention to that.
Thank you very much.
Senator Tester. Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and the
ranking member, my particular appreciation to my colleague from
Tennessee. This is one of those days when if we were cloned, we
would still be about two places short. I thank you very much
for letting me discuss these issues.

COST OF GREEN JOBS

I agree with Senator Alexander that we need to begin taking
a look at the economics of wind power. I had a private sector
contractor in my office yesterday saying wind power is very
expensive. It is not worth the cost, but we love it because
every time they build a wind power facility, we get to build a
natural gas facility beside it for peaking power. So we make
money off of it, but it is not a good investment for the
taxpayer dollar. As I look at the $20 a megawatt subsidy plus
some figures that we have developed, I think that we need to be
very careful about where it is efficient and effective to use
wind and solar power.
Our Missouri National Guard team and others in Afghanistan
are using solar power to power re-pump facilities to fill
reservoirs. It makes sense. Whenever the sun shines, they can
pump water, but trying to put it on the grid does not work.
But when you come to the stimulus dollars, I think we are
talking about green jobs, but when families are struggling to
make ends meet and workers to find and keep jobs, I think it is
important that the American people know that the so-called
stimulus funds to stimulate jobs in America, being put on the
credit cards of our children and grandchildren, are actually
stimulating jobs here. And too often they are not doing it.
I serve as the ranking member on the Green Jobs and New
Economy Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee. We examined this issue last month and I examined the
issue last year and found out that most of the so-called good,
high quality, new manufacturing jobs are going to Asia where
labor costs are a fraction of the U.S. salaries, energy costs
are low, environmental regulations are nonexistent. So there
are some U.S. construction jobs to put up wind or solar plants
and a handful of remaining operations jobs. The good paying
manufacturing jobs are going to Asia, not the United States.
FirstSolar, a company that manufactures solar panels and
equipment, testified before our EPW Committee advocating for
more Government green job spending. No wonder. What they did
not admit was they are sending all of their new solar
manufacturing jobs to Malaysia. And as the chart here shows,
that is where they are going to go. That is where we are going
to stimulate it.

eSolar testified that they are developing solar powerplants
in the California desert. It is another company. What they did
not admit is that most of their manufacturing is in China. Gear
boxes come from Shenzen, towers from Penglai. Even the panels
come from China. This is eSolar.

DOE just awarded a $1.4 billion loan guarantee to
BrightSource Energy to construct a solar plant in the
California desert. The press release talks about U.S.
construction jobs, but says nothing about who will manufacture
the project's solar panels and equipment. I am concerned that
we will discover that China is the one who is getting the U.S.
stimulus dollars for this project.
Now, I think we ought to be dealing more with China. We
ought to be competing in the world market. We need more trade.
But when we are saying that we are stimulating U.S. jobs with
these stimulus dollars, it isn't so. We need to be trading on
an economically beneficial basis with partners like China, but
stimulus dollars going to China and Malaysia and elsewhere
around the world are not meeting the test of stimulating the
U.S. economy.
That is why I wrote to you on November 10 expressing my
concerns over the news report that DOE was using the funds for
3,000 turbine manufacturing jobs in China to build a Texas wind
farm. In case you do not have it, here is a copy of the
November 10 letter that I still have not had a response to.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Senator Christopher S. Bond
November 10, 2009.
The Honorable Dr. Steven Chu,
Secretary of Energy,
Washington, DC 20585.
Dear Secretary Chu: There is bipartisan concern that the Obama
administration is using U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund green jobs in
China and other foreign countries. As U.S. unemployment tops 10 percent
during this time of economic distress for America's families and
workers, we must ensure that our Government is not using American
taxpayer dollars to create more green jobs in China than in the United
States.
My colleague Senator Charles Schumer recently wrote to you
expressing concern over the Department of Energy's (DOE) use of
stimulus dollars on wind projects that will benefit primarily Chinese
workers because the wind turbines are constructed in China. He noted
recent news reports that a Texas wind project under consideration by
DOE would create up to 3,000 green jobs in China. I applaud Senator
Schumer's leadership in this area and want to assure you that his
concerns are shared by me, both as a Senator from a Midwestern
manufacturing State and as ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on
Green Jobs and the New Economy.
Senator Schumer cited a report by the Investigative Reporting
Workshop at American University that found that the Obama
administration has awarded 84 percent of its $1 billion in clean energy
grants to foreign wind power companies. That is an important issue, but
of deeper concern to me is what number of jobs in foreign countries are
funded by DOE clean energy grants. A good-paying job located in the
United States is still a good job, even if it is supplied by one of our
foreign friends. However, subsidizing thousands of foreign green jobs
is a bad use of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Therefore, please undertake a review of all renewable energy
projects pending or approved by this administration to determine both
the number of U.S. workers and workers in foreign countries they will
utilize and supply that information to the Senate Green Jobs and the
New Economy Subcommittee. To the extent that your review for Senator
Schumer provides information on the use of stimulus funds in this
regard, there is no need to duplicate those efforts. However, as a
member of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, I am
concerned about the use of annual appropriated funds in this regard and
ask that you ensure that your review reflects all funds appropriated by
Congress. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Christopher S. Bond.

Senator Bond. A recent outside investigation found that 79
percent of nearly $2 billion in DOE wind energy stimulus grants
have gone to foreign-owned firms. Of the 28 wind farms so far
receiving DOE stimulus grants, over 1,200 of the 1,800 wind
turbines installed were built by foreign manufacturers.
Personally I am much less concerned about what companies
are getting the funding, but if they are calling it ``stimulus
for hiring U.S. workers,'' I want to make sure they are hiring
stimulus U.S. workers. If they are foreign companies investing
in the United States, great if they are hiring U.S. workers,
but do not call them stimulus jobs if the jobs are overseas.
That is why I asked you to undertake a review of the dollar
spending under the stimulus and to tell me the number of
foreign workers who would be employed. I am still waiting for a
reply. My staff checked with your Department again in December
and January and March, and I know others have expressed
frustration. But I have a copy of this letter that I will be
happy to supply to your staff, and I would like to be able to
tell my constituents that when you put money, borrowed from our
children and grandchildren, into stimulus, they are stimulating
jobs in the United States.
Now, I am not here just to complain. I want to thank you,
as Senator Alexander did, for your commitment to loan
guarantees to bring the best clean energy, nuclear energy on
line. You were referencing reprocessing. We have got a
tremendous amount of first-time spent nuclear fuel which can
continue to be used, reducing its weight. If it is in
Tennessee, fine, but wherever you can do it. Clinch River
breeder reactor I believe should have gone forward.
And for clean coal, we thank you for those efforts.
Whatever you think about coal, I think that we have got over a
couple of hundred years of BTU's. If we can get that started,
that will be a long way toward meeting the needs that we have
for energy. I appreciate that.
And I would like to have an opportunity to hear your
comments. Rather than asking you a particular question, I would
like to have your assurance that you will supply us information
on the foreign jobs and what we are doing to see that if you
are calling them stimulus jobs, they produce jobs in the United
States. So I might ask you that and ask you for your comments
on the many issues I raised.
Secretary Chu. So very quickly, thank you for your support
on the nuclear energy sector.
The wind turbines that are being--first, this famous
example of the China wind farm in Texas--I keep on asking my
people, have we gotten an application for a grant on this, and
they keep on saying no. So all I can say is although that has
gotten a lot of press coverage, we have not gotten an
application for a wind farm made with China parts in Texas.
With respect to the stimulus jobs, yes, the stimulus and
Recovery Act is all about giving jobs in America. I absolutely
agree with that.
The wind turbines that are constructed now in America--part
of the parts are from abroad, part of the parts in the United
States. The value of the parts in the United States is 50-60
percent and climbing. And we are working toward getting that
fraction up higher and higher.
I mentioned before that I toured a Vestas plant where they
are investing--I think it is a total now of maybe $600 million
in a factory in the United States for manufacturing wind
turbines in all of North America. They are up to 70 or 80
percent American-made parts. And of course, when you install
the turbine, it is American workers. Seventy to 80 percent is a
good number because if you look at an American-made automobile,
a Chrysler, for example, that is about the ratio of parts made
in the United States.
Now, you might ask why Vestas would want to have local
suppliers. It is for the same reason why they want to have a
manufacturing facility in a country that appears committed to
wind. It is a lower cost to them. They are less susceptible to
currency fluctuations between countries. They want to develop
local supplier chains again because of cost/benefit.
And because we were not a good wind market until recently,
until the last 5 years, the turbines were developed and
manufactured abroad. So this is part of the strategy of
bringing them back to the United States, getting major U.S.
manufacturer headquarters companies like GE--has come back into
the game.
And we will be glad to give you the details of what the
fraction of money spent on, let us say, a wind farm is in the
United States and where it is going. So we would be happy----
Senator Bond. And we will share with you, as I said, the
testimony from EPW on the plans for the people who have gotten
the money to invest it solely overseas. And I hope that you
will take a look at that. When they are saying, hey, we are
going to build plants in Malaysia with stimulus dollars, that
is a negative as far as I am concerned.
Secretary Chu. We will certainly look into that.
Senator Bond. Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Tester. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PROJECT APPLICATION PROCESS

Mr. Secretary, we talked about the time necessary for
application review, nuclear power, and so on. I just want to
make the comment that it is my understanding that the review
process differs by type of application. In other words,
applicants with nuclear power generation projects receive a
ranking from DOE before submitting a full application, but
applicants with coal-based and other types of projects do not.
Applicants with some kinds of technologies are allowed to brief
DOE and explain their projects after submitting their
applications; others are not, potentially denying them
opportunity to clear up misunderstandings. I would appreciate
it if you would look into this and see why applicants are
treated differently in this regard.

CONTRACTOR PENSIONS

Now, the last thing I would like to get back to and the
point I would like to make--I talked about the major crisis
regarding contractor pension funds. I understand you have
changed the way you are budgeting for pensions and in an effort
to see that it is less of a crisis, and I would appreciate any
explanation you might have as to what you are doing with
respect to that and what we can expect in fiscal year 2011.
I would recommend that you ask the GAO to undertake a
comprehensive review of the pension problem and solutions going
forward. I intend to do that, and so whether you do it or not,
the request will go in. So I am giving you a heads-up that I
will be sending a letter to GAO fairly soon and would
appreciate it if you could join me in that. If within the
Department they think it is not a good thing to do, I will
proceed anyway. But I wanted to let you know that that is the
sort of thing I had in mind.
So if you could talk about that whole issue, I think it
would be helpful.
Secretary Chu. I would be delighted to.
As you correctly point out, there are huge liabilities in
the DOE pension program because unlike pensions of other
contractors, the Federal Government and the Department of
Energy is responsible should those programs be mismanaged----
Senator Bennett. You have the highest number of outside
contractors of any Department in the Government except DOD.
Secretary Chu. Correct.
The CFO's office has done what I consider a spectacular job
over the last 6 months in trying to get their hands around the
problem. We are engaging now the contractors very actively to
deal with the pension overhangs, especially when the stock
market went down last year.
We are taking a number of steps in order to make sure that
the contractor's--there is a tight rope line here. The way the
contracts are written--and we do not want to manage the funds
of the contractors. However, what we can do is use the
mechanisms we have, for example, award fees, whether there can
be continuous contractors if they mismanage their funds because
this is a liability. In 2009, we had budget shortfalls. Because
of that, it required some top line transfers. So we are taking
a much more active role in trying to spot early on what is the
vulnerability of the pensions.
We also want to share--there are certain contractors who
have managed their pension funds quite well. In fact, without
appearing provincial--I know I am going to appear provincial,
but I will do it anyway. The University of California--they
have managed their pension funds very well. So, for example, in
the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the employees--it
was so well managed that for 16 years they did not have to
contribute anything to the pension fund because of the quality
of the investments. This is a good thing.
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Secretary Chu. But I have to say other contractors did less
well. So we are beginning to get our arms around spotting early
and ask if the asset allocation classes make sense. For
example, if 80 percent of your workforce is either retired or
about to retire in 5 years, what is the asset allocation? Does
it make sense to have 50 percent of them in equities? You want
to start to transition to guaranteed income as an example
because of the age of your base.
So these are things that we are saying we want to develop
mechanisms that essentially share best practices among the
labs. You know, some contractors do well; others do not do it
well. And to convince the laboratories and the contractors for
those laboratories how important it is that everybody manage
their pensions well because if one or two make a mistake, we
are now talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of top
line transfers to bail it out.
So this has gotten our full attention and we are
investigating it. We welcome the GAO investigation as well
because we see this as an opportunity. They could have seen
things we missed, but we are doing it ourselves and we are
doing it very aggressively.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I appreciate the aggressiveness
with which you have addressed that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator Bennett.

FOREIGN PRODUCTION OF ENERGY GENERATION EQUIPMENT

I have a few more questions. I want to start out by
saying--it is no surprise to you--I was one of those four
Democratic Senators that had that press conference yesterday on
generation of equipment that was built outside this country.
I will also say that I know you have come into this
situation in a tough position. First of all, I think you came
into the Department of Energy with energy policy that was
antiquated and lacked diversity. I think for the last 30 years
we have watched our manufacturing base leave this country
because we have had poor policies in this country and we have
had poor trade policies in this country. So I think it is
patently unfair to come in and say that this is your fault
because we are buying generators across the pond in one of
those ponds.
And I think you explained it very, very well when you said
a lot of these parts are made here. We like that. And we want
generation equipment made here. I read not too long ago that if
one of the hydro plants went out or one of the coal-fired
electrical generators went out, that we do not make those in
this country anymore. That is somewhat distressing to me, and I
know it is to you too.
So as we move forward and we move our energy economy into
the 21st century, I just want to express my appreciation for
you standing up and doing the right thing, and I appreciate
that. The press conference yesterday from my perspective was
not a negative on you. It was a negative on where we have come
in the last 30 years, and I do not think it has been positive.

ENERGY TRANSMISSION MODERNIZATION

Getting back to your budget, I would just like to say DOE
has got a $60 million study to look at transmission. You and I
both know the transmission again is antiquated. We need to do
something about that. The results for that study are going to
come up in about 2011 or 2013.
In the interim, we both know that there are problems out
there with transmission. How are we addressing that issue in
the interim for this study?
Secretary Chu. Well, there are many issues. Over a several-
decade period, modernization of our transmission system that
enhances its electrical reliability and also allows a diverse
set of energies to be moving around the country--especially as
the variable sources of energy come higher on line, will
require a system that can automatically respond to, all of a
sudden, several billion watts of energy going off line because
the wind stopped blowing in a certain region, Montana, Wyoming,
you name it. So the amount of money needed for that is truly in
the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Central to all these things are questions of line siting,
right-of-way issues, of costing of the electrical lines.
Typically the cost of the electrical lines is borne by the
supplier, but as we enter in this new era--it used to be that
the supplier--you build a coal plant, a gas plant, something
like that. It is local. This is not an issue. But now all of a
sudden, we are going to enter in an era where you are going to
be moving energy over hundreds of thousands of miles.
Senator Tester. And so I think the question is--I have got
transmission projects in the State. I know New Mexico, Arizona,
and Nevada. How do you prioritize them without this study being
in?
Secretary Chu. Well, again, it is a divided responsibility.
There is the Department of Energy. There is FERC. There are
also Federal lands. It turns out that many of the companies who
want to string transmission lines tend to try to stay away from
Federal lands because there is local resistance there, as well
as local private land resistance.
So what we have been trying to do--you know, I will be the
first to admit I am not happy with the amount of progress, but
Ag, Interior, the chairman of FERC, I, others, CEQ have been
meeting over the last year to try to see how can we get this
done in a better way. I am not completely happy with the
progress, but this is an important point. It is not lost that
this is a problem that needs to be solved.

BIOMASS AND BIOREFINERIES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Senator Tester. Montana is no different than most of the
Mountain West. A lot of our forests are red and dead. A lot of
that material cannot be made into plywood or 2 by 4's or
anything. It is non-merchantable but it can be used for biomass
and so it can create power.
The DOE is flat-lining the budget for biomass and bio-
refineries research and development as one of the two programs
in the whole energy efficiency budget to not receive an
increase. Is this a signal that biomass innovation is not a
priority?
Secretary Chu. No, it is a priority. It is a signal that we
have tough choices. Again, I would be willing to work with you
on this.
But here, the biomass--actually, quite frankly, because of
a lot of dead standing pine trees that are there in the West of
the United States, there is an opportunity not only for those
sources of biomass but also the biowaste, the wheat straw, the
rice straw, the cornstalks, all those things we think have an
opportunity to be harvested for energy, either electricity
generation or fuels. So we do remain committed to doing that.
Again, it was a hard decision that we have to sometimes make.

CARBON CAPTURE

Senator Tester. I want to talk a little bit about research
and development, and then I will let you go. There are two
particular areas that I think research--and there are many more
than this that are particularly applicable. Being from a coal
State like Montana, how we capture carbon, whether we are
making limestone out of it or putting it underground for
storage, long-term storage is one way. I was wondering how you
would assess our progress on that and if there are adequate
dollars in the budget to take care of that. And are we holding
the people who are doing the research accountable for results?
Secretary Chu. There are dollars allocated for that
purpose, and there are also private companies looking into
that, taking carbon and turning it into whether it is cement or
various kinds of things. It really is an R&D level thing. It is
not ready for deployment. We are in piloting stages. We are
looking at all of these things. What I would call the general
rubric of beneficial and economic uses of carbon is something
that we and other countries are examining.
Senator Tester. Okay. I mean, coal is going to be around
for a while. Is progress being made at an adequate rate that
you are happy with?
Secretary Chu. Well, we have invested----
Senator Tester. A lot of money.
Secretary Chu [continuing]. A lot of money. We have a
number of pilot plans come forward. I am heartened that a
number of utility companies and power generating companies are
partnering with the Department of Energy in a major way to
start to test the capture at scale, at the hundreds of megawatt
level, which is really what matters. That is the really
necessary step before you say, okay, we begin to deploy. So we
have a number of projects that we are investing in and they are
being done now.
We are also investing all the way up the pipeline toward
even better ways of capturing the carbon, either before you
burn or after you burn. So we think with some of these new ways
we have a potential for--you know, it is all about driving down
the costs, keeping the energy bills as low as possible, and
getting it as clean as possible. So we think these are good.
Now, for those of you who do not know me that well but for
those of you who know me when I do research and everything else
and for those in the Department of Energy, I always think we
can go faster and always want to go faster. But we are moving.
Senator Tester. Well, my point is that as we deal with
energy and climate change and all the things around that and a
diversified energy portfolio, this is an important issue. I
feel the immediacy. I think you feel the immediacy. I just want
to make sure we are getting results. That is all.

NUCLEAR POWER

Next question, same area, different energy source and that
is nuclear power. You have answered many questions on it as far
as nuclear reactor design. It is the same issue. As we talk
about greenhouse gas from coal, we talk about nuclear waste
from nuclear powerplants. Are there adequate dollars for
research there so we can get our arms around that? I do not
think we are talking about that near enough as we go forth with
nuclear power, and that is how we are going to deal with the
waste and if there is a solution to that waste.
Secretary Chu. I think there are solutions to the waste and
still ever better solutions I think can be found. So this is
why we are putting together a long-term road map over 10, 20,
30, 50 years in order to deal with this. Nothing in nuclear
moves quickly. You do not get something up and proved and
running in a couple years. I mean, just the approval process--
you have to proceed carefully.
But we did ask for an increase. I think, as a scientist and
a techie, there is a lot more we can do and there is a lot more
where the technology can be improved.
Senator Tester. I want to thank you for your testimony and
your direct answers to the questions.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

The record will remain open for 1 week for members to
submit questions and comments.
[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. How much funding is being dedicated to R&D on natural gas
end use technologies in EERE? In particular, what is the DOE doing to
help develop residential and commercial technologies that will be
acceptable in a carbon constrained future
Answer. The Vehicle Technologies Program has an open solicitation
for medium- and heavy-duty engine development and vehicle platform
integration that includes $5 million of fiscal year 2010 funds,
leveraged with similar funds from partners California South Coast Air
Quality Management District and the California Energy Commission (CEC).
Work funded under the current solicitation will be complementary to
work already underway funded by CEC. A 50 percent cost-share will be
required of awardees.
Furthermore, there remains a small amount of funding under the Fuel
Processor and Distributed Energy subprograms in Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies. The planned funding in fiscal year 2010 is $370,000. The
fuel processor could be utilized in combined heat and power (CHP)
systems that are more efficient than legacy combustion technologies.
Question. I note a better budget request more last year for
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell R&D; however, the request is significantly below
the 2010 appropriation.
Why is DOE not funding the Market Transformation program that helps
bring market ready fuel cell technologies to customers?
Why does the DOE continue to reduce funding for vehicular fuels
cells and the supporting infrastructure when we all acknowledge a need
to investigate multiple alternatives to traditional transportation
technology?
Answer. DOE requests $9 million for Market Transformation
activities in fiscal year 2011. This funding will focus on key Safety,
Codes and Standards activities, which are essential for market
transformation. In addition, the Program will assess the impact of $42
million awarded from the Recovery Act for stimulating market pull,
increasing manufacturing volume and reducing the cost for fuel cell
systems.
The Department's reduction of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies (HFCT) budget by $37 million allows a balanced portfolio
of transportation solutions and continued focus on battery and advanced
vehicle approaches for more near term impact. DOE will also maintain a
strong effort in key areas of hydrogen and fuel cell research and
development. DOE requests $50 million for the Sold State Energy
Conversion Alliance (SECA) Program and expects to maintain funding
levels at approximately $38 million through the Office of Basic Energy
Sciences for long-term and crosscutting R&D in hydrogen and fuel cells.
The SECA Program was initiated to bring together government, industry,
and the scientific community to promote the development of
environmentally friendly solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) for a variety of
energy needs. SECA is an alliance of industry groups who individually
plan to commercialize SOFC systems for pre-defined markets; research
and development institutions involved in solid-state development
activities; and Government organizations that provide funding and
management for the program.
Question. I note the funding request for Residential Buildings
Integration is less in 2011 than was appropriated in 2010; however, the
DOE has suggested actually adding to the program by including retrofit
research and development. How do you plan to accomplish the goal of
Zero energy homes with this reduction in funding?
Answer. Prior to fiscal year 2010, the DOE Building Technologies
Program focused research efforts on new buildings with the idea that
energy efficiency technologies and research aimed at new buildings
would also be applicable in existing buildings. While there is some
overlap between the two markets, particularly in space conditioning,
hot water, appliances, and lighting, there are also a number of R&D
needs that are specific to energy retrofits for residential buildings
that the program will seek to address starting in fiscal year 2010.
Energy retrofits are considered to be among the most cost effective
ways for the Nation to reduce its energy use and carbon emissions.
While zero energy homes remain a goal for the Department, another goal
is to support the retrofit industry--at a national scope and scale of
up to two million retrofits per year. This service goal will drive the
research into immediate near term focus and deliverables, which can
immediately go into service by contractors and other service
professionals. The zero energy home goal remains a priority over the
long term for this program.
Question. Are there limitations inherent in today's lithium ion
batteries which require a step change in the weight and power/energy
density of these batteries to secure longer life as well as provide on
demand power/acceleration.
Answer. There are no limitations inherent in today's lithium-ion
batteries that preclude them from having the ability to provide the
power/acceleration for hybrid vehicle (HEV) and plug-in hybrid vehicle
(PHEV) applications while meeting the vehicle size and weight targets
for the battery. Battery life is typically driven by the capacity fade
that is influenced by several factors including: (1) chemical
interactions inside the battery cell that are specific to the
electrochemistry; (2) battery operation; and (3) cumulative temperature
profile over the life of the battery. Vehicle manufacturers currently
install excess battery capacity in order to ensure meeting their
battery life target. As greater confidence in battery life under real-
world driving conditions develops, the amount of excess capacity
installed is expected to decrease, which will subsequently reduce the
overall battery cost.
For battery-powered electric vehicle applications, improvements in
battery size and weight are sought in order to provide for a longer
driving range. However, lithium-ion batteries are still far from any
theoretical limitations on energy density. Next-generation lithium-ion
batteries will employ metal alloy anodes (instead of graphite), and
high-capacity cathodes, resulting in significant increases in energy
density. Research and development efforts on these technologies are
well underway and are progressing well.
Question. Would you agree that one of the issues that has to be
addressed in developing next generation lithium ion battery technology
is to reduce or eliminate the irreversible capacity of that same cell?
Answer. DOE agrees that, for some systems, irreversible capacity
loss (ICL) is an important issue that must be overcome to enable next-
generation Li-ion cells. The ICL associated with alloy anodes is one of
several barriers to commercializing that technology. Other issues
include large volume changes upon cycling (which leads to particle
fracture), disconnection from the rest of the electrode material
(resulting in severe energy fade), and unstable alloy surface films
which consume lithium during cycling (which leads to energy fade).
However, today's commercial cells suffer 5 to 10 percent ICL, so the
issue is one of relative size and scale.
Question. Would the Department be interested in looking at
technologies, such as stabilized lithium metal powder, to overcome the
issue I described above?
Answer. Yes. In fact, the Department of Energy (DOE) is currently
funding a 3-year, $6.2 million total funding (including a 50 percent
industry cost share of $3.1 million), research and development contract
with FMC Lithium to investigate and improve the performance of
stabilized lithium metal powders. These powders show promise both for
addressing the irreversible capacity loss, and for enabling the use of
Li-free cathode materials that exhibit very high capacities, such as
sulfur or vanadium oxides. This contract was awarded through a
competitive process.
In addition, DOE is funding work on novel electrolytes for use in
alloy anode electrodes that exhibit both lower irreversible capacity
loss (which enables much higher initial energies) and more stable anode
surface films (that enable more stable cycling).
The Department also is preparing a new Funding Opportunity
Announcement (FOA), expected to be released in the next several months,
focusing on research into higher energy and lower cost batteries,
mainly those considered to be ``next generation'' technology. The
responses to this FOA will be competitively evaluated by subject area
experts. DOE expects to support the proposals receiving the highest
technical merit and overall value scores, with out year funding subject
to annual appropriations.
Question. Concerns have been raised about the Loan Guarantee
programs treatment of transmission projects under 1705. The concern is
that transmission projects, which can be challenging and complex, may
be put at the bottom of the application pile rather than the top,
simply because of time pressures. A loan guarantee is a ``major Federal
action'' that requires DOE to conduct a NEPA review. With less than 18
months before DOE's authority to issue loan guarantees under section
1705 expires, I would like to know that DOE is prepared to move to
conduct and complete the necessary environmental work with all
deliberate speed, so that transmission projects move forward along with
renewables. What specific steps has DOE taken to ensure that its NEPA
review of transmission projects is performed in a timely manner?
Answer. To ensure that project applications are reviewed in a
timely manner and NEPA is initiated as soon as possible, the Loan
Programs Office has added 5 additional Environmental Protection
Specialists in the past 9 months. All of the new Specialists are senior
NEPA practitioners with many years of relevant experience. This allows
DOE to maximize the management and efficiency of the NEPA review
process.
The DOE Loan Programs Office assesses the level of NEPA review
required for all projects when entering into the due diligence process.
Prior to entering due diligence, a preliminary determination of the
level of review required is performed using the environmental
information provided in part I of an application. Discussions with the
applicants are initiated early in the review process to ensure that
environmental considerations are fully understood. This allows
applicants to modify, if appropriate, project proposals to ensure that
the most expeditious NEPA review process can be performed (e.g.,
performing an Environmental Assessment (EA) rather than requiring and
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)).
If a NEPA review for the project or project site was performed by
another Federal agency, DOE will adopt that review or incorporate all
relevant analysis from it into the DOE NEPA document in order to
expedite the DOE NEPA review process.
Large transmission projects typically require an EIS. The Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations must be
followed in preparing an EIS. Those regulations require DOE to
undertake a variety of procedural steps during the NEPA review process.
These include the publication of notices of availability and intent to
prepare EISs; conduct of public meetings; allowance for public comment
periods; incorporation of public comments; and consultation with
States, tribes, and other Federal agencies. The Loan Programs Office
complies with all of the procedural requirements of NEPA, and has
established a notice preparation process that significantly reduces the
length previously found in DOE notices while still being fully
compliant with the CEQ regulations. The new process reduces the time it
takes to prepare these notices, and allows the review process to begin
as expeditiously as possible.
Question. How is the Department working with transmission
applicants to ensure the efficiency of the NEPA review process is
maximized?
Answer. DOE Loan Programs Office Environmental Compliance Division
staff talks with transmission project applicants early in the
application process to ensure that applicants understand the level of
NEPA review that is required, how the process will proceed, and what
supporting environmental documentation is necessary to include in the
application. DOE also assists applicants with an understanding of the
NEPA process and areas of potential environmental concern through live
and taped web broadcasts and responses to frequently asked questions
posted on the Loan Programs Office Web site. DOE continues to update
program solicitations and the program's Web site to include specific
guidance that helps to educate potential applicants and expedite the
NEPA review process.
Question. What assurances can give you give that meritorious
transmission projects won't be precluded from selection based on the
internal timing of DOE's NEPA review?
Answer. The DOE Loan Programs Office does not base its decision
regarding project selection on the level of NEPA review required for a
project. However, DOE generally advises applicants that a project
requiring an EIS that is not currently being, or has not previously
been, undertaken by another Federal agency will likely take 18 to 24
months to complete. In cases where no NEPA work has been initiated, it
would be difficult for DOE to complete an EIS and have a Record of
Decision signed in time to begin construction and issue a loan
guarantee prior to September 30, 2011, the deadline established in
section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended by the
American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 for both start of
construction and issuance of loan guarantees. We also note that,
actions (e.g., commencing project construction) taken by the applicant
prior to completing the NEPA review process can put at risk the NEPA
review and thus the issuance of the loan guarantee. Knowing this,
applicants can decide whether it is appropriate to pursue a Federal
loan guarantee. Nevertheless, it is the Loan Programs' goal to work
with all selected applicants to complete the required NEPA review
process in as efficient and timely a manner as possible.
Question. What amount of funding is needed in fiscal year 2011 to
fully comply with all clean up agreements? Please provide the amounts
on a site-by-site basis.
Answer. The Office of Environmental Management's request of $6.047
billion positions the program to meet its regulatory commitments,
supports reducing the risk associated with our highest environmental
risk activities (i.e., tank waste) and achieves footprint reduction
across the complex. Page 9 of the budget request provides the amounts
on a site-by-site basis, but the table below displays the funding
requirements for the major sites.

[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Site 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlsbad................................................ 220,245
Idaho................................................... 412,000
Los Alamos.............................................. 196,953
Oak Ridge............................................... 432,700
Richland................................................ 972,588
River Protection........................................ 1,158,178
Savannah River.......................................... 1,217,799
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question. What amount of funding is needed in fiscal year 2012 to
fiscal year 2015 to fully comply with all cleanup agreements? Please
provide the amounts on a site-by-site basis.
Answer. Compliance with cleanup agreements is a major factor the
Office of Environmental Management takes into account as it formulates
its budget requests. Because of the dynamic nature of cleanup
agreements, including the fact that milestones are renegotiated based
the results of ongoing characterization and the changing understanding
of the extent of contamination, we are not able to determine at this
time the amount of funding needed in fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year
2015 to be in full compliance with all cleanup agreements.
Question. What actions are being taken regarding contracts that are
not meeting all cleanup milestones? Please provide specific examples.
Answer. Most contracts executed by the Office of Environmental
Management (EM) are performance based, in which the contractor is
awarded fee based on the attainment of specific cleanup activities.
These activities often support a specific compliance milestone. Thus,
if a cleanup action associated with a milestone is not attained, the
contractor may not receive as much fee as if it had completed the work
in accordance with the milestone. In fiscal year 2009, EM met
approximately 95 percent of its 176 scheduled major enforceable
milestones so, for the most part, fees were not reduced for missed
milestones. Nonetheless, the milestone for cold commissioning of the
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant was missed and the contractor
forfeited significant fee. In addition, where allowable by the contract
and depending on the nature of the violation, the contractor may be
responsible for the payment of any fines for violations. For example,
the New Mexico Environment Department fined the Los Alamos National
Laboratory for issues associated with chromium in groundwater. The site
contractor paid the fine.
Question. Will you make clean up milestones and funding needs to
meet them publicly available?
Answer. The Office of Environmental Management (EM) has its
``Environmental Compliance Performance Scorecard'' posted on its Web
site (http://www.em.doe.gov/Pages/CompliancePerformance.aspx). This
scorecard is updated on a quarterly basis and provides the status of
milestones that were due during the quarter as well as progress on
those upcoming in the next four quarters. EM bases its funding needs on
the scope, cost, and schedule of cleanup projects. These projects are
complex and may have several objectives and milestones associated with
them such that identifying funding needs for specific milestones is not
feasible.
Question. Over recent years, any Federal funding research and
development activities of the Energy & Environmental Research Center
(EERC) at the University of North Dakota have always provided a minimum
20 percent cost share as defined under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
In fiscal year 2010, Congress directed that continued funding be
provided to the EERC for additional research and development activities
as well as funding for a new building to house research and development
activities critical to meeting the future energy needs of the United
States. However, the building, which will only support research and
development projects, has been labeled as a demonstration activity and
subject to a 50 percent minimum cost share. Is this typical, and is it
appropriate, to place such a large minimum cost share on a building for
which the activities occurring within will be research and development,
which only requires a minimum 20 percent cost share?
Answer. The cost share determination has been revised to require
only 20 percent minimum cost share for the effort to construct the
building. The DOE Contracting Officer notified Ms. Sheryl Landis and
Principal Investigator at UND of this change in writing on April 1,
2010.
Question. The Energy Independence Security Act of 2007 set a 36
billion gallon mandate for biofuels by 2022. The DOE loan guarantee
program can be instrumental in seeing that this goal is reached.
However, DOE has yet to issue a single loan for the advanced biofuel
industry. The loan program has told the industry they need to bring
off-take agreements to get these loans, yet the fuels market does not
operate in this manner. What can DOE do to facilitate issuing loan
guarantees for advanced biofuel projects in the coming year?
Answer. While third-party supply and/or off-take agreements are not
mandatory to satisfy the statutory requirement that the project have a
reasonable prospect of repayment of the principle and interest of the
guaranteed loan, they are factors which are taken into consideration.
For projects that are not supported by third-party supply and/or off-
take agreements, the projects need to establish that a viable market
exists for the product produced by the projects. The Loan Guarantee
Program is working closely with the Renewable Fuels Association to
facilitate dialogue with the biofuels companies. As a result of this
collaboration, on April 7, 2010, The Loan Guarantee Program held a
roundtable discussion with members of the biomass community to discuss
issues that the industry faces in obtaining loan guarantees.
Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget for EERE indicates that DOE
intends to launch a new biopower initiative. Why is DOE undertaking
this new effort now, and what does this mean for biofuels producers who
might be looking for a new round of funding for advanced biorefinery
facilities?
Answer. The Large Scale Biopower Initiative will accelerate the
development of advanced technologies to enable utilizing sustainably
harvested biomass for electric power generation. Biomass used for
biopower may offer a renewable base load energy option that could be
available year round. These advanced biopower technologies may have
positive environmental impacts for the existing utility industry and
also benefit local communities providing the biomass feedstock. There
are also opportunities to retrofit equipment that is currently idle,
such as boilers found in pulp and paper plants, in older and smaller
coal-fired power plants, or co-fired in conjunction with coal and use
it in the biopower production process. Additionally, biopower is an
option for meeting State-level Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). The
Biopower Initiative aims to accelerate the deployment of biopower
technologies to enable biopower deployment as soon as 2013 in support
of potential future RPSs.
Furthermore, a component of the proposed advanced technologies for
the introduction of biopower is the development of densified biomass-
derived intermediaries--such as torrefied biomass and bio-oil--which
are technologies that can be leveraged in the production of biofuels.
The fiscal year 2010 appropriation and fiscal year 2011 request do
not include funding for another integrated biorefinery solicitation.
The integrated biorefinery funds requested incrementally fund projects
previously selected in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.
Furthermore, the number of integrated biorefinery facilities was
significantly expanded by Recovery Act funding.
Question. The NNSA budget request includes a 5 year spending plan
for each element of the budget request. A 5 year spending plan shows
the fluctuation of spending year to year, when certain programs and
projects reach peaks or are finished, and provides a sense that the
requested fiscal year 2011 budget is grounded in some longer term plan.
Outside of NNSA, the rest of DOE does not provide 5 year spending
plans. Mr. Secretary, can you provide 5 year spending plans for all DOE
programs and projects as NNSA does now?
Answer. I believe that considering 5 year budget implications
provides useful guidance for internal formulation and planning and the
Department is making significant strides in that direction.
A more in-depth internal consideration of multi-year budget
implications will offer the Department many advantages including
enhancing transparency and improving long-term planning. We are
currently establishing a Department-wide budget formulation and
execution system that will be better able to build and track 5 year
budget plans.
Question. You did not request new funding for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative this year, Also, the Obama administration announced a multi-
agency CCS Task Force with the Office of Fossil Energy and EPA as the
co-leads on February 3, 2010. The goal of that effort is to work to
overcome the barriers for widespread deployment of CCS within 10 years
and to bring 5-10 commercial scale projects on line by 2016. Can you
tell me what you hope to achieve with CCPI Round III (from the Recovery
Act) projects?
Answer. The third round of Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)
demonstration projects is well underway and is focused on developing
projects that utilize carbon capture and storage technologies and/or
beneficial reuse of carbon dioxide. Five projects have been selected,
two focusing on pre-combustion carbon capture in greenfield integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants and three post-combustion
capture projects using slipstreams at existing pulverized coal (PC)
power plants. Thus far, the Department has signed cooperative
agreements on three of these projects (two IGCC and one PC). Each of
these projects will be demonstrating a different carbon capture
technology to provide the market a diversity of CO2 capture
approaches. These projects will be storing CO2 in either
saline aquifers or using it for enhanced oil recovery and will conduct
extensive monitoring, verification, and accounting to ensure permanence
of storage. Four of the five projects selected will be capturing and
storing CO2 in excess of 1 million tons per year.
Question. When do you plan to announce, how much would you hope to
fund, and what would be the focus of a CCPI Round IV?
Answer. Commercial-scale demonstration of carbon capture and
storage (CCS) technologies is a key step to generate data and expand
our knowledge of how these systems work when integrated with an
operating power plant. The Department is focused on successfully
implementing the five selected CCPI Round III demonstration projects,
as well as other CCS demonstrations currently managed by the Department
(a CCPI Round II project, FutureGen, and the multiple Industrial CCS
demonstration projects). These demonstrations are critical for proving
integrated operation and safe and effective long-term storage at scale.
The R&D focus is on developing advanced technologies to improve cost
competitiveness of CCS technologies. These demonstration projects will
provide important information to help guide future budgetary decisions.
Question. How will each of these CCPI projects feed into the CCS
task force goals?
Answer. One of the chief goals of the Carbon Capture and Storage
(CCS) Task Force is to develop a proposed plan to overcome the barriers
to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years,
with a goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects
online by 2016. All five Clean Coal Power Initiative projects selected
in the third round and one selected in the second round are presently
scheduled to begin plant operation and CO2 sequestration
during or before 2016.
Question. For the last 3 years, the Energy and Water Subcommittee
has provided funds to begin exploring expansion of a 5th SPR site in
Richton, MS. This site plus expansions at two other existing sites were
intended to expand the SPR to the 1 billion barrel level. This was the
policy pushed by Vice-President Cheney. It is my understanding that a
June 2007 DOE study found that it would cost in the range of $21
billion to build and fill that expansion effort.
What is the Obama administration's policy on the SPR and the costs
and need for site expansion? Are there better ways to achieve energy
security? Why are you proposing to us $71 million of prior year
balances for operations and management for fiscal year 2011?
Answer. The administration is currently reviewing Strategic
Petroleum Reserve 1 billion barrel expansion policy. While this is
occuring, the fiscal year 2011 budget proposes the cancellation of $71
million in balances from prior years appropriated for expansion
activities at the proposed Richton, Mississippi site and use of these
balances to partially fund the SPR's requirements in fiscal year 2011.
The SPR requires $209,861,000 for the management and operations in
fiscal year 2011.
Question. The administration has not requested R&D funds for the
oil and gas programs. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have done
that in their budget requests. At the same time, in the fiscal year
2010 conference report, Congress required the DOE to come up with a
research development and demonstration strategy and provide a report
that outlines these activities. The E&W conference report provided $20
million for that effort and requested a report. Despite not requesting
funds, will you commit to completing that strategic plan with a multi-
year technological horizon and also engage the private sector and
academic interests?
Answer. As directed in the appropriation bill, a research and
development strategy for unconventional oil, gas, and coal resources is
being developed. The draft strategy will include the resource
opportunities and technology applications and we will seek input from
academia and the private sector. The provided funds will be used for
unconventional oil, gas, and coal resources projects identified in the
strategy. A funding opportunity announcement seeking proposals for new
projects will be issued soon.
Question. The ITER project faces significant delays. The
construction completion date has slipped from 2016 to 2022 and the
total project cost estimate has increased from $14 billion to $20
billion. The ITER International Office managing this project still does
not have a final design or a schedule and cost baseline. These delays
have increased U.S. costs and further delays could put at risk the
U.S.'s total project cost estimate of $2.2 billion for construction.
What has the United States done to mitigate risk?
Answer. The Department's senior leadership has been vigorously
engaged in the ITER project over the past 8-9 months. We are currently
working with the other ITER members to achieve a final, credible
project baseline and a change in ITER Organization management that will
ensure robust management during the construction phase. We are making
progress with the other members to address these issues. We hope to
have some of them resolved by the June 2010 ITER Council Meeting (IC-
6). We anticipate using the fiscal year 2011 funding request to make
substantial progress on the design, R&D, and long-lead procurement
activities for the U.S. hardware contribution, as well as to keep the
United States on track to meet its critical path commitments to the
project.
Question. Will the United States consider withdrawing from ITER if
delays continue and costs escalate beyond the $2.2 billion U.S.
commitment?
Answer. DOE's policy is to aggressively manage projects to maintain
cost and schedule. DOE constantly assesses projects to improve
performance as prescribed by DOE Order 413.3A. ITER is no exception. We
have made progress in addressing ITER performance concerns. We hope to
determine the project baseline schedule and improve the management
issues shortly to allow for much more orderly and efficient management
of the ITER project. The Department is committed to maintaining the
established CD-1 cost range for the U.S. contribution to the project
and, in fact, has resisted entreaties by the ITER Organization to
accept more scope.
Question. When will a decision be made by the United States on
whether to stay in the ITER program?
Answer. We hope to establish the overall ITER project baseline and
improve the management issues by the June 2010 ITER Council Meeting
(IC-6). DOE constantly assesses projects to improve performance as
prescribed by DOE Order 413.3A.
Question. I think we all agree we need to move to an electric drive
transportation system to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and
decrease our greenhouse gas emissions. I know that your Department is
working toward decreasing battery costs, which are a huge part of the
increased incremental cost of electric vehicles. Further, President
Obama has set a goal of having 1 million electric vehicles on the road
by 2015.
What are the major things that the Department is doing to achieve
that goal? What percentage of the Advanced Vehicles Technology budget
is going into electric drive vehicles (which can include both battery
and fuel cell vehicles)?
Answer. Using Recovery Act funds, the Department is making
substantial investments in establishing domestic manufacturing
capability and infrastructure development needed to advance the
widespread market penetration of electric drive vehicles. These
investments totaled over $2.4 billion, including up to $2 billion for
battery and electric drive manufacturing facilities, $400 million for
transportation electrification projects, and $20 million in battery
research and testing facilities.
Under the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program,
the Department made loan commitments of over $8 billion to domestic
manufacturers of advanced technology vehicles, including loans to Ford,
Nissan, Tesla, and Fisker Automotive. A substantial fraction of the
funds disbursed will support domestic manufacturing facilities focused
on producing batteries, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicles.
Under the Recovery Act's section 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing
Tax Credits, the Department made awards for tax credits for several
clean energy manufacturing projects related to electric drive vehicles.
In addition, the Department is conducting ongoing applied R&D to
support the development of critical technologies needed for widespread
introduction of electric drive vehicles. These efforts include battery
development, power electronics and electric motors, and electric drive
vehicle systems.
As part of the U.S. Government effort to update the Federal fleet
with fuel efficient hybrids and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, DOE
will replace 753 vehicles with hybrids in 2010. This will bring the
total number of DOE hybrid vehicles to 888, even as the agency trims
the overall size of its vehicle fleet.
In fiscal year 2010, the DOE Vehicle Technologies Program is
investing $145 million directly supporting electric drive technologies,
or approximately 47 percent of its total fiscal year 2010
appropriation. Other R&D, such as vehicle lightweighting, indirectly
supports vehicle electrification.
Question. What is the Department planning to do to overcome the
non-technical barriers to the deployment of electric vehicles? Are you
dedicating some of your resources to a public information campaign?
Answer. Significant resources are being dedicated to addressing
non-technical barriers. The Department is closely collaborating with
the EPA to develop and validate fuel economy test protocols for
electric drive vehicles. The Department works with the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) and various industry standards organizations
to establish codes and standards to promote faster widespread market
penetration. The Department is working with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration and the National Fire Protection
Association to develop safety standards. The Department has made
significant awards to develop educational programs for teachers,
student, and the general public.
Resources are being dedicated to a public information campaign,
including the work of the Department's Clean Cities program, which is
conducting public deployment programs and communicating the benefits of
transportation electrification to the general public. The Clean Cities
public education and outreach activities provide technical assistance
and consumer information related to electric vehicles and other
alternative fuels, as well as the infrastructure and service industries
needed to support them. In fiscal year 2010, approximately $10.3
million is devoted to these efforts.
As part of the Recovery Act projects, the Department made
competitively selected awards, totaling $39 million, to 10 consortia of
universities, community colleges, science centers, and public relations
organizations to develop advanced electric drive vehicle educational
programs for student, teachers, technicians, emergency responders, and
the general public.
In addition, the Department has launched an outreach effort on its
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Web site entitled Energy
Empowers, which includes informative articles and videos showing where
the Department's efforts are making an impact on people's lives.
Question. How do you expect to leverage what is learned from the
demonstration Communities funded by the Recovery Act funds for future
widespread deployment of electric vehicles?
Answer. The information obtained and lessons learned as a result of
the Demonstration Communities will help to guide future development and
deployment efforts. It will also help to instill a greater
understanding among the general public of the costs and benefits of
electric vehicles. Based on this greater public knowledge and
confidence, the Department will be able to leverage greater future
investment by local communities in establishing electric vehicle
infrastructure.
Question. The electrification (even partial) of medium and heavy
duty vehicles could play a significant role in decreasing oil use and
greenhouse gas emissions, due to their low fuel economy. Can you
describe to me what work the Department is doing in this area and how
that is represented in your budget?
Answer. Current electric drive technologies that are being
developed for automotive applications (e.g., batteries, electric motors
and power electronics) are in general also applicable to both medium-
and heavy-duty vehicles. More specifically, R&D on advanced
technologies for electrification of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles is
ongoing under the 21st Century Truck Program, and under the SuperTruck
Program recently initiated with Recovery Act funds. SuperTruck also has
additional funding support from annual appropriations.
Truck-stop electrification is being implemented using Recovery Act
funds. Cascade Sierra Solutions was competitively-selected for an award
of up to $22.2 million to deploy truck stop electrification
infrastructure at 50 sites along major U.S. interstate highways and to
provide 5,450 rebates for truck modification to implement idle
reduction technologies.
Medium- and heavy-duty electric drive vehicle awards,
competitively-selected using Recovery Act funds, include an award of up
to $45 million to a consortium of California's South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) and 50 different utilities and fleets to
develop a fully integrated, production plug-in hybrid system for Class
2-5 vehicles (8,500-19,500 lbs gross vehicle weight) and demonstrate a
fleet of 378 trucks and shuttle buses; Navistar was awarded up to $39
million to develop and deploy 400 advanced battery electric delivery
trucks (12,100 lbs gross vehicle weight) with a 100-mile range; and
Smith Electric Vehicles was awarded up to $32 million to develop and
deploy up to 100 electric vehicles, such as ``Newton'' medium-duty
trucks.
Question. What are you currently doing to investigate the possible
uses of automotive grade lithium ion batteries in stationary
applications, both with new and somewhat depleted batteries?
Answer. Several electric drive vehicle battery manufacturers are
assembling battery packs for stationary grid applications using
automotive grade lithium ion battery cells developed with DOE funding
support. For example, A123Systems has built large battery systems from
high power HEV batteries to support grid frequency regulation. DOE
anticipates that some of battery production facilities being
established with support from the Recovery Act will produce batteries
for both vehicle and utility grid applications.
In addition, the DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability, with the help of Sandia National Laboratory, is studying
the value propositions of various energy storage systems, including
``new'' automotive grade lithium-ion batteries, for stationary grid
applications such as load leveling, peak demand management, all of
which could help defer the need to build peaking power plants.
For ``somewhat depleted'' batteries used in automotive
applications, the Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP) initiated a
program to investigate the merits of re-purposing or re-using the
batteries retired from plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) or
electric vehicles (EV) for other applications. This program has several
elements including analysis, testing, and demonstration. In the
analysis portion, VTP is investigating the value of the ``somewhat
depleted'' batteries for grid, off-grid and other mobile applications.
The potential uses in grid applications include home energy storage
appliance, community energy storage, substation back up, and
electricity storage for wind or solar plants.
Question. How do you anticipate the battery and storage hub
integrating with existing programs in OE and EERE as well as ARPA-E?
Answer. The Department formed an Energy Storage Working Group to
enhance communication and coordination of energy storage research
across the Department. This activity is led by the Under Secretaries as
well as the principals of the Offices of Science (SC), Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OE), and ARPA-E. The Energy Storage Working Group has
initiated an extensive assessment of the DOE-wide energy storage
investment by technology readiness level. A staff level group meets
more frequently to coordinate day-to-day activities. The involved
program offices share detailed project listings and participate in
review of each other's new and ongoing projects. They also share
information on upcoming Funding Opportunity Announcements and support
joint workshops to identify gaps and barriers.
In addition, there is a parallel Hubs Working Group that
coordinates the formulation of the Hubs to ensure similar processes and
coordination among the Hubs. The Department's Energy Innovation Hubs
Oversight Board (Under Secretaries for Energy and Science, their senior
scientific/technical advisors, and I) will provide additional assurance
that these activities are effectively managed and coordinated. Hub
researchers will also be full participants in joint program meetings
with researchers and managers from SC, OE, EERE, and ARPA-E to ensure
seamless information exchange and to promote coordination and
collaboration as appropriate.
Question. In your budget this year, you have cut hydrogen and fuel
cell funding by $37 million from last year's appropriated level.
Although this is an improvement over the budget you constructed last
year, I'm still concerned that this decrease could be seen as an
indication of what you plan to do with this program. The major programs
that seem to have been decreased are both Hydrogen and Fuel Cell R&D
lines ($17 million) and the Market Transformation ($15 million).
Can you give a brief summary of the existing programs that will be
discontinued or significantly scaled back in order to make these cuts
possible?
Answer. Project deferrals will occur in the Market Transformation
subprogram, which includes Early Markets, Safety, Codes and Standards,
and Education, and in the Systems Analysis subprogram.
Question. One question I have is why would you so dramatically
decrease the funding for the work that is designed to encourage public
adoption of the technology, which the American people have funded over
the years?
Answer. The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies funding request
provides for a focused effort on key Safety, Codes and Standards
activities, which are essential for market adoption of hydrogen and
fuel cell technologies. At the same time, data collection and analysis
of fuel cell systems will continue on fuel cells that are placed into
the market using fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010 and Recovery Act
funding that together totals nearly $62 million. Analysis of these data
will be conducted to help identify future needs.
Question. Last year, the cuts you proposed in this area would have
abruptly terminated funding to 189 ongoing multi-year grants. Will any
existing grants be affected this year.
Answer. There will be 22 projects deferred in fiscal year 2011 in
Market Transformation (18) and in Systems Analysis (4). Deferred means
that an existing project will not be funded in fiscal year 2011, but
the funding of that project could be re-started in fiscal year 2012
depending upon appropriations. An existing project is one that began in
fiscal year 2010 or earlier. We retain the option to continue funding
the project in out years. Deferred does not include new projects that
would begin in fiscal year 2011. However, the Program anticipates about
20 new projects will begin in Fuel Cell Systems R&D.
Question. What are your plans for further solicitations in this
area to continue building upon the work that the Department has done
for many years?
Answer. The Department plans for solicitations in the Fuel Cell
Systems R&D and Manufacturing R&D subprograms. For the fuel cell
solicitation, a Request for Information has closed, a pre-solicitation
workshop has been conducted and preparation of the Funding Opportunity
Announcement is underway. DOE anticipates that this solicitation will
yield about 20 new projects.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
Question. In reviewing the fiscal year 2011 Fossil Energy Research
and Development (R&D) budget, I am very troubled. Despite a healthy
overall 6.8 percent increase for the Department from the fiscal year
2010 enacted level, the Fossil Energy R&D program is not among the
beneficiaries of forward-thinking. It greatly concerns me that the Coal
R&D budget is flat funded; the Oil and Natural Gas R&D programs are
zeroed out; no new funds have been requested for a Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) Round 4 solicitation; the Fossil Energy Program
Direction account is underfunded by $10 million and underfunded by $19
million if funding is not provided to administer the Recovery Act
activities; the Methane Hydrates work that has been traditionally
conducted by NETL is being transferred to the Office of Science; and
the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Gas and Other Petroleum Research
Fund has been offered up for rescission.
Is the fiscal year 2011 Fossil Energy R&D budget an accurate
reflection of your vision for NETL and the Fossil Energy R&D program?
Please elaborate.
Answer. The Office of Fossil Energy's (FE) primary objective is to
ensure the continued use of traditional fuel sources to provide clean,
affordable, reliable energy. The Clean Coal Research Program,
implemented by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL),
supports the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) overall mission to
achieve national energy security in an economic and environmentally
sound manner. The Fossil Energy Research and Development fiscal year
2011 budget request of $586.5 million represents more than 75 percent
of FE's total fiscal year 2011 budget request and will help maintain
DOE's leadership role in addressing the challenge of climate change,
deliver to the Nation superior electricity generating technologies, and
allow NETL to carry out energy and environmental research, development,
and demonstration programs.
The Coal Program has four key priorities: (1) to develop carbon
dioxide (CO2) capture technologies for fossil fueled power
plants and industrial sources; (2) to establish safe, reliable
CO2 storage methods including geologic storage and
beneficial reuse; (3) to improve the efficiency of both existing and
new coal-fired power generation plants; and (4) to implement computer
modeling and simulation to accelerate the Research and Development
(R&D) path from discovery to commercialization and reduce costs.
There are a number of technical and economic challenges that must
be overcome before cost-effective CCS solutions can be implemented to
address climate change. Funding from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) is helping to address these challenges.
The Recovery Act provided an additional $3.4 billion for FE R&D to
accelerate the commercial deployment of CCS technology, including $800
million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. The Recovery Act funding
coupled with our annual appropriations will allow FE and NETL to
support important advances in capture technologies, efficiency of
advanced power generation systems and CO2 storage
technology. The experience gained from capture and storage
demonstrations funded by the Recovery Act will be a critical step
forward achieving widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS. In
addition to the Recovery Act projects, the core research, development,
and demonstration activities that leverage public and private
partnerships will support the goal of broad cost-effective CCS
deployment in the post-2020 timeframe.
Consistent with administration policy to phase out fossil fuel
subsidies, the Office of Fossil Energy requested no funding for oil and
gas research and development. In addition, Methane Hydrates R&D is
transferred to the Office of Science. Over the next 2 years, the
program will phase out production related R&D activities in favor of
research to strengthen the fundamental understanding of methane
hydrates: their formation and occurrence; their role in geological and
ecological systems; their stability in natural and engineered systems;
and their role in the carbon cycle. This transfer does not preclude
academic institutions and laboratories from applying for grants to
support research that addresses these more fundamental questions. This
decision is based on the nature of the research and development
activities not the type of competitively selected awardees.
Question. The Coal R&D program, which has been flat funded, is
focused on developing a portfolio of technology options for future
energy plants that will provide significant improvements in efficiency
coupled with Carbon Capture and Storage. Given that the Environmental
Protection Agency will begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions next
year, how do you view the Coal R&D budget as adequate?
Answer. The Fossil Energy Research and Development fiscal year 2011
budget request of $586.5 million represents more than 75 percent of
FE's total fiscal year 2011 budget request and will help maintain DOE's
leadership role in addressing the challenge of climate change, deliver
to the Nation superior electricity generative technologies, and allow
NETL to carry out new and ongoing energy and environmental research,
development, and demonstration programs.
In addition, the Recovery Act provided $3.4 billion for Fossil
Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration FER&D to accelerate the
commercial deployment of CCS technology.
The coal research and development (R&D) funding request in the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget is sufficient to meet current
needs. Ultimately comprehensive energy and climate legislation that
puts a cap on carbon will provide the largest incentive for CCS because
it will create stable, long-term, market-based incentives to channel
private investment in low-carbon technologies.
Question. The Oil and Natural Gas R&D programs focus on long-term,
high risk research and development, and are implemented by
universities, national laboratories, research and development
institutions, governments, and industry. These programs involve
research and development on unconventional resources, such as methane
hydrates; natural gas locked in tight sands, coals, and shales;
stranded oil; and crude oil in non-conventional reservoirs. I am
advised that these resources are significant--billions to trillions of
barrels and more than 1,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas;
however, technology advancements are required to develop these domestic
resources. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the vast majority
of the oil wells belong to independent operators eager to apply the
technologies that the Department is helping them access. Why is the
Department turning its back on these huge potential resources by
zeroing out the Oil and Natural Gas R&D programs? What alternatives
have you considered to improve the programs, rather than to eliminate
them?
Answer. The Methane Hydrates R&D program is proposed to be
transferred to the Office of Science. Over the next 2 years, the
program will focus on research to strengthen the fundamental
understanding of methane hydrates: their formation and occurrence;
their role in geological and ecological systems; their stability in
natural and engineered systems; and their role in the carbon cycle.
This transfer does not preclude academic institutions and laboratories
from applying for grants to support research that addresses these more
fundamental questions. This decision is based on the nature of the
research and development activities not the type of competitively
selected awardees.
Question. During our January 2009 visit in my office, I urged you
to visit the NETL in Morgantown. Have you made such a visit to any of
the NETL campuses? What steps have you taken to schedule this visit?
Answer. Despite several attempts, I have not been able to visit the
NETL in Morgantown. I look forward to the chance to see the NETL
campuses and I am working with my staff to schedule a visit soon.
Question. I have been supportive of the concept behind FutureGen,
and public-private partnership to build a first of its kind, coal-
fueled, near-zero emissions power plant, provided that the Federal
share of the project was not funded at the expense of the basic Coal
R&D account. I understand that you intend to make a go/no go decision
on the FutureGen project in the coming weeks.
If you determine that the FutureGen project should proceed, what
additional Federal resources will be required to complete the project?
How would the administration make up that shortfall? What assurance can
you provide me that this shortfall will not be addressed by robbing the
Coal R&D account?
Answer. The FutureGen Alliance submitted its Renewal Application to
DOE on March 19, 2010.
The latest estimate of capital costs from the FutureGen Industrial
Alliance has grown from the earlier one provided.
Currently, the Department is in discussions with the FutureGen
Alliance about the most promising funding path forward. If additional
funds are warranted, the Department may consider the use of prior year
available funds but does not plan to fund the project through offsets
from current year research and development (R&D) funding nor from
future year requests for appropriated R&D funds.
Question. If FutureGen is a ``go,'' will the Department be able to
obligate funds provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) prior to the September 30, 2010, deadline? If those funds
expire, how will the Department address the FutureGen funding needs?
Answer. The Department is planning to obligate the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds for the FutureGen project before
the September 30, 2010, deadline.
Question. Should a determination be made not to proceed with the
FutureGen project, how will the Federal funds that have thus far been
made available for the project be redirected?
Answer. On March 19, 2010, the FutureGen Industrial Alliance
submitted its Renewal Application to the Department of Energy.
Currently, DOE is in discussions with the FutureGen Alliance about the
most promising path forward toward a successful project.
Question. What goals of the FutureGen project being met through the
current CCPI Round 3 and other funding opportunities provided through
the ARRA?
Answer. Some of the environmental goals of FutureGen (emissions of
criteria pollutants and mercury) will likely be met under the Clean
Coal Power Initiative Round 3 and American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act funded awards. The carbon capture and storage goals of FutureGen
are more stringent than those required under the alternative funding
opportunities; however, some of the projects being pursued under the
CCPI would satisfy the 90 percent carbon capture goal and the
sequestration goal of a minimum 1 million metric tons per year. The
goal of fully integrating an integrated gasification combined cycle
powerplant with sequestration in a saline formation remains unique to
FutureGen.
Question. After spending most of our meeting last year discussing
the importance I place on NETL, I was disturbed that your office did
not take the time to notify me that NETL Director Carl Bauer had
retired earlier this year. As the Department considers candidates, I
urge you to seriously consider filling this position with someone who
not only has a strong technical background, but also who knows how NETL
is structured, how it works within the Department, and how to build
relationships with outside stakeholders. What is the status of the
Department's efforts to identify a new NETL director? I expect your
office to notify me as soon as a formal decision has been made. I would
very much like the opportunity to meet the new Director, and will rely
on your office to help coordinate such a visit.
Answer. Your office was notified on April 1, 2010, that the
Department named Anthony V. Cugini as the new NETL Director. Dr. Cugini
has a strong technical background that includes expertise in a number
of key energy and environmental research and development areas,
including catalyst development, advanced carbon synthesis, hydrogen
production and separation, gas hydrates, and CO2
sequestration and computational modeling.
During Dr. Cugini's 23-year career at NETL he was responsible for
overseeing the Office of Research and Development since 2007, where he
supervised an organization with over 400 personnel at 3 NETL locations,
which included cutting-edge research and computer simulations conducted
onsite as well as that performed through partnerships, cooperative
research and development agreements, financial assistance, and
contractual arrangements with universities and the private sector.
Dr. Cugini's background provides an excellent combination of
leadership abilities, scientific and research expertise, understanding
of key technical challenges in clean energy, and familiarity with
NETL's programs, personnel, and capabilities. Dr. Cugini's outstanding
career at the laboratory has demonstrated a clear ability to continue
NETL's important mission at a high level of achievement and
accomplishment. The Department looks forward to the lab's continued
progress and success under his leadership.
As requested, we will be pleased to arrange a visit with you and
Dr. Cugini. The Department's Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs will contact your office to coordinate a
visit.
Question. NETL also serves as a PMC for EERE. Approximately 122
NETL employees support the PMC by implementing 40 percent of EERE's
projects and programs, including weatherization, power and vehicles,
and buildings and industrial technologies.
The EERE program direction for the PMC at NETL did not allow for
annual cost escalation and is $3 million below what is required to
sustain the 122 NETL FTEs supporting the PMC at NETL. If this funding
shortfall is not addressed by Congress, how many NETL positions will be
eliminated?
Please provide me with an update on the PMC activities at NETL,
specifically, the long-term plans to continue this successful NETL-EERE
collaboration.
Answer. In fiscal year 2010, the initial NETL Program Direction
budget was $14.2 million (same as fiscal year 2009), with the
understanding that after we completed our midyear budget review an
adjustment may be made based on need. NETL was notified that its final
fiscal year 2010 regular program direction budget would increase by
$1.3 million to $15.5 million (9.2 percent) above fiscal year 2009. In
addition, EERE increased the NETL Recovery Act Program Direction budget
by $3.5 million. Therefore, there is no funding shortfall in fiscal
year 2010, and no positions will be eliminated in fiscal year 2010.
Upon receiving the fiscal year 2011 appropriation from Congress, EERE
will reassess the funding requirements at the PMC locations, and ensure
equitable distribution.
NETL has been a successful partner with EERE, and the long-term
plan is to continue this working relationship.
Question. As American industries confront the challenges of
reducing their carbon emissions and creating the clean energy jobs of
the 21st century, how can the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP)
help to place on a fast track major innovations in efficiency and cost-
effective environmental performance? Certain components of this program
were scaled down or terminated in recent years. Through the ITP, or
perhaps through other programs, how do you intend to increase the
Department's focus on maximizing the research, development, and
deployment that can be achieved through public-private cost-share
programs, with a view toward achieving bold advancements in the energy-
intensive industries that are so vital to the future of America's clean
energy job market?
Answer. The Nation faces serious economic, energy, and
environmental challenges that are impacting all sectors of the economy,
including manufacturing which has seen significant job losses over the
past 2 years. Clean energy development and deployment, and a robust
manufacturing infrastructure which supports this endeavor are critical
to U.S. energy security, jobs, and reducing carbon emissions, and have
been a priority of the administration. In January, President Obama
announced the award of $2.3 billion in Recovery Act Advanced Energy
Manufacturing Tax Credits for clean energy manufacturing projects
across the United States. Additionally, in November 2009, Secretary Chu
announced more than $155 million in Recovery Act funds for 41
industrial energy efficiency projects across the country. ITP also
funded additional Industrial Technical Assistance activities to assist
energy-intensive manufacturers cut their energy bills, improve their
productivity, and save jobs over the past few years.
Also during the summer of 2009, to help restock the technology
development pipeline, ITP issued a funding opportunity announcement
(FOA) for grand challenge concept studies to define requirements for
transformational industrial processes and technologies that reduce the
energy intensity or greenhouse gas emissions by a minimum of 25 percent
while providing a return on investment of 10 percent or greater.
Selections from this FOA are expected to be completed by May 2010.
Notwithstanding these efforts, ITP recognizes the significant long-
term need for process innovation in manufacturing. The fiscal year 2011
budget re-prioritized the ITP program strategy. This new strategy
emphasizes crosscutting technologies that provide significant savings
across multiple energy intensive industries. ITP will continue to
support industry-specific R&D for the energy-intensive chemical
industry. The Program is developing breakthrough technologies that
significantly reduce process energy- and carbon-intensity, and plans to
undertake an exploratory study to identify pathways for significant
carbon emission reductions from the cement industry. ITP will continue
to work with other energy-intensive industries through its Energy
Intensive Process R&D activities, which focus on developing innovative
crosscutting technologies applicable to multiple industries.
In addition, the fiscal year 2011 ITP budget request proposes a new
subprogram entitled Manufacturing Energy Systems (MES). The MES
program, to be anchored at two U.S. universities, will serve as
knowledge development and dissemination centers organized around
distinct manufacturing areas with critical technical needs. The centers
will reduce the time necessary to translate innovation into commercial
product for low or near-zero carbon processes and technologies.
ITP will continue to coordinate with other EERE program efforts
focusing on the manufacturing of clean energy products as appropriate.
Question. What action is the Department taking to ensure that
public and private clean energy investments will provide benefits to
the residents of rural areas, small cities, and towns commensurate with
the benefits provided to residents of larger metropolitan areas? How do
these efforts differ from last year? Rural areas have long struggled to
keep up with critical infrastructure and, if agencies such as yours do
not provide clear leadership, these rural areas could be at risk of
missing out on major new public works projects and investments. Please
provide me with the proportions of the program funding that have been
committed to rural areas in the State Energy Program and the Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program.
Answer. In the absence of statutory requirements, the Department of
Energy (DOE) does not require States to allocate any specific
proportion of State Energy Program (SEP) funding to either specific
geographic areas or topics within the State. Through the SEP, DOE
provides formula grant dollars to State Energy Offices (SEO) on behalf
of each State. The SEO proposes energy efficiency and renewable energy
programs that best fit the unique needs and resources within the State.
DOE then reviews and approves the State programs and provides technical
assistance as needed.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriated
$3.2 billion in funding for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Block (EECBG) Program. Of this total, more than $2.7 billion is
available for distribution in the form of direct formula grants to over
2,350 eligible units of government such as cities and counties, States,
U.S. territories, and Federal recognized Indian Tribes. This subtotal
has been allocated, as directed by the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007, to the following categories of grantees:
--Sixty-eight percent to formula-eligible units of local government
(cities or city-equivalents with a population of at least
35,000 or that are one of the top 10 highest populated cities
of the State, and counties or county-equivalents with a
population of at least 200,000 or that are one of the top 10
highest populated counties of the State);
--Twenty-eight percent to States through formula grants;
--Two percent to Indian Tribes through formula grants; and
--Two percent for competitive grants to ineligible cities, counties,
and Indian tribes (42 U.S.C. 17153(a)(1-4)).
A State that receives a grant under the EECBG Program shall use not
less than 60 percent of the amount received to provide subgrants to
units of local government in the State that are not eligible for a
direct formula grant from DOE. Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands have no ineligible entities and are, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to make subgrants. For example, West Virginia received more
than $14 million in direct formula awards to State and local
governments. Out of this funding, over $9.5 million was awarded to the
West Virginia State Energy Office, which must subgrant a majority of
these funds under the requirement described above.
The authorizing statute does not identify any eligible criteria
that are specific to ``rural'' communities.
Up to $453.72 million in Recovery Act funds will be awarded through
competitive EECBG grants covering two topic areas, as described in
Funding Opportunity Announcement DE-FOA-0000148.
The first topic area, the ``Retrofit Ramp-Up'' program, will award
funds to innovative programs that are structured to provide whole-
neighborhood building energy retrofits. DOE expects to make 8 to 20
awards under this topic area, with award size ranging from $5 to $75
million. Both formula eligible and formula-ineligible entities may
apply for funds under Topic 1.
The second topic area, the ``General Innovation Fund,'' will award
up to $63.68 million to help expand local energy efficiency efforts and
reduce energy use in the commercial, residential, transportation,
manufacturing, or industrial sectors. DOE expects to make 15 to 60
awards, with award size ranging from $1 to $5 million. Only formula-
ineligible entities can apply for funds under Topic 2. The award
selection official may consider a proposed program's ``impact on, and
benefits to, a diversity of communities, including low-income and rural
communities'' when making selections per page 38 of FOA-0000148.
These EECBG grants will almost certainly benefit small and rural
communities beyond the direct recipients by adding substantially to the
knowledge base surrounding the implementation and operation of energy
efficiency/renewable energy projects (EE/RE). The grants will help to
validate and refine best practices in a diversity of communities,
including those with low-income and rural characteristics. These new
data points will allow future EE/RE projects to be more closely
tailored to the economic, environmental, and energy needs of Americans
from all walks of life.
Question. With my strong urging several years ago, NETL began
performing work under the auspices of the Office of Legacy Management
(LM). Most recently, these staff relocated to the new 59,000 square-
foot LM Business Center in Morgantown, West Virginia.
I was advised in June 2008 by LM officials that the LM Business
Center would house 30 Federal and 60 contractor staff. Please provide
me with the current Federal and contractor staffing levels at the
Morgantown site. If the goals provided to me in 2008 have not been met,
I would like a detailed explanation on how and when these employment
goals will be achieved.
Answer. There are currently 9 Federal staff and 73 contractor staff
at the Legacy Management Business Center (LMBC) located within the West
Virginia University Research Park. None of these employees are
associated with the National Energy Technology Laboratory. Over the
last several years the Office of Legacy Management (LM) has been able
to reduce total LM Federal staffing levels from an allocation of 83 to
a current level of 57. This was accomplished by outsourcing work and
using Federal employees from other organizations where it would be more
efficient. Within the new staffing level there are presently 50 Federal
employees in LM. We expect to hire additional Federal employees and 2-3
of those employees would support activities at the LMBC. However, we do
not anticipate needing beyond approximately 12 Federal employees at the
LMBC in the foreseeable future.
Question. Please describe in detail the functions that are being
performed by Federal staff at the Morgantown site. Please provide the
same detailed information about the contractor staff.
Answer. Federal staff assigned to the LMBC perform a variety of
functions. Those functions include: management and storage of records;
information technology infrastructure services; oversight of LM site
activities (e.g., ensuring compliance with environmental regulations
and management of natural, historical and cultural resources); budget
formulation and execution; acquisition support and oversight; and,
management of personal property.
The majority of contractor staff at the LMBC are associated with
LM's primary mission at this location which is the management of
records and information technology. Contractor staff performs the
following types of functions: Information Technology, Records
Management, and a variety of business services. These programs are
based in Morgantown and support LM mission activities throughout the LM
complex. LM's contractor also provides operation of the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) certified Records Warehouse
and the Consolidated Data Center; including environment, safety, and
health oversight and conduct of operations.
Question. Please provide me with a schedule of anticipated closures
of DOE nuclear operations across the country. What effect will these
closures have upon the demand for the functions performed at Morgantown
and the staff levels?
Answer. Responsibility for sites is transferred to LM after active
remediation is completed, from programs within the Department of
Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, and from private licensees of
former uranium mills. LM anticipates our site responsibility to grow
from our current level of 87 to 112 by 2015. A list of sites projected
to transfer by the end of 2015 is below. As a majority of the sites are
in the Western United States, require only limited maintenance, and
have small volumes of records and information we do not anticipate an
increase in LMBC staffing levels.
Bear Creek, Wyoming; Gas Hills East, Wyoming; Gas Hills North,
Wyoming; Split Rock, Wyoming; Inhalation Toxicology Lab, New Mexico;
Lisbon Valley, Utah; Mound, Ohio; Uravan, Colorado; Durita, Colorado;
Panna Maria, Texas; Church Rock, New Mexico; Ford, Washington; Gas
Hills West, Wyoming; General Electric Vallecitos, California; Mercury
Storage Facility (location TBD); Ray Point, Texas; Iowa Army Ammunition
Plant, Iowa; Painesville, Ohio; Attleboro, Massachusetts; Combustion
Engineering, Connecticut; Highland, Wyoming; Latty Avenue Properties,
Missouri; Sequoyah Fuels, Oklahoma; St. Louis Airport, Missouri.
Question. What other LM functions could be housed in the new
Morgantown facility?
Answer. LM has consolidated several of its business functions at
the LMBC including records storage and management, and information
technology infrastructure. In addition, Federal staff at the LMBC
provide oversight of certain LM site activities (e.g., ensuring
compliance with environmental regulations and management of natural,
historical and culture resources); budget formulation and execution;
acquisition support and oversight; and, management of personal
property.
The documents to be stored, managed, and processed at the facility
are inactive, temporary DOE records from the cold war nuclear sites.
Records are retrieved to respond to various requests for information.
The records currently stored at several NARA Federal Records Centers
will be transferred to the LMBC for permanent storage.
Over the last few years LM has worked hard to both evaluate and
optimize Federal staffing levels and locations. Based on LM's current
functions, the locations where those functions are most efficiently
performed, and the distribution of our sites within the country we do
not anticipate the transfer of other LM functions to the LMBC.
Question. In February 2010, the President signed the Memorandum
creating an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
The Memorandum proposed a plan ``to overcome the barriers to the
widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years, with a
goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by
2016.''
What is the status of your progress? What are your plans for going
forward?
Answer. In the President's Memorandum, the interagency carbon
capture and storage (CCS) task force has 180 days to produce a report
proposing a plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-
effective deployment of CCS within 10 years, with a goal of bringing 5
to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016. The task force
is on track to deliver the report to President Obama in August, 2010.
On May 6, 2010, at the Grand Hyatt Washington from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
a public meeting was held to provide input to the interagency CCS task
force.
Question. How do these goals correlate with the Environmental
Protection Agency's efforts to regulate mobile sources of greenhouse
gas emissions this year and stationary sources of greenhouse gas
emissions next year?
Answer. An area that the interagency carbon capture and storage
(CCS) task force will investigate is the legal and regulatory issues
associated with CCS. Per the Presidential Memorandum, the Task Force
will consider how best to coordinate existing administrative
authorities, as well as identify areas where additional administrative
authority may be necessary.
Question. In June 2009, the administration released a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) entitled, ``Implementing the Interagency Action
Plan on Appalachian Surface Coal Mining.''
The MOU noted that ``Federal agencies will work . . . to help
diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and promote
the health and welfare of Appalachian communities. This interagency
effort will have a special focus on stimulating clean enterprise and
green jobs development . . .''
What new programs is the Energy Department proposing to advance
economic diversification in Appalachia?
Answer. This question should be directed to the U.S. Department of
the Army, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. See http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
pdf/Final_MTM_MOU_6-11-09.pdf.
Question. What new resources is the Energy Department requesting to
advance economic diversification in Appalachia?
Answer. The Department of Energy is not a party to this Memorandum
of Understanding. This question should be directed to the U.S.
Department of the Army, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. See http://www.epa.gov/owow/
wetlands/pdf/Final_MTM_MOU_6-11-09.pdf.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Secretary Chu, I am pleased to once again see an increase
in overall funding for EERE, because we've got to move forward toward a
clean energy economy and the work being done at the Department will
help keep us on that path.
I am concerned, however, that for the second year in a row the
Water Program has been cut--by 25 percent this year--while nearly every
other renewable energy program receives increased funding. As you know,
the National Hydropower Association recently released a report citing
the potential for additional, emissions-free hydropower--and hundreds
of thousands of jobs that could be created.
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 baseload resources in the future.
Given these recurring funding cuts for this important program, I am
not assured that the administration sees the value of water as a clean
energy source.
Can you please tell me what your goals are for the Water Power
Program, specifically with regard to conventional hydro as well as
marine and hydrokinetic technologies?
And is the Department using the Marine Science Laboratory at
Sequim, Washington--the Department's only national lab facility located
on water--to help achieve these goals, particularly to understand the
environmental impacts of energy devices as the industry begins to test
at scale?
Answer. The Department of Energy is excited about the potential to
develop emerging marine and hydrokinetic energy (MHK) technologies and
untapped hydropower resources. The $50 million appropriated for Water
Power in fiscal year 2010 has allowed the Department to continue
aggressive efforts to develop advanced water power technologies, and we
are working diligently to ensure that this increased level of funding
is spent carefully and wisely. DOE believes that the $40.5 million
requested for Water Power in fiscal year 2011 is sufficient to continue
the program's ongoing efforts to develop water power technologies and
accelerate the market adoption of these technologies. This funding is
complemented by up to $31.7 million in Recovery Act funds for projects
to deploy advanced turbines and control technologies at hydropower
facilities, thereby boosting generation of environmental sustainable
hydropower and stimulating job creation and economic activity. As the
size of the Nation's water power resources and the ability of emerging
technologies to capture that energy becomes clearer, the Department
will be better able to determine if higher funding levels are
necessary.
The Department's goals for MHK energy technologies are to determine
the baseline costs of energy and identify key cost drivers for MHK
generation, to quantify the total MHK resource available by resource
type, and to address barriers to the siting and permitting of these
devices. For conventional hydropower, the Department's goals are to
facilitate the deployment of new sustainable hydropower generating
capacity, including timely and low-cost upgrades at existing
hydroelectric facilities, the powering of non-powered dams and
constructed waterways, and assessing the potential for new small
hydropower deployment. The Department also works with other Federal
agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, to support the development of
environmentally sustainable hydropower by increasing energy generation
at Federal-owned facilities and exploring opportunities for new
development of low-impact hydropower.
The Water Power Program has funded MHK technology research at
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) since fiscal year 2008,
and the capabilities of PNNL's Sequim Marine Science Laboratory have
been integral to that effort. Given Sequim's coastal location and
strong marine environmental research capabilities, much of the work
undertaken at the Sequim facility has been related to environmental
baseline studies for MHK technology applications. PNNL is currently
leading an effort to identify, analyze, and predict environmental
impacts from MHK energy production. After prioritizing risks, PNNL will
conduct experiments and field trials to investigate high priority
environmental impacts to reduce uncertainty, and to gain insight into
the cumulative impacts of multiple stressors from devices and arrays.
Question. Mr. Secretary, as you may know in January, as Chairman of
the U.S.-China Inter-Parliamentary Group, I led a Congressional
Delegation trip to China. Part of our charge was to focus on a variety
of bilateral issues, including energy. If our two nations are to
aggressively deploy clean energy technologies, much needs to be done to
spur innovation across the energy sector to increase renewable energy
use as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal fired
electricity plants.
I know that DOE is doing much to drive a green energy future, and
recognize the need to continue to invest in fossil energy programs. We
know that current available technology is too expensive. I am concerned
that the fiscal year 2011 DOE budget request seems to be missing
programs that will drive the innovation we need now for successful
deployment in a decade.
Can you please comment on DOE's intentions for developing a
significant national program that rapidly accelerates revolutionary
approaches to carbon capture?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2011 budget request the Office of Fossil
Energy (FE) requested over $84 million for capture technology. This
funding will support bench and laboratory scale R&D for post combustion
capture techniques such as solvents and sorbents. Pre-combustion
capture funding will support the development of novel bench scale pre-
combustion capture technology. In addition, the Advanced Research
Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E) is supporting CCS research and
development of next generation carbon capture technology with funds
provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Office of
Science is supporting R&D into the design of novel materials and
separation processes for post-combustion CO2 capture, as
well as catalysis and separation research for novel carbon capture
schemes that might be incorporated into the design of future power
plants. These three programs, which closely coordinate, support the
research and development necessary to reduce the cost and energy
penalty associated with carbon capture technologies.
Question. Also, can you please tell me what methods the Department
is looking at in addition to carbon capture and sequestration, such as
carbon capture and recycle?
Answer. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act allocated to the
Department $1.52 billion to support industrial carbon capture and
storage (CCS) projects. Of the $1.52 billion, $17.4 million was
allocated for industrial CCS applications is to test innovative
concepts for the beneficial use of CO2. Historically,
enhanced oil recovery projects have been injecting CO2 to
stimulate the production of oil, and that is expected to expand as
CO2 becomes more readily available. In addition, FE has a
solicitation, which closed April 20, 2010, targeting technologies that
utilize CO2 to produce products at a cost of less than $10
per metric ton.
Question. Mr. Secretary, can you give me an update on the
implementation of the U.S.-China Energy Research Centers? How are you
implementing this program within the various offices at DOE and are you
engaging the national labs who are also developing relationships with
their Chinese counterparts?
Answer. On March 30, 2010, the Department released a funding
opportunity announcement (FOA) with the availability of $37.5 million
over the next 5 years to support the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research
Center (CERC). Funding from DOE will focus on advancing technologies
for building energy efficiency, clean coal including carbon capture and
storage (CCS), and clean vehicles. These are areas in which the United
States and China have a shared interest in further developing
technology to help our countries meet clean energy and climate change
goals. Awards will be made to consortia with the knowledge and
experience to undertake first-rate collaborative research programs.
These consortia will help bring together top talent from both countries
and are expected to generate key technological advancement through
genuine collaboration between U.S. and Chinese researchers. The DOE
funding will only go to American researchers and institutions, and
grantees will match the Department's funding dollar for dollar,
bringing the United States' contribution to $75 million. All proposed
projects must involve researchers from both countries. DOE anticipates
notifying the applicants selected for awards and making the awards in
summer 2010.
The implementation of the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Program
will be administered by the Office of Policy and International Affairs,
through a CERC secretariat, to be established and housed at the DOE
headquarters. The secretariat will act as the principal coordinator of
activities under the CERC. The Office of Fossil Energy (on clean coal
and CCS), and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (on
building energy efficiency and clean vehicles) will have strong roles
in supporting the CERC activities, along with the support from DOE
national laboratories. In addition, DOE national laboratories are also
eligible to apply as prime applicants.
Question. I know you when you visited the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory last year that you toured the Electricity
Infrastructure Operations Center (EIOC). This center will be an
important platform for advancing the smart grid and will be utilized in
the Pacific Northwest Smart Grid Demonstration that is funded by the
Recovery Act. What are DOE's plans to follow up on that investment, and
what must DOE and the Federal Government do to ensure that the
transition to the smart grid is completed?
Answer. DOE research and development funds helped establish the
EOIC, and we expect it to continue to be a great asset in facilitating
further research, as well as in validating technologies, systems and
processes that advance the concept of a smart grid. Given its unique
capabilities, we expect ongoing research, development and demonstration
funds will continue to support Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
and the EOIC.
The transition to a smart grid is a process that will take years,
and the role of the Federal Government is to ensure that progress is
prudent, efficient, and validated by solid research. The Federal
Government can also work to advance the transition by testing the next
generations of technical and policy solutions to improve the
electricity infrastructure, in collaboration with industry, academia,
and our state partners.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
Question. Dr. Chu, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included the
Renewable Fuel Standard commonly referred to as RFS2. It requires use
of 15.2 billion gallons of biofuels in 2012, and 20.5 billion gallons
in 2015. It is clear most of that fuel will be in the form of ethanol.
At the same time, we are facing a challenge with integrating these
increasing volumes of ethanol into out transportation fuels market.
Specifically, these volumes go beyond the ``ethanol blend wall''
meaning the amount of ethanol that can be utilized in form of E10--fuel
blends of 10 percent ethanol in gasoline. Now that problem will be
somewhat alleviated if EPA grants a waiver that allows use of blends
such as E15 in all highway vehicles, but what we really need are more
flex-fuel vehicles that can use higher blends and more refueling
stations that offer higher blends through the use of blender pumps.
Your Clean Cities Program is increasing the use of alternative
fuels, but your budget for that program allocates over half of funding
to support electric vehicles.
Given that electricity already is widely available while electric
vehicles are still pretty scarce, and that we have this ethanol market
limitation, why aren't you putting the major emphasis on your clean
cities program on availability and use of higher ethanol blends?
To me, it's very clear that ethanol offers by far the greatest
potential for reducing our dependence on petroleum for at least the
next decade. Isn't it in our national energy security interest to make
sure we can take full advantage of the petroleum displacement potential
that ethanol provides?
Answer. DOE has continued to demonstrate strong support for
deployment of E85 blends with recent financial assistance awards. In
2009, Clean Cities awards were announced that will help build an
additional 198 E85 refueling locations during the 2010-2012 timeframe
in more than 20 States through the Recovery Act and under a separate
set of Clean Cities infrastructure grants. In 2006, DOE Clean Cities
helped fund 169 E85 stations. Moreover, DOE Clean Cities continues to
support the more than 2,000 E85 stations in the United States by
providing user-friendly web-based station locators and mapping tools
for convenient trip planning for flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) drivers and
owners. In addition, in fiscal years 2007-2010, the Department funded a
$45 million test program focused on intermediate blends of ethanol in
gasoline for blends up to E20. This program, intended to provide high-
quality data to the Environmental Protection Agency for use in
considering current and future ethanol blend waiver requests, covers
materials compatibility, emissions, long-term durability of exhaust
emissions control systems, and operational issues for E15 and E20 for
new and legacy vehicles and non-road engines. The Department is also
evaluating the compatibility of new and legacy fueling infrastructure
equipment with intermediate blends; a portion of this infrastructure
testing has been funded through the Clean Cities Program. In a separate
but related effort, Clean Cities has also engaged in studies of blender
pumps and E85 fuel quality surveys.
For the fiscal year 2011 budget request, a portion of the Clean
Cities budget is focused on activities related to electric vehicles and
the infrastructure needed to support them. It is estimated that 15 to
20 new battery electric and 9 to 10 new plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
models will be introduced by 2012, and that a million of these vehicles
will be on the road by 2015 (which all need recharging stations). In
addition, communities where electric vehicles are being introduced will
need training for first responders, equipment installers and vehicle
technicians. Clean Cities funding proposed in the fiscal year 2011
budget request would support these efforts and strengthen the
participation of local coalitions.
While there is no question that high-level ethanol blends are
important for U.S. energy security, the combination of E85 flex fuel
technology and electric drive offers even greater potential. For
example, General Motors has mentioned the possibility of a Chevy Volt
extended range electric vehicle that could be E85 flexible fuel capable
after 2010. It is an understatement to say that the combination of a
plug-in vehicle that can also run on ethanol instead of petroleum will
be an important event for promoting petroleum reduction--a key mission
of the Clean Cities program and the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
Question. The Artificial Retina Program at DOE has been an
incredible success and was recently named a 2009 R&D 100 Award Winner.
The real potential this program has to restore sight to over 10 million
blind people in the United States could be a historical accomplishment
for the DOE Science Program. The fiscal year 2011 budget includes only
$4 million for this program, and it includes detrimental language to
terminate the program at DOE at the completion of the 240 electrode
device, rather than the 1000 electrode device, which was the original
intention of the program. While NIH has been a partner with DOE in
doing the clinical trials, they simply cannot pick up the program now
and develop the 1000 electrode device. With over $70 million already
invested in this program at DOE, I think it would be a gross mistake to
prematurely end this program when it is so close to developing a
technology that would help so many people. Given that this program has
met every benchmark thus far, and DOE has already made a substantial
investment in the program, why is DOE terminating the successful
Artificial Retina Program when the final goal of the 1000 electrode
device is so close to being achieved?
Answer. The original intention of this interagency program was to
develop robust partnerships synergistically linking the strengths of
the national laboratory, academic, and industrial researchers through
proof of concept demonstration and engineering of a retinal prosthetic
device. DOE supports fundamental research and technology development to
advance DOE missions in energy, climate, and the environment, and is
working to transition this successful project to other agencies with
more direct mission responsibility for clinical research. The current
60 electrode device is in the midst of clinical trials, and early
clinical trial results have allowed researchers to improve the design
and fabrication of the 240 electrode device. Synthesis of the
individual components of the 240 electrode device is expected to be
complete at the end of fiscal year 2010. The $4 million in the fiscal
year 2011 budget is designated to facilitate an orderly transition of
the device through pre-clinical testing and complete additional
technology research required to bring the device to readiness for
clinical trials led by partnering organizations. Increasing the number
of electrodes does not guarantee improved clinical performance. The
benefits of the 240 electrode Artificial Retina device will not be
assessed until it enters formal clinical trials and statistically
significant patient results are demonstrated. Since the early clinical
testing results are just emerging for the Argus II 60 electrode device,
the results from the 240 electrode device testing will be critically
important to design any further device improvements and to determine
whether those improvements should be specifically focused upon higher
electrode density or improved neural and visual processing software
development. Through implementing device improvements informed by
clinical trial testing of the 240 electrode device, the goal of
improving visual acuity to many people can be best realized.
DOE has contributed to the success of the Artificial Retina Project
through its contributions in materials sciences and microfabrication of
components, and it is important to transition the work to organizations
that have a more direct role in the clinical testing and development
and application.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
Question. Approximately $2.5 billion (7 percent) of the $36.7
billion appropriated in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act,
enacted over a year ago, has been spent. While around $25 billion has
been obligated, it's the funds that have been ``costed'' that mean jobs
and results.
Why is the pace so slow getting these funds out?
Answer. As enacted, the Recovery Act's estimated cost of $787
billion came in three pieces: roughly a third in tax cuts directly to
the American people, another third in emergency relief for hard-hit
families, businesses, and State governments, and a third in investments
in the infrastructure and technology, creating platforms for economic
growth. The Department of Energy's Recovery program focuses on the
third leg, accelerating innovation to lay the foundation for long-term
economic growth.
From the first day after the Recovery Act was signed into law, DOE
has been focused on moving the money out the door quickly to create
jobs and spur economic recovery. We have used competitive processes to
select exceptional projects. We have streamlined DOE operating
processes across the board. We are providing unprecedented transparency
and insist on clear accountability every day.
DOE has $36.7 billion in appropriations, including $32.7 billion in
contract and grant authority and $4 billion in loan credit subsidy
authority. We have made selections for over $32 billion (98 percent) of
our contract and grant authority. In total, we have obligated $29.4
billion (90 percent) and outlaid over $5.1 billion (16 percent).
Environmental Management has paid out $2.3 billion in outlays and
weatherization has now outlaid over $1 billion. Working with Treasury,
we have also supported the processing of $7 billion in additional tax
awards: $4.7 billion in 1603 grants in-lieu of tax credits and $2.3
billion in 48c tax credits.
We will be finalizing our remaining selections in the next 3 months
with the exception of loan guarantees. DOE will finalize selection of
section 1705 loan guarantees by September 30, 2011.
We have obligated $29.4 billion (90 percent of contract and grant
authority). We are on track to obligate nearly 100 percent of our
contract and grant authority by September 30. Since the March 10
resolution of the Smart Grid Investment Grant tax issues, OE has fully
obligated all 100 Smart Grid Investment Grant projects and most of the
Smart Grid Demonstration Grant projects. We sent nearly 20 HQ staff to
the field to help in the negotiation process of the Retro-fit Ramp-Up
awards. In just 5 weeks, they fully obligated all 25 awards ($450
million). For all new selections, programs are using SWAT teams to
ensure expeditious obligation. No major delays are expected. Fossil
Energy and Loans will be the last to obligate.
We have outlaid over $5.1 billion (16 percent of our contract and
grant authority). We outlaid nearly $700 million in May and are on our
way to $750 million in June. In addition to the various renewable
energy research, development and deployment programs, three of the
department's largest Recovery Act programs the Environmental Management
Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program, and the Science
Program are all at run rate. In the last 2 months, the vehicles program
has ramped up operations and surpassed its May target by nearly $18.5
million. Over the last 3 months, we have seen an average payment growth
rate of 18 percent month-to-month. We outlaid $472 million in March and
$569 million in April. We expect to hit reach our optimal monthly spend
rate of $800 million to $1 billion this quarter.
In the first quarter of 2010, Department of Energy created and
saved nearly 29,000 direct FTEs jobs at the prime and sub-recipient
level. DOE has seen an average 50 percent quarter-to-quarter increase
in recipient reported jobs. Recovery Act investments in the Office of
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (OWIP) and Environmental
Management program have seen the largest job creation. Going forward,
DOE expects significant job creation from Recovery Act renewable energy
and smart grid projects.
Question. When do you expect to have the full amount actually
spent--not just obligated?
Answer. DOE Recovery Act appropriations are funding 144 projects,
aside from loan guarantees, in 10 different program offices (e.g.,
Energy Efficiency, Fossil Energy, Science, etc.). Each of these
projects has a unique structure and statutory time horizon for the
deployment of these funds (i.e., R&D vs. infrastructure investment).
For example, DOE's Office of Environmental Management has allocated
nearly $6 billion in Recovery Act funding to 17 sites with a goal to
complete their work by the end of fiscal year 2011. Large scale, heavy
infrastructure projects in the Fossil Energy program require extensive
design and construction stages that will take their Recovery Act
spending out until fiscal year 2014. As an agency, DOE expects to spend
70 percent of its ARRA funds by the end of CY2011, nearly 90 percent by
CY2012, and 100 percent by CY2015.
Question. Why are there still unresolved tax issues for smart grid
grantees, more than a year after enactment of the bill, and what is the
Department doing to address them?
Answer. The tax issue has been resolved for the Smart Grid
Investment Grant program, and finalization of the grants is well
underway. On March 10, 2010, the Internal Revenue Service announced a
determination on the tax treatment for grantees receiving Recovery Act
funding under the $3.4 billion Smart Grid Investment Grant program.
Under the revenue procedure, the Internal Revenue Service is providing
a safe harbor under section 118(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)
for corporations receiving funding under the Smart Grid Investment
Grant program. With the determination that Smart Grid Investment Grants
to corporations are non-taxable, corporate utilities will be able to
launch their investments with a clear indication of the tax status for
their projects.
The Internal Revenue Service revenue procedure specifically did not
apply to Smart Grid Demonstration grants because the programs, which
are authorized by different statutory provisions, differ in several
ways that may affect whether DOE's financial assistance can qualify as
permanent contributions to capital under section 118(a). As a result,
grantees under the different programs will require separate
explanations for how the tax code applies. There are also fewer
corporate recipients of Smart Grid Demonstration grants than of the
Smart Grid Investment Grants. DOE has asked recipients of Smart Grid
Demonstration grants to identify whether such tax treatment is
applicable and necessary for the success of their projects and will
consider recipients' responses in determining a path forward.
Regardless, each recipient is free to pursue use of section 118 on its
own, as well as any other tax treatment it believes is applicable.
Question. Approximately $6 billion was provided for the
Environmental Management (EM) program in the Recovery Act. A number of
the sites are not currently on track to meet cost and schedule
estimates. Why is this the case, and what steps is EM taking to address
these issues?
Answer. The Recovery Act requires all funding to be obligated by
the end of fiscal year 2010, and spent within 5 years of obligation.
The Office of Environmental Management (EM) established a very
aggressive goal of spending the majority of the money by the end of
fiscal year 2011 in order to maximize the creation of jobs. The EM
Recovery Act program has obligated more than $5.4 million of the $6
billion of Recovery Act funding, and more than $2.3 billion has been
paid out. Approximately 10 percent of the 91 EM Recovery Act projects
are now scheduled to extend into fiscal year 2012. In regard to project
performance, a recent GAO report identifies that a number of the
Recovery Act projects are not currently meeting their original cost and
schedule goals. Examples of these project variances include: greater
than initially planned volumes of contaminated soils, resulting in
higher costs for excavation and disposal; delays due to changes in
initial waste type characterization assumptions; and contract issues
causing delays in work start date.
EM Senior Management continues to be fully engaged with all the
Recovery Act projects on a regular basis, including monthly project
reviews with each of the sites. EM Management also requires each
project with less than satisfactory performance to develop a recovery
plan that fully defines the issues and contains the corrective actions
necessary to bring the projects back on-track and within cost and
schedule. At this time it appears that all of the projects are
recoverable and will meet Recovery Act performance objectives.
Question. The President recently named a prestigious group of
individuals to form a Blue Ribbon Commission on Nuclear Waste. The
chairmen are Lee Hamilton and General Brent Scowcroft. The Commission
is expected to make recommendations within 18-24 months.
What should we expect from the Blue Ribbon Commission?
Answer. In my comments at the first open meeting of the Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future (the Commission) on March 25,
2010, I set forth several of my expectations for the Commission, which
include a comprehensive review of the science, technology and other
factors that influence the back-end of the fuel cycle. In addition, the
Commission's charter specifies that this comprehensive review includes
an evaluation of alternatives for storage, processing, and disposal of
civilian and defense used nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and materials
derived from nuclear activities, to be followed by advice and
recommendations on a new plan to address these issues. I am confident
the Commission will render useful advice and recommendations and
fulfill its mission and responsibilities under its charter.
Question. How aggressive will the administration be in pursuing a
permanent solution to the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle?
Answer. The establishment of the Commission speaks to the
administration's commitment to a well-considered policy for managing
used nuclear fuel and other aspects of the back end of the nuclear fuel
cycle. The administration, armed with the final report from the
Commission, is committed to working with Congress, States, and local
governments to develop an effective strategy to meet the Government's
obligation to dispose of our Nation's used nuclear material.
Question. What impact has the proposed closure of Yucca Mountain
had on the clean-up plans, as far as the existing tripartite agreements
and their associated milestones, for high level waste at Hanford, Idaho
National Laboratory, and Savannah River?
Answer. The administration's decision not to proceed with the Yucca
Mountain repository does not affect the Office of Environmental
Management's (EM) plans to retrieve, treat, and store high-level wastes
stored in tanks or to treat and store spent nuclear fuel. EM is focused
on addressing environmental and health risks by placing high-level
waste and spent nuclear fuel in safe and stable configurations. We
intend to continue our tank waste projects as planned and in accordance
with our compliance agreements as reflected in the fiscal year 2011
budget request.
Question. How will the administration pay for the awards such as
the one recently announced for Energy Northwest?
Answer. All funding for settlements and damages awarded utilities
in the ongoing litigation between the Government and the utilities for
the Department's delay in accepting spent nuclear fuel from utilities
by 1998 under the contracts is provided by the Judgment Fund in the
U.S. Treasury.
Question. Regardless of what path we pursue in the future, some
type of geologic repository will be needed for radioactive material
stored at Hanford. The extensive scientific record that has been
developed for Yucca Mountain would be extremely useful toward informing
and providing lessons learned for any future repository program. What
steps are you taking to ensure that this record will remain available
for this purpose?
Answer. The Department is committed to preserving the scientific
knowledge created through the Yucca Mountain Project. Records generated
by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) are
managed and archived in accordance with the requirements of the Federal
Records Act and related regulations. Paper and electronic media records
that have been archived are stored at several National Archives and
Records Administration Federal Records Centers (FRC) under FRC
regulations, as well as in a DOE-leased facility in Las Vegas. In
addition to records on paper and electronic media, images of records
are electronically maintained in our Records Information System and
DOE's documentary material relevant to the Yucca Mountain licensing
proceeding is electronically available on the Licensing Support
Network.
Question. Why did the administration move to withdraw the licensing
application before NRC with prejudice rather than without prejudice?
Answer. As explained in its Motion to NRC's Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board to Withdraw the pending license application with
prejudice, the Department seeks this form of dismissal to provide
finality in ending the Yucca Mountain project and to enable the Blue
Ribbon Commission to focus on alternative methods of meeting the
Federal Government's obligation to take high-level waste and spent
nuclear fuel.
Question. DOE's loan guarantee program was authorized in 2005.
Since that time only one final commitment has been made and five
conditional commitments. Applicants have complained about the lack of
transparency, the unwieldy application process (which differs depending
on the sector), and DOE's complete risk-adversity (risk is impossible
to avoid for small companies launching new technologies). DOE has
identified multiple goals for the Loan Guarantee program--promoting
innovation in the energy sector, helping to develop the capacity to
confront the challenges that climate change poses, jumpstarting the
construction of new nuclear reactors, ensuring the affordability of
energy, and bolstering the competitiveness of the United States in
global energy markets.
How is DOE prioritizing these ambitious goals and, as a practical
matter, using them to select which projects to support?
Answer. Since issuing its first conditional commitment in March
2009, as of April 1, 2010, the Loan Guarantee Program has closed one
loan guarantee and issued conditional commitments for seven additional
projects. Projects supported by the Loan Guarantee Program reach
conditional commitment and ultimately financial close based on each
individual project's ability to fulfill the requirement outlined in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, its Final Rule and the relevant
solicitation.
Question. DOE had planned to make a minimum of 21 conditional
commitments for projects supported under the Recovery Act by the end of
2009. Instead, the Department made a total of 4 conditional
commitments. While the Department has made a few additional conditional
commitments since then, DOE is still far short of its target. What
explains the program's difficulty in adhering to its plan? What steps
are being taken to address the sources of delay?
Answer. The Loan Guarantee program had substantial achievements in
2009 issuing four conditional loan guarantee commitments, one of which
reached financial closing and issuance of the loan guarantee in
September. The Program Specific Recovery Plan was based on best
estimates at the time, developed very early in the planning process
Question. What steps are being taken to ensure that the program
will issue enough loan guarantees to use the funding authority provided
under the Recovery Act before September 30, 2011, when funding
authority expires?
Answer. The Loan Guarantee Program has a robust pipeline of
projects eligible for both appropriated credit subsidy under the
Recovery Act and able to meet the Recovery Act requirement to begin
construction by September 30, 2011. In addition, the Loan Guarantee
Program has two open solicitations and continues to receive
applications from eligible projects.
Question. I understand the application review process differs by
the type of technology. Applicants with nuclear power generation
projects received a ranking from DOE before submitting the full
application fee, while applicants with coal-based and other types of
projects did not. Applicants with some types of technologies were
allowed to brief DOE and explain their projects after submitting their
applications while others were not, potentially denying them the
opportunity to clear up misunderstandings about their projects. Why are
applicants treated differently in these regards?
Answer. DOE strives to treat all applicants on an equitable basis.
DOE understands that communication with applicants is critical as they
seek to make business decisions. While the ultimate decision to issue a
loan guarantee rests with the Department, DOE endeavors to provide
early and thorough feedback to help all applicants make informed
decisions regarding their application.
Question. Given how substantial the credit subsidy fees can be for
applicants--an average of about 12 percent of the loan guarantee
amount, and potentially more for some applicants--when in the
application process are you giving applicants estimates? How long have
they waited and how much money have they generally spent before
receiving these estimates? How precise are these estimates?
Answer. Self-pay applicants can receive an estimated Credit Subsidy
Cost, given as a range, early in the loan guarantee process. The
Department has developed a process to provide estimates to applicants
at key points in the application process. The intent of this process is
to provide applicants with estimates of the likely cost so that they
can use them for planning purposes. DOE produces early range estimates
for self pay applicants under 1703.
The length of the due diligence process depends on the
completeness, robustness and simplicity of the project. During this
period, companies pay all associated legal and contractor fees, which
are comparable to costs assumed for equivalent work in the private
sector, and vary widely across technology sectors.
Question. About 90 percent of DOE's budget (over $22 billion
annually) is spent on contracts. DOE is the largest contracting agency
in the Government after the Department of Defense. In 1990, GAO
designated DOE contract administration and project management as ``high
risk'' because of DOE's record of inadequate management and oversight
of contractors, and failures to hold contractors accountable. The
National Nuclear Security Administration and Environmental Management
program, which account for the majority of DOE's contract budget,
continue to experience significant problems.
DOE over the past several years has issued new guidance on
performance-based contracting, including how to develop performance
measures and incentives to motivate contractors to achieve results.
What additional actions can the department take to hold its contractors
accountable for meeting cost, schedule, and technical performance
targets on projects?
Answer. In addition to performance measures set forth in individual
contracts, the Department has undertaken a Root Cause Analysis (RCA)
and is implementing fundamental systemic reforms that are being
implemented under its Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to improve contract
and project management. In addition to the long term improvement in the
ability of the Department to meet its commitments on projects and
contracts that are expected as a result of the RCA/CAP implementation,
the Department is beginning to realize benefits as measured by the
percentage of the total project cost (established at Critical Decision-
2) that meet the performance metrics for capital asset projects and
environmental cleanup projects. For capital asset line item projects,
the percentage of projects that are within 110 percent of the Critical
Decision-2 Total Project Cost has improved from the baseline level in
2007 of 70 percent to the current projected level of 100 percent. A
similar trend is noted for Environmental Management cleanup projects.
For those projects baselined after the 2007 CAP, the projected
percentage within 110 percent of the Critical Decision-2 Total Project
Cost is 100 percent. While there are continuing challenges on the older
projects, those that were baselined after 2007 exhibit greater schedule
and cost discipline and are testimony to the continued improvements in
major acquisition management within the Department. Specific activities
undertaken as part of the RCA/CAP that will promote greater contractor
accountability include:
--Improved project front-end planning and requirements definition by
the Government will permit large projects to be segmented into
smaller, better defined requirements that will support a shift
to awarding more firm-fixed-price contracts. This reflects a
shift of cost and performance risk to the contractor and is in
alignment with President Obama's March 4, 2009, memo on
Government Contracting.
--A new algorithm will be used by Federal project directors to
analyze functional staffing requirements to ensure that major
projects have adequate staffs to perform contract and project
oversight.
--Additional training of Federal contract and project management
workforce will ensure that the Government has the skill sets to
perform the necessary project and contract oversight function.
--Better integration of the Government contract and project
management functions in the acquisition planning process will
ensure that contractor accountability is built into the
contract terms and that conditions and enforcement mechanisms
are in place.
--A new Project Assessment and Reporting System (PARS-II) will upload
contractor schedule, cost, and performance data from the
contractors systems into the Government system to provide
consistent, transparent, and reliable data to all levels of DOE
management.
--Expanded use of project peer reviews modeled on those in the Office
of Science, which has successfully and consistently delivered
projects on budget and schedule, is expected to improve overall
project execution.
--Rigorous change control processes are in place and will mitigate
cost growth on contracts and projects.
--Knowledge management will be improved by piloting a Project
Management lessons learned program (ProjNet and the DOE
Corporate Lessons Learned system) to collect and disseminate
information and knowledge from past projects.
Question. Please describe how you systematically reward best
performers, and use disincentives for poor performers?
Answer. DOE uses a variety of mechanisms to reward high quality
performance and to hold contractors accountable for poor performance.
Specific tools used are: effective use of past performance information;
targeting award and other incentive fees to areas of concern; not using
base fee on cost-plus-award-fee contracts; and paying no fee if
contractors do not meet minimum levels of safety and security.
DOE recognizes contractors that deliver quality service by giving
them past performance credit for good performance when making
selections for future contracts. Past performance is a meaningful
source selection factor in the award of negotiated acquisitions. DOE
ensures its past performance information, which is reported
electronically through its Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting
System to the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, is
accurate by its systems of internal procedures and control. These
controls include DOE's Procurement Management Review, Balanced
Scorecard Self Assessment, and Data Quality Review programs.
DOE considers a cost-plus-award-fee contract the appropriate
contract type for DOE management and operating and other facility
contracts. DOE does not generally use base fee on these contracts. All
at-risk fee is dependent upon performance. DOE includes a conditional
payment of fee clause in its management and operating and other
facility contracts that reduces or entirely eliminates any fee the
contractor would otherwise earn if the contractor has not met the
safety and security requirements of the Department. This recoupment
provision is an exceptionally strong incentive for contractors to
perform critical functions well.
Question. How do you apply ``lessons learned'' across all contracts
throughout all programs?
Answer. DOE has a robust program of continual guidance
dissemination throughout the Department. Guidance is released through
Policy Flashes, Acquisition Letters, new and updated Acquisition Guide
Chapters, and Memorandums from the Senior Procurement Executive. This
program includes sharing of lessons learned from recent procurements,
from internal reviews, and from reviews conducted by outside groups
such as the Department's Inspector General and the Government
Accountability Office. Internal reviews include the Procurement
Management Review that documents finding and best practices within a
knowledge management tool--a Web site that supports sharing of the
lessons learned and best practices in the areas of acquisition,
financial assistance, contractor pension/benefit management and
property management.
In fiscal year 2008, the Department implemented a robust,
comprehensive Procurement Management Review (PMR) Program. This program
determines how effectively and efficiently the field area and site
contracting organizations support their respective site mission
requirements. It emphasizes the evaluation and compliance of critical
contracting processes that are key. In addition, the program identifies
noteworthy practices for export throughout the Department as well as
deficiencies and obstacles to avoid. This knowledge management
component of the program is facilitated by a headquarters core review
team augmented by experienced field contracting personnel. Integration
of experienced field staff with senior-level headquarters staff
facilitates the transfusion of knowledge and experience among and
between DOE's contracting activities via the sharing of lessons learned
and best practices. The team incorporates peer reviews from other DOE
procurement/financial assistance locations and helps spread practices
throughout the Department.
Additionally, DOE created a position titled ``Source Evaluation
Board (SEB) Secretariat and Knowledge Manager (SKM)'' specifically
tasked with ensuring that lessons learned are recorded and shared
across the Department. The SKM developed a ``SEB lessons learned''
template and all SEBs whose acquisition value exceeds $25 million must
document their lessons learned, which will be shared with all DOE
procurement personnel. The lessons learned will be analyzed for trends,
and areas where additional guidance, and/or policy may be needed. The
SKM is also responsible for source selection training for SEBs, and the
establishment of SEB reporting requirements and tracking the status of
SEB activities against established milestones. A monthly SEB reporting
requirement has been put in place, and both lessons learned and trends
will be identified and shared with DOE procurement personnel.
Question. Last year we were told the Department faced a major
crisis with funding for its contractor pension programs. I understand
you have changed the way you are budgeting for pensions and the problem
is less of a crisis.
Could you please explain in detail the changes in budgeting you
have or intended to implement?
Answer. Due to the rising costs for the reimbursement of DOE
Management and Operating (M&O) and major site management contractor
employee defined benefit (DB) pension plan contributions, the
Department has improved and strengthened its management and oversight
of DB pension plans.
Specifically, in January the Department eliminated the requirement
that every contractor employee DB pension plan be funded--and thus
annual contributions budgeted--at the 80 percent level. The new
reimbursement action requires the Department to reimburse contractors
for the amounts required to fund their DB pension plans at a level
equivalent to the minimum amount required by the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) as amended by the Pension Protection Act
(PPA), or higher if necessary for a contractor DB pension plan to have
a funded status of at least 60 percent. Exceptions to the new
reimbursement action will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Additionally, the Department has institutionalized an annual pension
management plan review process with the specific objective of improving
cost predictability and containing current and future costs. Each
contractor is required to provide annual DB pension plan data and
information to DOE for review in January of each year, so that DOE and
the contractor can engage in fact-finding and discussions concerning
the contractor's management approach and plans for its employee pension
plans prior to the contractor's actuarial certification of the DB plan
as required under the PPA. In an effort to improve planning and
budgeting accuracy, contractor representatives also will discuss with
DOE personnel, among other things, assumption elections, usage of
credit balances, investment performance, and future year contribution
estimates. Although actual contributions required by a contractor to
fund a DB pension plan cannot be known prior to the start of the fiscal
year, the Department has acquired modeling capabilities to estimate
funding requirements and will work closely with the contractors to
include accurate contribution estimates in future budget requests.
Question. What is the fiscal year 2010 pension liability and how
does that compare to what the Department budgeted for that fiscal year?
How will that change in fiscal year 2011?
Answer. Based on the information provided by the contractors during
the annual pension management plan review, the Department anticipates
fiscal year 2010 contributions by contractors to their DB pension plans
of approximately $650 million. Although contractor contributions are an
indirect cost allocated in accordance with the Cost Accounting
Standards and are not broken out as line items in the fiscal year 2010
budget request, these contributions are covered by the fiscal year 2010
budget.
For fiscal year 2011, the Department currently estimates these
contributions will be approximately $1 billion, which is reflected in
its fiscal year 2011 budget request. Actual contributions may change,
as they are highly sensitive to underlying data, methods, assumptions,
and capital market performance.
Question. What are the impacts of higher pension liability on the
amount of work performed by the contractors?
Answer. The Department anticipates that contractor DB pension costs
will continue to rise for the foreseeable future, some of which can be
attributed to the current reimbursement action The Department's recent
efforts to improve and strengthen its management and oversight of the
contractor's management of its DB pension plan costs were motivated by
the need for greater predictability and better control over costs, as
well as to ensure that contractor DB pension costs do not impact
performance of mission work. As a result of the Department's revised DB
pension cost reimbursement action, as well as improved market factors
and improved transparency, the Department anticipates that additional
resources may in fact become available in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal
year 2011 for performance of mission activities. However, as the
additional resources that may become available to DOE in the short-term
in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 is due to the current
reimbursement action, in the long term, it may come at the expense of
the need for additional reimbursements in the future.
That said, the Department anticipates facing rising contractor DB
pension costs (due in part to the change in reimbursement action, and
to the ever-increasing overall contractor employee compensation and
benefits structure which includes pension benefits) for the foreseeable
future and will continue to work closely with the contractor community
to minimize any impact on mission work.
Question. How does the Department propose to resolve this
situation?
Answer. The Department will continue to use the annual pension plan
review process to assess this situation and will continue to engage
with the contractors to mitigate any impacts, while continuing to meet
contractual and statutory obligations to reimburse the costs of the
contractor's DB pension plan.
Question. As one of the largest research agencies in the Federal
Government, DOE spends billions of dollars each year on publicly funded
research.
How is DOE using its labs to develop technologies to address the
complex task of cleaning up decades of accumulated nuclear and
hazardous wastes? Please provide some examples.
Answer. The Office of Environmental Management (EM) directs the
national laboratories, particularly those with close ties to EM sites
such as the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) to develop environmental cleanup technologies. The
focus of our technology needs is primarily on Tank Waste. The reason EM
is tasking the labs to do this is because we need transformational
technologies to vastly reduce the life cycle cost and schedule of the
tank waste system. Examples of technologies under development at the
national laboratories include advanced glass formulations for increased
radioactive waste loadings, an advanced cold crucible induction melter,
and advanced chemical cleaning technologies for radioactive waste
tanks.
Question. To what extent are DOE sites using similar cleanup
technologies, when possible, to help reduce development costs and
increase cleanup efficiency?
Answer. The Technology Development and Deployment program seeks,
wherever possible, to develop technologies that can be used at multiple
sites. Current projects with multiple site application include:
--At-Tank/Near Tank Processing.--Use of at- or near-tank equipment
will allow solids and radionuclides to be removed, accelerating
processing rates and allowing early operations at both Hanford
and Savannah River Site (SRS).
--Glass Optimization.--Improved glass formulations applicable to the
Hanford WTP and the SRS DWPF will allow a higher waste loading
and reduced life cycle costs.
--Alternative Treatment/Disposal Processes.--A Fluidized Bed Steam
Reforming (FBSR) technology is being developed that could be
applied to waste streams at both Hanford and SRS.
--Mixing/Blending Systems Optimization.--The use of lab and pilot
scale data to verify and calibrate Computational Fluid Dynamic
(CFD) or other types of numerical models will be used to
improve the modeling of Hanford and SRS tank waste mixing and
processing.
--Integrated Systems Analysis.--To analyze alternatives to current
radioactive tank waste disposal technologies, EM has developed
a limited life-cycle model applicable to both the Hanford and
SRS tank wastes. The next steps will be for site-specific
process characteristics from current systems plans to be loaded
into the model and validation runs to be completed.
Question. Why are three sites with tank waste--Savannah River,
Hanford, and Idaho Falls--all using different technologies to treat
their tank waste?
Answer. The three sites do use different technologies due to the
composition of the radioactive tank waste. Hanford produced large
volumes of about 20 different types of waste. SRS, built a decade after
Hanford, produced two main types of waste using the plutonium-uranium
extraction (PUREX) process and the H-modified PUREX process.
Another factor contributing to the use of different technologies
are the waste tanks themselves. The Hanford and SRS tanks are
constructed of carbon steel and cannot contain acid. Therefore the
wastes were neutralized with caustic to produce an alkaline waste. The
Idaho tanks were constructed with stainless steel and therefore the
wastes were not neutralized with caustic. As the Idaho radioactive
wastes were acidic, a different disposition approach, calcination, was
appropriate.
Question. Aside from the Recovery Act, the Department has
unobligated balances in excess of $1 billion. What is DOE's policy
regarding maintaining carryover balances? What is the rationale for
such large unobligated balances? To what extent can these balances be
used to offset the fiscal year 2011 budget request? Why should the
subcommittee not require that all salaries and expenses appropriations
be single-year, as they are in most other agencies?
Answer. It is my intention to use departmental resources wisely. A
key component of this effort is to use funds as intended by Congress
and in as efficient and timely a manner as possible.
Given the importance of minimizing unobligated balances, progress
toward fully obligating each account is one of the key metrics
evaluated during quarterly execution reviews. There are some instances
where it is not prudent to obligate fully and therefore, establishing a
blanket goal across the Department is unwise. Some examples of
appropriate delays in obligations include: late passage of or
anticipated delay in enacting annual appropriations; complex or
specialized efforts for which it is difficult to find contractors; and
programs that accumulate balances over several years before
obligating--the Clean Coal Power Initiative, for example.
When there are excess balances the Department's Chief Financial
Officer and the programs work to address any impediments to carrying
out approved activities. Where impediments to carrying out activities
are identified, mitigation efforts are put in place. Where these are
unsuccessful, or where the funds are no longer needed, unobligated
balances may be identified as sources to pay for new activities. When
this is possible, we propose this to Congress.
In general, the Department has a good record of obligating funds.
Over the last 5 years, the Department has obligated an average of 95
percent of available funding by the end of each year. The small amount
of unobligated balances is useful to help manage activities during
Continuing Resolutions. I am confident the Department does not abuse
the no-year availability of this funding and urge you to leave it no-
year money.
Question. With the NP2010 ending this year, you have reorganized
the Nuclear Energy budget.
How would you characterize the changes you have made in the Office
of Nuclear Energy in terms of projects that focus on applied science
versus those that focus on basic science?
Answer. The research budget of the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) is
directed toward attaining breakthroughs that would specifically support
the advancement of nuclear power technologies, which we generally
consider applied research. However, NE is also engaged with other
offices, such as the Office of Science, in coordinating research that
is at a more basic level. For example, NE is funding materials
research, where the results could be used by the nuclear industry for
future fuel cycle facilities, but also potentially by multiple
industries.
Question. What would you highlight in the Office of Nuclear Energy
as your most important programs? How important is sustaining the
current fleet of reactors, potentially for operation beyond 60 years,
in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Answer. NE has established a broad research portfolio to support
nuclear power in multiple ways. All of the programs are important to
nuclear energy's future, though certainly different programs are more
important with respect to specific objectives: extending the lifetime
of the current fleet, enabling new builds, developing a sustainable
fuel cycle, etc. Safely continuing operation of the current fleet of
reactors, potentially beyond 60 years, helps avoid greenhouse gas
emissions and as such would have an effect on the Nation's carbon
emissions profile.
Question. What is DOE doing to research the potential to keep these
plants on the grid? Are you aware of any Energy Information Agency
forecasting that include the current 104 reactors on grid through 2040?
Answer. The Light Water Reactor Sustainability program is
conducting research to investigate the possibility of extending the
operating lifetime of current plants beyond 60 years. The program plans
to look at a variety of issues, including materials aging and
degradation, safety margin characterization, efficiency improvements,
instrumentation and controls, and advanced fuels for light water
reactors. The long-term EIA projections go out to 2035, so we are not
aware of any forecasting that includes the current 104 reactors
remaining on grid through 2040.
Question. For the first time, DOE is proposing to work
cooperatively with industry on small modular reactors. These are
reactors that can be built in U.S. factories and shipped to plant
sites. Can you explain why the Department is proposing this program at
this time?
Answer. DOE has engaged in discussion with small modular reactor
(SMR) vendors, utilities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
Department of Defense, and other possible end-users of SMR energy.
Through these discussions, we became convinced that there is potential
in the small modular reactor concept. We will hold a workshop to gain
further information about potential technical needs and industry
challenges and from there the administration evaluate potential
priorities in the context of the appropriate Federal role to identify
the most cost effective, efficient, and appropriate mechanisms to
support further development.
Question. The budget increases the Fuel Cycle Research and
Development Account by $65 million. Could you please tell the Committee
what activities you are planning for 2011?
Answer. The Fuel Cycle Research and Development program is
continuing the shift begun in fiscal year 2010 from a near-term
technology development and deployment program to a long-term, results-
oriented, science-based R&D program. We intend to expand the scope of
the program in two areas in fiscal year 2011, which accounts for the
increased funding request: (1) Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition R&D and
(2) Modified Open Cycle R&D.
The Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition R&D technical area is being
increased from $9 million to $45 million to continue and expand R&D
related to storage, transportation, and disposal options for used
nuclear fuel and high-level waste. Much of the work in these areas was
previously within the scope of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management. In addition, as necessary, these funds will also be used to
respond to technical inquiries from the Blue Ribbon Commission.
The Modified Open Cycle R&D program has been established as a new
technical area in the program in fiscal year 2011. It is important to
examine the full range of fuel cycle strategies in order to provide
future decisionmakers with adequate information to make decisions on
how best to manage used nuclear fuel. The modified open fuel cycle has
not been studied as thoroughly as the once-through fuel cycle and full
recycle fuel cycle options. The modified open fuel cycle is a strategy
that is ``modified'' in that some limited separations and fuel
processing technologies are applied to the used light water reactor
fuel to create fuels that enable the extraction of potentially much
more energy from the same mass of material and accomplish waste
management and nonproliferation goals. There are many technical
challenges and unanswered questions associated with this option. The
program will investigate priority issues related to fuel forms,
reactors, and fuel/waste management approaches.
Question. Could you please describe how you fund, monitor, and
enforce compliance issues within the Energy Star Program?
Answer. For fiscal year 2010, EERE is using American Reinvestment
and Recovery Act (Recovery Act) funds for verification testing of
ENERGY STAR products in support of the Recovery Act-funded Appliance
Rebate Program (SEEARP). If models fail to meet ENERGY STAR program
requirements, States are being notified and, at their discretion, can
remove those models from their rebate eligibility lists. Also, if a
model does not meet requirements, EERE notifies the Environmental
Protection Agency who will take ENERGY STAR enforcement action with
the manufacturer and, in most cases, would disqualify the product from
the program's qualified product list. In the event testing shows the
product also does not meet minimum energy efficiency standards, the
Department of Energy will begin enforcement actions to insure the
product is not sold illegally in the market. The 2009 MOU was written
with the intent EPA will handle matters pertaining to ENERGY STAR
enforcement while DOE would continue to handle any minimum standards
violations.
In fiscal year 2011, the Department will expand the categories of
ENERGY STAR products to be tested, along with supporting EPA's managed
market-based verification program. DOE continues to request
appropriated funds for work supported by DOE.
Question. How many staff does the Department employ for ENERGY
STAR compliance, monitoring, and enforcement, and are there any
specific plans to increase this capacity in fiscal year 2011?
Answer. In fiscal year 2010, the Department is using 2.0 Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) for ENERGY STAR verification testing, compliance and
monitoring, and program transition functions. Based on DOE verification
testing, EPA is handling the enforcement portion of the program. In the
event testing shows the product also does not meet minimum energy
efficiency standards, the Department of Energy will begin enforcement
actions to insure the product is not sold illegally in the market. The
2009 MOU was written with the intent EPA will handle matters pertaining
to ENERGY STAR enforcement while DOE would continue to handle any
minimum standards violations. In addition, 1.0 FTE has been used to
support the State Energy Efficiency Appliance Rebate Program. In fiscal
year 2011, the Department anticipates increasing staff support to 3.0
FTE in order to increase its testing, compliance and monitoring
functions, to begin developing/revising test procedures for the program
and to provide technical analyses for EPA's program requirements'
development and revision. The State rebate program will be winding down
and only require 0.25 FTE in fiscal year 2011.
Question. DOE staff has briefed congressional staff on transferring
the promotion of several ENERGY STAR products to the EPA, such as
windows, refrigerators, dishwashers and compact fluorescent lights,
within the fiscal year 2011 budget request. However, the budget still
references these products as part of the DOE.
Is it the administration's intent to transfer the promotion of
ENERGY STAR labels for these appliances from the Energy Department to
the EPA? Please describe the funding, rationale, and implementation
schedule anticipated for this transfer, if it is undertaken.
Could you please describe how the DOE intends to release more than
20 final appliance rules by June 30, 2011 and whether the amount of
funding requested in the budget is adequate to ensure that these final
rules are issued by the deadline.
Could you please break-down funding for the various components of
the ENERGY STAR Program for fiscal year 2011?
Answer. In order to improve the efficiency of the ENERGY STAR
Program based on the capabilities of the two agencies, the agencies
agreed to new roles managing this program. The Environmental Protection
Agency will now take on one set of responsibilities across all ENERGY
STAR product categories. This includes both program requirements
establishment, or revision, and the promotion of these products. DOE
will take on the roles of testing procedure development and product
testing where appropriate. This transition is currently taking place
and will be completed during fiscal year 2010. In fiscal year 2011, the
DOE proposes to fund the development or revision of test procedures for
ENERGY STAR, testing and verification of products, and providing
technical support to EPA as described in the September 30, 2009
Memorandum of Understanding signed by the two agencies. For fiscal year
2011, the Department requested $10 million for ENERGY STAR Program
activities of which $5 million will be focused on test procedure
development and revision, $4 million for testing and verification, and
$1 million for analyses and technical support to EPA.
DOE established detailed schedules for development and issuance of
all rulemakings governed by the Consent Decree or statutory deadlines,
and is putting in place the staff, internal processes and other
resources necessary to ensure that these deadlines are achieved. For
fiscal year 2010, the Department requested and received $35 million to
support implementation of the appliance standards programs. For fiscal
year 2011, the Department requests $40 million for these efforts. This
funding is adequate to enable DOE to meet the established deadlines and
to undertake new efforts to improve compliance and enforcement. part of
that money will go to the enforcement of minimum appliance standards
that DOE promulgates. While we will report and share data with ENERGY
STAR, the Appliance Standards program is not responsible for enforcing
ENERGY STAR efficiency levels.
Question. The Next Generation Lighting Initiative will provide
significant energy savings though more efficient lighting. Given the
DOE's management in the development and understanding of this new
technology, could you please describe how DOE will oversee this
initiative, as well as other activities related to the initiative?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has taken a comprehensive
approach to overseeing the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, a part
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This approach covers a balance of
engineering and science in R&D, and market-based programs. Elements
include Core Technology (applied research), Product Development,
Manufacturing R&D, Commercialization Support, and SSL Partnership (with
the Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance). Over 70 active R&D
projects address the key science and engineering challenges. Workshops
are held each year to keep the program focused on the priority R&D
challenges. All R&D projects are competitively-awarded and cost-shared.
A collection of Commercialization Support programs, such as CALiPER,
GATEWAY and Standards development, provide information and direction to
market players, and link back into the R&D program for further
improvements. The commercialization support programs have over 150
partners involved. The program has produced performance achievements in
efficacy each year, moving the market/technology upward in efficiency.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. Mr. Secretary, I have been waiting for a year for a
report on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, specifically on the
Mississippi site for expansion, and I have yet to receive any word from
the Department. Why? I brought this up at last year's hearing because
funding for the project remained contingent on the issuance of the
report. What is the status?
Answer. The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8),
enacted March 11, 2009, requires ``. . . That none of the funds
provided for the new site expansion activities may be obligated or
expended for authorized activities until the Secretary of Energy has
submitted a Report to the Congress on the effects of expansion of the
Reserve on the domestic petroleum market.'' DOE has prepared the report
and it is under review.
Question. What is the status of DOE-funded nuclear energy workforce
training and education programs? Are we going to have enough people
trained to work at nuclear plants and at DOE facilities in the next 10
years?
Answer. In 2011 the Department will implement RE-ENERGYSE
(Regaining our Energy Science and Engineering Edge), which will enable
education and inspire students to pursue careers in science,
engineering, and entrepreneurship related to clean energy. This new
effort will provide important support to bolster nuclear engineering
and science programs at U.S. universities and will be an effective and
appropriate means of providing educational support.
The existing program within NE that provides scholarships and
fellowships will be terminated at the end of fiscal year 2010. This
existing program--the Integrated University Program (IUP) will provide
$5 million to fund 88 scholarships and 30 fellowships to be awarded in
the summer of 2010. In fiscal year 2011, NE will fund these activities
at the same level through the RE-ENERGYSE initiative.
Question. I am concerned about the utility ratepayers of
Mississippi who have contributed to the nuclear waste fund. What is the
justification for continuing to collect these funds from Mississippi
when DOE has now decided to terminate the national repository program?
Mr. Secretary, I believe it would make better public policy to suspend
collections until Congress determines future funding needs and funding
methods when it enacts a new program based on the Blue Ribbon
Commission's recommendations. I would like to work with your staff on
this issue.
Answer. The administration is fully committed to meeting the
responsibilities for the safe storage and management of spent nuclear
fuel and nuclear waste. The fees collected from the nuclear industry
are legally mandated and reviewed every year and will pay the cost of
the long-term disposition of the materials. The Blue Ribbon Commission
has been charged with making recommendations on these issues, including
how the fees should be handled moving forward.
Question. On the subject of terminating the national repository
program, Mr. Secretary, what steps are you taking to appropriately
retain the data gained from the billions of dollars invested in
research on the repository?
Answer. The Department is committed to preserving the scientific
knowledge developed through the Yucca Mountain project. Records
generated by the OCRWM program in the course of activities at Yucca
Mountain are managed and archived in accordance with the requirements
of the Federal Records Act and related regulations. Paper and
electronic media records that have been archived are stored at several
National Archives and Records Administration Federal Records Centers
(FRC) under FRC regulations, as well as in a DOE-leased facility in Las
Vegas. In addition to records on paper and electronic media, images of
records are electronically maintained in our Records Information System
and the DOE's documentary material is electronically available to the
public on the Licensing Support Network.
Question. Mr. Secretary, in speaking with my colleagues today, you
mentioned salt domes as possible nuclear waste storage sites. Could you
please tell me which salt domes the Department is looking at for this
purpose, and could you give more information about this idea?
Answer. The Department is not currently studying any specific site
as a replacement for Yucca Mountain, nor is DOE considering any
specific salt dome as a possible nuclear waste storage site.
Question. I understand the DOE is proposing $3 million for
international nuclear energy cooperation. Can you please explain this
program to the subcommittee?
Answer. The INEC budget request of $3 million will be used to
provide advice and support to Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) programs in
implementing international cooperative research and development (R&D)
activities. The R&D is the responsibility of other NE programs, not
INEC. INEC would also work with other NE programs, other Department
offices, and other agencies on implementing new agreements having
civilian nuclear energy aspects. Some of the funding will focus on
bilateral and multilateral agreements and implementing arrangements to
carry out cooperative technical R&D-based activities with countries
including Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Kazakhstan, and the Republic
of South Africa and possibly other countries as U.S. international
policy is developed. Typically, before international collaborative work
is initiated, DOE works closely with other domestic agencies, such as
the Department of State, to convene experts-level meetings with foreign
counterparts to discuss the policy, technical and legal parameters of
cooperation. Once these are established, assessments of capabilities
and technology requirements are typically conducted to identify the
most mutually beneficial areas of cooperation. It is in these initial
steps of laying the foundation for cooperation that much of the INEC
budget request would be applied.
NE collaborates on a bilateral and multilateral basis with a wide
array of countries including Japan, Russia, the Republic of Korea,
France, Ukraine, and others, but the implementing arrangements for
cooperation with these countries are already in place. In such cases,
policy and technical support from NE's Office of International Nuclear
Energy Policy is less intensive.
Examples of potential areas of international civilian nuclear
energy collaboration that NE programs would engage in include, but are
not limited to: research, development, testing, and evaluation of
advanced nuclear reactor systems; advanced nuclear fuel and material
irradiation and use of experimental facilities; technical expert
exchange programs to share best practices at civilian nuclear power
plants; small and medium-sized reactor development; reactor life
sustainability; probabilistic safety assessments and risk analyses for
operating reactors; improvements in reactor fuel burn-up efficiencies;
and, together with other global partners, the exploration of ways to
enhance the international framework for civil nuclear cooperation so
that countries can access nuclear power for peaceful purposes while
minimizing the risks of proliferation.
Question. Congress appropriated funds in the Recovery Act
specifically for pilot and demonstration scale biofuels projects. In my
home State of Mississippi, we have a company that is ready to start
building a biorefinery capable of producing close to 18 million gallons
of biofuel per year. This project is shovel-ready and will create green
jobs in our State. It is our understanding that several of these
projects are currently being evaluated by the Loan Guarantee Program.
Can you give us a sense of what the timing is on issuing loan
guarantees for biofuels projects?
Answer. The Departments' Biomass Program and Loan Programs work in
conjunction to support the development of cellulosic ethanol from
research and development, demonstration and piloting, and finally, full
commercial scale-up. In 2009, the Department's Biomass Program
committed over $610 million in Recovery Act funds to increase
investments in integrated biorefineries at the pilot and demonstration
scale as well as for biofuels infrastructure activities. This Recovery
Act funding is in addition to the over half of a billion dollars of DOE
investments in integrated biorefinery projects from fiscal years 2007
through 2010. The purpose of DOE's investments in pilot, demonstration,
and small commercial scale biorefineries is to generate techno-economic
data from their operations in order to validate full commercial-scale
readiness. Once a technology has been proven in the pilot and
demonstration phase, it may be eligible for a DOE loan guarantee to
support the project's full commercial scale up. Under the Recovery Act
funding for the Loan Guarantee Program, all biofuel projects must
represent advanced technologies.
The Loan Guarantee Program is working closely with the Renewable
Fuels Association to facilitate dialogue with biofuels companies. As a
result of this collaboration, on April 7, 2010, the Loan Guarantee
Program held a roundtable discussion with members of the biomass
community to discuss issues that the industry faces in obtaining loan
guarantees.
Question. President Obama reiterated his support for biofuel
development in May 2009 and again on February 3 of this year. Are there
any issues that are holding up approval of these biofuels projects? Are
these projects a priority for DOE?
Answer. Bioproduct projects present some unique challenges. Many
are capital intensive, provide a commodity product, and have no off-
take agreements. The Loan Guarantee Program is working closely with the
Renewable Fuels Association to facilitate dialogue with the biofuels
companies. As a result of this collaboration, on April 7, 2010, the
Loan Guarantee Program held a roundtable discussion with members of the
biomass community to discuss issues that the industry faces in
obtaining loan guarantees.
Question. In the 2007 energy bill we set a renewable fuels standard
that requires 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. How does
DOE envision achieving this goal?
Answer. Achieving the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires the
creation of a new industry that will produce a high volume of liquid
transportation fuels that are cost competitive with petroleum fuels.
Several factors have led to unanticipated reductions in the near-term
pace of growth of the cellulosic biofuels industry, including the
economic recession, oil price drops, and the reduction of credit
available to investors who wish to invest in these technologies.
The Department of Energy (DOE) believes the United States must
accelerate renewable fuels production to meet the RFS requirement of 36
billion gallons. The key to such a large-scale transition and meeting
the RFS targets is to make cellulosic biofuels and other advanced
biofuels cost competitive with corn-based ethanol and gasoline. That is
why the DOE is performing fundamental research on next-generation
bioenergy crops to provide the transformational breakthroughs that can
contribute toward more efficient cellulosic ethanol production and
development of other advanced biofuels. Additionally, DOE has a robust
applied R&D and deployment program focused on driving down the costs of
key components of producing advanced biofuels through both biochemical
and thermochemical pathways. DOE also works to establish a sufficient
and sustainable supply of bioenergy feedstocks and cost-effective
systems for harvest and transport of feedstocks to biorefineries.
Moreover, DOE is cost sharing a total of 27 biorefinery projects with
industrial partners at the pilot, demonstration, and commercial scales,
all of which focus on cellulosic or other non-food feedstocks to
produce advanced biofuels in support of the RFS. DOE has developed
public-private partnerships to reduce the risk of deploying first-of-a-
kind cellulosic biorefineries to produce biofuels. The Energy
Information Agency's Annual Energy Outlook 2010's reference case
scenario projects that biofuels will account for most of the projected
growth in liquid fuels consumption, reaching 26 billion gallons in
2022.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``EIA's Long-Term Biofuels Outlook'' EIA Presentation, 2010
Energy Conference, April 6, 2010 http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/
2010/session2/gross.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______

Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich
Question. The DOE Office of Nuclear Energy budget lists a new
program for Reactor Concepts R&D in the amount of $195 million. The
Reactor Concepts R&D request carries on activities for a variety of
previously appropriated activities, and includes a new program for
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the amount of $38.9 million. Given
recent strong commercial interest in the new reactor technologies
funded by Reactor Concepts R&D, there is a need for adequate, dedicated
funding for cost-sharing of the development of Small Modular Reactors
by public/private partnerships to reduce financial uncertainty. The
cost-sharing amount needed to support two small light-water-reactor
designs has been estimated to be not less than $35 million. This means
that additional funds of about $20 million are needed to support
research for the SMRs. How is DOE ensuring that adequate cost-sharing
funds and research funds are available for small light water modular
reactors, and how is DOE ensuring that this cost-sharing information is
publically known and available so that the private sector will have
certainty in investing?
Answer. DOE has engaged in discussion with small modular reactor
(SMR) vendors, utilities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
Department of Defense, and other possible end-users of SMR energy.
Through these discussions, we became convinced that there is potential
in the small modular reactor concept and have requested an appropriate
amount of funding for SMR activities in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
DOE will hold a workshop on SMRs in June 2010 to obtain information
from vendors and suppliers, potential utility customers, national
laboratories, universities, NRC, and interested stakeholders on
priorities, activities and projects that will inform our strategy. As
noted in the budget, the administration will evaluate potential
priorities in the context of the appropriate Federal role to identify
the most cost-effective, efficient, and appropriate mechanisms to
support further development. Any cost-sharing within the SMR program
will be based on a competitive award process. We believe that both the
DOE cost-share award process and NRC licensing process will help ensure
that information gained through this program is made available to
others to the greatest degree possible.
Question. The Clean Energy Park concept builds upon a DOE
initiative to reindustrialize and transform former weapons complex
sites into clean energy production centers. Through this approach, the
local communities, States and regions that supported our Nation's
defense mission for so long will benefit from the sustainable economic
development opportunities of such large-scale commercial projects. As
you are aware the Southern Ohio Clean Energy Park Alliance (SOCEPA) has
held several meetings with officials in the Department over the past
year regarding their shared interest with the Department in creating a
Clean Energy Park initiative. This project would provide a unique
opportunity for the Department to support many of the missions of its
own internal offices in a cross-cutting nature, including carbon
footprint reduction of the Nation's electric generation, asset
reutilization and re-industrialization of former weapons complex sites,
and support for deployment of electric generation that relies on low
carbon and zero carbon technologies.
While the Department has voiced support for the concept, it is not
clear how DOE is progressing in developing it. Examples of program
developments could be formation of a program office within DOE
including funding, identification and policies for coordination of
issues across departments, and policies for organizations to use in
developing sites and local support.
What is the Department doing to develop this concept?
Answer. In early 2009, representatives from the Office of
Environmental Management (EM) discussed EM's ``footprint reduction''
initiatives for several Department of Energy (DOE) sites and the
potential future use of land with regional stakeholders and local
communities. However, the administration is focusing Environmental
Management activities on its core cleanup mission, which continue to
experience project management, technical, and regulatory challenges.
Completing remediation of these sites on cost and schedule is the most
effective way for the Department to support local officials,
businesses, and others in these communities with their economic
development plans.
Question. Is there any legislation that is needed?
Answer. The administration is not proposing or requesting any
legislation.
Question. I am concerned that the regulatory and technical
infrastructure, as well as the industrial base in manufacturing and
fabrication technologies may not be ready to support the development of
new and innovative reactors. This includes cross-cutting technologies
for identification, development, demonstration and qualification of
advanced manufacturing and construction techniques, modern codes and
standards, supply chain development, and qualification, and training of
people. How is DOE ensuring that adequate resources have been set aside
to ensure that this infrastructure continues to develop and will be in
place in a timely manner?
Answer. In general the private sector is expected to respond and
accommodate the manufacturing and construction needs as industry
decides to move forward and build new reactors. The Department's recent
loan guarantee announcement has sent a strong signal to the private
sector that nuclear needs to be part of our energy mix, and we expect
the private sector to continue to make adjustments in order to build
new reactors. We are also working, through programs such as RE-
ENERGYSE, to train the next generation of nuclear engineers and
scientists. And, the Department will participate in codes and standards
activities as appropriate..
Question. I would like to commend you for DOE's recent announcement
to provide a $45 million cost share for further development and
demonstration of the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) in Piketon, Ohio.
Your decision is a strong commitment by the Department to this
important technology.
However, I am concerned about your response to Senator Bennett's
question during the Energy and Water hearing regarding when DOE will
close on the loan guarantee application by Areva for their proposed
enrichment facility. The premise in your response ``We are closing on
it as quickly as possible'' implies that Areva will receive a loan
guarantee without United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) having
the opportunity to update their previous application for the loan
guarantee.
I urge you to ensure that the USEC technology is not precluded in
the consideration for a loan guarantee. As you know, USEC has been
working to address the technical and financial concerns that were
raised last summer by the DOE loan guarantee program. USEC has
indicated that they have made significant technical progress in
demonstrating the reliability and the high quality manufacturability of
the centrifuge machines to support certainty in the cost and
performance needed for a commercial plant. DOE's commitment to
providing $45 million in demonstration and development funding has
enhanced USEC's ability to demonstrate the technical requirements
needed for the loan guarantee program. Financially, USEC has disclosed
that they are exploring strategic alternatives to raise additional
capital for the American Centrifuge project, and that assurances for a
clear path forward for a loan guarantee would be important to their
ability to obtain third-party financing.
From a timing standpoint, USEC appears to be nearing the final
stages of meeting their obligations for a loan guarantee. The ACP is
``shovel ready'' and has the potential to quickly create about 8,000
good American jobs in numerous States. The Areva project is not as
mature and will take several years before we would see this kind of job
growth, assuming the project is successful. As we have discussed
before, funding of this centrifuge technology is essential to U.S. job
growth and the future of clean, abundant energy in the United States.
If DOE is, in fact, nearing a decision on the Areva technology, I
urge you as strongly as possible to also provide a clear path forward
for ensuring loan guarantee funding is also available for the American
Centrifuge Plant. A failure to do so, I fear, would lead to further job
loss and ultimately jeopardizing the success of this project so crucial
to our energy and national security needs. I request that you support
USEC's commitment to fulfilling the requirements for a loan guarantee
and do not shut the door on this vital project. Specifically, will DOE
have additional loan guarantee funds available for both the Areva and
the USEC ACP, and what legislative authority and appropriations does
DOE need to support this?
Answer. In response to a June 30, 2008 solicitation for Federal
loan guarantees supporting Front End Nuclear Facilities, the Department
received two applications for Federal loan guarantees to support two
different front-end nuclear facility projects. In total, the two
applicants requested DOE to provide loan guarantees in excess of the $2
billion available authority.
On March 25, 2010, the Department sent a reprogramming request to
the appropriate Congressional Committees notifying them of DOE's
intention to use up to $2 billion of the fiscal year 2007 Authority,
made available to the Department under the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, for front end nuclear fuel facilities.
The balance of the fiscal year 2007 Authority will remain available for
loan guarantees for eligible project applicants under the 2006
Solicitation for fossil, energy efficiency and renewable energy systems
projects that employ innovative technologies.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator Tester. I wish you all the best, Secretary Chu.
And this subcommittee hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Thursday, March 4, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

----------

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Dorgan, Feinstein, and Bennett.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

National Nuclear Security Administration

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ADMIRAL KIRKLAND H. DONALD, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF NUCLEAR
REACTORS
STEVEN BLACK, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, OFFICE OF DEFENSE
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
BRIGADIER GENERAL GARRETT HARENCAK, PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR FOR MILITARY APPLICATIONS

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator Dorgan. I'm going to call the hearing to order.
I was giving a speech just down the hall, and therefore,
showed up early, and it was most uncomfortable, because I'm
never anywhere early.
So, if it appeared to all of you I didn't know what to do,
that's the reason.
Mr. D'Agostino, you appear to be in a good mood this
morning, and I assume that's because your budget request,
coming from the administration, suggests increased funding.
There's always a relationship in the mood, and we're
appreciative, very much, of your being here, and we
congratulate you on your extension and continued work in these
areas. The work of the National Nuclear Security Administration
is very, very important.
This year's budget request of $11.2 billion for NNSA is up
$1.3 billion, or 13.5 percent above the fiscal year 2010
appropriation. This would make it the largest increase to
NNSA's budget since the agency was established, 10 years ago.
Over the past years, I've expressed some concern about the
lack of funding to maintain the Nation's nuclear weapon
stockpile and to achieve the nonproliferation goals, which I
think are very important. I'm pleased to see, in this budget
request, a clear commitment in increasing NNSA's ability to
assess the safety, security and reliability of nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, I'm pleased that the NNSA plans to accelerate
efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear material around the world,
within the coming 4 years.
I have two main concerns, which I hope you will address
today, and I'll ask some questions about them.
First, can the NNSA sustain new initiatives and
construction projects of the size that we're talking about in
the out years? Before we approve very expensive new
initiatives, we need to be confident that NNSA has a clear
strategy to manage very complex projects concurrently. Further,
we need to know that NNSA has sound cost and schedule
estimates.
What you're asking for in the fiscal year 2011 request is
to ramp up the production of refurbished W76 warheads; begin
life extensions for the B61 and W78; increase surveillance
activities of retired nuclear weapons; build three major new
nuclear facilities, that would each exceed $3 billion in cost;
the Chemistry and Metallurgical Facility at Los Alamos, the
Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12, and the Pit Disassembly
and Conversion Facility at Savannah River; and expand naval
reactor projects, such as designing a new reactor for the Ohio-
class ballistic missile submarine.
What I've not seen, and what I want to see, is a plan or a
strategy that shows how NNSA will be able to manage this many
complex projects at once, and pay for them, in the coming
years. We want cost and schedule estimates. Both the GAO and
the IG and other independent reviewers have raised questions
about NNSA, for cost and schedule estimates, in years past. We
believe NNSA--and I know Mr. D'Agostino would agree--just needs
to do better.
Despite sizable projected increases in funding, we are also
concerned about whether there is an underestimating of budget
needs. For example, out-year funding for the three major
facilities does not reflect cost increases that could likely
exist because of design changes or schedule delays. The second
major concern is the rate of increase for the nonproliferation
program, which is an increase of $550 million, or 26 percent,
compared to fiscal year 2010. I'm not convinced that that
amount of money will be able to be spent quite so quickly,
effectively, or efficiently. So, we want to talk a little about
that today.
I applaud the efforts to date--for example, through the
nonproliferation program, 2,300 kilograms of highly enriched
uranium and plutonium, enough material to make 90 nuclear
weapons has been removed and disposed of from civilian nuclear
sites worldwide. That's a good record. These efforts rely on
the cooperation, however, of foreign countries that do not
always share our nuclear security concerns. The NNSA needs to
show that it has or will produce, or can produce, agreements
with countries that justify such a large increase in material
retrieval.
I think the NNSA also needs to demonstrate that Russia and
other countries will continue to maintain the close to $3
billion in security upgrades that the United States has funded
over 17 years as the United States withdraws financial support.
As we have funded these facilities, in the order of safety,
just building them and leaving does not necessarily give us the
assurance that those upgrades will last and will continue to be
supported by the host countries.
Finally, NNSA needs to demonstrate that nonproliferation
funds are being spent effectively and efficiently. They've
installed radiation detection equipment at more than 350
borders, in dozens of countries, to prevent smuggling of
nuclear materials. But, the GAO has found that the corruption
of foreign border security officials, along with technical
limitations of radiation detection equipment, inadequate
maintenance of some equipment, and the lack of supporting
infrastructure at some sites, has hindered the full
effectiveness of these activities. Now, we know that the NNSA
will address those issues so that we can understand the
investment of these funds is leading to real and significant
security improvements.
Again, Mr. D'Agostino, we appreciate your being here with
your colleagues.
And let me call on Senator Bennett for any opening
statements he may have.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

Senator Bennett. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I welcome all of you here.
And, as I listen to the chairman, I find myself in
agreement with him. I very much applaud your top-line budget
request. You need the money; you've shown the courage of asking
for it. And I think we'll do the very best we can to give it
you. That's the good news.
The bad news is that the agency's track record in managing
large construction projects is not encouraging. And the
chairman has outlined that.
And just to underscore what Senator Dorgan has said, you're
going to have four major projects underway at once: the Uranium
Processing Facility; the CMRR Nuclear Facility, at Los Alamos;
two projects at Savannah, the Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility, and the MOX Fuel Facility. And, these, I understand,
are the biggest construction projects NNSA has ever taken on.
And then, while you're doing that you're talking about two
life-extension programs being carried on simultaneously. And
you have never conducted two LEPs at once. And those that you
have conducted in the past--not necessarily you, specifically,
but the agency--have been over-budget and over-schedule.
So, the money is needed, the repairs are needed, the
updating is needed. Everybody agrees with that. But, one thing
to say, ``Okay, here's the money.'' It's another thing to say,
``How's it going to be spent?'' And we need to pin down a lot
of items, schedules, who the contractors are going to be, what
the track record is that--those who're going to be involved.
And we obviously are very interested in your answers to those
questions.
And then there's the question of how you spend the
tremendous increase you're asking for in nonproliferation area.
That's critical to the--ensure international nuclear safety.
And with a requested increase of 68 percent for the Global
Threat Reduction Initiative, and a past history of large
unobligated balances, these are questions that we need to go
into.
Now, the chairman has gone into all of these in detail, and
I'm simply underscoring my support for his concern in these
areas. You're going to find a very unified subcommittee, both
in support for the money and in support for the details that we
need to look at.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett, thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator Feinstein. I will put my statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Mr. D'Agostino for taking
the time to see us today.
As you know, I have worked with colleagues in the House and Senate
to stop the re-opening of the nuclear door and the development of new
nuclear weapons.
Together, we have eliminated funding for the Advanced Concepts
Initiative, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, the Modern Pit
Facility and the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.
Now, we are working with a new president, one who believes in
reclaiming a leadership role for the United States in nuclear non-
proliferation issues and shares the vision of a nuclear free world.
In his April 5, 2009 Prague speech, President Obama called for ``an
end to cold war thinking'' and declared that the United States will
``reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security
strategy.'' Before and after his inauguration, he pledged that he
``will not authorize the development of new nuclear weapons.''
I am hopeful he will use the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review to
craft a new nuclear weapons policy that will help stop the spread of
nuclear weapons and chart the course for their elimination from the
Earth.
We are in the final stages with Russia on new agreement to make
additional cuts to each nation's nuclear arsenal. This is welcome news
and I look forward to the conclusions of those talks.
I also appreciate President Obama's support for ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a critical component of any U.S. nuclear
nonproliferation regime.
In his fiscal year 2011 budget for the National Nuclear Security
Administration, the President has requested $11.2 billion, a 13.4
percent increase from fiscal year 2010.
This marks a substantial commitment to maintaining the safety and
reliability of our nuclear weapons arsenal and the nuclear weapons
complex.
We must ensure that these funds compliment, rather than detract
from, the President vision on nuclear weapons policy and nuclear
nonproliferation issues.
I stand ready to work with my colleagues and the administration to
craft a sensible, bi-partisan nuclear weapons policy that will keep
Americans safe and will reduce the danger of a nuclear war or a nuclear
attack.

Senator Feinstein. I have a number of questions, but let me
just say this, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for your
chairmanship of this subcommittee. I guess this is your final
appropriations bill. And we've worked together on several
items. I think you've brought about, really, sterling
leadership, and very impressive--I will miss you. I believe the
ranking member will miss you. And I know you will have bright
horizons ahead of you, but you darken our skies by leaving.
Senator Bennett. Yes, I want to associate myself with that.
I was just getting settled into the pleasure of working with
you, and now you're going to go off to greener pastures. So, we
will do our best to carry on your tradition after you've gone,
assuming, of course, that I get to stay, as well.
Senator Dorgan. Well, this year will end 30 years in the
United States Congress. It's a great privilege, but there are
other things I wish to do, and--but, enough of that. You're
making me sound like Gabby Hayes, here.
Mr. D'Agostino, thank you for your leadership, thanks for
the work you do. Why don't you proceed.
Your entire statement will be part of the permanent record
so you may summarize.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO

Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett,
Senator Feinstein.
It's a pleasure to be here. It's a real honor for us to
have the opportunity to testify on the President's budget,
particularly for the National Nuclear Security Administration.
As you note, I'm accompanied here by folks that have a lot
of history and understanding of the program. Admiral Kirk
Donald, for naval reactors; Steve Black, who's a chief
operating officer in our nonproliferation program; and
Brigadier General Gary Harencak, for defense programs.
So, Mr. Chairman, under your leadership, the subcommittee
has been a proponent of our NNSA programs and initiatives, and
I thank you for the support. The subcommittee's backing will
become even more critical as we seek to move forward on
programs to implement the President's nuclear security vision.
And moving the program in the right direction for many years
out in the future, of course, since these programs last many
years, it has to be done in a way that makes sense, in a
bipartisan sense, because it's important for national security.
Last year when I appeared before you, the focus of my
testimony was the continuing of the transformation of this
outdated cold war nuclear-weapons complex and moving it into a
21st century national security enterprise and our initial
efforts on implementing, the President's announcement, securing
the most vulnerable materials worldwide. Since that time, we've
identified and defined portfolio programs to meet the
President's emerging nuclear security agenda.
Our 2011 budget request, as you've noted, is $11.2 billion,
a 13.4-percent increase from the prior year's appropriation.
And in developing this program, Secretary Chu has worked--and
I--have worked very closely with Secretary Gates to make sure
that we had a program that was integrated across both
departments. And, that reflects not just the nuclear weapons
program itself, but the nonproliferation program and the naval
reactors' activities.
Our request can be summarized, essentially, into four
components. Collectively, we ensure that the President's
overall nuclear security agenda, as outlined in his April 2009
Prague speech and reinforced during his State of the Union
Address--first, our requests describe NNSA's crucial role in
implementing this nuclear security vision and its call to
secure vulnerable material worldwide within 4 years. The $2.7
billion request for nonproliferation programs includes key
programs related to the President's agenda: nearly $560 million
for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative to secure vulnerable
material around the world; over $1 billion for a fissile
material disposition program to permanently eliminate 68 metric
tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium and more than 200
metric tons of surplus highly-enriched uranium; and over $350
million for the nonproliferation verification research and
development programs; provide technology support to the
President's arms control and nonproliferation agenda, including
a new capability at our Nevada site to fully integrate treaty
verification in arms control experiments.
The second component is our investment in the tools and
capabilities required to effectively manage the stockpile
itself. Based on preliminary analysis in the draft Nuclear
Posture Review, we concluded that maintaining the safety,
security, and effectiveness of the enduring nuclear deterrent
requires increased investments to strengthen an aging physical
infrastructure and sustain depleted technical human-capital
base across our enterprise. Our request includes more than $7
billion to ensure that the capabilities are required to
complete ongoing weapons life-extension activities; to
strengthen the science and technology and engineering base; and
reinvest in the scientists, technicians, and engineers who
perform this mission.
These activities are very consistent with the NNSA's
stockpile stewardship and management responsibilities, as
outlined in the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. Vice
President Biden recently noted the need to invest in a modern
sustainable infrastructure that supports the full range of
NNSA's mission, not just stockpile stewardship. He said, ``This
investment is not only consistent with a nonproliferation
agenda, it is essential to it.''
And there is an emerging bipartisan consensus that now is
the time to make these investments to provide the future
foundation for our U.S. security. A key example of that
consensus was reflected in the January Wall Street Journal
article by Senator Sam Nunn and Secretaries George Shultz,
Secretary Henry Kissinger, and Secretary William Perry.
That leads me to the third component of our investment in
recapitalizing our nuclear infrastructure and deterrent
capability into a 21st-century nuclear security enterprise. As
the Vice President said last month, some of the facilities we
use to handle uranium and plutonium date back to the days when
the world's great powers were led by Truman, Churchill, and
Stalin. The signs of age and decay are becoming more apparent
every day.
Our request includes specific funds to continue the design
of the Uranium Processing Facility at our Y-12 Facility and the
construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement Facility, at Los Alamos.
Our Navy's nuclear fleet includes all of our submarines and
aircraft carriers spread over the globe to protect America's
interests. The naval reactors budget shows a steady increase
over the future year national security plan--our 5-year
program, essentially. To meet the operational requirements of
the Ohio-class replacement, we will need to provide a new
reactor plan, using improved materials that we've not used
before. This effort dovetails well into our need to refuel one
of our land-based prototypes, which provides the platform to
demonstrate the manufacturability of the Ohio replacement core
and also to realistically test systems and components. Finally,
this prototype serves a key role as an operating reactor plant
for training our Navy sailors.
Mr. Chairman, investing now in a modern sustainable nuclear
security enterprise is the right thing to do. Investment will
support a full range of nuclear security missions to ensure
future security. The range of missions includes stockpile
stewardship, nonproliferation and disarmament, arms control and
treaty verification, counterterrorism and emergency response,
nuclear forensic and naval nuclear propulsion. It's the whole
gambit.
Finally, the fourth component, one that ties all our
missions together, is our commitment to aggressive management
reforms across the NNSA. And I look forward to questions on
this. I can go into some detail. But, as you know, with
increased resources comes an increased responsibility to be
effective stewards of our taxpayers' money and to ensure that
we effectively and efficiently manage this. We take this
responsibility very seriously.
Take, for example, the costs associated with our physical
security posture. As you are well aware, each year the costs of
these efforts have risen. We initiated a zero-based security
review to implement greater efficiencies and to drive down
costs while sustaining, and sometimes even improving, our
security capabilities. We recently concluded a review at our
Nevada site and identified some potential savings. We will be
reviewing other sites shortly.
Next, our supply chain management center has already saved
taxpayers more than $130 million, largely through electronic
sourcing and strategic sourcing, essentially tying our
enterprise together; instead of having eight separate
procurement centers, to try to focus these things together and
leverage our purchases. That saved us significant resources.
And, as you may be aware, our Kansas City plant recently
won a Malcolm Baldrige Award for manufacturing and quality, for
their innovations and performance excellence. We're working to
implement that Kansas City model of best business practices
across the whole nuclear security enterprise.
And finally, we emphasize performance and financial
accountability at all levels of our operation. In 2009, our
programs met or exceeded 95 percent of their performance
objectives, and over the past 2 years, NNSA has successfully
executed large funding increases in several nonproliferation
programs while reducing, at the same time, the percentage of
carryover, uncosted, and uncommitted funds. We'll be glad to
provide details of those, as well.
Importantly, for the subcommittee's consideration, we have
the people and process in place to initiate immediately the
mission work and increased mission work in this area.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we will
ensure that our stockpile, our infrastructure, and our missions
are melded together into a comprehensive, forward-looking
strategy that protects America and its allies. Investments in
nuclear security are now providing the tools to tackle a broad
range of nuclear security challenges. Now we must continue to
cultivate the talents of our people to use these tools
effectively, because essentially, in the end, people are the
key to our success here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we all look forward to your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas P. D'Agostino
Thank you for the opportunity to present the fiscal year 2011
President's budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). This budget request will allow the NNSA to meet
its commitments to the American people to provide for nuclear
deterrence, to reduce nuclear dangers around the world, and to provide
the capabilities to address the broader national security challenges of
the 21st century.
At this time last year, the focus of NNSA efforts was the
continuing transformation of the cold war-era weapons complex to a 21st
century Nuclear Security Enterprise, and transformation of the
composition and size of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.
Simultaneously, we were in the very early stages of defining the
efforts necessary to address the President's policy statements on
securing the most vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide.
During the first 14 months of the Obama administration, we have
been fully engaged with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
Interagency on the Nuclear Posture Review, and with the Department of
State on a new START Agreement and a broad menu of nonproliferation
agreements with our international partners.
NNSA efforts this past year defined a portfolio of programs to meet
the President's nuclear security agenda for the future. The fiscal year
2011 President's budget request for this portfolio is $11.2 billion, an
increase of more than 13 percent from last year. In the development of
this portfolio, Secretary of Energy Chu and NNSA Administrator
D'Agostino worked closely with Secretary of Defense Gates and other DOD
officials to ensure that we remain focused on meeting the DOD's
requirements. As a result, the budget request for Weapons Activities
increases nearly 10 percent to a level of $7 billion; Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation increases nearly 26 percent to a level of $2.7
billion; Naval Reactors increases more than 13 percent to a level of
$1.1 billion; and, the request for Federal oversight and staff included
in the Office of the Administrator account increases by 6.5 percent to
a level of nearly $450 million. NNSA's budget request also includes
associated outyear projections in a Future-Years Nuclear Security
Program (FYNSP) that identifies resources needed to meet the continuing
requirements for significant long term investments in the Nuclear
Security Enterprise deliverables, capabilities and infrastructure.
The fiscal year 2011 President's budget request for the NNSA can be
summarized in four core components that, collectively, ensure that the
NNSA implements the President's overall nuclear security agenda,
introduced in his April 2009 Prague speech, re-enforced during the
State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010, and will, we believe,
be embodied in the soon to be completed Nuclear Posture Review.
Implementing the President's Nuclear Security Vision.--The budget
request highlights NNSA's crucial role in implementing President
Obama's nuclear security vision, including his call for an
international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around
the world within 4 years. The request for these efforts is $2.7 billion
(an increase of 25.8 percent over the current year). Key
nonproliferation programs reflect significant increases from last year,
including;
--Nearly $560 million for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (an
increase of 68 percent over the current year) to secure
vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within 4 years,
and to provide a comprehensive approach to deny terrorist
access to nuclear and radiological materials at civilian sites
worldwide;
--Over $1 billion for our Fissile Materials Disposition program (an
increase of 47 percent over the current year) for construction
of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility and the
Waste Solidification Building, design of the Pit Disassembly
and Conversion Facility, and meeting our commitment to support
Russian plutonium disposition activities;
--More than $590 million for Material Protection, Control, and
Accounting and Second Line of Defense activities to accelerate
securing nuclear materials in the Former Soviet Union and other
Asian states, as well as worldwide efforts to deter, detect,
and respond to nuclear smuggling events; and
--Over $350 million for the Nonproliferation and Verification
Research and Development programs (an increase of 10 percent
over the current year) to provide the key technical support for
the President's arms control and nonproliferation agenda.
Managing the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile.--Based on a preliminary
analysis of the draft Nuclear Posture Review, the Department concluded
that maintaining the safety, security, and effectiveness of the nuclear
deterrent without nuclear testing--especially at lower stockpile
numbers--requires increased investments to strengthen an aging physical
infrastructure and to sustain a depleting technical human capital base
across the Nuclear Security Enterprise. As such, we are requesting more
than $7 billion (an increase of 9.8 percent over the current year) in
the Weapons Activities appropriation to:
--Ensure the capabilities required for stockpile management and for
the completion of ongoing Life Extension Programs are
available;
--Strengthen the Science, Technology, and Engineering base
capabilities that underpin stockpile stewardship, without
nuclear testing, as well as all other NNSA nuclear security
activities; and
--Reinvest in the scientists, technicians, and engineers who perform
the mission across the Nuclear Security Enterprise.
The President's Budget Request is consistent with the principles of
the Stockpile Management Program outlined by Congress in the fiscal
year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.
Recapitalizing Our Nuclear Infrastructure and Deterrent
Capability.--These increases represent an investment in transforming
our outdated nuclear weapons complex into a 21st century Nuclear
Security Enterprise. This request includes funds to continue the design
of the Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12 facility; the design and
construction of the replacement for the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory; and,
conceptual design for the recapitalization of Naval Reactor's Expended
Core Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory. Investing in a modern,
sustainable nuclear security infrastructure supports the full range of
NNSA's nuclear security missions, including:
--Stockpile stewardship;
--Nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament;
--Arms control treaty monitoring;
--Nuclear forensics;
--Counterterrorism and emergency response; and
--the nuclear Navy.
Additionally, the request supports the recent Department of Defense
decision to recapitalize the sea-based strategic deterrent. The OHIO-
class ballistic submarines, the most survivable leg of the Nation's
strategic deterrent, are reaching the end of their operational life.
The request will enable Naval Reactors to continue reactor plant design
and development efforts begun in 2010 for procurement of long-lead
reactor plant components in 2017, in support of Navy procurement of the
first OHIO-class submarine replacement in 2019. Providing the OHIO-
class replacement a life-of-the-ship reactor core will require
substantial advances in manufacturing technology to provide a new
cladding and a new fuel system. The request also supports the refueling
of a land based prototype reactor, providing a cost effective test
platform for these new technologies.
Continuing NNSA Management Reforms.--With the increased resources
provided by the Congress comes an increased responsibility to be
effective stewards of the taxpayer's money. NNSA will continue to
promote proactive, sound management reforms that save money, improve
the way we do business, and increase efficiency. Following are a few of
the efforts already underway:
--A Zero-Based Security Review initiative has led to efficiencies in
our site security programs, helping drive down those costs
while sustaining core physical security capabilities.
--An Enterprise Re-engineering Team is implementing ideas for
improving the way NNSA does business, such as:
--A Supply Chain Management Center has already saved the taxpayers
more than $130 million since its inception in 2007 and is
expanding its focus. Two key elements of the Center are:
-- eSourcing.--an electronic sealed-bidding and reverse auction
function; and
-- Strategic Sourcing.--where our Management and Operating
contractors use their combined purchasing power to
negotiate multi-site commodity contracts with vendors.
--A moratorium on new, NNSA-initiated Reviews and re-direction of
those resources to improve Contractor Management Systems
and operations and oversight across the Nuclear Security
Enterprise.
--Issuing new NNSA Operating Principles to guide the priorities and
decision processes of entities that perform NNSA work
consistently across the Nuclear Security Enterprise.
--Applying a new performance-based model, best business practices,
and lessons-learned across the Nuclear Security Enterprise.
The model, pioneered at our Kansas City Plant, provides
greater contractor flexibility and accountability; better
focused, risk-based oversight; eliminates redundant and
non-value-added reviews; and improves efficiencies and
availability of Federal and contractor resources to support
the full scope of NNSA missions.
--Reducing contractor expenses through renegotiation of health and
dental plans, using common contracts for administration and
supplies, and converting plant shifts for five 8-hour days
to four 10-hour day shifts.
--Retaining the critical Federal workforce.
--Piloting for the Department a 5 year Office of Personnel
Management Demonstration Project on Pay-for-Performance and
Pay Banding to test new Human Resource concepts to recruit
and retain a high caliber staff by providing faster pay
progression for high-performing employees, and to build on
the workforce planning system to better identify competency
needs and gaps.
--Conducting a Future Leaders Program and sponsoring Historically
Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, Native American Serving Institutions, and
other intern and fellowship programs to bring into
government the best and brightest talent in science,
engineering, business, and other technical positions to
ensure that when our aging workforce retires, it is
replaced with competent, well-trained, and experienced
professionals to carry on the mission work of the NNSA.
Finally, NNSA continues to emphasize performance and financial
accountability at all levels of our operations. NNSA needs to assure
the subcommittee and the taxpayers that the we are an excellent steward
of the programs and funds the Congress entrusts to us to carry out the
President's nuclear security vision. In 2009, NNSA met 95 percent of
its stated program performance objectives, and, over the past 2 years,
NNSA successfully executed consecutive, large annual funding increases
in several of our nonproliferation programs while reducing uncosted,
uncommitted balances. We are ready to meet the challenge of executing
the additional program increases supported by the fiscal year 2011
President's budget request. Our Federal and contractor staff and our
contracting processes are in place to initiate immediately the
increased mission work both in the United States and abroad. The NNSA
will be a leader in successful program and financial execution for the
Department of Energy and for the U.S. Government.
The NNSA is not operating on a ``business-as-usual'' basis. The
budget request represents a comprehensive approach to ensuring the
nuclear security of our Nation. NNSA will ensure that our strategic
posture, our nuclear weapons stockpile, and our infrastructure, along
with our nonproliferation, arms control, emergency response,
counterterrorism, and naval propulsion programs, are melded into one
comprehensive, forward-looking strategy that protects America and its
allies.
Maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile is the core work in the
NNSA. However, the science, technology, and engineering capabilities,
which enable the core work, must also continue to focus on providing a
sound foundation for ongoing nonproliferation and other threat
reduction programs. The investment in nuclear security is providing the
tools that can tackle a broad array of national security and energy
challenges and in other realms. NNSA now has the tools, but must
continue to cultivate the talents of the people to use them
effectively.
The NNSA is developing the next generation of scientists,
engineers, and technicians required to meet our enduring deterrence
requirements as well as the critical work in nonproliferation, nuclear
counterterrorism, and forensics. People are ultimately our most
important resource. We are working closely with our national
laboratories to develop and retain the necessary cadre of the best and
the brightest to successfully carry out all of our technically
challenging programs into the foreseeable future.
Following are more detailed descriptions of each of the four
specific NNSA appropriations.
national nuclear security administration budget overview
The President's budget request for the NNSA contains budget
information for 5 years as required by section 3253 of Public Law 106-
065, entitled Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP). The FYNSP
projects $57.9 billion for NNSA programs through fiscal year 2015.
While the funding necessary to support the President's commitment to
lead an international effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials
throughout the world is focused in the near term, major longer term
funding commitments are needed in other NNSA programs. The Secretaries
of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE)
agree that it is necessary to modernize the nuclear security
infrastructure of the United States, and this will require the
investments over the long-term reflected in the FYNSP. Modernization of
the infrastructure, including major capital projects, is needed to
ensure safe, secure, sustainable and cost-effective operations in
support of scientific and manufacturing activities. It is also
necessary to bolster key scientific, technical and manufacturing
capabilities needed to ensure that the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile
remains safe, secure and effective while avoiding the requirement for
new nuclear tests. Increased outyear resources are also included for
major new deliverables in support of the nuclear navy, including
reactor plant development for the OHIO-class replacement submarine,
core manufacturing for and refueling of the technology demonstration
land-based prototype, and initial planning for the recapitalization of
spent nuclear fuel infrastructure.
nnsa program summaries
The fiscal year 2011 President's budget request for the NNSA is
$11.2 billion, a 13.4 percent increase over the fiscal year 2010
appropriated level. Out-year projections meet the requirements for
significant long-term investments in the nuclear security enterprise
deliverables, capabilities and infrastructure.
Weapons Activities Appropriation
The request for this appropriation is $7.0 billion; an increase of
9.8 percent over the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. This level is
sustained and increased in the later out-years.
Although no change to the existing program budget structure within
this appropriation is proposed in this budget, we will address the
current programs within the Weapons Activities appropriation in four
related components:
--Stockpile Support (Directed Stockpile Work, Readiness Campaign);
--Science, Technology and Engineering (Science Campaign, Engineering
Campaign, Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign,
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign, Science, Technology
and Engineering Capability);
--Infrastructure (Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, Secure
Transportation Asset, Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program, Site Stewardship); and
--Security and Nuclear Counterterrorism (Defense Nuclear Security,
Cyber Security, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response).
Increased funding is requested for programs in Stockpile Support,
for Scientific, Technology and Engineering activities related to
maintenance assessment and certification capabilities for the
stockpile, and for critical infrastructure improvements. The Security
and Nuclear Counterterrorism component decreases about 3 percent from
the fiscal year 2010 appropriated levels, attributable to continuing
efficiencies in the Defense Nuclear Security programs budget.
This multi-year increase reflects the President's commitment to
maintain the safety, security and effectiveness of the nuclear
deterrent without underground nuclear testing, consistent with the
principles of the Stockpile Management Program outlined in section
3113(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year
2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524). The nuclear security requirements driving this
budget request include improvements to the safety and security of the
enduring stockpile; a strengthened science, technology, and engineering
base; and a recapitalized physical infrastructure. The enterprise must
also be responsive to an arguably more complex future national defense
environment than the singular cold-war context within which the legacy
deterrent was built.
The President's budget request provides funding necessary to
protect and advance the scientific capabilities at the U.S. national
security laboratories--including the ability to maintain the nuclear
deterrent as well as development and engineering expertise and
capabilities--through a stockpile stewardship program that fully
exercises these capabilities.
This budget request is responsive to fiscal year 2010 Congressional
direction to carry out a Stockpile Management Program in support of
stockpile stewardship that provides for effective management of the
weapons in the nuclear weapons stockpile. This program will strengthen
the stockpile activities, including life extension programs and
surveillance; strengthen science, technology and engineering, including
the workforce; and modernize the aging infrastructure, particularly
special nuclear materials capabilities. The key objectives of the
Stockpile Management Program include:
--Increase the reliability, safety, and security of the stockpile;
--Further reduce the likelihood of the need to resume underground
nuclear testing;
--Achieve further reductions in the future size of the stockpile;
--Reduce the risk of an accidental detonation; and
--Reduce the risk of an element of the stockpile being used by a
person or entity hostile to the United States, its vital
interests, or its allies.
The Stockpile Support component of this appropriation includes
Directed Stockpile Work and the supporting Readiness Campaign. The
President's budget request is $2.0 billion, an increase of 25.2 percent
over the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. This provides for the
Stockpile Management Program, including surveillance, maintenance,
assembly, disassembly and dismantlement activities, and will fully
support the ongoing Life Extension Programs for the W76 warhead and the
refurbishment of the B61 bomb. The budget request will enhance
surveillance efforts, and ensure that capabilities and capacity are
available so that future warhead life extension programs will allow for
increased margin and enhanced warhead safety, security and control. The
request will initiate a study in fiscal year 2011 to evaluate future
options and approaches to maintaining the W78, consistent with the
principles of the Stockpile Management Program defined in section
3113(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year
2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524).
The Science, Technology and Engineering (STE) component of this
appropriation includes the Science Campaign, Engineering Campaign,
Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign, Advanced
Simulation and Computing Campaign, and Science, Technology and
Engineering Capability. The President's budget request of $1.6 billion
is an increase of 10.4 percent over the fiscal year 2010 appropriation
and will restore sufficient funds for the science and technology base
that supports stockpile assessment and certification in the absence of
nuclear testing. Within this request, the Inertial Confinement Fusion
and High Yield Campaign is requested at $481.5 million. Construction of
the National Ignition Facility (NIF) was completed in fiscal year 2009,
and the first in a series of ignition experiments beginning in the
summer of 2010 will attempt to compress, implode, and ignite a layered
deuterium-tritium capsule with a 1.3 megajoule energy pulse from the
NIF. Regardless of the specific status of ignition, fiscal year 2011
will present a very demanding agenda of work in the ignition effort.
Results from the first ignition experiments in 2010 will be analyzed in
detail, and the intensive process of tuning laser and target parameters
for optimum performance will continue toward development of a robust
ignition platform by the end of 2012. The NIF is designed to provide
critical scientific data to support the stockpile without underground
nuclear testing.
Computation and simulation underpin all of our science, technology
and engineering, and are pervasive throughout the activities in the
nuclear security enterprise. The fiscal year 2011 President's budget
request of $616 million for the Advanced Simulation and Computing
Campaign will enable a stronger simulation program and inject a renewed
scientific rigor back into the program. Developing robust peer review
among the national security laboratories as we move away from the test
base experience is essential to being able to maintain a stockpile
without underground testing. Comprehensive uncertainty quantification
calculations in 3D will provide the confidence necessary to make
reliable progress toward the predictive capability necessary to address
stockpile aging issues. In the next decade, predictive capability and
specific warhead simulation deliverables will demand ever more powerful
and sophisticated simulation environments. This request will position
the national security laboratories to take advantage of future platform
architectures to more efficiently steward the stockpile.
Also within the STE component, the new subprogram to provide
collaborative efforts in intelligence analysis, which was created in
response to congressional funding in the Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2009, continues in fiscal year 2011. This subprogram provides a
focal point for science, technology and engineering in NNSA, and will
facilitate a point of entry for the wider national security community
into NNSA's programs and facilities. The fiscal year 2009 supplemental
funding provided for laboratory efforts in intelligence analysis. The
fiscal year 2011 request will support NNSA's commitment to a 5 year
Memorandum of Understanding with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency
for national security research and development of mutual interest. At
this time, the defined focus areas of mutual interest are: Advanced
Science and Forensics, Experimental Capabilities, Science Based Output,
Active Interrogation of Special Nuclear Material, and Nuclear Weapons
Effects Modeling and Simulation.
The Infrastructure component of the appropriation includes
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, Secure Transportation
Asset, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, and Site
Stewardship. The President's budget request is $2.3 billion, a 4.8
percent increase over the fiscal year 2010 level. Transformation and
maintenance of supporting physical infrastructure for the nuclear
security enterprise is a high priority in the upcoming FYNSP. Along
with the funding to support the ongoing operations of the Government-
owned, contractor operated laboratories and manufacturing facilities,
the President's budget request includes funding for major long-term
construction projects needed to restore critical capabilities in
plutonium and uranium essential to the Stockpile Management program.
The President's budget request includes funding to complete the
design and begin construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Facility Replacement--Nuclear Facility at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. This facility conducts plutonium research and development
and provides analytical capabilities in support of pit surveillance and
production. The facility will also support the broad range of NNSA's
nuclear security missions, including: (1) stockpile stewardship; (2)
nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament; (3) arms control treaty
monitoring; (4) nuclear forensics; and, (5) counterterrorism and
emergency response. Current planning schedules full operation in 2022.
A related project is requested to improve the safety profile at the
adjoining PF-4 facility. The budget request also includes funding for
continuing the design and construction planning of the Uranium
Processing Facility at the Y-12 National Security Complex to support
production and surveillance of highly-enriched uranium components. This
facility is also planned to achieve full operations by 2022.
Maintaining and improving the current infrastructure is also an
important priority for NNSA. The Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program is continuing to reduce the deferred
maintenance backlog as it proceeds toward its planned conclusion in
2013. Increased funding is provided for the Site Stewardship program
that integrates institutional/landlord functions for our sites,
including regulatory-driven long-term Stewardship, Nuclear Materials
Consolidation, and energy efficiency projects.
The Security and Nuclear Counterterrorism component of the
appropriation includes Defense Nuclear Security, Cyber Security, and
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response. The President's budget
request for these programs is $1.1 billion, which, except for a 5
percent increase in Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response,
represents an overall 3.2 percent decrease from fiscal year 2010
appropriated levels. The decrease reflects efficiencies expected to be
gained from risk-informed decisions identified through the Defense
Nuclear Security program's Zero-Based Security Review, consistent with
implementation of the Graded Security Protection Policy.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Appropriation
The request for this appropriation is $2.7 billion; an increase of
25.8 percent over the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. The increase
is driven by the imperative for U.S. leadership in nonproliferation
initiatives both here and abroad, including the consolidation of
fissile materials disposition activities into this account. In addition
to the programs funded solely by the NNSA, our programs support the
Department of Energy mission to protect our national security by
preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials to
terrorist organizations and rogue states. These efforts are implemented
in part through the Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons
and Materials of Mass Destruction, formed at the G8 Kananaskis Summit
in June 2002, and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism,
launched in Rabat, Morocco, in October 2006.
The fiscal year 2011 President's budget request reflects support
for the President's direction to secure vulnerable nuclear materials
around the world in 4 years. The International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation (MPC&A) program increases by 3 percent to
support selective new security upgrades to buildings and areas that
were added to the cooperation after the Bratislava summit, additional
Second Line of Defense sites, sustainability of MPC&A upgrades, and
continued expansion of nuclear and radiological material removal. The
Global Threat Reduction Initiative increases by 68 percent to support
an increase in reactor conversions and shutdowns, acceleration of
domestic production capability of Molybdenum-99, and an acceleration of
the removal and disposition of high-priority, vulnerable nuclear
materials in full support of the President's nuclear security agenda.
The Fissile Materials Disposition program increases by 47 percent
reflecting continuing domestic construction on the MOX Fuel Fabrication
Facility, and the design and construction of two major supporting
facilities.
The NNSA's nonproliferation programs seek to secure nuclear
materials worldwide that could be used for weapons and to convert such
materials for peaceful applications, and, through the Second Line of
Defense Program, provide the tools for partner countries to detect and
interdict smuggling of these materials across international borders.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development (R&D)
activities seek to improve detection of nuclear material production and
movement through advanced R&D. The program draws on the vast technical
expertise of the NNSA and DOE national laboratories, as well as
academia and industry, the program delivers solutions to the hardest
technical nuclear security challenges. Focusing on nuclear detection
instrumentation development that is tightly coordinated across Federal
and international agencies, these advanced detection techniques are a
significant contributor to the U.S. ability to detect foreign nuclear
materials production as well as the illicit movement of those
materials. Further, the R&D program provides the backbone for advances
in U.S. and international capabilities to monitor nuclear-related
treaty obligations. In keeping with the President's commitment for
verifiable treaties, the R&D program's fiscal year 2011 budget request
increases by 10 percent over the current year to include a more robust
set of testing and evaluation activities to demonstrate new U.S. treaty
monitoring capabilities.
The fiscal year 2011 President's budget request has consolidated
all of the funding requests for the Fissile Materials Disposition
activities within the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriation.
The current funding for both the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility and
Waste Solidification Building projects were moved in the fiscal year
2010 appropriation, and the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility
project has been moved back to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
appropriation starting in fiscal year 2011. The DOE has decided to
explore a proposed combination of the Office of Environmental
Management Plutonium Preparation Project and the Pit Disassembly and
Conversion Project in a single project located in an existing K-Area
Facility at the Savannah River Site. This activity will be evaluated
using the Department's project management order, DOE O 413, and will
move toward a Critical Decision 1 (approval of alternative selection
and cost range).
The United States continues to work with the Russian Federation on
plutonium disposition in Russia pursuant to the Plutonium Management
and Disposition Agreement reached in September 2000. Congress had
appropriated $200 million in a fiscal year 1999 Supplemental
Appropriation to support Russian plutonium disposition activities;
however, $207 million of this and other funding for this program was
rescinded in fiscal year 2008 due to lack of progress in Russia. The
fiscal year 2011 request includes $100 million of the U.S. commitment
to provide $400 million to support plutonium disposition in Russia once
a Protocol amending the 2000 Agreement, related liability provisions,
and a monitoring and inspection regime is signed. The balance of more
than $2 billion in remaining cost associated with Russian plutonium
disposition would be borne by Russia and non-U.S. contributions.
Naval Reactors Appropriation
The request for this appropriation is $1.1 billion; an increase of
13.3 percent over the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. The program
directly supports the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet, which encompasses all
Navy submarines and aircraft carriers. The nuclear fleet is comprised
of 54 attack submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 guided
missile submarines, and 11 aircraft carriers. These ships, and their
consistent forward presence, are relied on every day, all over the
world, to protect our national interests.
Naval Reactors has a long history of providing safe and reliable
Naval nuclear propulsion. This requires continual analysis for prompt
identification of leading indicators from fleet operations and careful
engineering to assure prudent, yet timely modernization, and scrupulous
maintenance. Over the last decade, funding for these successful
endeavors has been relatively constant. The onset of unavoidable,
nondiscretionary requirements for spent reactor fuel processing and
replacement, and maintenance and disposal of an aging support
infrastructure has required continued rebalancing of funding
priorities. Those priorities coupled with new challenges necessitated
the additional funding included in the budget request. Increases in the
fiscal year 2011 President's budget request support three key
deliverables--the OHIO-class submarine replacement reactor plant, the
refueling of the land-based prototype located in New York, and the
Expended Core Facility at the Naval Reactors Facility located on the
Idaho National Laboratory.
The most survivable leg of the Nation's strategic deterrent, the
OHIO-class ballistic missile submarines are reaching the end of their
operational life. Propulsion plant design and development efforts began
in 2010 to support Navy procurement of reactor plant components in
2017, for ship construction starting in 2019. This schedule for
development is consistent with previous designs. Key technical
challenges include an effort to lower total ownership costs while
maintaining the traditionally high operational availability of this new
ship. The most important challenge to meet this is a life-of-the-ship
reactor core.
The DOE land-based prototype reactor, which has served the
Program's needs for R&D and training since 1978, requires refueling in
2017. The reactor provides a cost-effective test platform for new
technologies and components before they are introduced for Fleet
applications, supports testing and evaluation of materials, and
provides a vital training platform for reactor plant operators. The
land-based prototype refueling will also provide key technical data for
the OHIO-class submarine replacement, since the reactor core work to
support the refueling will also support the core manufacturing
development for the OHIO-class replacement. This approach is based on
Naval Reactors' extensive experience in reactor design--taking
advantage of the prototype refueling opportunity to proof-test new
manufacturing techniques for reactor fuel cladding material never
previously used by the Navy. This will reduce technical risk in
manufacturing the OHIO-class replacement life-of-the-ship core.
The Expended Core Facility (ECF) is the central location for naval
spent nuclear fuel receipt, inspection, dissection, packaging, and
secure dry storage, as well as detailed examination of spent cores and
irradiated specimens. The existing facility is more than 50 years old,
and its mission has evolved significantly over time. While serviceable,
it no longer efficiently supports the nuclear Fleet or the work
required to meet the agreements we have with the State of Idaho for
naval spent fuel. To minimize risks associated with an aging facility
and support the timely refueling and defueling of nuclear-powered
warships, construction is targeted to begin by 2015. Uninterrupted ECF
receipt of naval spent nuclear fuel is vital to the timely, constant
throughput of ship refuelings and return of these capital warships to
the Fleet. The mission need statement for this project has been
approved, and conceptual design and alternative analysis efforts began
in 2010.
Office of the Administrator Appropriation
The request for this appropriation is $448.3 million; an increase
of 6.5 percent over the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. This
appropriation provides for the Federal staff and related support for
the NNSA Headquarters and field organizations. The Federal personnel
level for fiscal year 2011 is projected at 1,970 Full Time Equivalents,
essentially level with the expectation for fiscal year 2010. Implicit
in the request is a 1.4 percent cost of living adjustment and a 3.3
percent increase for performance-based salary increases, awards, and
benefit escalation associated with the Federal workforce. Other
increases reflect full funding for NNSA site office space requirements
across the Nuclear Security Enterprise, funds for new building
maintenance and lease requirements, and expansion of NNSA international
offices for the NNSA's nonproliferation programs.
national nuclear security administration--appropriation and program
summary tables--out-year appropriation summary table--fiscal year 2011
budget tables

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION--OVERVIEW--APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2009 Fiscal Year 2010
Actual Current Fiscal Year 2011
Appropriation Appropriation Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Office of the Administrator..................... 439,190 420,754 448,267
Weapons Activities.............................. 6,410,000 6,384,431 7,008,835
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................ 1,545,071 2,136,709 2,687,167
[non-add MOX Project funded in other [278,879] ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
appropriations]................................
Naval Reactors.................................. 828,054 945,133 1,070,486
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA................................... 9,222,315 9,887,027 11,214,755
===========================================================
Transfer of prior year balances--OMB scoring........ .................. -10,000 ..................
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA................................... .................. 9,877,027 ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ N/A.

OUT-YEAR APPROPRIATION SUMMARY--NNSA FUTURE-YEARS NUCLEAR SECURITY PROGRAM (FYNSP)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NNSA:
Office of the Administrator................ 448,267 426,424 430,726 435,069 448,498
Weapons Activities......................... 7,008,835 7,032,672 7,082,146 7,400,966 7,648,200
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........... 2,687,167 2,507,191 2,715,191 2,833,243 2,956,328
Naval Reactors............................. 1,070,486 1,099,734 1,171,178 1,226,017 1,310,530
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA.............................. 11,214,755 11,066,021 11,399,241 11,895,295 12,363,556
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR--OVERVIEW--APPROPRIATION SUMMARY BY PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2009 Fiscal Year 2010
Actual Current Fiscal Year 2011
Appropriation Appropriation \1\ Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator:
Office of the Administrator..................... 415,878 418,074 448,267
Congressionally Directed Projects............... 23,312 13,000 ..................
Use of Prior Year Balances...................... .................. -10,320 ..................
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Administrator............ 439,190 420,754 448,267
===========================================================
Transfer of Prior Year Balances..................... .................. -10,000 ..................
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total, OMB Scoring............................ 439,190 410,754 448,267
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In accordance with Public Law 111-85, $10,000,000 of Office of the Administrator prior year balances have
been transferred to Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup for cleanup efforts at the Argonne National Laboratory.

Public Law Authorization
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-85).
Fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law 111-8).
National Nuclear Security Administration Act (Public Law 106-65),
as amended.

OUT-YEAR APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2012 2013 2014 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator................................. 426,424 430,726 435,069 448,498
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR--CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED PROJECTS--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressionally Directed Projects............................... 23,312 13,000 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES--OVERVIEW--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities:
Directed Stockpile Work..................................... 1,590,152 1,505,859 1,898,379
Science Campaign............................................ 316,690 295,646 365,222
Engineering Campaign........................................ 150,000 150,000 141,920
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign 436,915 457,915 481,548
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.................. 556,125 567,625 615,748
Readiness Campaign.......................................... 160,620 100,000 112,092
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.................. 1,674,406 1,842,870 1,848,970
Secure Transportation Asset................................. 214,439 234,915 248,045
Nuclear Counterrorism Incident Response..................... 215,278 221,936 233,134
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program...... 147,449 93,922 94,000
Site Stewardship............................................ .............. 61,288 105,478
Environmental Projects and Operations....................... 38,596 .............. ..............
Defense Nuclear Security.................................... 735,208 769,044 719,954
Cyber Security.............................................. 121,286 122,511 124,345
Science, Technology and Engineering Capability.............. 30,000 .............. 20,000
Congressionally Directed Projects........................... 22,836 3,000 ..............
Use/Rescission of Prior Year Balances....................... .............. -42,100 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Weapons Activities................................. 6,410,000 6,384,431 7,008,835
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Law Authorization
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law
111-84).
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-85).
National Nuclear Security Administration Act, (Public Law 106-65),
as amended.

OUT-YEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2012 2013 2014 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities:
Directed Stockpile Work................................. 1,900,736 1,999,470 2,240,139 2,346,254
Science Campaign........................................ 397,460 418,823 416,199 394,766
Engineering Campaign.................................... 149,737 134,996 144,920 145,739
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield 480,451 475,597 470,994 484,812
Campaign...............................................
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.............. 622,940 616,257 615,420 633,134
Readiness Campaign...................................... 81,697 70,747 69,854 72,584
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.............. 1,872,546 1,841,325 1,926,568 1,997,764
Secure Transportation Asset............................. 251,272 249,456 252,869 261,521
Nuclear Counterrorism Incident Response................. 222,914 222,508 235,300 237,986
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program.. 94,000 94,000 ........... ...........
Site Stewardship........................................ 101,929 103,536 174,071 205,802
Defense Nuclear Security................................ 730,944 729,609 728,925 740,649
Cyber Security.......................................... 126,046 125,822 125,707 127,189
---------------------------------------------------
Total, Weapons Activities............................. 7,032,672 7,082,146 7,400,966 7,648,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directed Stockpile Work:
Life Extension Programs:
B61 Life Extension Program.............................. 1,854 .............. ..............
W76 Life Extension Program.............................. 203,189 223,196 249,463
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Life Extension Programs..................... 205,043 223,196 249,463
===============================================
Stockpile Systems:
B61 Stockpile Systems................................... 90,204 91,956 317,136
W62 Stockpile Systems................................... 1,500 .............. ..............
W76 Stockpile Systems................................... 63,219 56,554 64,521
W78 Stockpile Systems................................... 40,347 48,311 85,898
W80 Stockpile Systems................................... 30,712 27,398 34,193
B83 Stockpile Systems................................... 26,938 33,502 39,349
W87 Stockpile Systems................................... 40,949 48,139 62,603
W88 Stockpile Systems................................... 43,928 51,940 45,666
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Stockpile Systems........................... 337,797 357,800 649,366
===============================================
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition:
99-D-141-01 Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility--SRS 24,883 .............. ..............
99-D-141-02 Waste Solidification Building--SRS.......... 40,000 .............. ..............
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition................... 52,695 96,100 58,025
Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility--O&M............ 69,351 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition....... 186,929 96,100 58,025
===============================================
Stockpile Services:
Production Support...................................... 308,806 300,037 309,761
Research & Development Support.......................... 35,049 37,071 38,582
Research & Development Certification and Safety......... 169,403 166,523 209,053
Management, Technology, and Production.................. 192,072 183,223 193,811
Plutonium Capability.................................... 155,053 .............. ..............
Plutonium Sustainment................................... .............. 141,909 190,318
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Stockpile Services.......................... 860,383 828,763 941,525
===============================================
Total, Directed Stockpile Work........................ 1,590,152 1,505,859 1,898,379
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OUT-YEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2012 2013 2014 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directed Stockpile Work:
Life Extension Programs:
W76 Life Extension Program.......................... 255,000 255,000 255,000 255,000
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Life Extension Programs................. 255,000 255,000 255,000 255,000
===================================================
Stockpile Systems:
B61 Stockpile Systems............................... 337,851 394,027 437,518 512,296
W76 Stockpile Systems............................... 56,418 58,312 55,396 54,038
W78 Stockpile Systems............................... 104,964 156,340 346,923 345,359
W80 Stockpile Systems............................... 31,627 34,566 35,974 36,621
B83 Stockpile Systems............................... 37,160 38,294 42,621 42,059
W87 Stockpile Systems............................... 67,754 64,924 51,898 50,433
W88 Stockpile Systems............................... 61,229 65,094 69,777 68,648
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Stockpile Systems....................... 697,003 811,557 1,040,107 1,109,454
===================================================
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition................... 53,327 48,446 58,102 60,089
===================================================
Stockpile Services:
Production Support.................................. 288,227 271,067 265,429 274,509
Research & Development Support...................... 35,044 34,667 35,497 36,711
Research & Development Certification and Safety..... 207,133 213,923 214,632 222,777
Management, Technology, and Production.............. 202,020 196,676 198,660 205,454
Plutonium Sustainment............................... 162,982 168,134 172,712 182,260
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Stockpile Services...................... 895,406 884,467 886,930 921,711
===================================================
Total, Directed Stockpile Work.................... 1,900,736 1,999,470 2,240,139 2,346,254
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCIENCE CAMPAIGN--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science Campaign:
Advanced Certification...................................... 19,400 19,400 76,972
Primary Assessment Technologies............................. 80,181 83,181 85,723
Dynamic Plutonium Experiments............................... 23,022 .............. ..............
Dynamic Materials Properties................................ 83,231 86,617 96,984
Advanced Radiography........................................ 28,535 28,535 23,594
Secondary Assessment Technologies........................... 76,913 77,913 81,949
Test Readiness.............................................. 5,408 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Science Campaign................................... 316,690 295,646 365,222
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENGINEERING CAMPAIGN--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Campaign:
Enhanced Surety............................................. 46,111 42,000 42,429
Weapon Systems Engineering Assessment Technology............ 16,593 18,000 13,530
Nuclear Survivability....................................... 21,100 21,000 19,786
Enhanced Surveillance....................................... 66,196 69,000 66,175
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Engineering Campaign............................... 150,000 150,000 141,920
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION IGNITION AND HIGH YIELD CAMPAIGN--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign:
Ignition.................................................... 100,535 106,734 109,506
NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics, and Experimental Support....... 66,201 72,252 102,649
Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion.................... 8,652 5,000 5,000
Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas..... 3,053 4,000 4,000
Facility Operations and Target Production................... 203,282 269,929 260,393
NIF Assembly and Installation Program....................... 55,192 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield 436,915 457,915 481,548
Campaign.................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADVANCED SIMULATION AND COMPUTING CAMPAIGN--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign:
Integrated Codes............................................ 138,917 140,882 165,947
Physics and Engineering Models.............................. 49,284 61,189 62,798
Verification and Validation................................. 50,184 50,882 54,781
Computational Systems and Software Environment.............. 156,733 159,022 175,833
Facility Operations and User Support........................ 161,007 155,650 156,389
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign......... 556,125 567,625 615,748
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READINESS CAMPAIGN--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readiness Campaign:
Stockpile Readiness......................................... 27,869 5,746 18,941
High Explosives and Weapon Operations....................... 8,581 4,608 3,000
Nonnuclear Readiness........................................ 32,545 12,701 21,864
Tritium Readiness........................................... 70,409 68,246 50,187
Advanced Design and Production Technologies................. 21,216 8,699 18,100
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Readiness Campaign................................. 160,620 100,000 112,092
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities:
Operations of Facilities:
Kansas City Plant....................................... 89,871 156,056 186,102
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.................. 82,605 86,670 80,106
Los Alamos National Laboratory.......................... 289,169 311,776 318,464
Nevada Test Site........................................ 92,203 79,583 80,077
Pantex.................................................. 101,230 131,602 121,254
Sandia National Laboratory.............................. 123,992 104,133 117,369
Savannah River Site..................................... 92,762 128,580 92,722
Y-12 National Security Complex.......................... 235,397 229,774 220,927
Institutional Site Support.............................. 56,102 120,129 40,970
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations of Facilities.................... 1,163,331 1,348,303 1,257,991
===============================================
Program Readiness........................................... 71,626 73,021 69,309
Material Recycle and Recovery............................... 70,334 69,542 70,429
Containers.................................................. 22,696 23,392 27,992
Storage..................................................... 31,951 24,708 24,233
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and Maintenance...................... 1,359,938 1,538,966 1,449,954
===============================================
Construction................................................ 314,468 303,904 399,016
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities......... 1,674,406 1,842,870 1,848,970
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET--OVERVIEW FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secure Transportation Asset (STA):
Operations and Equipment.................................... 127,701 138,772 149,018
Program Direction........................................... 86,738 96,143 99,027
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Secure Transportation Asset........................ 214,439 234,915 248,045
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET--OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Equipment:
Mission Capacity............................................ 70,107 75,038 84,010
Security/Safety Capability.................................. 20,617 26,472 27,001
Infrastructure and C5 Systems............................... 25,978 23,217 23,681
Program Management.......................................... 10,999 14,045 14,326
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Operations and Equipment........................... 127,701 138,772 149,018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET--PROGRAM DIRECTION--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Direction:
Salaries and Benefits....................................... $75,226 $81,225 $83,311
Travel...................................................... $10,188 $411,331 $7,746
Other Related Expenses...................................... $1,324 $3,587 $7,970
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Program Direction.................................. $86,738 $96,143 $99,027
===============================================
Total, Full Time Equivalents.............................. 570 647 637
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OUT-YEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2012 2013 2014 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Direction:
Salaries and Benefits................................... $85,781 $88,323 $90,943 $93,641
Travel.................................................. $7,980 $8,218 $8,465 $8,719
Other Related Expenses.................................. $8,237 $8,517 $8,801 $9,095
---------------------------------------------------
Total, Program Direction.............................. $101,998 $105,058 $108,209 $111,455
===================================================
Total, Full Time Equivalents.......................... 637 637 637 637
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR COUNTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands for dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response (Homeland
Security):\1\
Emergency Response (Homeland Security) \1\.................. 132,918 139,048 134,092
National Technical Nuclear Forensics (Homeland Security) \1\ 12,557 10,217 11,698
Emergency Management (Homeland Security) \1\................ 7,428 7,726 7,494
Operations Support (Homeland Security) \1\.................. 8,207 8,536 8,675
International Emergency Management and Cooperation.......... 4,515 7,181 7,139
Nuclear Counterterrorism (Homeland Security) \1\............ 49,653 49,228 64,036
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response......... 215,278 221,936 233,134
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Homeland Security designations.

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program:
Operations and Maintenance (O&M):
Recapitalization........................................ 69,226 69,377 79,600
Infrastructure Planning................................. 10,324 8,982 9,400
Facility Disposition.................................... .............. 5,600 5,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and Maintenance (O&M)............ 79,550 83,959 94,000
===============================================
Construction................................................ 67,899 9,963 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization 147,449 93,922 94,000
Program..................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SITE STEWARDSHIP--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Stewardship:
Operations and Maintenance.................................. .............. 61,288 90,478
Construction................................................ .............. .............. 15,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Site Stewardship................................... .............. 61,288 105,478
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Projects and Operations:
Long-Term Stewardship....................................... 38,596 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Environmental Projects and Operations.............. 38,596 .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safeguards and Security (S&S):
Defense Nuclear Security (Homeland Security):
Operations and Maintenance.............................. 689,510 720,044 667,954
Construction............................................ 45,698 49,000 52,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Defense Nuclear Security....................... 735,208 769,044 719,954
===============================================
Cyber Security (Homeland Security).......................... 121,286 122,511 124,345
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Safeguards and Security............................ 856,494 891,555 844,299
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nuclear Security:
Operations and Maintenance (Homeland Security):
Protective Forces....................................... 418,694 453,000 414,166
Physical Security Systems............................... 77,245 74,000 73,794
Transportation.......................................... 420 .............. ..............
Information Security.................................... 25,880 25,300 25,943
Personnel Security...................................... 31,263 30,600 30,913
Materials Control and Accountability.................... 35,929 35,200 35,602
Program Management...................................... 71,364 83,944 80,311
Technology Deployment, Physical Security................ 9,431 8,000 7,225
Graded Security Protection Policy (formerly DBT)........ 19,284 10,000 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Operations and Maintenance (Homeland Security). 689,510 720,044 667,954
===============================================
Construction (Homeland Security)............................ 45,698 49,000 52,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Defense Nuclear Security........................... 735,208 769,044 719,954
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CYBER SECURITY--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyber Security (Homeland Security):
Infrastructure Program...................................... 93,776 99,011 97,849
Enterprise Secure Computing................................. 25,500 21,500 21,500
Technology Application Development.......................... 2,010 2,000 4,996
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Cyber Security (Homeland Security)................. 121,286 122,511 124,345
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING CAPABILITY--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Maintenance...................................... 30,000 .............. 20,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Science, Technology and Engineering Capability..... 30,000 .............. 20,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES--CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED PROJECTS--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressionally Directed Projects............................... 22,836 3,000 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION--OVERVIEW--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation:
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development.. 356,281 317,300 351,568
Nonproliferation and International Security................. 150,000 187,202 155,930
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation.. \1\ 460,592 572,050 590,118
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production........... 141,299 24,507 ..............
Fissile Materials Disposition............................... 41,774 701,900 1,030,713
Global Threat Reduction Initiative.......................... \2\ 404,640 333,500 558,838
Congressional Directed Projects......................... 1,903 250 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation............ 1,556,489 2,136,709 2,687,167
===============================================
Use of Prior Year Balances...................................... -11,418 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 1,545,071 2,136,709 2,687,167
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2009 amount includes international contributions of $4,067,065 from Government of Canada,
$387,335 from New Zealand, $837,600 from Norway, and $300,000 from South Korea.
\2\ Fiscal year 2009 amount includes international contributions of $3,918,000 from the Government of Canada,
and $5,722,212 from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

NOTES.--Fiscal year 2009 funds appropriated in Other Defense Activities for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility, and in Weapons Activities for the Waste Solidification Building and Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility (fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010) are not reflected in the above table.

Public Law Authorization
Energy and Water and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
(Public Law 111-85).
National Nuclear Security Administration Act, (Public Law 106-65),
as amended.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law
111-84).

NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D:
Operations and Maintenance (O&M):
Proliferation Detection................................. 195,400 181,839 225,004
Homeland Security-Related Proliferation Detection [Non- [50,000] [50,000] [50,000]
Add]...................................................
Nuclear Detonation Detection............................ 142,421 135,461 126,564
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, O&M......................................... 337,821 317,300 351,568
===============================================
Construction................................................ 18,460 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Nonproliferation and Verification R&D.............. 356,281 317,300 351,568
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonproliferation and International Security:
Dismantlement and Transparency.............................. 47,529 72,763 49,207
Global Security Engagement and Cooperation.................. 44,076 50,708 47,289
International Regimes and Agreements........................ 40,793 42,703 39,824
Treaties and Agreements..................................... 17,602 21,028 19,610
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Nonproliferation and International Security........ 150,000 187,202 155,930
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation:
Navy Complex................................................ 30,316 33,880 34,322
Strategic Rocket Forces/12th Main Directorate............... 51,767 48,646 51,359
Rosatom Weapons Complex..................................... 76,070 71,517 105,318
Civilian Nuclear Sites...................................... 45,542 63,481 59,027
Material Consolidation and Conversion....................... 21,560 13,611 13,867
National Programs and Sustainability........................ 54,901 68,469 60,928
Second Line of Defense...................................... 174,844 272,446 265,297
International Contributions................................. \1\ 5,592 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, International Nuclear Materials Protection and 460,592 572,050 590,118
Cooperation..............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2009 amount includes international contributions of $4,067,065 from Government of Canada,
$387,335 from New Zealand, $837,600 from Norway, and $300,000 from South Korea.

ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production (EWGPP):
Zheleznogorsk Plutonium Production Elimination (ZPPEP)...... 139,282 22,507 ..............
Crosscutting and Technical Support Activities............... 2,017 2,000 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production 141,299 24,507 ..............
(EWGPP)..................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Current 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD):
U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition:
Operations and Maintenance (O&M):
U.S. Plutonium Disposition.......................... .............. 90,896 278,940
U.S. Uranium Disposition............................ 39,274 34,691 25,985
Supporting Activities............................... 1,500 1,075 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, O&M..................................... 40,774 126,662 304,925
===============================================
Construction............................................ .............. 574,238 612,788

-----------------------------------------------
Total, U.S. Surplus FMD............................... 40,774 700,900 917,713
===============================================
Russian Surplus FMD:
Russian Materials Disposition............................... 1,000 1,000 113,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Fissile Materials Disposition...................... 41,774 701,900 1,030,713
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE (GTRI)--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM \1\
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Threat Reduction Initiative:
Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Reactor Conversion............ 76,706 102,772 119,000
Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal:
Russian-Origin Nuclear Material Removal................. 123,083 94,167 145,191
U.S.-Origin Nuclear Material Removal.................... 8,331 9,889 16,500
Gap Nuclear Material Removal............................ 4,982 9,111 108,000
Emerging Threats Nuclear Material Removal............... 7,600 5,556 16,000
International Radiological Material Removal............. 21,702 8,333 45,000
Domestic Radiological Material Removal.................. 17,063 17,778 25,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal... 182,761 144,834 355,691
===============================================
Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection:
BN-350 Nuclear Material Protection.......................... 50,977 9,109 2,000
International Material Protection........................... 42,909 41,463 57,000
Domestic Material Protection................................ 41,647 35,322 25,147
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection.... 135,533 85,894 84,147
===============================================
Total, Global Threat Reduction Initiative (appropriation). 395,000 333,500 558,838

Funds from International Contributions.......................... 9,640 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Global Threat Reduction Initiative Funds Available. 404,640 333,500 558,838
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2009 amount includes international contributions of $3,918,000 from the Government of Canada,
and $5,722,212 from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

OUT-YEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2012 2013 2014 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Threat Reduction Initiative:
HEU Reactor Conversion.................................. 176,000 210,000 245,000 293,000
Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal:
Russian-Origin Nuclear Material Remov- al.......... 96,000 70,000 82,000 83,000
U.S.-Origin Nuclear Material Removal................ 1,000 3,000 1,000 1,000
Gap Nuclear Material Removal........................ 22,000 16,000 27,000 1,000
Emerging Threats Nuclear Material Removal........... 16,000 16,000 194,000 188,000
International Radiological Material Removal......... 44,000 39,000 10,000 10,000
Domestic Radiological Material Removal.............. 31,000 31,000 33,000 34,000
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear and Radiological Material 210,000 175,000 347,000 317,000
Removal..........................................
===================================================
Nuclear and Radiological Material Protection:
BN-350 Nuclear Material Protection...................... 2,000 ........... ........... ...........
International Material Protection....................... 100,000 125,000 130,000 143,000
Domestic Material Protection............................ 111,994 149,926 265,138 303,172
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear and Radiological Material Protec- 213,994 274,926 395,138 446,172
tion.................................................
===================================================
Total, Global Threat Reduction Initiative............. 599,994 659,926 987,138 1,056,172
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED PROJECTS--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressionally Directed Projects............................... 1,903 250 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAVAL REACTORS--OVERVIEW--APPROPRIATION SUMMARY BY PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Actual 2010 Current Fiscal Year
Appropriation Appropriation 2011 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Reactors Development:
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)............................ 771,600 877,533 997,886
Program Direction........................................... 34,454 36,800 40,000
Construction................................................ 22,000 30,800 32,600
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Naval Reactors Development......................... 828,054 945,133 1,070,486
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Law Authorizations
Public Law 83-703, ``Atomic Energy Act of 1954'' ``Executive Order
12344'' (42 U.S.C. 7158), ``Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program''.
Public Law 107-107, ``National Defense Authorizations Act of
2002'', title 32, ``National Nuclear Security Administration''.
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2007, (Public Law 109-364).
Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 110-
161).
National Nuclear Security Administration Act, (Public Law 106-65),
as amended.
Fiscal Year 2009 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 111-
8).
Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (Public Law 111-85).

OUT-YEAR APPROPRIATION SUMMARY BY PROGRAM
[In thousands dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2012 2013 2014 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Reactors Development:
Operations and Maintenance.............................. 1,018,634 1,102,978 1,177,817 1,240,430
Program Direction....................................... 41,200 42,400 43,700 45,000
Construction............................................ 39,900 25,800 4,500 25,100
---------------------------------------------------
Total, Naval Reactors Development..................... 1,099,734 1,171,178 1,226,017 1,310,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Dorgan. Mr. D'Agostino, thank you very much. Would
you like to identify, for the record, those who are
accompanying you today?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
Mr. Steven Black, to my right, is going to be representing
the nonproliferation program. Mr. Black has been the chief
operating officer in--we call the NA-20 organization, and has
been--essentially, has very deep knowledge of all levels of the
program. And we're fortunate to be with him.
Admiral Kirk Donald, to my left, runs the naval reactors
program; for many years, has demonstrated significant success
in implementing these programs. It's really, quite an
impressive organization.
And Brigadier General Gary Harencak, to my left, runs the
defense programs activities. General Harencak joined our
operation about a year ago--little less than a year ago. It's a
great find for us, from the Air Force. It's the Air Force's
demonstration of their commitment to these types of programs.

5 YEAR BUDGET ESTIMATE DETAILS

Senator Dorgan. Well, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Let me ask a couple of questions of the type that I raised
and Senator Bennett raised, as well. We have a 5-year out-year
budget from NNSA that shows an average of about $300 million
per year increase for NNSA needs. But, my understanding is that
that budget doesn't include the current $3 billion estimated
cost of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility
replacement, at Los Alamos; the Uranium Processing Facility, at
Y-12--that's expected to cost $1.4 to $3.5 billion; the Pit
Disassembly and Conversion Facility at Savannah River--that's
to cost between $2.4 and $3.2 billion.
My understanding is the cost estimates are not completed on
those buildings, so they are not a part of your 5 year
estimate. Is that right? Will the subcommittee expect to see
higher cost estimates and more requirements for those three
buildings?
Mr. D'Agostino. The resources for the design work are in
our FYNSP. We feel--we're limited, in providing a 5 year plan,
sir. Most of these facilities will take, in many cases, 9 or 10
years to build. What we've looked at in the Department--to
address the concerns, raised by you sir, as well as the
Government Accountability Office, which has been very clear on
how we want to move forward--is, it's important to spend more
time up front in understanding what you're going to design
before you commit to a cost--you know, what we call a
``critical decision 2,'' which is a final cost, scope, and
schedule that we say we sign our names up to.
So, what we have in the first few years of this future-
year--5-year national security plan are our projections on what
the out years might be. The real numbers are going to start
coming in, in the years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, as we get
into the heavy construction pieces of those particular
projects. So, in order to address the project management
concern, which is a very valid concern, the Deputy Secretary
recently issued a revised project management policy to address
those specific points.
Senator Dorgan. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but let me just
ask the admiral a question that is similar. We're talking about
three facilities, each of which are going to cost probably
close to a couple billion dollars each, rather $3 billion,
potentially; $2 billion; $2.5 billion. So, three very large
facilities that will be built over a long period of time.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Dorgan. At the same time, my understanding is, that
we're going to do three things, we're going to have three
projects. One is developing a new reactor core for the Ohio-
class submarine; refueling the prototype reactor in New York;
and new spent-fuel facilities in Idaho. The first, I think is
going to cost, I'm told, up to $1.5 billion; the second, $1.3
billion; the third, probably $1.3 or $1.4 billion. So, you're
talking about three very large programs, here; three very large
facilities. Then, I think we asked the question earlier, can
you effectively do all these in reasonably the same period of
time, effectively manage them, and, especially, control costs?
Mr. D'Agostino. I believe the answer is, firmly yes, we can
do that. We can do it because--for a number of reasons. In many
cases, these are activities that have started already. They
won't be starting from a zero stop and then going to full steam
ahead. Well, all the facilities on the weapons side and
operations side have started, already.
What we've realized on large projects is spending the right
amount of money early on the design allows us to lock in and
have a good understanding of the actual costs before we begin
construction. So, we do--our 5 year plan does have the
resources to do the design work that we think is absolutely
critical. The last 2 years of the 5 year plan, for example, the
years 2014 and 2015, show bump-ups of about $300 million in
each of those years to address when we start to actually expect
doing construction work, because we think that's when the
dollars will be needed.
But, the important thing is that we haven't yet committed
to the actual design cost schedule yet, because we haven't
finished our design work. And one of the commitments in our
policies is to do the design early. Once you have the design
early--and we have authorization and appropriations to
proceed--is to make sure that the President's request requests
the right amount of money in each year--not try to shortchange
those things. In the past, we've gotten into trouble, because
it always seemed like a convenient pool to go to, to go solve
other problems that come up throughout the year. And the
commitment is that once the cost, scope, and schedule is
understood on the project, we fund it.
I'd like to turn to Admiral Donald, who can talk a little
bit about the naval reactors piece.
Admiral Donald. Sure. Thank you very much. It's good to be
here and thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee.
There are two points I would make about our ability to
execute these significant projects. There are two that involve
reactor design--the reactor plant design for the replacement
for the Ohio-class, and then the reactor design that goes into
the prototype up in New York for training and--or research and
development. The third one, while not a reactor design, is
similar, in the sense that it's a complex nuclear project that
we would be undertaking.
The first point I would make to you, sir, is that we have a
history of designing reactor plants. This would be the 30th--
over the 30th reactor design that naval reactors has made.
We've made over two dozen reactor plant designs that include
the entire propulsion plant, over the history of the program,
the most recent being the design of the reactor plant for the
Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carrier, which we're on
schedule, all of our components are being delivered or are in
delivery to the shipyard right now, on time, and on the budget
that we had demonstrated, or we had planned for in the past.
These projects are very similar, in that regard, so I
think--I am confident that we know how to do this. We
understand what the difficulties are, what the challenges are,
and we've carefully mapped those out.
The key, however, as we've learned, to success in these is,
you have to get the design matured, as Mr. D'Agostino pointed
out. History has shown that if you can get designs complete to
about 40 to 50 percent, you have a very good opportunity--a
very good chance of delivering on time and on budget. That's
what we demonstrated in the Virginia-class submarine program.
That's the target that we're going for now for these projects.
And the key to that is the early upfront funding so that we can
do the design, the concept development, and be prepared to
start construction.

ENSURING CONTRACT COMPETITION

Senator Dorgan. All right. Last year, we expressed some
concern in this subcommittee about the sole-source awarding of
target production for the NIF and other laser facilities, which
we indicated we felt was inconsistent with policy guidelines.
With the cost of target production expected to increase
significantly, competition will be needed to lower costs and to
spur innovation. We believe the NNSA's recently released
request for information to award a new contract is more
oriented toward one contractor. We've also had complaints about
that, as well.
To what extent, if you can tell me, Mr. D'Agostino, does
the request for information preclude multiple vendors from
effectively competing for the contract?
Mr. D'Agostino. Mr. Chairman, we're very much interested in
competition across a broad range of activities. I'm not aware
of any complaints, but I'd be happy to make sure we take a look
at that.
If our request for information appears to be focused to a
single contractor, that was an oversight on our part. We'll
have to--I'll take a look into that and get back to the
subcommittee.
Senator Dorgan. All right because it seems to me,
especially on these kinds of projects, the more you can get
contractors involved in competition, the lower you're going to
experience pricing on these major contracts.

JASON'S REPORT

Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just ask, on the issue of nuclear
weapons design, my understanding is that the plan is to modify
the design of nuclear weapons. Reconcile that, if you would,
that is the need for changes, with JASON's conclusion, in its
2009 report, that the lifetimes of today's nuclear warheads
could be extended for decades without significant changes to
their design and without any significant deterioration.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Dorgan. So, can you tell us how you see the JASON's
report--related to the discussions about changing design?
Mr. D'Agostino. Absolutely, and at the end, if General
Harencak wants to join, if it's okay----
Senator Dorgan. All right.
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. We'll ask him to do it. I'll--
I can't start off on that.
The JASON's report, the unclassified executive summary,
basically talked about: If we don't want to improve the safety,
if we don't want to improve the security, if we don't want to
improve the reliability, and just keeps things the way they are
and have cold war nuclear weapons, they felt, ``just keep
making things the way you used to make them.''
There's a couple--okay. I'll take that statement.
Senator Feinstein. That's not what it says.
Mr. D'Agostino. It's--it talks about----
Senator Feinstein. I have it in front of me.
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. We can maintain, out into the
future----
Senator Feinstein. Excuse me.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes. Well, I don't have it in front of me
right now, but if it says we can--I think it says, we can
maintain, out into the future, using current life-extension
approaches----
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. To safety, security----
Senator Feinstein. That's right.
Mr. D'Agostino. I think--what I'm interested in--there's a
couple of problems with what I would say, to this high-level
summary statement. One is, in many cases we can't make things
the way we used to make them 30, 40 years ago. We just don't
have the people; we don't have the processing techniques; many
of the chemicals, and many of the materials that were used back
then are prohibited from us for being able to use them; they
have grave environmental damages and a very expensive
infrastructure to be able to build that stuff. And so, I'm
thinking about--decisions that get made now are going to have
long-term impacts. These are, like, multi-decade facilities, so
why would I want to, kind of, lock in the way we used to make
things, when you know, we've progressed a lot in manufacturing
approaches and we know a lot more about material, and the
damage that beryllium does, and acetyl nitrate does. These are
specific components.
Because those have costs, those have real costs, and they
have long-term costs in dollars and in people--so, the approach
is: In order to overcome the problem that we have in
manufacturing, that there are different ways to do business. In
order to address what I would say is 21st century security
problems and 21st century safety approaches and not lock in the
way we did safety, 30 years ago. There are features that we can
put inside of these devices that will essentially make them
safe.
And I think that would be my approach.
Senator Dorgan. I want to call on my colleagues in a
moment, but my understanding was, in this discussion, which was
RRW and this discussion had a number of components.
My understanding was that, for some while, there was a
belief that pit degradation would mean that we would not have
reliability of our nuclear deterrent, and therefore, a new
class of nuclear weapons was required. The JASON's report, I
think, among other things, has indicated, ``No, that worry
about degradation is not a concern.'' They believe that these
nuclear weapons will be reliable, well out into the future.
And your point about designing safety, I understand.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. But, my point is that the design changes
originally were driven by a notion that you would have a
degrading of the deterrent, and therefore, you had to replace
them. I think the JASON's report is at odds with that. So, that
was what I was trying to ask.
Mr. D'Agostino. Okay.
Senator Dorgan. Let me call on my colleagues for questions.
Senator Bennett.

INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATES

Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
Again, the chairman has talked about many of the things
that I want to talk about. Let's discuss the whole issue of
independent cost estimates.
Senator Alexander and I sent a letter to Secretary Chu last
month to request the Department to obtain an independent cost
estimate for the UPF Facility. He has not responded. Were you
aware of that request?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir, I'm aware of that request.
Senator Bennett. And, as part of your reforms for contracts
and project management, do you like the idea of independent
cost estimates?
Mr. D'Agostino. I absolutely love the idea. I think it's a
great idea. We have to have it, and we have to do it much more
frequently than we've done in the past. The policy the Deputy
Secretary signed out last week on project management will
require independent cost estimates more frequently,
particularly at the critical decision points. So, before the
Department would propose, in a budget request--that the
President proposes in the budget request to Congress, on a
critical decision--we would have an independent cost estimate,
outside of my organization, to go validate that--you know,
check independently that we have a good understanding of what
the project's going to cost. There are a couple of other pieces
to that, as well, that I'd be willing to describe, on project
management.
Senator Bennett. That means you'll have a solid cost
estimate and schedule for each one of the multiple projects I
described in my opening statement?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir. We will--the key is, providing
that solid cost estimate and schedule when we have the data to
say we actually understand it. And, as Admiral Donald said, an
example of this new policy will require much more significant
design maturity then we've ever had in the past on these
projects. What I'm looking at, in the NNSA for example, is to
try to get as close as possible to 90 percent design maturity
before we go off and authorize the construction of an activity,
because then we will have a good idea--we will say, ``We
absolutely know what this design is.'' We've run down all of
the technology readiness-level issues that typically come up
and bite you if you don't--if you try to get started too soon.
So, that's an element of this----
Senator Bennett. Okay.
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. Design maturity.
Senator Bennett. Yes. I outlined the series of things that
you're trying to do simultaneously----
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. Plus the two life-extension
programs. Now, does the activity we need to do on the life
extension programs hinge on the timely completion of the other
four projects?
Mr. D'Agostino. Two of the projects are nonproliferation
projects. So, there's a clear answer to ``no''--no, on that
activity. The two life-extension programs in question are the
W76 and the B61. The W76 work, General, is underway right now,
we're into production mode on that, so it doesn't hinge on the
completion of those projects. The B61 work is--particularly in
the first few years, we're in the design maturity stage of the
study, and then we'll come back and request authorization to
actually proceed with the production. So, it doesn't hinge
directly on that, because the idea is to get--when is the date
for the B61, Gary?
General Harencak. By 2017, sir.
And, if I might----
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
General Harencak [continuing]. Make a point about our life-
extended--while we will have a time where there are dual life-
extended--the way it's laid out is, the majority--overwhelming
majority of the work will be done for the W76 as we start the
core of the majority of the work of the B61. And then, that
would be completed, should we need to do any other life-
extensions time. So, while certainly on paper you're doing two
life extensions, we've already de-conflicted the major
facilities with that, our workforce and its plan to complete
the W76 on time, on schedule, prior to the main heavy lifting
that'd be required for the B61 in our production facilities.

PIT DISASSEMBLY AND CONVERSION FACILITY

Senator Bennett. When do you anticipate requesting funds
for the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility? And do you
have any idea what the full cost is likely to be? Is that
included in your 5-year budget, or is that something we can
expect at some future time?
Mr. Black. The cost of the Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility will be determined after we do some study. You may
know that the Deputy Secretary decided, this past fall, to
direct the Department to explore the possibility of combining
the original standalone Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility, which you've been discussing, with an existing
project to deal with non-pit plutonium at Savannah River,
that's currently run by the Office of Environmental Management,
EM. So, we formed a working group with EM--an NNSA-EM working
group--to evaluate what the possibilities are to combine these
two projects. And part of the reason we're doing this is
because the working group that was already stood up felt that
there were a number of potential advantages to combining them;
in particular, cost avoidance. We can't promise that, but
initially it looks like we might be able to avoid the cost of
building a new facility, because we would use the shell of the
old K-Reactor, which currently exists, rather than building a
new one. We would also avoid the costs of decontaminating and
decommissioning a second category-1 facility at the end of the
mission. And we might be able to smooth out such things as
transportation costs, in terms of shipping pits from Pantex to
Savannah River, and the like. So, there's a variety of ways
that we might be able to avoid some costs and come in with a
project that will actually satisfy both missions. But, we're
not at CD1 yet. We don't have a cost estimate, and we expect
that it will take 12 to 18 months. So, we would imagine,
perhaps by the end of fiscal year 2011, we would be able to
come in with a more reasonable--a more specific cost estimate
and proposal.
Senator Bennett. So, you have nothing in your 5 year budget
now.
Mr. Black. Not right now, no. We have funds that were
transferred from the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility
that came over from another part of the budget, when it was
reconfigured and realigned this year. And that funding will be
used to continue work that would need to be done, irrespective
of which path we take on the building. Whether we do the pit
disassembly and conversion functions in the K Area, in the K-
Reactor, or whether we do it in a standalone facility that we
build, we're still going to have to have glove boxes and hot
cells and process equipment and the like. So, we're continuing
to do the work and the long-lead procurement that would be
required to do this mission. The mission has to be done. The
question is whether we do it in this kind of a facility or that
kind of facility. And, we feel that we can save some money in
the long run if, as the Administrator said, we can do more
complete design work over the next 12 to 18 months, and come
back to you and to the Secretary with another estimate.

PROPOSED BUDGET ALLOCATIONS

Senator Bennett. Okay. Now, in spite of all of the talk
about the top line going up so dramatically, your request for
day-to-day operations is down 7 percent, or $1.3 billion. And
can you talk about that--why there's the decrease in this area?
Was this a tradeoff as you negotiated with OMB? I've negotiated
with OMB. And, while administrations come and go, and change,
OMB always remains the same, it seems to me, and always
difficult when you're in a department or an agency and trying
to deal with them. You're forced to make budget cuts to deal
with the other activities that go in the areas we've talked
about our support for? I know that's a very blunt question, and
you----
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. Probably can't give me a
blunt answer, but hint around at it as best you can.
Mr. D'Agostino. Senator Bennett, every year, there will be
changes to our budget. And in many cases the message that I've
been working to drive over the past few years is we have to
continue to look at ways to be more efficient. There are always
ways, I believe, to be more efficient. I believe there continue
to be ways to be more efficient. We have to do it, for a number
of reasons; obviously, healthcare costs and benefits and things
like that, which impact all of us, are part of that. The area
that I'm most particularly concerned about is our--you know,
what I call some of the physical infrastructure.
And I want--well, I have a meeting with the board of
governors, actually, for two of our laboratories, Los Alamos
and Livermore, this afternoon. I'm going to emphasize that this
budget looks like great news, and it's important, because the
country recognizes what's important, but we have to sharpen our
pencils and reduce the fixed costs of doing our work in the
enterprise. I believe there are more opportunities there. It
certainly presents some challenges in maintenance of old
facilities. I will readily admit that. You know, Brigadier
General Harencak knows about this; he can probably add some
detail to what I'm saying.
But, in general, I'm always going to push to drive
efficiencies and try to get out of those facilities that we
don't need and to take them down, because they do add to the
fixed costs. I support the President's budget, of course. There
will always be program managers in my organization that would
like more, in order to do more. But, I try to look at it, not
just--well, look at what's an increment from what we had last
year, but what's in the base of what we had last year that we
can try to get out of the program. In this program--or, the
request that we have before us reflects some of my leanings
toward looking into the base of the program and trying to drive
those costs down.
Will it cause problems out there? Yes, because change is
always hard. I think there will be challenges. There'll be some
folks out in the field that'll say, you know, ``I need more and
more--I need more.'' But, I think, in order to change from this
kind of large cold war nuclear weapons complex, to an
efficient, trim nuclear security enterprise that addresses not
just weapons, but all these other areas, that's a necessity.
General, would you want to add?
General Harencak. Yes, sir. I----
Mr. D'Agostino. Feel free to disagree with me, as well.
So----
General Harencak. Well, sir.
Mr. D'Agostino. I mean, you're testifying, not me.
General Harencak. I will not disagree with you. What I will
say, though, is a caveat, perhaps----
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
General Harencak [continuing]. That we still, even with
this much needed budget increase--and, you know, last year, I
believe, the testimony was--I told you that we could not
sustain this enterprise. My best military advice was--I was new
to the enterprise and--we could not sustain it with the type--
with the number of resources we had. This goes a long way,
obviously, to fixing those problems and doing the work that we
have to do.
That being said, all budgets are going to have some areas
that need, perhaps, still a little bit more attention.
Facilities, is one, readiness and testing are some others.
We do believe, though, that we could internally--through
the great efforts of Mr. D'Agostino and all the great Americans
that work in this organization that are trying to turn this
into a 21st century nuclear security enterprise--that we can
make some internal adjustments, and we're working it. As we
speak right now, our best--some of our best people are meeting
to look at how we're going to, internally, specifically in
defense programs, fix some of the short-term concerns that we
have, specifically where it comes to some facilities.
We're confident that, as an enterprise, we're all going to
work together, and we're going to say, ``Hey, perhaps we can
move some work here, we can move some money here to fix
those.''
So, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that we
absolutely have no problems with this budget, that there's--you
know, we got everything we need, but I will tell you we are
aggressively managing those areas; we'll do what's necessary in
the coming years to adjust and, when we come back to you, say,
``Hey, perhaps now--in retrospect, we should've put x number to
this facility, and we're going to adjust those.'' But, overall,
as Mr. D'Agostino said, we are absolutely committed to making
this organization more efficient, more responsive.
And, along those ways, since I have the opportunity, if you
don't mind, I certainly agree that, in the past, our management
of some projects has not been sterling. I mean, there's no
other way around that. But, you have a team in place now that
Mr. D'Agostino has put into place, that is--job one is to fix
that. And, while certainly we could come up with things that we
have done wrong in the past, I also point to some things that
we are doing extremely well now and--because we do have the
capacity to learn, and we're demonstrating that.
Certainly, the NIF project, this is an incredible success
story. While, granted, it had problems in the past, long before
our time here, it's now incredibly well run and it's making
great, great positions.
KCRIMS is another example where we've taken, in a very
complex thing, which is moving an in-operation plant to a much
more efficient, much more cost effective, much more a green
place, if you will. And we're doing that superbly, I believe,
because we've instituted a formal risk-management process,
where we're identifying the sources of risks, assessing those
risks, but, more importantly, looking at how that affects
overall project performance, and coming up with alternatives,
real time, to fix it. And the KCRIMS program is a perfect
example of contractors and Feds working together to actually
produce a project on time and on schedule.
And so, I just offer that up to you, sir, that we are
aggressively working on how to manage projects correctly.

NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Senator Bennett. Okay. Thank you. Let me go, my last
question, in the other direction. You want to secure all the
vulnerable nuclear material around the world within 4 years and
the budget increase has gone up 68 percent. This is one very
heavy increase. And I've learned, in my business world, it's
tough to deal with a cut, and sometimes it's even tougher to
deal with an increase. And do you have the capacity to execute
these funds in fiscal 2011, let alone significant increases of
up to a billion dollars over the 5 year project plan?
Mr. Black. Sir, I would say that we do have the ability to
get this mission done. If I may, the President laid out a very
ambitious agenda for us last April, and again in the State of
the Union Address. We're not the only part of the solution of
this problem, though; he said, ``This is work for the world,''
so we have international partners and we have interagency
partners.
The portion of the task that we have essentially carved out
for ourselves is the part that is consistent with our
expertise, our authorities, and the budget that we believe we
can manage. And so, we've requested the amount that we think we
can use effectively. We are looking to commit all of the money,
for the fiscal year 2011 work that we've requested in the
budget, and we believe we can do it, for several reasons. One
is we are much better staffed this year than we were at this
time last year. Last year at this time, we had an 83-percent
staffing rate, 17-percent vacancy rate. And we have dropped
that now to a 5 percent vacancy rate. We have a lot more Feds
on board. These are young, energetic people who have experience
working overseas. They speak the language, they know the
culture, and they're certainly enthusiastic about the mission,
and they know they have the support of both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue.
We've also put in place contracts and vehicles, such as the
IDIQ, the indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract that
supports our GTRI work, Global Threat Reduction Initiative
work, and a DICCE contract that will help us execute work in
second line of defense. These two contract vehicles make it
possible for us to contract out work overseas and greatly
simplify what is otherwise a very complicated and long process
to getting work done in other countries.
And we've done a very good job with our uncommitted
balances, as well. The last 5 years, despite an increase in our
overall nonproliferation budget, every year--our uncommitted
balances have come down every single year. And the last 4
years, our balances have been under the 13-percent departmental
threshold for uncosted balances. So, in particular, in the two
programs that have to bear the greatest brunt of the burden for
the 4-year plan, what we nominally call the 4-year plan, Global
Threat Reduction and MPC&A, those two programs' uncommitted
balances have come in under 9 percent. They're very well
positioned to make good use of the funds that we are
requesting. So, on balance, we feel that we're committed and
able to execute this work very effectively.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Bennett, good to see you again.
And, Mr. D'Agostino, good to see you again, I want to say
that you have always been a straight-shooter with me. I very
much appreciate that. You spent several times briefing me on
the RRW. We did not see, with the same eyes, the same thing,
and I found myself opposing the nuclear bunker buster, the
advanced weapons concepts, the new plutonium pits, and the RRW.
And I just want to say why.
I strongly believe that the United States of America should
not be a nuclear proliferator. And when I sat down with Sid
Drell on the bunker buster and on the laws of physics and what
would happen if one of these things exploded, I couldn't
believe that my country was proposing it. And so, I have begun
to look very critically at weapons programs. And, of course,
what I find is that Russia and the United States have a huge
arsenal, which is in the process, through START and hopefully
through the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, of being weaned down
and better controlled over the years so that there is the kind
of information, on both sides, about what the other side does
that gives true mutual deterrence some real credibility.
I'd like to ask the clerk that the 4 pages of the September
9, 2009, JASON report be included in the record.
[The information follows:]
Lifetime Extension Program (LEP)--Executive Summary
1 executive summary
1.1 Study charge
This study of the Life Extension Program (LEP) for deployed U.S.
nuclear weapons responds to the following charge.
``NNSA requests that JASON study LEP strategies for maintaining the
U.S. nuclear deterrent in the absence of underground nuclear testing.
This should include:
--``Study the certification challenges associated with changes, to
include accumulation of changes, made to a warhead \1\ during
its life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this study ``warhead'' refers to the nuclear explosive
package and associated non-nuclear components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--``Compare the assessment and certification challenges of different
LEP strategies ranging from refurbishment to replacement.
--``Study proposed methods to measure the evolution of risk due to
multiple changes during warhead life and initiated in LEPs.
--``Study how NNSA can mitigate risks while maintaining a safe,
secure and reliable nuclear deterrent. Comment on how the
overall balance and structure of science, technology,
engineering and production activities can be made to minimize
future risk to the stockpile.
--``Study the accumulated risks and uncertainties of the current Life
Extension Program strategy. As already identified by a previous
JASON study, risk areas include:
--``Linkage to UGT data,
--``Manufacturing changes that may unavoidably result in
differences from the as-tested devices,
--``Increased surety \2\ features, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Surety encompasses safety, security and use control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--``Thresholds to failure.''
NNSA provided the following definitions:
``Refurbishment (current implementation of LEP).--Very generally,
individual warhead components are replaced before they degrade with
components of (nearly) identical design or that meet the same `form,
fit, and function.'
``Warhead Component Reuse.--Refers specifically to the use of
existing surplus pit and secondary components from other warhead types.
Approach may permit limited warhead surety improvements and some
increased margins.
``Warhead Replacement.--Some or all of the components of a warhead
are replaced with modern design that are more easily manufacturable,
provide increased warhead margins, forego no longer available or
hazardous materials, improve safety, security and use control, and
offer the potential for further overall stockpile reductions.''
1.2 Findings
JASON was asked to assess the impacts of changes to stockpile
warheads incurred from aging and LEPs. In response:
--JASON finds no evidence that accumulation of changes incurred from
aging and LEPs have increased risk to certification of today's
deployed nuclear warheads
This finding is a direct consequence of the excellent work of the
people in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex supported and
informed by the tools and methods developed through the
Stockpile Stewardship program. Some aging issues have already
been resolved. The others that have been identified can be
resolved through LEP approaches similar to those employed to
date. To maintain certification, military requirements for some
stockpile warheads have been modified. The modifications are
the result of improved understanding of original weapon
performance, not because of aging or other changes. If desired,
all but one of the original major performance requirements
could also be met through LEP approaches similar to those
employed to date.
--Lifetimes of today's nuclear warheads could be extended for
decades, with no anticipated loss in confidence, by using
approaches similar to those employed in LEPs to date.
The report discusses details and challenges for each stockpile
system.
For each warhead, decisions must be made about including additional
surety features. Findings regarding surety features are:
--Further scientific research and engineering development is required
for some proposed surety systems.
--Implementation of intrinsic \3\ surety features in today's re-entry
systems, using the technologies proposed to date, would require
reuse or replacement LEP options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ i.e. inside the nuclear explosive package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--All proposed surety features for today's air-carried systems could
be implemented through reuse LEP options.
--Implementation of intrinsic surety features across the entire
stockpile would require more than a decade to complete.
Concerning methods for assessing evolution of risk and assessing
the effects of multiple changes to a weapon, we find that:
--The basis for assessment and certification is linkage to
underground test data, scientific understanding, and results
from experiment.
--Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties (QMU) provides a
suitable framework for assessment and certification.
--Increased scientific understanding enables reduced reliance on
calibration, enhanced predictive capability, and improved
quantification of margins and uncertainties.
Regarding certification challenges for LEP strategies ranging from
refurbishment to replacement, we find that:
--Assessment and certification challenges depend on design details
and associated margins and uncertainties, not simply on whether
the LEP is primarily based on refurbishment, reuse, or
replacement.
Concerning the overall balance and structure of science,
technology, engineering and production activities, and how to mitigate
risk to the stockpile, we find that:
--Certification of certain reuse or replacement options would require
improved understanding of boost.
--Continued success of stockpile stewardship is threatened by lack of
program stability, placing any LEP strategy at risk.
Surveillance of stockpile weapons is essential to stockpile
stewardship. Inadequate surveillance would place the stockpile at risk.
We find that:
--The surveillance program is becoming inadequate. Continued success
of stockpile stewardship requires implementation of a revised
surveillance program.
We conclude this section with a concern. All options for extending
the life of the nuclear weapons stockpile rely on the continuing
maintenance and renewal of expertise and capabilities in science,
technology, engineering, and production unique to the nuclear weapons
program. This will be the case regardless of whether future LEPs
utilize refurbishment, reuse or replacement. The study team is
concerned that this expertise is threatened by lack of program
stability, perceived lack of mission importance, and degradation of the
work environment.
1.3 Recommendations
Our recommendations are as follows:
--Determine the full potential of refurbishment, as exemplified by
LEPs executed to date, for maintaining or improving the legacy
stockpile.
--Quantify potential benefits and challenges of LEP strategies that
may require reuse and replacement, to prepare for the
possibility of future requirements such as reduced yield or
enhanced surety.
--Strengthen and focus science programs to anticipate and meet
potential challenges of future LEP options, including
challenges associated with boost and surety science.
--Revise the surveillance program so that it meets immediate and
future needs.
--Assess the benefits of surety technologies in the context of the
nuclear weapons enterprise as a system, including technologies
that can be employed in the near term.

NATIONAL LABORATORY PERSONNEL

Senator Feinstein. And I want to just read, quickly, the
finding, one of them, ``JASON finds no evidence that
accumulation of changes incurred from aging and LEPs' lifetime
extension have increased risk to certification of today's
deployed nuclear warheads.'' And it goes on to say that, ``The
finding is a direct consequence of the excellent work of the
people of the nuclear weapons complex, supported and informed
by the tools and methods developed through the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. Some aging issues have already been
resolved. The others that have been identified can be resolved
through LEP approaches similar to those employed to date.''
And, it goes on, and then it makes the statement,
categorically, ``Lifetimes of today's nuclear warheads could be
extended for decades with no anticipated loss in confidence, by
using approaches similar to those employed in LEPs to date.''
Now, what I'd like you to do, because you've raised the
question several times with me, on beryllium and other things
that are a hazard to the workforce, I'd like to get together
with some of these technical JASONs, with you, and really
explore that one issue. None of us want to put workers in
danger----
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Of working around these
warheads with chemicals in them that are highly toxic or are
highly destructive. So, I want to understand that part of the
issue better, if you would agree to that.
Mr. D'Agostino. Absolutely, Senator. That would be great.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. The other thing that I've had
occasion to do is visit the--some of the labs. And I would like
to sit down with you on what you see the future mission of our
labs to be----
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. And particularly now that
the private sector is heavily involved, and with some
considerable cost, that has forced the layoff of nuclear
scientists in large numbers at Los Alamos and in the other
labs, as well. So, if we could have that meeting, as well, I
would appreciate it very much.
Mr. D'Agostino. That would be great, Senator, I'd love to.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you.

NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY

Senator Feinstein. Now, I want to talk about the NIF, if I
might, a little bit. I had the pleasure of going.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Feinstein. And, as you know, it's a very
impressive----
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Plant. And the prototype
for a fission nuclear powerplant was obviously there and was
mentioned by people who were briefing me. It's also my
understanding that the National Academy of Science, and the
National Academy of Engineering, are conducting a study on
inertial fusion energy.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Feinstein. And the question is, whether this
facility has the resources to provide the Academy with support
and collateral information.
So, my question is this. I am told that the NIF will not
have funding to operate the facility, 24/7, that it is being
reduced to 16 hours a day, 5 days a week, which obviously
limits the type of research it can do. So, here's the question.
Do you believe that Lawrence Livermore would need additional
funding to develop a baseline design for the technologies
required to translate successful demonstration of ignition, on
NIF, into a practical powerplant for supplying sustainable,
carbon-free baseload electricity?
Mr. D'Agostino. Our program does not have--first of all, we
don't have a baseline level of funding to do that, to convert
what could come out of the NIF Facility into a powerplant. That
is not part of our budget. However, the key on NIF is, get to
ignition first, because that is the most important thing, for a
number of reasons you pointed out--potential energy benefit--
there's a tremendous scientific benefit that that draws. I
mean, being able to explore what happens to the materials under
these extreme pressures and temperatures will be important, not
just for weapons physics, but also for basic science. And
third, we believe it's critical to get to ignition in order to
effectively be able to provide that proof test on the stockpile
itself. It will allow us to solve some very specific problems,
that we can describe in a classified setting.
But, the budget that we have before us doesn't have an
aggressive inertial fusion energy component, as it's laid out
before you. What we are doing, though, because--as we've
committed to Congress for close to a decade now--is to conduct
a credible ignition experiment this year. And ``credible''
means that we have no reason to believe it's not going to work.
So, we're going to do that this year. And what we are working
very closely on is that work plan once you achieve this, just,
unbelievable scientific milestone--is both the scientific work
that has to lay out--layer out on top of that to explore that
energy pipeline that could potentially come out of this
facility.
Senator Feinstein. Is that included in the $481 million----
Mr. D'Agostino. The----
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Amount.
Mr. D'Agostino. The $481 million piece is to support the
types of experiments--stockpile stewardship experiments that we
need to have in order to make sure it addresses the science and
the stockpile part of the NIF facility. There are components of
that----
Senator Feinstein. Is that a yes, or a no?
Mr. D'Agostino. So, it's--no, it does not include inertial
fusion energy--an aggressive inertial fusion energy program
right now. What I will say is the Under Secretary for Science,
Steven Koonin and I have talked about, you know, ``This is a
big deal, this National Ignition Facility. How do we look at
this, as a department--not just as NNSA, but as a department--
to address the energy piece of that?''
Senator Feinstein. Yes, so was fusion energy.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right. And the fusion energy sciences group
in the basic science area--we do have an international
commitment on the ITER project, out in France. But, we
recognize that ignition changes lots of things; success at
Livermore changes lots of things. So, we're going to be looking
very closely at, how does the Department bring the Office of
Science and the NNSA together in a way that can capitalize on
this tremendous capability? We literally had the meeting----
Senator Feinstein. So----
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. Yesterday.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. What does that mean, in
terms of this year and the budget? If I understand you, you're
saying we can't do it under the $481 million.
Mr. D'Agostino. Well ma'am, no, no I think--you've got it--
the $481 million gets us to that first milestone.
Senator Feinstein. The first test?
Mr. D'Agostino. That gets us to the test and running
experiments. Because there's no way that, you know, inertial
fusion energy makes any sense at all if you can't get to
ignition and you can't understand it better. And so, the $481
million a year, plus whatever the year-by-year, goes out on
that--I don't know if I have the specifics in front of me
here--will actually operate that facility, will exercise our
scientists, will prove ignition works, will address stockpile
stewardship problems. And in order to do the component that
we're all interested in, as well, this energy piece, which I
think has the great potential, we have to put together a
program on top of that. But, to say we know what it's going to
be, on--for energy purposes, right now, is--it's just way too
early, because we haven't achieved ignition yet.
Senator Feinstein. So, this cutback on hours for operation
of the lab, how does that help achieve what you're trying to
achieve?
Mr. D'Agostino. I wasn't aware of a 24/7 versus a 5/16. I'm
going to look into that----
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. Though, after this testimony--
--
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. And try to get a better--I'll
get an----
Senator Feinstein. Could----
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. Answer----
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. You let me----
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. To that.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Know?
Mr. D'Agostino. Absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. I'd appreciate that----
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Very much. Let me see----
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes. I'd like----
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. What else----
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. To do that.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Because--when I went to the
lab and actually looked and actually talked to people there,
you know, the spark that's just turned on. I mean, ``What
if''----
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. ``It's possible?''----
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Is a very thrilling ``what
if.''
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. So----
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. I think it's worth pursuing
to see whether it's possible or not.
Mr. D'Agostino. We'll do that. And I think it may be
worth--if you're amenable to both Under Secretary Koonin and I
giving you a full-up integrated response on this question of
inertial fusion energy, and NIF, and what does it mean in the
out years--we'll write that up, as well as--we'd be happy to
come up and talk to you or members of the staff--subcommittee
staff.
Senator Feinstein. All right. It just--bottom line, my
interest, on the military side, is really to see that we do not
become proliferators----
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. That we, by our actions, do
not give anyone else the ability to develop new nuclear
weapons.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, ma'am. That's right. And the great
thing about NIF is, it allows us to test--excuse me--to test
the small components in a laboratory, and not do underground
testing. That's why we----
Senator Feinstein. That's right.
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. That's why we want the NIF.
Senator Feinstein. That's right.
Mr. D'Agostino. So, we want to stay away from this question
of underground testing, as far away as we can.
Senator Feinstein. Great. Thank you very much.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, gentlemen.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Senator Dorgan. Senator Feinstein, thank you very much.
Let me ask a question that I referred to briefly in my
opening statement, and it is about the sums of money that we
spend on security upgrades and radiation detection equipment,
for example, in Russia and other countries. What happens after
we withdraw? We make the investment, we help that country
provide some additional security, and then we withdraw. What
kind of concern do we have about sustaining these upgrades? Can
you give me some notion of where we are on that?
Mr. D'Agostino. Sure. Why don't I start, and then I'll ask
Mr. Black to provide some additional detail.
This question of sustainability of security upgrades has
been on the forefront, particularly as we get closer to
completing our overall job in Russia, at least from the
implementation standpoint. The job is never really going to
ever end, because it will require, just like any type
infrastructure investment, constant observations and looking at
it, the like.
The fiscal year 2011 request that you have in front of you
gets us to finishing the installation. I believe we have 19
more sites. We're about 92 percent done in Russia with, kind
of, that baseline plan.
Senator Dorgan. Can you describe to me what you're doing at
a site; just generally.
Mr. D'Agostino. It will involve--generally, it involves
doing a security assessment, with the Russians, of what's
required at a particular site, what the vulnerabilities are,
whether there's an insider threat or whether we have an
external physical security threat; and then working with them
to design upgrades, whether they're cameras, fences, you know,
technology, and integrating those; and purchasing that and then
working with them to install.
Steve, do you want----
Senator Dorgan. These are the production sites, right?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, I wouldn't call them ``weapons
production sites.'' We don't have access to those, just yet.
But, the material sites, yes.
Senator Dorgan. Weapon materials.
Mr. Black. Right. These are all in the--in what's called
the Rosatom Weapons Complex. We're working at seven large
facilities right now, as the Administrator said; 19 buildings,
in particular. And the sorts of things we're doing is
increasing the strength of doors; we're putting in central
alarm stations; we're putting in PIDASs, Perimeter Intrusion
Detection Alarm Systems, helping strengthen guard forces,
reactive forces, and the like. Those are fairly typical
security upgrades.
And, in terms of sustainability, what we are doing is, we
are turning over--developing, with each site individually,
individualized sustainability plans, because some of these
sites have their own revenues. They may be factories and they
produce other things for the Russian economy, and they may have
their own revenue stream. But, in some cases, these facilities
don't have enough budgets. And so, what we're trying to do is
develop with them a clear understanding of all of the things
that are needed to maintain that security investment at that
particular site, so each site has its own joint sustainability
plan, there are specific milestones, and we're working with the
Russians to make sure that they develop regulations----
Senator Dorgan. What is the number of sites?
Mr. Black. Total?
Senator Dorgan. Yes.
Mr. Black. So, let me----
Mr. D'Agostino. We've done 221 in Russia----
Mr. Black. Well, those are the second line of defense
sites.
Mr. D'Agostino. Oh, right, right.
Mr. Black. Let me get the information for you and bring it
back, because I want to give you an accurate answer. It's
readily available, it's just not in my head and----
Senator Dorgan. All right.
Mr. Black [continuing]. Won't be able to find it quickly.
Senator Dorgan. All right.
Mr. Black. I do want to make the point, though, that we
have variable degrees of cooperativeness with our Russian
partners. They're not all the same. In the case of the Russian
Customs Service we have a cost-sharing agreement with the
Customs officials. And so, the Russians bear half the cost of
all of the second-line-of-defense facilities that are being put
in Russia; 170, 175 of those facilities will be paid for
completely by the Russians.
The reason the cost-sharing is important is because it's an
indication of how committed to the task, in the first place,
the Russian host is. In the case of the Ministry of Defense
nuclear sites, they have been far more receptive to maintaining
security upgrades at roughly two dozen facilities than has
Rosatom. But, we're working very closely with Rosatom, as I
said, and we're making some progress.
Senator Dorgan. All right.
Mr. Black. Does that help?

MANAGING LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAMS

Senator Dorgan. Finally, let me ask about the B61 life-
extension programs there. It's, as I'm told, three times the
number of components that need to be replaced than the W76;
there's about $190 million requested to study the reuse or
remanufacture of nuclear components. You're considering a
compressed schedule for it. My understanding is, the first
refurbished B61 would be completed by 2017.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Dorgan. So, it's complicated, complex. You know, we
went down the road, with the W80, and spent a fair amount of
money on refurbishment activities--I think, close to $500
million--before canceling that program. So, you think the B61
is a critically important program, and you think that, as
complicated as it is, we're not going to make the same mistake
that we had with the W80?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir. I think it's--it is a critically
important program. It--you know, the early analysis, from our
NPR and working with the Defense Department and folks in the
interagency, have said that that will be a component. I'll ask
the General at the right--when I'm done with my comments--
maybe, to jump in and provide some specifics, if he could.
Absolutely, you're right. There are more components than
the W76. That's because the 76--I mean, just the warhead, the
bomb, is--we're responsible for the whole device. The
approaches that we're looking at, though, will allow us to--and
I believe--and the key is, exercising the people and getting
them into the work necessary to maintain the stockpile. And so,
I believe, by--my discussions with Tom Hunter, at Sandia
National Laboratories, which have the majority of the work
here, and talking with Los Alamos director, Mike Anastasio,
they feel very comfortable that their workforce is up to the
task.
In essence, we've started some of this thinking already, in
the study phase. And this is what we're asking for, is to
continue and finish that study phase on the B61 bomb. When
we're done with that study phase, just like a construction
project, we will want to lock down with commitments on both the
laboratory's part, as well as my part, as representing the
NNSA, on the exact cost, scope, and schedule for that facility.
The important thing is the 2017 date.
And then, General, if you can talk to some of the specifics
there.
General Harencak. Yes, sir.
That's one of the major requirements of the Department of
Defense, is ASAS--NNSA to accomplish the life-extended B61 by
2017. That is an aggressive, yet certainly--we are committed to
it, and we will get it done. A key to that, though, is a
complete and full study of it, and that's what we're asking to
complete as soon as possible.
Our entire enterprise is going to be focused in defense
programs. Amongst all the things we do our top two priorities
of getting things done is going to be the completion of W76, as
we said, and getting this life-extended B61. This is an analog
bomb. It's the cornerstone of our air-delivered weapon. It is
essentially our only one. It needs to become a digital weapon
so it could mate with the F35 for extended-deterrence reasons.
That's the 2017 date on that. It's a first-production unit. The
F35, regardless of when there are initial operating dates for
that program, is irrespective of what we need to do. Our
milestone that we must complete is to deliver a life-extended
B61 by 2017. In order to do that, we have to start yesterday.
And we started yesterday. But, we need to complete this study.
It is very large--as you see in our budget, that we're
requesting a big lift for B61. And that essentially gets to
very quickly locking down how we're going to take this analog
bomb and make it digital; also, how we're going to improve its
surety and its safety features, which are vitally important.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator Dorgan. All right. We are going to submit a number
of written questions to you.
Senator Feinstein, do you have additional questions?
Senator Feinstein. I don't believe so, at this time.
Senator Dorgan. All right.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, though.
Senator Dorgan. Well, then we will be submitting additional
questions, Mr. D'Agostino. We appreciate very much your team
being here, and your being here. And obviously this is a lot of
money.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
[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
nuclear weapons design changes
Question. Increases in funding for nuclear weapons science,
technology and engineering point to developing capabilities to modify
the design of existing weapons and understand the changes. For example,
a $48 million increase for plutonium sustainment allows NNSA to
manufacture pits for primaries and quadrupling of funding for advanced
certification will develop NNSA's tools to certify changes to the
nuclear package of existing nuclear weapons.
Does NNSA have plans to modify the design of nuclear weapons? If it
does, what is driving the needs for those changes?
Answer. NNSA will give strong preference, when proceeding with
engineering development for Life Extension Programs (LEPs), to options
for refurbishment or reuse. Replacement of nuclear components would be
undertaken only if critical Stockpile Management Program goals could
not otherwise be met, and if specifically authorized by the President
and approved by Congress. LEPs will use only nuclear components based
on previously tested designs, and will not support new military
missions or provide for new military capabilities. Upgrading and/or
replacing limited life components (LLCs), such as the neutron
generators, is considered a relatively routine maintenance activity to
preserve the weapons' viability. Numerous aging mechanisms, including
corrosion and adhesive bonding failure, raise concerns relative to non-
nuclear components and weapon system performance. Often times,
replacing materials, which are no longer attainable or usable because
they have been deemed unsafe or environmentally damaging are included
as part of an LEP. Other drivers include replacing or adding features
to improve the safety and security of the stockpile, such as by
replacing conventional high explosives with insensitive high
explosives.
Question. How do you reconcile the needs for changes with the
JASONs conclusion in its 2009 report that the lifetimes of today's
nuclear warheads could be extended for decades without significant
changes to their designs?
Answer. NNSA is in agreement with the JASON's conclusion that the
lifetimes of today's nuclear warheads could be extended without
significant changes to their designs. To increase the safety, security,
and effectiveness of our nuclear arsenal, NNSA plans to upgrade limited
life components (LLCs) and materials, and incorporate more surety--
safety, security, and use control--technology, whenever possible,
through LEPs. LLCs reaching their end-of-life will be upgraded with
LLCs that have longer expected lifetimes, Certain materials will be
upgraded with more attainable materials. Each weapon system will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis and the best technological approach,
from a full spectrum of options, will be applied.
Question. To what extent would modifying the design of primaries
and secondaries introduce more risk than maintaining them in their
current condition?
Answer. NNSA, through LEPs, will use only nuclear components based
on previously tested designs. Any modifications to the Nuclear
Explosive Package (NEP) would allow for the introduction of surety
features, if feasible, to reduce the risk of accidental or deliberate
unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon.
Question. To what extent are potential design changes consistent
with the congressionally authorized Stockpile Management Program?
Answer. The congressionally authorized Stockpile Management Program
allows for the extension of the effective life of nuclear weapons.
NNSA, through LEPs, plans to increase the reliability of our nuclear
weapons stockpile by upgrading to longer life LLCs and more readily
available and compatible materials. Increases in safety, security, and
use control through the incorporation of additional surety features
whenever possible, and if feasible, will reduce the risk of accidental
detonation and also reduce the risk of an element of the stockpile
being used by a person or entity hostile to the United States, its
vital interests, or its allies. Because the Nuclear Posture Review
directs that strong preference be given to options for refurbishment or
reuse, upcoming and future LEPs will produce modified weapons that
remain comparable to their original underground nuclear tested designs
to ensure certifiability, and will consider the possibility of using
the resulting warhead on multiple platforms allowing NNSA to achieve
reductions in the future size of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
b61 life extension program
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, the B61 Life Extension Program (LEP) is
going to be very challenging. The B61 has three times the number of
components that need to be replaced than the W76. In fiscal year 2011,
NNSA is asking for about $190 million to study the reuse or
remanufacture of nuclear components. Despite these challenges, NNSA is
considering a compressed schedule for engineering and design work to
manufacture the first refurbished B61 by 2017.
Given the complexity of the program, is the 2017 date realistic?
Answer. The Nuclear Weapons Council, in 2008, established the 2017
first production unit (FPU) date based on the need to replace several
non-nuclear components that are approaching end-of-life and to prevent
capability gaps in the U.S. extended nuclear deterrence. The Nuclear
Posture Review later recommended that the full range of options,
including safety and surety enhancements, be considered to extend the
life of a given warhead. The 2017 FPU is achievable provided time-
critical technology maturation activities are funded in fiscal year
2010 and fiscal year 2011 prior to the start of Phase 6.3 engineering
development work in fiscal year 2012. To address B61 technology risks,
NNSA is requesting $252 million in fiscal year 2011, which is split
between the non-nuclear and nuclear study activities ($136 million) and
B61 first use, technology maturation work targeted to advance readiness
levels to enable the 2017 FPU ($116 million).
Question. Are you confident that you are not introducing
unnecessary risk with this accelerated schedule?
Answer. Yes. The NNSA augments the weapon system acquisition
process with Integrated Phase Gates (IPGs). IPGs use a systems-
engineering approach to bring rigor, accountability, and cross-
functional integration by using management reviews at key decision
points and involving production agencies early in the design process.
NNSA incorporated IPGs based on lessons learned from previous life
extension programs (LEPs) and to address GAO findings and Congressional
concerns about LEP management.
NNSA can manage the risk for the B61 schedule if required
technologies are brought to the appropriate level of readiness prior to
beginning engineering development in fiscal year 2012. Furthermore, in
fiscal year 2012, the Nuclear Weapons Council will review the readiness
of key technologies and associated risks prior to authorizing the next
phase of development.
Question. Is there a clear nuclear deterrent mission need for the
B61 life extension program?
Answer. The recently-released Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) affirms
the importance of the B61 in fulfilling air-delivered strategic and
extended deterrent capabilities.
managing life extension programs
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, a number of GAO reports have found that
NNSA has not effectively managed cost, schedule, and technical risks
for the last three life extension programs--the W87, B61, and W76--and
that NNSA has not established realistic schedules to complete these
projects.
To what extent has NNSA improved its ability to manage cost,
schedule and technical risk?
Answer. NNSA is applying corrective acquisition management measures
to the current B61 Life Extension Program (LEP) Phase 6.2 Study. These
measures were communicated in NNSA's Management Decision letter of
March 12, 2009, in response to the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report GAO-09-152C, ``Nuclear Weapons: NNSA and DOD Need to More
Effectively Manage the Stockpile Life Extension Program.'' NNSA has
made progress on improving the approach to requirements, risk, cost,
and schedule management through an improved implementation of the joint
DOD-NNSA acquisition process for nuclear weapons refurbishments.
Question. Based on NNSA's current plans, by 2017, NNSA will be
completing the W76 life extension, starting the B61 life extension,
preparing for the W78 life extension, possibly increasing weapons
dismantlement based on treaty obligations, and continuing surveillance
of aging nuclear weapons. How does NNSA plan to manage these many
activities concurrently, especially when it has not previously managed
more than one life extension at one time?
Answer. Trade studies are conducted to assess the need for specific
NNSA capabilities and facilities. As part of these trade studies, DOD
is involved in assessment of life extension priorities. NNSA is also
currently assessing workload in technical maturation and life extension
studies across the nuclear complex and will likely be making workload-
balancing assignments to optimize execution of multiple life extension
activities. Through the early 2000s, NNSA managed the B61 ALT 357, W76,
and W80 life extension programs concurrently.
Question. To what extent will the nuclear weapons production
plants--Pantex, Y-12, and Kansas City--be able to manage this increase
in workload when they already face resources and infrastructure
constraints?
Answer. In conjunction with the life extension studies, trade
studies are being conducted to assess the refurbishment options, along
with overall workload evaluations on the NNSA production facilities and
their capacities. For instance, a Canned Subassembly (CSA) reuse study
is currently underway for the B61 life extension study that may
ultimately minimize the amount of work and resources that will be
needed at Y-12 for this LEP. Also, as part of the enhanced acquisition
risk management approach to the B61 life extension study, production
readiness risks have been identified at the Kansas City Plant and
funding priority has been given to minimize these risks by the B61 LEP
program management team.
Question. To what extent does the fiscal year 2011 budget help the
production plants prepare for increased activities?
Answer. As part of the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the
Science, Technology, and Engineering Campaigns and stockpile services
were funded at a level to mature the development and manufacturing of
technologies needed for Life Extension Programs. In addition, the life
extension program management team has given priority to the
complementary funding needed for technical maturation at the national
laboratories and plants.
nuclear surveillance
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, the fiscal year 2011 budget request adds
about $50 million to increase surveillance activities for each weapon
system in the stockpile.
To what extent is this increase in funding sufficient to address
the JASON's concerns?
Answer. Based on the National Laboratory Directors and the JASON
recommendations for a more robust surveillance program, an increase of
$50 million was added for each year split among the weapon programs to
sufficiently enable the accomplishment of weapons systems surveillance
requirements.
Question. How have you modified the surveillance program and how do
you maintain confidence that the new approach will identify any
emerging problems as weapons age?
Answer. In 2007, NNSA modified the surveillance testing approach
through the Surveillance Transformation Project. NNSA took action to
reduce the number of system test activities across all weapon programs,
while increasing the actual number of component tests that look for
age-related degradations. The design agencies reviewed their component
testing programs and increased requirements in that area. NNSA also
experienced new requirements for non-destructive evaluations and
modeling and simulation techniques and capabilities. In prior fiscal
years, NNSA was able to identify some funding within the base program
to support the increase in component testing and development of new
surveillance diagnostic techniques and capabilities; however, the $53
million in increased funding included in the fiscal year 2011 request
for surveillance activities will allow NNSA to make significant
progress on the Surveillance Transformation Project.
In addition, NNSA reorganized the surveillance enterprise structure
to improve the alignment of the organizations responsible for the
development of surveillance requirements all the way up to those
responsible for programmatic and budgetary decisions. Emphasis has been
placed on better integration and communication of requirements and
prioritization of activities across weapon programs and all sites. This
was another issue raised by the JASON study.
national ignition facility
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, in January 2009, the JASONs criticized
NNSA for failing to implement a ``critical recommendation'' they issued
in 2005 to improve oversight and management of the National Ignition
Campaign.
Has NNSA implemented the recommendation by establishing both an
advisory committee to review scientific and technical issues and an
advisory committee to review how NIF will be shared by different users?
Answer. As recommended by the JASON review and endorsed by NNSA,
LLNL has formed an advisory group (Chaired by Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece) to
review the progress of the National Ignition Campaign. This group has
had one meeting and will be producing a preliminary report soon. NNSA
has also taken initial steps to form a Federal Review Committee with a
charter that will include all of weapons science and technology. This
committee will review the use of NNSA facilities as shared national
resources. Finally, NNSA has also formed a Planning Council whose
purpose is to formulate a detailed plan for weapons experimental
activities for all users at all NNSA facilities.
Question. If not, why has it taken more than 5 years to implement
this recommendation?
Answer. The NNSA is implementing the recommendation.
weapons dismantlement and disposition
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, funding for weapons dismantlement and
disposition is declining in fiscal year 2011.
Is NNSA reducing the pace of dismantlements?
Answer. No, the pace of dismantlements remains consistent with our
commitment to dismantle all currently retired weapons by 2022. However,
the dismantlement rate varies depending on the complexity of the weapon
types scheduled for dismantlement. Some weapons require considerably
more effort and time than others to dismantle. In recent years, NNSA
exceeded its planned dismantlement rates due to investments in
efficiencies and additional funding from Congress. Consequently, NNSA
has some flexibility in adjusting resource commitments in the near
term. NNSA remains committed to dismantle all currently retired weapons
by 2022.
Question. Is a funding decrease consistent with the backlog of
retired weapons awaiting dismantlement and potentially more after the
START treaty is signed?
Answer. NNSA's planned fiscal year 2011 dismantlement funding
aligns with our schedule to dismantle all currently retired weapons by
2022. The NNSA will review the details of the New START treaty and
ensure we take appropriate action to support the commitments made by
the President. The schedule and planning through 2022 will need to be
adjusted if additional dismantlements are to be added to the workload
within that timeframe.
nonproliferation
Question. From fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 2010, DOE has
spent more than $2 billion to provide security upgrades and other
related assistance to nuclear weapon sites in Russia and other
countries. In fiscal year 2011, NNSA requested more than $200 million
to complete this work with the last year of funding for these programs
in fiscal year 2012.
How will NNSA ensure that Russia will maintain these security
upgrades once the United States withdraws?
Answer. The funds requested will be used to support nuclear
security improvements to areas where NNSA has recently been granted
access, continue to maintain the systems we have installed over the
period of our program, and tackle the challenge of reducing the risk to
theft by an insider.
At the same time, NNSA is doing all it can to help Russia take over
financial responsibility. For the past several years, NNSA has been
working with our Russian partners, primarily the State Corporation for
Atomic Energy, ``Rosatom,'' to ensure that they are prepared to sustain
our sizeable investment in the long-term. NNSA and Rosatom have agreed
to a Joint Transition Plan which identifies the fundamental
requirements for sustainable nuclear security programs, and joint
projects that will be undertaken over the next few years to ensure
these fundamental requirements are in place. Rosatom officials have
told NNSA counterparts repeatedly that they understand maintenance of
these systems in the long run is their responsibility, however, we
believe the added costs for maintenance are being passed on to sites
and are not being funded through Russia's Federal budget. Regarding the
Ministry of Defense, it has informed us that it will take over full
financial responsibility for sustaining permanent warhead sites (11
sites with DOE-funded upgrades, 18 sites with DOD-funded upgrades), and
that the Kremlin has promised necessary funds will be made available.
MOD is expecting to receive funding in April 2010 for this
sustainability work.
The success of these efforts ultimately depends on Russia's
willingness and ability to devote the necessary resources. We hope that
the Russian Government will increase its nuclear security budget and
ensure that these funds are efficiently distributed to the hundreds of
nuclear facilities across the vast Russian territory. The Russian
nuclear security budget is classified and we have not yet seen much
evidence of increases in funding at sites where we are working.
Question. Funding for the gap nuclear material remove program jumps
from $9 million to $108 million or 12 times more funding than fiscal
year 2010. How does NNSA plan to spend this significant increase in
funding for this program and what are the challenges in spending this
money?
Answer. This activity supports the removal and disposal of
vulnerable, high-risk nuclear materials that are not covered by the
Russian-origin and U.S.-origin Nuclear Material Remove activities. This
includes U.S.-origin HEU other than TRIGA and MTR fuel, HEU of non-
U.S.- and non-Russian-origin, and separated plutonium. These activities
collectively support President Obama's April 5, 2009 Prague speech in
which he called for an international effort to secure all vulnerable
nuclear material around the world within 4 years, which was further
strengthened in the July 2009 Joint Statement resulting from the Moscow
Summit and the September 2009 UNSC Resolution 1887. In accordance with
these goals, GTRI is accelerating the return of Gap material from third
countries.
In fiscal year 2011, GTRI will remove or facilitate disposition of
an additional 161 kilograms of Gap HEU and plutonium from several
countries, resulting in a cumulative total of 301 kilograms of HEU and
plutonium removed, enough material for more than 10 nuclear weapons.
Funds will also be used for preparatory activities for removals planned
for 2012.
Additionally, in fiscal year 2011 GTRI will focus a large portion
of its funding on HEU spent fuel removals since we have completed most
of the HEU fresh fuel removals. Spent fuel removals are more expensive
than the fresh fuel removals because the radioactivity of the fuel
requires specialized casks and remote operations.
second line of defense
Question. Funding for the Second Line of Defense (SLD) core
program, which involves installing radiation detection equipment at
borders in Russia, former Soviet states, Eastern Europe and other key
countries is doubling to $140 million to complete another 55 sites.
Have countries at these 55 sites already agreed to install this
equipment?
Answer. The 55 sites are based on our current planning and
represent our best projection of the sites at which we will be working.
We already have agreements in place to partner with all but two of the
countries, and we have every reason to believe that we will sign these
additional agreements in the near future, certainly before fiscal year
2011.
Question. Are these sites the highest priority sites to combat
nonproliferation?
Answer. Based on our threat analysis, we believe that all these
sites are high priority for receiving SLD support.
Question. How will the United States ensure that these countries
will properly maintain the equipment after it is installed?
Answer. SLD's Sustainability Program is designed to ensure the
long-term operation of SLD systems by Host Country Partners. To this
end, SLD works closely with Host Country Partners to develop their
indigenous capabilities so that we may fully transition SLD systems to
their support. SLD and Host Country Partners agree on joint transition
plans in which milestones for the turnover of training, maintenance,
and oversight responsibilities (including budget planning) are
formalized.
During this transition phase, the SLD Program provides maintenance
technicians, training experts, and Sustainability leads to work with
Host Country Partners to develop their indigenous capabilities. For
maintenance, SLD provides training, tools, and spare parts to ensure
equipment remains operable. Maintenance is usually performed by local
contractors and includes scheduled maintenance and calibration as well
as urgent or unscheduled repairs. In addition, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory (PNNL) provides support on training transition to
the Host Country Partners. PNNL has also established a Help Desk to
provide support to local maintenance providers and host nation
counterparts in the event of an issue with a system that cannot be
resolved at the local level. Through the Help Desk, the program can
provide remote expertise or deploy experts from the United States if
needed to repair a system if needed.
Question. Has DOE addressed GAO's concerns about corruption of some
foreign border security officials, technical limitations of some
radiation detection equipment, inadequate maintenance of some
equipment, and the lack of supporting infrastructure at some border
sites?
Answer. The Second Line of Defense Program addresses corruption
through two main approaches. First, radiation portal monitors are
networked to central alarm stations (CAS) at the sites. Should an alarm
sound or a monitor be disabled, the CAS operator is automatically
notified. In most sites, this means that more than one individual is
engaged in resolving alarms and would be aware if a monitor were
disabled or ignored. This increases the chance that corrupt actions
could be observed and countered. In addition, the SLD Core Program has
begun integrating the sites into nationwide networks reporting to
central officials (usually in the nation's capital). Should a high-
priority alarm be generated at a site, or a monitor disabled, other
border security officials would become aware and could investigate and
validate the actions of the officials at the border crossings.
Integration projects are underway in Russia (where the Customs Service
is paying for half the installation) and Georgia. Networking is planned
to begin in one more country in 2011.
SLD also collaborates with other international organizations,
notably the EU and IAEA on training, in addition to the extensive
training that SLD provides directly to the partner country as part of
the implementation process. SLD believes that this training contributes
to strengthening the recipient organizations and building a strong
cadre of committed customs and border management officials.
The radiation detection equipment SLD Core provides has been proven
over time to be robust, relatively easy to maintain, and effective in
detecting special nuclear material (SNM) under limited shielding
scenarios. A knowledgeable individual can shield SNM from the passive
radiation detection equipment we provide. However, we believe that the
equipment that SLD provides is the best and most appropriate detection
system currently available for the type of detection activities being
carried out. The equipment is carefully installed and its settings
optimized to maximize its effectiveness against SNM.
The SLD Program funds maintenance and sustainment contracts that
provide for calibration of the equipment it provides. Responsibility
for funding maintenance and sustainability transitions to the recipient
country after an agreed upon period of time, generally 3 years but
longer if necessary. A description of how SLD maintains equipment is
provided in the answer to the previous question.
In most cases, infrastructure exists to provide electricity and
security for the radiation portal monitors. In many cases, back up
power generators are provided to ensure that short-term power outages
do not adversely impact the monitors. In cases where sites are not
manned year round, or there is insufficient infrastructure, SLD may
provide handheld devices in lieu of permanently installed systems.
u.s. and russian plutonium disposition
Question. The United States is negotiating an agreement with Russia
in which the United States would provide $400 million to support
plutonium disposition in Russia and Russia would pay the other $2
billion. The fiscal year 2011 budget asks for the first $100 million
U.S. commitment.
What is the status of the U.S.-Russia protocol to dispose of
weapons grade plutonium?
Answer. On March 11, the U.S. and Russian lead negotiators
initialed the conformed English and Russian texts of a Protocol to
amend the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA). A
set of associated monitoring and inspections key elements was also
approved in mid-March. The United States and Russia are scheduled to
sign the Protocol in mid-April.
Question. What are the terms of U.S. financial support and what
would Russia have to do before we release the first $100 million and
the other $300 million?
Answer. The United States will spend the $100 million in the fiscal
year 2011 budget request once the amended PMDA and associated liability
provisions enter into force (expected in fall 2010 once the Russian
Duma ratifies the amended PMDA). DOE has developed a notional plan for
spending $300 million of the $400 million based on a ``milestone
approach'' to move Russia toward beginning disposition in 2018. Under
the ``milestone approach,'' the United States would provide funding
once Russia has fully completed a milestone and U.S. experts have
verified such completion. The remaining $100 million will be paid to
Russia on a pro rated basis for each metric ton of plutonium verified
to have been irradiated and disposed (e.g., approximately $2.7 million
per metric ton).
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
nuclear weapons
Question. The President has requested $11.2 billion for the
National Nuclear Security Administration, a 13.4 percent increase from
fiscal year 2010. This includes a request of $7 billion for Weapons
Activities, an increase of $624 million from fiscal year 2010. In your
testimony and in the recent op-ed by Vice President Joe Biden, the
administration has argued that the funding requests reflects the
President's vision of a nuclear free world and his commitment to
stopping the spread of nuclear weapons efforts and maintaining the
safety and security of our arsenal without nuclear testing.
Are you concerned that our allies and adversaries will view the
massive increase in spending on our nuclear weapons arsenal as an
indication that the United States is not serious about a nuclear-free
world?
Answer. As President Obama articulated in his April 2009 speech in
Prague, the United States is committed to achieving a world without
nuclear weapons. While this is a long-term objective, the President
expressed his intent to take concrete steps to make it possible.
Several of these steps have already been taken.
--Critically, the United States and Russia have already reduced the
number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads by about 75
percent, and the signing of New START agreement will take these
numbers even lower.
--Moreover, the Nuclear Posture Review deemphasizes the role of
nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy.
--However, as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States is
committed to maintaining safe, secure, and effective nuclear
forces in order to deter potential adversaries and assure U.S.
allies and partners.
--The increase in spending will allow NNSA to modernize the
infrastructure and sustain the science, technology, and
engineering base. By revamping the complex, we will be able to
consolidate activities, and respond more effectively to
unanticipated future threats. This will not only assure that
our stockpile remains safe, secure and effective, but the
reinvestment will in fact also facilitate further nuclear
reductions by sustaining the confidence in the active weapon
systems and lower the need for a large reserve stockpile.
Continued investment in the nuclear complex will also enhance
our ability to stem nuclear proliferation and nuclear
terrorism.
Question. How does the President's request square with his view
that the United States should lessen the importance of nuclear weapons
in our national security strategy?
Answer. The President's request is consistent with his view that
investments in the nuclear security enterprise are required to lessen
the importance of the nuclear weapons in our national security
strategy.
--By maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent and reinforcing
regional security architectures with missile defenses and other
conventional military capabilities, we can reassure our non-
nuclear allies and partners worldwide of our security
commitments to them and confirm that they do not need nuclear
weapons capabilities of their own.
--By pursuing a sound Stockpile Management Program for extending the
life of U.S. nuclear weapons, we can ensure a safe, secure, and
effective deterrent without the development of new nuclear
warheads or further nuclear testing.
--By modernizing our aging nuclear facilities and investing in human
capital, we can substantially reduce the number of nuclear
weapons we retain as a hedge against technical or geopolitical
surprise, accelerate dismantlement of retired warheads, and
improve our understanding of foreign nuclear weapons
activities.
Question. How will the President's request impact our efforts to
strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at the May 2010 review
conference?
Answer. The President's request for increased investment
demonstrates our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation efforts. This
bolstered the United States' position to lead the effort to strengthen
the Nonproliferation Treaty at the May 2010 review conference.
In last year's Prague speech, the President laid out his vision for
ultimately achieving a world without nuclear weapons, supported by a
system of enhanced nonproliferation controls and a new international
civil nuclear framework. The President's budget request enhances DOE's
efforts to strengthen both the U.S. nuclear disarmament record of
achievement and the credibility and reliability of the U.S. nuclear
deterrent as a stabilizing influence as we proceed toward a nuclear
weapon free world. The President's budget request will, among other
benefits, allow the Department of Energy to continue with its planned
nuclear dismantlement activities and support the provisions of the
recently completed New START Treaty. The budget request will also help
the Department to continue to transform the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex
to a smaller weapons complex that consolidates activities at fewer
sites while allowing the United States to better respond to existing
and credible potential challenges. These changes will provide the
framework to allow the United States to go to lower numbers of nuclear
warheads in the stockpile.
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, as you know, I have long opposed the
production of new nuclear weapons by the United States. It is
unnecessary and harms our nuclear nonproliferation efforts. During the
presidential campaign President Obama said: ``I will not authorize the
development of new nuclear weapons.'' The President did not request any
funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program in fiscal year
2010 and on a conference call with reporters last month you said that
``RRW is dead, it is over.''
Can you confirm that the fiscal year 2011 budget request does not
contain any funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program or any
new-design warheads?
Answer. Yes. I can confirm that the fiscal year 2011 budget request
does not contain any funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead
program or any new-design warheads. Per the Nuclear Posture Review, the
administration is focused on maintaining the stockpile through Life
Extension Programs.
Question. If the NNSA fiscal year 2011 budget does not include any
funding for new-design nuclear weapons, is it accurate to say that you
and the directors of the national labs agree that for the foreseeable
future the effectiveness of our nuclear arsenal can be maintained into
the indefinite future through Life Extension Programs?
Answer. Yes, the Laboratory Directors and I agree that our nuclear
arsenal can be maintained into the indefinite future through Life
Extension Programs (LEPs). The full range of LEP approaches will be
considered on a weapon-by-weapon basis. The Nuclear Posture Review
states, ``In any decision to proceed to engineering development for
warhead LEPs, the United States will give strong preference to options
for refurbishment or reuse. Replacement of nuclear components would be
undertaken only if critical Stockpile Management Program goals could
not be otherwise met, and if specifically authorized by the President
and (funding is) approved by Congress.''
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, I was pleased to see the recent report of
the JASONS, the independent scientific body, which found that the
United States can maintain our existing nuclear arsenal for decades
with our existing Life Extension Programs. This is great news.
In your view, does this report close the door, once and for all, on
a Reliable Replacement Warhead-like program that would produce a new
nuclear warhead?
Answer. NNSA does not foresee the need to develop a new nuclear
warhead. Each weapon system will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
in order to determine which Life Extension Program option best
preserves the weapon's effectiveness, safety, and security. The Nuclear
Posture Review makes the point very clearly, ``The United States will
not develop new nuclear warheads. Life Extension Programs will use only
nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not
support new military missions or provide for new military
capabilities.''
Question. How will the Nuclear Posture Review influence the size of
the reductions in each nation's stockpile?
Answer. The Nuclear Posture Review conducted detailed analysis to
determine an appropriate limit on nuclear warheads and strategic
delivery vehicles.
--As an initial step, the administration is committed to working with
Russia to preserve stability at significantly reduced nuclear
force level, through the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(New START), which will replace the expired 1991 START I
Treaty.
--New START sets significant mutual limits in deployed strategic
nuclear warheads, well below that 2,200 allowed under the
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, also known as the Moscow
Treaty, which expires in 2012.
--The United States agreed with Russia to New START limits of 1,550
accountable strategic warheads, 700 deployed strategic delivery
vehicles, and a combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed
strategic launchers.
--The Nuclear Posture Review also calls for reinvesting in the
nuclear security enterprise's intellectual and physical
infrastructure. This additional investment will not only assure
that our stockpile remains safe, secure and effective, but will
also facilitate further nuclear reductions by sustaining the
confidence in the active weapon systems and lower the need for
a large reserve stockpile.
Question. Given the substantial commitment to maintaining the
safety and reliability of the nuclear arsenal as reflected in the
President's budget request for the NNSA, can we go even lower?
Answer. The New START Treaty has been signed. The President has
directed a review of potential future reductions in U.S. nuclear
weapons below New START levels, but the pace of further reductions has
yet to be determined. The Nuclear Posture Review states, ``Russia's
nuclear force will remain a significant factor in determining how much
and how fast we are prepared to reduce U.S. forces. Following
ratification and entry into force of New START, the administration will
pursue a follow-on agreement with Russia that binds both countries to
further reductions in all nuclear weapons. Because of our improved
relations, the need for strict numerical parity between the two
countries is no longer as compelling as it was during the cold war. But
large disparities in nuclear capabilities could raise concerns on both
sides and among U.S. allies and partners, and may not be conducive to
maintaining a stable, long-term strategic relationship, especially as
nuclear forces are significantly reduced. Therefore, we will place
importance on Russia joining us as we move to lower levels.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010, Page 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. I am pleased that the Obama administration has made
ratification of this treaty a priority.
How does the President's budget request support ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? Is there sufficient funding for
implementation and verification?
Answer. The President's budget request reflects his commitment to
maintaining the nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing and is
consistent with the principles of the Stockpile Stewardship Management
Plan submitted to Congress. This budget reinvests and recapitalizes the
nuclear security infrastructure--including in its science, technology
and engineering human capital base--essential for assuring that the
stockpile is safe, secure and effective. The President's arms control
and non-proliferation policies require these investments so that the
Nation is confident that its reduced nuclear stockpile is safe, secure,
and effective, without having to resort to nuclear testing.
The President's budget request also supports CTBT ratification
because it invests in a robust, science-based Stockpile Stewardship
Program (SSP). SSP is the key program that provides the Nation the
assurance that the stockpile is safe, secure, and effective without
underground nuclear testing. SSP is also the essential program for
managing long-term risks to the stockpile as it ages, protecting
against technological surprises, and supporting nuclear
nonproliferation technology development. The SSP sustains the science,
technology, and engineering expertise and exercises the talent for the
development of next-generation technologies for proliferation
prevention-related nuclear missions, including nuclear forensics,
detection, and verification technologies. A sustained science base will
provide the ability to respond to the challenge of meeting requirements
that may result from the New START or CTBT treaties.
While today's SSP capabilities are supplanting--and even
surpassing--the role that nuclear tests once played in understanding
our nuclear weapons, the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request
will also allow us to revitalize the workforce, sustain the stockpile,
and modernize key parts of the physical infrastructure.
Question. I applaud your commitment to supporting President Obama's
goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear material 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. Congressional support for our budget requests is a critical
element to ensuring that we meet the President's goal of leading an
international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials within
4 years.
A number of programs within the Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation play a direct role in implementing the work necessary
to meet this goal. The Offices of International Material Protection and
Cooperation and Global Threat Reduction lead the effort to secure
vulnerable nuclear materials from theft or sabotage worldwide. The
Global Threat Reduction Initiative seeks to permanently eliminate the
threat by converting research reactors and isotope production
facilities from the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low
enriched uranium (LEU) and by removing or permanently disposing of
excess nuclear material. Finally, the Office of Nonproliferation and
International Security plays a vital role in strengthening the
international system that ensures that nuclear sites worldwide have
adequate safeguards measures in place.
The primary challenge that NNSA faces is cooperation of foreign
governments. The United States cannot unilaterally eliminate the threat
posed by dangerous materials and we therefore rely heavily on
cooperation from many international partners. In addition to the
activities outlined above, the Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation has been actively involved in various initiatives
undertaken to bolster U.S. leadership in nonproliferation and arms
control, such as the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit, the Joint Statement
from the Moscow Summit in July 2009, and the September 2009 United
Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1887.
national ignition facility
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, some assert that the National Ignition
Facility may be a prototype for a fusion nuclear powerplant some day. I
understand that the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering are conducting a study on Inertial Fusion Energy
in part to explore the viability of that vision.
Do you agree that the results of this study could be enhanced if
the National Ignition Facility is able to provide the Academy with
extensive analysis and testing?
Answer. While I agree that the National Ignition Facility (NIF)
will ultimately play a central role in any program designed to evaluate
concepts for inertial fusion energy, I do not believe that specific new
experimental work will be required for the current National Academies
study. The National Academies panel has been asked to assess the
prospects for Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) as a power source; to
identify scientific and engineering challenges, cost targets and
research and development objectives associated with developing an IFE
demonstration plant; and to advise the DOE on an R&D roadmap aimed at
creating a conceptual design for such a demonstration assuming success
in ignition at NIF as a starting point. This will be a wide-ranging
assessment that will look at various schemes for target physics and
component technologies beyond those currently being investigated as
part of the National Ignition Campaign and will depend primarily on
existing computational and experimental studies of the various
approaches. The most important task for NIF, in support of the study,
is to achieve ignition as soon as possible since the prospects for
development of inertial fusion for energy applications is dependent
upon achievement of this critical milestone. The current schedule for
this is already quite aggressive.
Question. Do you believe that Lawrence Livermore National Lab would
need additional funding to provide the Academy with such testing and
analysis?
Answer. Specific funding has not been provided to the laboratories
to support such studies in the past, but they may use their
discretionary research funding to support work they deem necessary for
their participation. If funding was directed to support analysis and
testing in support of the National Academies study, a mechanism would
have to be identified to ensure equitable access to all potential
participants and thus all potential IFE alternatives in the study.
Question. Could the NAS's ability to make sound technical judgments
on the potential of Inertial Fusion Energy be impaired due to the lack
of technical development of the trade-offs of various design approaches
if it does not have full access to NIF testing?
Answer. Because the NAS has been asked to help establish an R&D
roadmap for IFE based upon the current state of maturity of the
relevant science and technology, it is not likely that their
conclusions could be impacted by testing prior to the achievement of
ignition. The most important question that NIF will address relevant to
the National Academies study is the demonstration of ignition, which is
already the focus of the National Ignition Campaign. All of the nascent
international efforts on IFE are also planning based on the U.S.
Inertial Confinement Fusion program being the lead on the actual
demonstration of ignition.
Question. Do you believe that developing Inertial Fusion Energy
should be part of the mandate of the NNSA, the DOE Office of Science,
or both? Why do you believe this?
Answer. Through leadership of the three Department of Energy Under
Secretaries, and reporting through Under Secretary Koonin, we have an
internal DOE study to assess several areas of research and development
that currently cut across departmental organizations. We have chosen to
include inertial fusion energy in those assessments because of its
potential, and we will use this process to consider when and how to
recommend to Congress that a modified program might be established.
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, a year after completion of construction
of the National Ignition Facility, NNSA has proposed an operations
budget that may not permit Lawrence Livermore National Lab to run this
facility full time.
Do you agree that after making this sort of capital investment,
NNSA should provide the resources necessary to operate the facility 24
hours a day, 7 days a week?
Answer. NNSA's requested funding provides for 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-
a-week (24/7) operations at NIF. A very careful experimental plan has
been formulated for the period through the first attempts at ignition.
In this plan, the most efficient experimental shot sequence was deemed
to be about 16 hours-per-day/5 days-per-week (16/5) with the overall
NIF operations staff remaining on a 24/7 status. This plan is also more
compatible with the continuing installation of sophisticated equipment
since the facility operations schedule must allow adequate time to
ensure safety during maintenance and installation of experimental
equipment.
In the early experimental operation of NIF, the shot sequence was
10 hours-per-day/7 days-per-week. NIF is currently in the process of
installing sophisticated cryogenic (and other) equipment that will
enable DT-layered target operation. After this installation period, NIF
will begin the 16/5 shot sequence that is believed to be optimum for
the very complex targets that will be utilized for many of the shots.
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, at our hearing, you emphasized that it is
very important to focus on getting to ignition at NIF, before putting
too much work into next steps predicated on successful ignition.
However, I am told that scientists in other countries are barreling
ahead with their work ``assuming ignition,'' and that we risk falling
behind as a result.
Are you concerned that we could fall behind other countries in this
area due to our caution? Please explain.
Answer. The Department of Energy is a world leader in inertial
confinement fusion research, and the National Ignition Facility gives
the United States an unparalleled capability to undertake this
research. Our aggressive plan for ignition will lay the basis for the
rest of the world to pursue research in inertial fusion energy, with
reliance on U.S. development of critical technology such as diode-
pumped laser systems. A similar facility called Laser Mega Joule is
expected to eventually provide a French capability to pursue ignition,
but the United States is in the unique position to pursue this major
scientific achievement now. Current European plans for Inertial Fusion
Energy are at a formative stage and will not involve significant
activity until about 2020. Our scientists are certainly aware of the
worldwide activities in this area, and I am not concerned that we could
fall behind other countries is this area in the foreseeable future.
The U.S. ICF Program is actively pursuing the application of
ignition to the crucial needs of the weapons program. With respect to
the Inertial Fusion Energy application, the National Academy of
Sciences has been asked to provide an analysis of the best directions
to follow after the achievement of ignition. We anticipate using the
NAS Panel report (an early draft will be available in less than 1 year)
as a key component in planning for the application of ignition to
energy issues.
llnl study
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, in 2007 a private consortium began
operating Lawrence Livermore National Lab. I still question the logic
of having a private contractor run national nuclear labs as for-profit
corporations. Is NNSA willing to conduct a thorough review of whether
this privatization effort has produced significant benefits to the
productivity of our national labs''?
Answer. Yes. NNSA is currently sponsoring the study that was
mandated in the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act to
be conducted by the National Academies of Science. The study, to be
conducted in two phases, each by a separately appointed committee, will
provide an independent external review of the following for the
Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories:
--The quality of the scientific research being conducted at the
laboratory, including research with respect to weapons science,
nonproliferation, energy, and basic science.
--The quality of the engineering being conducted at the laboratory.
--The criteria used to assess the quality of scientific research and
engineering being conducted at the laboratory.
--The relationship between the quality of the science and engineering
at the laboratory and the contract for managing and operating
the laboratory.
--The management of work conducted by the laboratory for entities
other than the Department of Energy, including academic
institutions and other Federal agencies, and interactions
between the laboratory and such entities.
Phase 1 will address elements 4 and 5 of the Statement of Task and
aspects of element 3. A separate committee will be formed for Phase 2,
which will address elements 1 and 2 of the Statement of Task and
aspects of element 3.
The report from the NAS is expected to be complete in January 2012.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
weapons activities
surveillance
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, the budget request states that funding
has been restored to fully execute the surveillance program.
What is the budget for surveillance, and how does that amount
compare to fiscal year 2010? Is this enough to make the surveillance
program ``whole''?
Answer. In fiscal year 2011, NNSA requests $66 million directly for
Enhanced Surveillance. Within Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), there is
over $300 million dedicated to surveillance activities, including the
DSW base capability for conducting surveillance in stockpile services
and the specific weapon surveillance activities in stockpile systems.
For comparison, the fiscal year 2010 appropriation authorized $69
million directly for Enhanced Surveillance and approximately $200
million dedicated to surveillance activities in DSW.
Based on NNSA's actions to do surveillance smarter and more
efficiently, the fiscal year 2011 request provides an adequate and
balanced surveillance portfolio.
plutonium sustainment
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, the budget request includes a $50 million
increase for Plutonium Sustainment to restore the capability to produce
10 pits per year.
What happened to this capability? Wasn't it achieved in fiscal year
2007?
Answer. The NNSA successfully produced 11 W88 pits in fiscal year
2007. The funding in 2007 was $165 million which was the level
necessary to attain and maintain the capability to produce up to 10
pits per year. However, fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 funding
levels were $135 million and $143 million, respectively, which resulted
in the capability not being fully maintained as intended and necessary
infrastructure investments to be deferred. The increase of $50 million
will restore the funding levels to maintain this capability back to its
required level and will also support development of a Defense Programs
power supply mission. The increase will support upgrades and new
equipment items. Additionally, as part of our Plutonium Sustainment
mission, NNSA will work with LANL to revise and update equipment layout
in Plutonium Facility 4 to streamline the pit production process that
is co-located with existing Research and Development activities.
firp
Question. When Congress authorized the Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) to buy-down legacy
deferred maintenance backlog, it was designed as a finite program with
a congressionally-mandated end in fiscal year 2013. Yet the full scope
of legacy deferred maintenance has not been bought down and newly
deferred maintenance has accumulated. Why has adequately maintaining
infrastructure been such a problem for NNSA? What would NNSA do with
additional FIRP funds if the program were extended or succeeded?
Answer. When FIRP was authorized, NNSA determined that an
acceptable goal for deferred maintenance reduction was on the order of
$1.2 billion, which was 5 percent of the value to replace the physical
infrastructure. This level should provide a facility condition
equivalent to the best managed Federal and private sector campuses.
FIRP was designed to be completed by fiscal year 2011. Annual
funding for FIRP remained on track through fiscal year 2005 and
resulted in sizable reductions of deferred maintenance across the
complex through the completion of high priority projects supporting the
Stockpile Stewardship Mission. Thereafter, weapons activity funding for
facility maintenance and deferred maintenance reduction struggled in
the face of reduced appropriations. The direct impact of fewer annual
dollars slowed the progress of deferred maintenance reduction. In light
of these challenges Congress authorized in the extension of FIRP to
fiscal year 2013 and the $1.2 billion goal was reduced to $900 million.
If additional funds were provided, the NNSA would continue its goal
of to reduce deferred maintenance to industry standards based on the
annual increases furnished. Additional funds would be prioritized to
address unfunded deferred maintenance projects, as well as to further
support the Facility Disposition subprogram, which has been restarted
this year because of the growing need to dedicate resources
specifically to dismantle and dispose of excess deactivated facilities.
When the FIRP Facility Disposition subprogram ended in fiscal year
2008, it had successfully demolished more than 3,100,000 gross square
feet of excess facilities.
tritium readiness
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, NNSA is facing significant technical
challenges in its Tritium Readiness Program that have caused the
Tennessee Valley Authority to limit the number of Tritium Producing
Burnable Absorber Rods in its reactor (thus affecting the amount of
Tritium produced for extraction).
Is NNSA taking any action to develop alternative Tritium production
processes to the current plan to produce tritium at commercial light
water reactors?
Answer. No other alternative to producing tritium in commercial
light water reactors is being considered at this time. NNSA and TVA
entered into an interagency agreement in the year 2000 which called for
TVA to perform irradiation services for NNSA using any of the following
reactors; Watts Bar Unit 1, Sequoyah Units 1 and 2. Under the
interagency agreement, NNSA notifies TVA of its irradiation
requirements and TVA decides how best to accomplish the irradiation,
specifically, which reactors will be used to accomplish the irradiation
services. To date TVA has met all requirements through the use of Watts
Bar Unit 1 only. TVA has taken and will continue to take steps to get
Sequoyah ready for potential future irradiation services.
TVA produces tritium for NNSA through the irradiation of Tritium
Producing Burnable Absorber Rods (TPBARs). Although TPBARs have been
experiencing higher than expected permeation rates of tritium into the
reactor coolant system, TVA has maintained levels below its regulatory
limits to ensure public health and safety. NNSA and TVA are developing
plans to continue to meet NNSA tritium requirements using only the
Watts Bar reactor, however, the Sequoyah reactors would also be
available as backups, if necessary.
Even with the challenges the program faces, the production of
tritium at commercial light water reactors remains the best means to
produce tritium.
physical security budget
Question. The budget request calls for a decrease for Defense
Nuclear Security by $49 million or 6 percent. The decrease is
attributed to implementation of the Graded Security Protection (GSP)
Plan and to ``The Deputy Secretary's Security Reform Initiative.''
How has implementation of the GSP already effectuated security cost
savings and what are they?
Answer. The issuance of the Department's 2008 GSP Policy, which
replaced the 2005 Design Basis Threat (DBT) Policy, has enabled the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to take advantage of
cost avoidances tied to the DBT implementation plans, as well as cost
savings associated with ongoing site security operations. In terms of
cost avoidances, the 2008 GSP Policy allowed NNSA to eliminate
approximately $195.6 million in unnecessary one-time security upgrades
that were contained in the site DBT implementation plans. In addition,
NNSA was able to avoid over $30.2 million in recurring annual costs
associated with unneeded additional protective force personnel
connected to 2005 DBT implementation plans. This has yielded a total
cost avoidance of over $419.6 million from the startup period of the
DBT implementation plan in 2008, through the duration of the fiscal
year 2012-2016 Future Years Nuclear Security Program. In addition to
these cost avoidances, NNSA is working to find efficiencies for current
Category I nuclear security operations through the Zero-Based Security
Review (ZBSR) initiative. Under the ZBSR, NNSA is collaborating with
other organizations within the Department of Energy (DOE) and the
Department of Defense (DOD) to pilot an innovative GSP Implementation
Assistance Visit (GSP-IAV) approach that provides a strong Federal-
Contractor partnership in developing and implementing robust security
programs that provide an acceptable level of risk and are consistent
across the NNSA nuclear security enterprise and with others that have
similar security missions. In our first field trial of the GSP-IAV,
conducted at the Nevada Test Site, we have identified significant
potential cost savings associated with protecting the Device Assembly
Facility (DAF)--while maintaining exceptionally high protection levels
for the facility. We are in the process of more fully evaluating these
proposed changes before making any final decision on implementation.
Our plans are to conduct GSP-IAV activities at all Category I NNSA
sites by the end of this fiscal year. We are confident that
efficiencies we expect to gain through the NNSA ZBSR initiative will
enable us to meet fiscal year 2011 funding targets for safeguards and
security while providing a strong security posture consistent with the
Department's GSP policy.
Question. What is ``The Deputy Secretary's Security Reform
Initiative''--is this the ``Zero-Based Security Review'' you discussed
in your testimony? How does this generate cost savings?
Answer. The Deputy Secretary's Security Reform Initiative and the
ZBSR are separate but closely connected activities. The Deputy
Secretary issued a challenge to the Department to reform the security
program and develop innovative approaches to security that were capable
of maintaining high levels of security but also eliminated unnecessary
costs and productivity drains associated with low-value security
requirements and/or security administration activities. The ZBSR is the
NNSA's answer to the Deputy's challenge and since June 2009, NA-70 has
been working closely with NNSA field sites and the Office of Health,
Safety and Security (HSS) to comprehensively reexamine our security
requirements and implementation expectations. The ZBSR has identified
and will implement improvements to reduce both security costs and
mission impacts, while maintaining very high levels of protection for
our critical national security assets. The NNSA ZBSR approach is
consistent with DOE management reform principles and is strongly
supported by both the Federal and contractor communities.
NNSA's security reform initiative is built along three main tracks:
(1) reforming security policy; (2) reforming the Category I nuclear
security program; and (3) improving the governance of the Federal and
contractor security assessment programs.
--Using field-led teams, NNSA has developed four draft security
``standards'' covering Information Security, Physical
Protection, Protective Forces, and Program Management &
Planning. The standards will document NNSA expectations for
implementing existing DOE directives that are tailored to our
nuclear security enterprise.
--The ZBSR teams used a ``first-principles'' approach to ensure
that security requirements meaningfully contribute to the
goal of protecting national security assets and actually
reduce security risks. The teams also focused on driving
consistency with current national standards into the core
set of NNSA security requirements.
--For high-consequence nuclear security operations, NNSA is working
closely with HSS and DOD in piloting an innovative risk
assessment approach that is fully consistent with the new DOE
Graded Security Protection (GSP) policy. The pilot will focus
on a peer-reviewed assessment of adversary scenarios and risk
informed security response options.
--NNSA is working to improve the management structure for our
nuclear security operations. This includes developing new
approaches for making senior-level, risk-informed decisions
on matching security capabilities to meet credible threats
and determining the necessary and sufficient investments
for nuclear security operations. This initiative is closely
aligned with the Committee of Principals (CoP) task to more
closely align DOD and NNSA nuclear security approaches.
--As a compliment to improving our risk management processes, the
Office of Defense Nuclear Security (DNS) is also working on
a standardization initiative to improve the efficiency of
NNSA nuclear security operations. This effort will involve
the use of the NNSA Supply Chain Management Center (SCMC)
as a common sourcing and procurement mechanism, and will
provide cost savings through the standardization of
protective force uniforms, shields, and select items of
security equipment. In addition to the SCMC approach to
leveraging larger buys, DNS has coordinated with DOD's
Joint Munitions Command to be able to buy ammunition from
their contracts. Savings are realized both in unit price as
well as avoidance of site overhead taxes--which can exceed
50 percent at some sites. For ammunition not available
through DOD, the Service Center will set up contracts with
commercial vendors at pre-negotiated prices for all sites
to be able to order from.
--Due to the self-regulatory nature of the NNSA security program,
both line management oversight and Independent Oversight will
be needed in this new model to provide feedback on performance
and provide assurance to all stakeholders that NNSA can
effectively perform its vital national security missions.
Enhancing contractor assurance systems are a major focus in
improving our performance assurance processes. We will all
continue to ensure that we have the right level of Federal
oversight provided by NNSA Site Offices. Additionally, NNSA is
working with HSS to ensure that the Office of Independent
Oversight will continue to provide us with extremely valuable
feedback on the effectiveness of our security program.
Question. Can you assure us these cost savings measures do not have
a detrimental effect on security?
Answer. Absolutely, physical security remains a core NNSA mission
capability and we will continue to focus on this area in the future.
NNSA is working closely with the Department to ensure our security
reform initiatives are carefully targeted to eliminate unnecessary
costs and remove barriers to improving the productivity of our national
security mission, while maintaining the highest standards for the
protection of our critical national security assets. We intend to
carefully monitor the implementation of our reform efforts and will be
working to improve the capabilities of our site office Federal staff to
provide comprehensive oversight of the contractor's implementation of
our security program requirements. In addition, we are partnering with
the HSS organization to find innovative ways to strengthen Independent
Oversight activities as well as improve our ability to apply inspection
lessons-learned across the NNSA enterprise.
defense nuclear nonproliferation
Question. In the fiscal year 2011 budget the significant funding
increase requested for U.S. Surplus Fissile Material Disposition is
largely due to the consolidation of 3 major construction projects in
this account: the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX), the Pit
Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), and the associated Waste
Solidification Building (WSB) for these facilities.
What are the technical reasons for combining this project with the
Office of Environmental Management Plutonium Preparation project?
Answer. Potential programmatic, life cycle, and schedule advantages
that would result from combining NNSA's PDCF project with EM's
Plutonium Preparation (PuP) project include:
--Cost avoidance for surplus plutonium disposition program;
--Avoidance of expenditures for the design, construction, operation,
and decontamination and demolition of an additional secure,
Hazard Category 2 nuclear facility;
--Greater program and schedule flexibility through an incremental
approach to project execution;
--Cost avoidance at PANTEX by establishing early surplus pit storage
at SRS; and
--Load leveling of Secure Transportation resources.
Question. Will PDCF be operational in time for the MOX facility to
operate without pause?
Answer. DOE has planned for PDCF to begin operations several years
after the start-up of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility
(MFFF). To fill the feedstock gap, DOE is relying on several options
including: (1) disassembling surplus pits at LANL (ARIES) in order to
produce at least 2 metric tons of plutonium oxide for MFFF; (2)
processing 7.8 metric tons of additional non-pit material suitable for
MFFF feedstock currently under the jurisdiction of the Office of
Environmental Management at the Savannah River Site; (3) working with
nuclear utilities interested in irradiating MOX fuel to adjust the
quantity and timing of initial fuel deliveries; and (4) planning to
start-up limited processes in the PDCF to produce early feedstock for
MFFF.
Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $100 million
for Russian Surplus Fissile Material Disposition to meet a portion of
the U.S. $400 million pledge. Additional funds to fulfill this pledge
are not included in the FYNSP. When are requests anticipated? How did
NNSA determine that $100 million was needed this year? What will it pay
for and over how long?
Answer. DOE is requesting $100 million in fiscal year 2011 to
demonstrate to Russia that the United States is serious about
fulfilling our $400 million commitment and to begin work that will
enable Russia to start disposition in 2018 as called for in the amended
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA). Work to be
undertaken includes removing part of the BN-600 reactor that breeds
plutonium, configuring the BN-800 reactor to operate as a burner rather
than a breeder of plutonium, establishing a capability to fabricate
surplus weapon-grade plutonium into MOX fuel, and establishing a
monitoring and inspection regime. Additional funding will be sought
once DOE and Rosatom reach agreement on areas of U.S. assistance and
once the majority of the initial $100 million has been costed. We
anticipate that the last $100 million increment of the $400 million
will be requested over a number of years beginning in fiscal year 2018
timeframe to be paid to Russia on a pro rated basis for each metric ton
of plutonium disposed of (e.g., approximately $2.7 million per metric
ton).
human capital
Question. How does NNSA ensure that the nuclear enterprise (Federal
and management and operation contractors) sustains the skills needed
for current and future missions-including those skills needed for
currently inactive missions, such as test readiness?
Answer. The NNSA and its Management and Operating (M&O) contractors
proactively pursue the development of the next generation nuclear
security enterprise workforce.
--A robust Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) provides key
opportunities to attract and retain the science, technical, and
engineering workforce. SSP promotes skill-building and
exercising of talent by conducting, for example, complex
integrated experiments at the Nevada Test Site, and on the
major NNSA facilities, such as the National Ignition Facility
(NIF), Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydro-test Facility (DARHT),
Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research (JASPER),
and Z--the pulsed power machine.
--In addition, active life extension programs, such as the B61 LEP,
further exercise the full spectrum of development work, from
advanced and exploratory concepts through product realization,
and develop the critical intuition, judgment and confidence
present only in experienced scientists and engineers who have
applied their skills to real nuclear weapons design and
development work. This work is essential to attracting and
retaining the scientists and engineers necessary to sustain the
Nation's nuclear deterrent.
--Critical skills for less active missions must also be maintained.
The Underground Nuclear Weapon Test readiness program is an
example. Test-readiness skills are exercised through major
science experiments at the Nevada Test Site and the Sub-
Critical experiments that take place in U1a, an underground
tunnel system.
--Further, knowledge preservation programs have been in place since
the end of nuclear testing, archiving underground test data,
countless documents, and hundreds of videotaped interviews to
ensure that should a decision be made to resume nuclear
testing, the skill mix needed will be readily reconstituted.
Question. How have external programs and activities (``work for
others'') helped or hindered the enterprise to sustain critical skills?
Answer. The nuclear complex has a long history of performing
strategically aligned work for others (WFO) programs with the express
intent of maximizing the technical value to the NNSA and to other
agencies in meeting their national security mission requirements. NNSA
and WFO programs not only help sustain existing critical competencies
and technologies, but enable the development and maturation of new
leading edge science, technology, and associated critical skills that
would otherwise not be possible. Examples of NNSA mission critical
capabilities that provide benefit to and receive benefit from aligned
WFO programs include:
--Materials (including energetic and non-energetic material design,
synthesis, testing, and characterization from the nano- to the
macro-scale);
--Information science & technology (including the full range of
modeling, simulation, visualization, and knowledge-creating
integration of large data sets to maintain exquisite
situational awareness, perform intelligence assessments, or
make science-based predictions of complex systems);
--Science of signatures (including nuclear forensics, integrated
systems for remote modeling, detection of nuclear and
radiological material, and the prevention of technological
surprise); and
--Systems engineering (low volume production against stringent
safety, security, and reliability requirements throughout an
extended service life, robust command and control, exacting
performance in challenging diverse environments).
Regardless of funding source, work such as advanced supercomputing,
fundamental material science, design and production of unique
microelectronics and subsystems, and deployment of fully engineered
systems (e.g., B61 LEP, nonproliferation systems, satellites) exercises
the full spectrum of science, technology, and engineering skills of the
Nuclear Security Enterprise on an ongoing basis to the joint benefit of
NNSA and WFO agencies. Additionally, the diverse and demanding
technical work portfolio enables the Nuclear Security Enterprise to
attract and retain the best talent in many critical skill areas.
Question. To date, how does NNSA identify critical skill gaps at an
enterprise-wide level?
Answer. Each M&O contractor identifies the critical skill gaps. A
comprehensive, enterprise-wide inventory of these skills and
capabilities is being developed to pinpoint capabilities at risk,
identify gaps, and develop productive recruitment/retention strategies.
Question. What assistance does NNSA provide to management and
operation contractors for recruiting and retention efforts? What
changes, if any, is NNSA planning to make regarding its role sustaining
critical skills enterprise-wide?
Answer. NNSA and M&O contractors encourage the development of the
next generation workforce with succession planning programs in the form
of institutes, fellowships, internships, capstone projects, and post-
doctoral appointments. Among other outcomes, these institutes and
collaborations build relationships with students to improve their
recruitment potential, and they also offer educational programs to
personnel to strengthen their individual critical skills. Beneficial
temporary reassignments, including detail assignments, job swaps, and
acting management roles, have been found to benefit the ``sending'' as
well as the ``receiving'' organization.
One key program NNSA uses to address critical skill gaps is
Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD). The LDRD program
promotes highly innovative exploratory research among the scientists,
technicians, and engineers to respond to present national security
mission needs and to anticipate future ones. The program funds projects
that pursue technological solutions to the most urgent challenges
facing our Nation or that promote science and engineering foundations
that will lead to new research and development.

Senator Dorgan. It is an increase in funding for some very
important programs. And the questions that have been raised, I
think, are questions you, as a manager, I'm sure, raise every
day. How do we do this? How do we do it effectively and
efficiently?
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Dorgan. How do we give the taxpayer full value for
their money on these important security issues?
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator Dorgan. So, we thank all of you for your
willingness to be here.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

----------

THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2010

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Dorgan, Murray, Johnson, Landrieu, Reed,
Lautenberg, Harkin, Tester, Bennett, Cochran, Bond, Alexander,
and Voinovich.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator Dorgan. Good morning. We'll call to order the
hearing. This is a hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water of the Senate Appropriations Committee. We appreciate all
of you being here.
Today, the subcommittee will take testimony on the fiscal
year 2011 budget requests for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and for the Department of the Interior.
Testifying for the Corps will be Jo-Ellen Darcy, the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; Lieutenant
General Robert Van Antwerp, Chief of Engineers for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Testifying for the Interior will be Anne Castle, Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the
Interior, and Michael L. Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation.
I appreciate all of you taking time to be with us this
morning.
General Van Antwerp, I know you are aware of the National
Weather Service predictions of a very high likelihood of major
flooding in a number of communities in North Dakota and
Minnesota and throughout the Midwest this spring. I've already
asked the Corps districts that cover North Dakota to do as much
advance preparation as is possible, and if the flooding is as
severe as some predict, I'll be calling on you for much more
help during the flood fight. Almost everyone remembers the
weeks in which the Nation watched every single day as they were
on a knife's edge, wondering whether the dikes would hold on a
substantial, major flood in Fargo and Moorhead. So, we might be
right back into that in just the coming weeks. Thank you for
the work the Corps is doing.
Regarding the fiscal year 2011 budget, the President has
talked about an overall discretionary spending freeze for
fiscal year 2011. That, however, has translated into a 9.3
percent cut for the Corps budget and a 2 percent cut for the
Bureau budget. In my judgment, those are the wrong agencies to
be cutting in the current economic situation. The Recovery Act
was a shot in the arm--no question about that--but we should be
building on that effort with more robust investments in water
projects especially, not returning to chronically underfunding
our needs.
The Corps and the Bureau are agencies that we depend on to
build the water infrastructure that moves our Nation's cargo,
to reduce the impact of flooding, to provide irrigation water,
to provide hydropower, and to restore our environment. Nearly
all of the work is contracted to the private sector, which
means that there are new jobs for our citizens when we get
these projects up and running. Not only does the work of the
agencies provide jobs now, but the infrastructure that is
constructed continues to benefit the economy. It's an asset for
this country for decades in the future, which then, in turn,
creates additional new jobs.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, the budget request ignores
these facts and reflects the consistent underfunding that we've
seen in too many prior budgets. The fiscal year 2011 budget for
the Corps of Engineers proposes $4.939 billion, which is $506
million below fiscal year 2010 enacted of $5.45 billion. Not
only is the fiscal year 2011 amount less than what was enacted
last year, it's 4 percent below what the administration
proposed last year in their budget.
Secretary Castle and Commissioner Connor, the two major
project accounts for the Department of the Interior under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee are the Central Utah Project
Completion Act and water and related resources for the Bureau
of Reclamation. Your budgets are relatively flat compared to
fiscal year 2010. While the Central Utah Project is up $1
million, the Bureau of Reclamation is down $23 million from the
current year. A flat budget is a declining budget for your
agencies, and that's just a fact because you have additional
salary and other expenses from inflation. Personnel, material,
contract costs continue to increase. So, you are accomplishing
less work with the same money based on the budget request. The
needs for water and power, particularly in the west, continue
to rise, along with population increases in western States.
I know that all of you, as members of the administration,
in your prepared remarks, will tell us, as you must today, that
this is a responsible budget request for your agencies, and it
meets the country's needs. I have served here a long, long
time, and your role here is to reflect and support the
administration's budget. I understand that and am not surprised
by it. I know of only one occasion where an official of an
administration came and sat at that table, I think it was
former Congressman Parker, and he was just unbelievably honest
when asked, is this enough money for your agency? He said of
course not; we're dramatically underfunded. The next day, he
was dramatically out of work. So, we have not gotten such a
burst of candor since, and that was probably 10 years ago.
But I must tell you, from my personal standpoint, I do not
think this is a good budget request for the Corps of Engineers
and for the Bureau of Reclamation.
The top six construction projects in the Corps budget
account for $771 million of the $1.7 billion requested for
construction work all across the United States. That's 45
percent of the total just for six projects. Only one of the six
projects has a benefit-to-cost ratio. The other five are for
dam safety activities, environmental restoration, and
environmental compliance.
In the general investigation account, two studies account
for 30 percent of the money proposed by the administration in
that account. Nearly half of the funding goes to national
programs, rather than the studies of water resource needs.
There are proposed new construction starts for a $1.8 billion
environmental restoration project. One of the studies that will
be funded, if we accept this budget, would lead to a $1 billion
flood control project.
The question that we have to ask now is: How are we going
to pay for them? We need to plan for that. I think, in many
cases, these are very important priorities. The metrics and the
budget criteria, I think, seem to drive the budget out of
balance. And there's certainly nothing about the criteria
that's any better than the criteria this committee uses to put
together our approach, our annual spending recommendations. Our
decisions are generally based on the law and the long-standing
policy understandings between the executive and the legislative
branch.
The decisions that the administration makes in their budget
generally is the basis for the annual spending plan that this
subcommittee develops, but the subcommittee will have no choice
this year, frankly, but to make some changes in the fiscal year
2011 spending plan to rectify what I think are some of the
inequities. I can't speak for everybody on the subcommittee,
but I would say that I think the consensus of this subcommittee
will not be to support cutting a half a billion dollars out of
the Corps of Engineers' funding at this time. It is just not a
thoughtful recommendation.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I do have a longer statement for the record, which goes
into much more detail, but I wanted to highlight just a few of
the issues.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Good morning, the hearing will come to order.
Today, the subcommittee will take testimony on the fiscal year 2011
budget requests for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department
of Interior.
Testifying for the Corps will be: Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Ms. Darcy, Congratulations on your confirmation Assistant
Secretary. This is not our first meeting, but it is our first hearing
together. I look forward to working with you on the many water resource
problems that we have across this country.
Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp, Chief of Engineers for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
General Van Antwerp, always good to see you, welcome.
As I am sure you are both aware, the National Weather Service has
predicted a high likelihood of major flooding in a number of
communities in North Dakota as well as throughout the Midwest this
spring. I have already asked the Corps Districts that cover North
Dakota to do as much advance preparation as possible and if the
flooding is as severe as some are predicting, I will be calling on both
of you for help during both the flood fight and the recovery.
Testifying for the Department of Interior will be: Anne Castle,
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the Interior.
Ms. Castle, Congratulations to you on your confirmation as
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. I look forward to working
with you on many western water issues.
Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation.
Commissioner Connor, it is good to have you back with us.
As I am sure you are aware, I am quite passionate about issues
concerning rural water supply, particularly on unmet promises from 50
years ago on the Garrison Diversion project. I am glad to see that your
budget has provided a little more funding to address these long overdue
promises.
Thank you all for appearing before us today.
As you know, this will be my last general budget oversight hearing
of the Corps and the Bureau's budgets. The one constant in the Senate
is change and assuming you stay in your positions, you will be
testifying before a different Chairman next year.
When I assumed the Chairmanship of Energy and Water Subcommittee in
January 2007, I was quite familiar with the work of both of your
agencies in North Dakota from my many years in the Senate and the
House.
However, upon becoming Chairman, I quickly realized the impacts
that your programs have to the national economy.
More importantly, my colleagues quickly let me know how important
your programs were to nearly all of them. It seemed they all had
funding issues for on-going projects.
It appears that the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget will
be no different in that regard.
The President has talked about an overall discretionary spending
freeze for fiscal year 2011. That has translated into a 9.3 percent cut
for the Corps budget and a 2 percent cut for the Bureau.
These are the wrong agencies to be cutting during the current
economic situation. We should be increasing infrastructure spending now
to boost the economy. The Recovery Act was a great shot-in-the-arm, but
we need to build on that with more robust investments not return to
underfunding our needs.
The Corps and the Bureau builds the water infrastructure that moves
our Nation's cargo, reduces the impacts of flooding, provides
irrigation water, hydropower and restores our environment.
Nearly all of their work is contracted to the private sector which
means jobs for our citizens. Not only does the work of these agencies
provide jobs now, the infrastructure that is constructed continues to
benefit the economy for decades in the future which in turn creates
more jobs.
Unfortunately, the budget request ignores this fact and reflects
the consistent underfunding that we have seen in prior budgets.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget for the Corps of Engineers
proposes $4.939 billion, which is $506 million below the fiscal year
2010 enacted amount of $5.445 billion.
Not only is the fiscal year 2011 amount less than what was enacted
in fiscal year 2010, it is 4 percent below what the administration
proposed for fiscal year 2010. When you look at the budget details on
an account by account basis, the difference is more striking.
--General Investigations is down $56 million from the current year.
--Construction, General is down $341 million from the fiscal year
2010 enacted amount. The fiscal year 2011 request is even down
from the administration's fiscal year 2010 proposal, yet the
request manages to find $29 million for two new construction
projects.
--The Mississippi River and Tributaries account is down $100 million
from the current year.
--O&M is down $39 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted amount.
O&M has been essentially flat for a number of years even though
personnel, material, and equipment costs have continued to
rise.
To provide current year levels for the Corps major accounts would
require an additional $536 million.
Secretary Castle and Commissioner Connor the two major project
accounts for the Department of Interior under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee are the Central Utah Project Completion Act and Water and
Related Resources for the Bureau of Reclamation. Your budgets are
relatively flat when compared to fiscal year 2010.
The Central Utah Project Completion Account is proposed at $1
million more than current year.
The Bureau of Reclamation is down $23 million from the current
year.
A flat budget is a declining budget for your agencies. Personnel,
material and contract costs continue to increase, so you are
accomplishing less work this year based on this budget request.
The needs for water and power in the West continue to rise along
with the population increases in the western States.
I know that all of you as loyal members of the administration in
your prepared remarks are going to tell us how responsible this budget
request is for your agencies and how it meets the country's needs.
I know this because the last person that came to the Hill and
actually told the truth about the administration's budget was fired. I
don't want to see any of you fired so I will say what you can't.
Our national water resource needs continue to increase as our
population grows and shifts around the country. However the Federal
budget for these needs grows much more slowly, if at all.
In both agencies, budget development seems to be predicated on the
notion that you can develop criteria to determine a finite group of
``nationally important'' projects.
I have heard the arguments that the projects funded are ``national
priorities'' and that the metrics you develop allow you to make the
``right'' decisions about what should be funded. I am sure that all of
you will make the same arguments in your testimony today.
However, the criterion seems to shift annually not only when we
change administrations, it also happens within the same administration.
It has happened in this administration.
For example, as I mentioned earlier, the Corps O&M budget for
fiscal year 2011 is proposed at $39 million less than the fiscal year
2010 enacted amount and $143 million less than the administration
proposed just last year.
This means either more work is being done with less money--not
likely; maintenance costs have decreased--again, not likely; or
periodic dredging costs for 2011 are drastically reduced over 2010--
again, not likely.
The only conclusion left is that you have arbitrarily reduced the
O&M account to meet a budget ceiling.
Another example is in the construction account. The budget proposes
two new start projects while proposing to invest $341 million less in
the Construction, General account than was enacted in fiscal year 2010.
More surprising is that the fiscal year 2011 CG budget is $28
million less than the administration proposed in their fiscal year 2010
budget. Yet there was room for two new construction projects. One of
these new start projects is authorized at $1.8 billion over a 10 year
timeframe.
I have to wonder how this project will be shoehorned into the
administration's out-year budget based on your recently delivered 5-
year development plan.
The 2011 amount displayed in both the Base and Enhanced outlooks
does not appear to accommodate this request with the other ongoing
work. This makes me suspicious as to whether a funding stream for this
project has been thought out or if this project was added for other
reasons.
If I am suspicious of the basis for your new start criteria, I am
downright skeptical of your other budgetary criteria.
A constant drumbeat of people who oppose projects added by Congress
is that all of the projects that Congress adds are wasteful spending,
but everything that is proposed by the administration is beyond
reproach.
How can anyone make that determination? One certainly cannot tell
from the budget justification documents.
Of the 95 projects proposed for the Corps Construction, General
account only 49 have benefit to cost ratios. The other 46 have benefits
that have been assumed to be greater than the costs; however we have no
way of comparing one of these to another to determine if the proper
choices were made. We are dependent on your metrics which, as I have
noted, have a tendency to change.
For the 49 projects that have benefit to cost ratios, what are the
metrics for substantial life savings benefits? One life? 10 lives? 100
lives?
Why is a benefit to cost ratio of 2.5 a better value for the Nation
than a project with a benefit to cost ratio of 1.7? Shouldn't we be
comparing excess benefits over cost if we are determining value?
We don't really have any way to determine if the metrics that you
used to determine which projects to fund are the ``best'' metrics or
are merely a convenience for hitting the budget amounts that were
decided by OMB.
Despite what anyone may say, your metrics and criteria are no
better than the criteria this subcommittee uses to develop its' annual
spending recommendations.
Our decisions are generally based in law and longstanding policy
understandings between the executive and legislative branch.
This subcommittee would never dismiss the President's budget
request when trying to develop an appropriation bill.
However, projects that Congress believes are important that meet
the legal criteria for Federal investment, but not the specialized
criteria for your budget, are dismissed annually in your budget--as if
they don't exist.
If they were considered, you would need to include the costs to
bring these projects to some type of orderly conclusion.
An example is the Corps CG account. The administration's fiscal
year 2011 CG proposal consists of 95 projects as opposed to the 258
projects funded in the fiscal year 2010 enacted amount.
I would remind you, as Congress has previously mentioned in law,
that once the President signs the appropriations bill into law, all of
the projects become the responsibility of the administration--not just
the ones the administration supports.
I am pleased that you have provided budget justifications
concurrent with the budget submission this year and that you have
provided factsheets for those projects for which you did not budget but
were funded in the previous year by Congress.
This is a step in the right direction. However, the costs of not
continuing enacted projects should be addressed in your budget
proposals.
To ignore them, as you and previous administrations have done and
continue to do, is intellectual dishonesty and it keeps Congress and
the public ``in the dark'' about the true costs and needs of your
programs.
Finding a new and better prioritization system is not the answer to
the problems of consistently underfunding infrastructure.
The only way to address this funding crisis is for the
administration to provide more funding for these infrastructure
investments.
Also I cannot stress enough that infrastructure spending means
jobs, both now and in the future.
The decisions that the administration makes in their budget
proposal generally form the basis for the annual spending plan that
this subcommittee develops.
However, the subcommittee will have no choice but to make
significant changes to the fiscal year 2011 spending plan to rectify
some of the inequities in your budget proposal.
I look forward to the witness' testimony and will have some
questions at the appropriate time.

Senator Dorgan. I want to mention to my colleagues that we
have a fair number of senators who will be attending this
morning, so what we will do is have seven-minute rounds of
questions. Since the FAA reauthorization bill is on the floor
of the Senate, which Senator Rockefeller and I are jointly
handling, and because before I go to the floor of the Senate, I
have to go to the Commerce Committee for a very brief
appearance on the Comcast-NBC proposed merger, Senator Tester
has agreed to take the chair when I have to depart in about an
hour.
I appreciate my colleagues' being here. Senator Bennett, I
believe, is stuck in traffic. That's an inelegant thing to say,
but not unusual here in Washington, DC. But he's on his way,
and when he comes, we will recognize him for an opening
statement. What I'd like to do is offer opening statements, if
we can make them very brief, to my colleagues. We'll then have
the statements by the witnesses and then have ample time for
questioning this morning.
Do any of my colleagues wish to make an opening statement?
Senator Voinovich. I'd like to.
Senator Dorgan. All right, Senator Voinovich.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH

Senator Voinovich. Thank you. I thank you for holding this
hearing. This is my 2nd year on the Appropriations Committee,
but I've been dealing with the Army Corps of Engineers' budget
for 12 years, and I still shake my head at the inadequacy of
this budget--it has been that way for almost ever--and a
backlog of $60 billion for unfunded Corps projects. The Corps
has taken on not only the traditional projects, but now
environmental restoration. And, Mr. Chairman, we've tried to
figure out some priority or knock some of them off the list. We
have never been successful in doing that because nobody wants a
project off the list.
I'm particularly concerned about the Great Lakes. The Corps
put together recommendations several years ago in terms of what
should be done with the Great Lakes. And the fact is that they
recommended some $200 million a year to handle it, and the
budget has always been about $100 million. So, it's half of
what's needed to get the job done.
For years, I've raised the issue of urgent needs facing the
navigation system on the Great Lakes. Every year, hundreds of
millions of tons of goods are transported through the lakes.
Waterways and communities throughout the Great Lakes are tied
to this travel. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates a backlog
of 17 million cubic yards of dredging at commercial Great Lakes
harbors and channels. This dredging backlog has been
exacerbated by the historic low water levels, but the result is
a negative impact on shipping. Several freighters have gotten
stuck in Great Lakes channels. Ships have had to carry reduced
loads, and some shipments have simply ceased altogether.
So, we benefit from the Great Lakes navigation system. One
of the things that I don't understand is that, despite the
significant backlog of Corps work, the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund is approximately a $4 billion surplus that is growing each
year, $4 billion. And, as we know, the money collected from
that fund is intended for a specific use, maintaining harbors
and channels; yet, OMB uses the surplus as cost savings. It's
another one of those gizmos that you use trust funds to balance
the budget.
So, I'm very, very concerned about it, and I think,
Secretary Darcy, you know how concerned all of us are from the
Great Lakes about something that some people snicker at, but
it's these Asian carp. I just want to say that if they get into
the Great Lakes, we're talking about losing a $7 billion
fishery. And as the former Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of
Ohio and one who has worked to restore the lakes--I call it the
second battle of Lake Erie--at this stage in my life, I do not
want to see that happen. That is in addition to the fishery.
That lake is responsible for recreation and all the other
things. And if it goes that direction--we lose the fishery,
it's going to have an indirect effect on everything else that
happens on the Great Lakes. So, I hope you understand how
serious we are about making sure that this doesn't happen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
apologize to you and the other members of the subcommittee for
not gauging the traffic properly and not being here on time,
but I appreciate the opportunity to comment here. We welcome
Secretary Castle and Secretary Darcy and General Van Antwerp
and Commissioner Connor.
And, Commissioner Connor, particularly, I want to say
welcome to you. You've been very helpful to me over the years
when you were on the Senate side of things, and I want to make
sure we take this opportunity to acknowledge that.
I also want to recognize that Reed Murray, who is here,
with the Central Utah project--that's a project, obviously,
very important to my State. And I want to thank Reed for the
great things your office is doing for water development in my
State. In Utah, water is--the old line ``Whiskey is for
drinking and water is for fighting.'' And maybe we don't drink
as much whiskey as some others, but we do fight over water. The
other line I've heard is that it's better to be head of the
ditch than head of the church, in terms of where you are with
respect to water.
Now, I'm not going to reiterate the funding amounts for the
various accounts. I agree with the chairman that these agencies
are underfunded. My greatest concern with this budget is how it
fails to address our Nation's aging infrastructure in an
adequate fashion.
Many of the Bureau of Reclamation projects are over 100
years old. The Corps's infrastructure doesn't fare much better.
Last summer, we had a canal in Logan, Utah--an irrigation
canal--give way. The breach cost the lives of three people in
the home beneath the canal, resulted in the destruction of
homes and properties throughout the area, and while this is
relatively small compared to Bureau and Corps projects, it is a
sobering example of what could happen on a larger scale if we
fail to protect our infrastructure adequately.
We addressed this issue last year, Mr. Chairman, in the
omnibus public lands bill, which both you and I strongly
supported, and we put in an aging infrastructure title that
would allow the Bureau of Reclamation and water contractors to
address these issues in a reasonable manner, and the
President's budget includes no funding for this purpose
whatsoever.
And I'm also concerned that this cost-share and the
authority may be prohibitive for the project partners to
afford. We need to continue to work to adequately address these
issues before there is a major infrastructure failure.
Now, as I said, the Corps's infrastructure is in not much
better shape. Levees constructed 50 or more years ago are not
built to current design standards. And as FEMA puts
requirements for levee recertification on local communities, it
is costing local communities millions of dollars, and, in some
cases, the levees that communities have depended upon no longer
provide 100-year flood protection, which will mean a triggering
of a remapping of the flood plain.
And another area that jumps out at me is the unbalanced
focus--in my view, unbalanced--on environmental restoration,
which will take up 31 percent of the Corps's construction
budget, an allocation that comes at the expense of other
projects that are in the traditional water resource missions of
the Corps. For example, only 22 percent of the local--total
construction budget goes to what the Corps defines as high-
performance projects, also known as projects with high benefit-
to-cost analysis. The project with the highest benefit-to-cost
ratio of 22 to 1--that's the Sacramento River bank protection--
received only $10 million in this budget request. Now,
theoretically, that means that, for a $10 million investment,
the Nation would get $220 million in benefits. And the
Everglades restoration project, on the other hand, gets $180
million in this budget with no cost-benefit ratio listed.
So, $10 million that, presumably--in actual fact, it
doesn't all work out that way, but the analysis is that $10
million is worth $220 million, but instead of putting the kind
of money that would produce the 22 to 1 ratio, we're saying no;
we're only going to starve it--we're going to starve with only
$10 million, but we're going to put $180 million into the
Everglades, for which there is no analysis available.
Now, if the administration is going to underfund our
national infrastructure to this extent, there must be a more
transparent method of comparing the relative values of these
projects so that we know that the taxpayers are not being
short-changed. I'm concerned there is no transparency in these
decisions. The Corps is using constantly changing criteria in
order to accommodate to the annual budget numbers.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there's another issue I think needs to
be addressed, and better addressed in this budget, and that's
hydropower generation. This administration has made it clear
they're strongly in favor of renewable energy, but every time
we bring up hydropower as a source of renewable energy, there's
dead silence. It's a clean energy source. It's available now.
It continues to suffer from underfunding. And this budget,
viewed with the 20 percent cut in water power activities in the
Department of Energy, makes me wonder about the
administration's commitment to all kinds of clean renewable
energy or if there is a bias to particular kinds that seem to
have constituencies in the political arena, regardless of what
the science may say.
Both the Corps and Bureau hydropower plants are
experiencing more and more unscheduled outages, and that's a
demonstration of a lack of maintenance. And when these plants
go down, energy has to be purchased from the market and other
sources, and the purchase is almost always from a fossil fuel
source. So, it's expensive and disruptive and, ironically,
contributes to the use of fossil fuels in many circumstances,
even while we're proclaiming that's what we're trying to get
away from.
All right, EPAct requires the Secretary of the Interior and
the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Energy to look
at increasing power production at Federal hydro facilities.
That's a study that was completed in May 2007. So, we should be
moving on that. Reclamation found six sites that could
demonstrate both physical and economic conditions sufficient to
warrant further exploration for additional hydropower
development. The Corps identified 58 sites on similar criteria,
and these are not new dams; these are additional units that
could be installed at existing hydropower facilities, and the
transmission facilities are already connected to these sites.
This is not a wind farm somewhere that's going to require
tremendous wiring to get to it. The total capacity is estimated
to be 1,230 megawatts. That's enough to serve roughly a million
residences.
And there are opportunities to refurbish some facilities
with existing hydropower to give us another 1,283 megawatts of
generating capacity, and I don't understand why this
administration is not pursuing that. This is clean energy
without the limitation of the other sources. And to demonstrate
that I'm serious about this, I introduced a bill earlier this
year to investigate the feasibility of developing 50 megawatts
of hydropower from the Diamond Fork Project at the existing
dam.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to raise these
concerns, and, again, my apologies to the panel for my
tardiness in coming here.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Bennett, thank you.
Before we hear from the witnesses, does anyone else have
comments?
Senator Tester. Yes, just real briefly, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Tester.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER

Senator Tester. First of all, thank you all for being here.
I appreciate the work you do. Both the Bureau and the Corps are
in the middle of addressing some aging water infrastructure
issues in Montana and, I think, across the country.
That being said, as I look at the budget, there's several
projects in Montana, a couple of water projects that the Bureau
is working on, that has been cut from $9 million to $1 million.
These are $300 million water projects to service rural areas in
the north central and northeastern part of the State. And I'm
sure when the budget was put together--one was cut from $9
million to $1 million; the other was cut from $8 million to $2
million. I'm sure when this budget was put together they said,
well, you know, there was Recovery Act dollars in one of these
projects last year, so we can back them off.
I'll give you an example of one of them. When I first
started my service in the State legislature, it was a $100
million project. It's the same project. Now it's $300 million.
That's a little--that's 12 years ago. It has tripled in cost.
What had happened, until we had the Recovery Act moneys, we
weren't even keeping up with the cost of inflation with the
money we were appropriating to it, and I'm afraid we're going
back to that again.
These are important projects, and they need to be finished.
In order to be finished, we need to have the resources. The
Recovery Act was a blessing for them. And that money has been
spent--it's being spent as we speak, and it's doing some great
work. I would hope we could go back and address those again.
On the Army Corps side of things, the whole issue around
levee certification is interesting as it applies to FEMA's
flood insurance programs. In Montana and in rural America, we
have a struggling economy in rural America. It has been that
way not just during this recession, but it has been that way
for a while. And we've got small communities now that are being
saddled with the goal of making sure these levees are safe.
They don't have the population to spread out the cost of these
expensive certifications, and it is putting them in one heck of
a bind because when these don't get certified and the flood
insurance rates go through the roof, it further puts them in a
difficult situation. I will get into the specifics during my
questions when it comes to the levees.
But I would just say we really need to be looking more down
the road with our budget. That's what it should be as a sign of
where we're going as a country, as far as these infrastructure
projects. It has been said here before many of the projects
we're dealing with are 100 years old--the Saint Mary's, for
example. We need--there's so much work that needs to be done.
The dikes and the levees that were built 50-60 years ago--I
mean, we've got a lot of things to address. I'm not sure this
budget gets it done.
So, with that, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Anyone else?
Senator Landrieu. I'll wait until the questions.
Senator Dorgan. All right. Let me begin with Secretary
Darcy. Madam Secretary, thank you for being with us.
I would say to all four witnesses that your full statements
will be made a part of the permanent record, and you may
summarize.
Secretary Darcy.

STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY

Ms. Darcy. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and 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 2011.
The fiscal year 2011 President's budget for the Civil Works
Program is $4.939 billion. The budget supports four principal
objectives: funding construction of the highest performing
water resources infrastructure investments that will provide
the best return from a national perspective; supporting the
Nation's navigation network by funding capital development
achievable with current revenues; advancing aquatic ecosystem
restoration efforts and continuing to meet the requirements of
the Endangered Species Act; and emphasizing critical
maintenance and operational reliability of the existing civil
works infrastructure.
The budget focuses funding primarily on three main civil
works program areas: commercial navigation, flood and coastal
storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. 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.
In keeping with President Obama's commitment to limit the
overall level of non-security discretionary spending, the level
of funding in the 2011 civil works budget is a reduction from
both the 2010 budget and the enacted 2010 appropriations.
However, the 2011 funding level reflects a practical,
effective, and sound use of the Nation's financial resources.
The Army continues to apply objective performance
guidelines to many competing civil works 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
emphasize investments that provide the best return from a
national perspective in achieving economic, environmental, and
public safety objectives.
The budget includes two construction new starts and several
new initiatives. One of the construction new starts is the
Louisiana Costal Area Program, which will provide funding for
the construction of projects coming out of the study by the
same name, after they have favorably completed administration
review. The other construction new start is a non-structural
flood damage reduction projection in Onion Creek, Texas.
Within the Operation and Maintenance program, there is
funding for a new Global Changes Sustainability program to
assess the impacts on civil works projects of climate change,
as well as impacts of shifting demographics, changing land use,
and changing social values.
Understanding those impacts will enable the Corps to
identify operational and other modifications to anticipate and
respond to changing requirements to achieve and maintain
sustainability.
Last year, the administration proposed legislation for a
new user fee to increase revenue to the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund, and that proposal remains available for consideration by
Congress in support of the 2011 budget. The Army continues to
work in partnership with the inland waterway stakeholders to
identify priorities and an effective funding stream for inland
waterway construction and rehabilitation for the next 20 years,
which could be made possible by enactment of a new funding
mechanism.
The budget provides $180 million for the South Florida/
Everglades Ecosystem Restoration program. This includes funding
for continued construction of five significant restoration
projects: Picayune Strand, Site One Impoundment, Indian River
Lagoon South, Kissimmee River, and the C-111 project.
The budget also supports work on other major ecosystem-wide
initiatives, in part through Federal inter-agency working
groups headed by the Council on Environmental Quality. The
budget includes a total of $58 million for one such effort, the
California Bay Delta restoration.
Within the ongoing Cultural Resources program, $3 million
is included to continue the Veterans Curation Project, which
was initially funded through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act and recently received the annual Chairman's
Award from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The
Veterans Curation Project supports small curation laboratories
in Augusta, Georgia; Saint Louis, Missouri; and Washington,
DC--three sites with high populations of recently returning and
wounded veterans. The veterans are hired into temporary
positions and receive on-the-job training in curation of some
of the backlog of archeological and historic properties that
have come into the Corps's possession over the years. This is
an innovative approach to supporting returning and disabled
veterans of all branches of the military service, with jobs and
training in a variety of technical skills with broad
applicability while benefiting the Civil Works program. I spoke
at the opening of the lab in Augusta, and I was very moved by
the stories of how this program has given hope to recovering
veterans.
In conclusion, this is a frugal budget that reflects the
priorities of a Nation that is both at war and successfully
navigating its way out of economic upheaval. While this budget
does not fund all of the good things that the Corps of
Engineers is capable of doing, it will support very important
investments that will yield long-term returns to the Nation's
citizens.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am proud to
support the 2011 budget for the Army Civil Works program. Thank
you.
Senator Dorgan. Secretary Darcy, thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy
Mr. Chairman and 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 2011.
overview
The fiscal year 2011 budget supports four principal objectives:
--Focus on the construction of those high performing projects that
provide the best return from a national perspective in
contributing to the economy, restoring aquatic ecosystems, and
reducing risks to human safety;
--Support future capital investments for the inland waterways by
proposing that Congress enact a new funding mechanism to raise
the revenue needed to meet the authorized 50 percent non-
Federal cost-share in a way that is efficient and equitable;
--Advance aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts, including
restoration of Florida's Everglades, the California Bay Delta,
and the Louisiana coast, as well as continuing to meet the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act, particularly in the
Columbia River and the Missouri River Basins; and
--Within the O&M program, give priority to investments in the
operational reliability, safety, and availability of key
existing Civil Works infrastructure.
The budget focuses funding for development and restoration of the
Nation's water and related resources within 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 2011 discretionary funding level
The total new discretionary funding of $4.939 billion in the fiscal
year 2011 budget will keep the Civil Works program moving forward to
help revitalize the economy and provide for restoration and stewardship
of the environment. The budget also proposes cancellation of the
unobligated balance of funding previously provided in the Mississippi
River and Tributaries account for construction of the Yazoo Pumps
project.
In keeping with President Obama's decision to constrain the overall
level of non-security discretionary spending, the level of funding for
the Civil Works program in the 2011 budget is a reduction from both the
2010 budget and the enacted 2010 appropriations. However, the 2011
funding level reflects a practical, effective, and sound use of the
Nation's resources and focuses on key investments that are in the best
interest of the Nation.
Within the $4.939 billion total, $1.69 billion is budgeted for
projects in the Construction account, and $2.361 billion is budgeted
for activities funded in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) account.
The fiscal year 2011 budget also includes $104 million for
Investigations; $240 million for Flood Control, Mississippi River and
Tributaries; $30 million for Flood Control and Coastal Emergency; $193
million for the Regulatory Program; $130 million for the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; $185 million for the Expenses
account; and $6 million for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Works.
The fiscal year 2010-1014 Five Year Development Plan (FYDP) was
recently provided to the relevant committees of Congress. Projections
in the FYDP are formula driven. They do not represent budget decisions
or budget policy beyond fiscal year 2010, but they can provide
perspective on the Army Civil Works program and budget.
new investments in fiscal year 2011
The Civil Works budget includes two construction new starts and
several other new initiatives in the Investigations and O&M accounts.
In the Construction account, the budget includes $19 million for a
new start for construction of projects under the Louisiana Coastal Area
program. These funds will be applied to construct authorized
restoration projects with reports that have favorably completed
executive branch review. The budget also includes $10 million to
initiate a nonstructural flood damage reduction project at Onion Creek,
Lower Colorado River Basin, Texas.
In the Investigations account, two new national efforts are funded:
$2 million for a Water Resources Priorities Study--a high-priority
evaluation of the Nation's vulnerability to flooding. The
Investigations account also includes $500,000 for continued support of
the revised Principles and Guidelines to direct future planning for
water resources projects, including development of detailed planning
procedures to implement the revised Principles and Guidelines.
The O&M program includes $10 million for a new Global Changes
Sustainability program to assess the impacts of climate change on Civil
Works projects, update drought contingency plans, enhance Federal
collaboration, and increase partnerships with non-Federal stakeholders
and programs. Understanding those impacts will enable the Corps to
identify operational and other modifications to anticipate and respond
to climate change. Also included in the O&M account is $3 million to
initiate a Coastal Data Information Program to provide long-term
coastal wave observations nationwide, to develop tools for using wave
and other data for managing coastal sediments, and to support
sustainable coastal and navigation projects under a changing climate.
inland waterways user fee proposal
The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes to allocate $158.1 million for
capital investment (construction, replacement, rehabilitation, and
expansion of projects) on the inland waterways, of which $82.3 million
would be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Last year, the
Army submitted proposed legislation to the Congress on behalf of the
administration for a new user fee. That proposal is awaiting action by
Congress and is reflected in the fiscal year 2011 budget. In addition,
the Army continues to work with the inland waterway stakeholders to
explore other possible options to achieve the purposes of this
legislative proposal, which are to raise the needed revenue from the
commercial users of these waterways and to do so in a way that is
efficient and equitable. The administration has shown flexibility and
is working to move the process forward. At this point, however, I would
like to emphasize that neither the Corps nor the Army supports, or has
accepted or endorsed, any particular out-year schedule or funding
proposal for the inland waterways, or any alternative to the lock usage
fee legislative proposal that Army submitted to Congress in May 2009.
aquatic ecosystem restoration
The budget places priority on aquatic ecosystem restoration and
provides $180 million for the Corps for the South Florida/Everglades
ecosystem restoration program. The budget includes funding for
continued construction of five significant restoration projects in this
program: Picayune Strand; Site One Impoundment; Indian River Lagoon
South; Kissimmee River, and the C-111 (South Dade) project.
The budget also supports work on other major ecosystem-wide
initiatives, such as the $58 million for Corps' ecosystem restoration
and other water resources studies and projects in the California Bay
Delta, including: Coyote and Berryessa Creeks; Hamilton Airfield
Wetlands Restoration; Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration; Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Islands and Levees; and Santa Ana River Mainstem, a flood
and coastal damage risk reduction construction project.
The budget increases funding by 44 percent over last year's budget
for the Lower Columbia River Fish Mitigation project to mitigate the
impact of Corps dams on migrating salmon. Nearly $138 million will be
used to construct bypasses, improve fish ladders and for other
activities that support salmon habitat. Similarly the budget supports
ongoing work on the Missouri Fish and Wildlife Recovery project with
$78 million to construct habitat and connect floodplains that had been
degraded, for the benefit of the endangered pallid sturgeon and other
species.
ongoing priorities in the o&m account
Two particular ongoing activities in the O&M account merit special
attention. First, the O&M account includes $15 million for the
expansion of the National Levee Inventory database to include available
information on levees of other Federal agencies and all of the States.
The Corps will work with stakeholders to facilitate their use of the
Database for local levee safety programs. In addition, the Corps will
continue development of a levee risk screening and classification
process.
The budget for the Cultural Resources program in the O&M account is
increased to $5.5 million to include $3 million to continue the
Veterans Curation Project, which received funding in fiscal year 2009
from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Veterans
Curation Project temporarily employs and trains wounded and returning
veterans in the curation of archeological and historic properties that
have come into the Corps' possession over the years as a result of
construction at water project sites around the country, thus advancing
the Corps' curation program while providing employment and
transferrable skills that improve future employment opportunities of
the veterans who work in the labs.
planning improvements and performance-based budgeting
Working through the Chief of Engineers, the Army continues 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.
The fiscal year 2011 budget continues the Army's commitment to a
performance-based approach to budgeting for the Civil Works program.
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 establish
priorities and guide the allocation of funds to high-performing ongoing
construction projects and new construction starts. These guidelines
focus on those investments within 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 2011 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 2011.
In fiscal year 2011 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 aquatic 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 Corps continues the work funded in the ARRA. The act provided
$4.6 billion for the Civil Works program. That amount includes $2
billion for Construction; $2.075 billion for O&M; $375 million for
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. The Corps has allocated ARRA funds
to more than 800 projects in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico, and has completed 42 projects. The ARRA appropriations for
Civil Works will create or maintain direct construction industry jobs
and indirect jobs in firms supplying or supporting the construction and
the businesses that sell goods and services to these workers and their
families.
The ARRA-funded Civil Works projects provide important support to
the Nation's small businesses in their economic recovery. Of the more
than $2.8 billion of ARRA funds obligated thus far (62 percent of the
total $4.6 billion), small business awards make up about 74 percent of
the total contract actions and account for about 47 percent of the ARRA
funds obligated.
Projects that received ARRA funds were selected on the basis of
their long-term contribution to the Nation and their readiness for
execution within the ARRA timeframe. The wide geographic distribution
of ARRA funded projects helps to spread the employment and other
benefits across the Nation. Funding also is distributed across Civil
Works programs, including inland and coastal navigation, aquatic
ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, hydropower, and more.
conclusion
The administration has made rebuilding America's infrastructure a
priority. Through resources provided for the Civil Works program in the
President's budget for fiscal year 2011, the Army can help achieve this
objective and help support the Nation's economy and environment. The
Army is committed to applying 21st century technological advances to
present day challenges, while protecting and restoring significant
ecological resources.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am proud to present
the fiscal year 2011 budget for the Army Civil Works program. I look
forward to working with this subcommittee in support of the President's
budget. Thank you.

Senator Dorgan. General Van Antwerp.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP,
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
General Van Antwerp. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members
of the subcommittee----
Senator Dorgan. Would you turn the microphone on, General?
And move it just a bit closer?
General Van Antwerp. I think my light is on.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
I appreciate your opening comments, Mr. Chairman, about
flooding. I might address that very quickly before I talk about
the budget.
We've got two areas--your area in North Dakota and another
in Pennsylvania--and we're really gearing up right now. Just to
give you a little idea, a lot of community involvement and all
the Federal agencies, FEMA and everyone else are involved. We
inventoried all of our pumps, our sand bags, polyurethane, and
all the things that we'll need. I'm happy to report I think we
have sufficient resources to fight this, but the early warning
projections are for severe flooding. Yesterday, Major General
Bill Grisoli who's behind me right here, is our deputy
commanding general for civil works and emergency operations,
had a total get-together with all of our folks that would be
involved in this. And he'll be the first one to go, too, if we
need to send him out there. We're honored and understand the
concern; we're equally concerned as you are.
This budget is a performance-based budget. It makes the
best use of available funds through a focus on projects and
activities that provide the highest economic and environmental
returns or address significant risk to human safety. The budget
has 99 construction projects in it. It includes four in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account. There are 10 dam
safety projects, 20 projects that address significant risks to
human safety, and 69 other projects.
The budget supports restoration of nationally and
regionally significant aquatic ecosystems, emphasis on the
Florida Everglades, Louisiana Coastal Area, and Hamilton
Airfield in the San Francisco Bay region. The budget also
supports the Columbia River and Missouri River fish projects to
support the continued operation of our facilities, multi-use
projects, to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species
Act.
As soon as the Corps constructs a project, as you might
imagine, our attention turns to operation and maintenance.
Generally, with periodic maintenance, we can operate these
facilities for many, many years. The average age of our 241
locks, by the way, is 58.3 years old.
The budget supports our continued stewardship in this
infrastructure by focusing funding on our key infrastructure
that has central importance to the Nation.
We support the President's commitment to continued sound
development and management of the Nation's water resources.
Domestically, the Corps of Engineers personnel from across
the Nation continue to respond to calls for help during
national emergencies. The critical work they are doing will
reduce the risk of damage from future storms to people and
communities of this Nation.
Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues
to support the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and build
foundations for democracy and freedom and prosperity.
I especially would like to recognize the many Corps
civilians; we calculated that about 10,000 Corps civilians have
deployed either to southeast Louisiana to respond to hurricanes
or to Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years. These
wonderful, expeditionary--what I will call soldiers--civilians
and soldiers provide their engineering expertise, quality
construction management, and program and project management to
many nations. The Corps of Engineers is actually involved in 34
other countries today.

PREPARED STATEMENT

In closing, I'd like to say the Corps 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. I look forward to your questions.
Senator Dorgan. General, thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: I am
honored to be testifying before your subcommittee today, along with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the Honorable Jo-Ellen
Darcy, on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget for the Civil Works
Program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
My statement covers the following five topics:
--Summary of fiscal year 2011 Program Budget;
--Investigations Program;
--Construction Program;
--Operation and Maintenance Program; and
--Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's Economy and
Defense.
summary of fiscal year 2011 program budget
Introduction
The fiscal year 2011 Civil Works budget is a performance-based
budget, which reflects a focus on the projects and activities that
provide the highest net economic and environmental returns on the
Nation's investment or address significant risk to human safety. The
budget also proposes cancellation of the unobligated balance of funding
in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account that was previously
provided for construction of the Yazoo Pumps project. The Reimbursed
Program funding is projected to involve an additional $2.5 billion.
Direct Program
The budget reflects the administration's commitment to continued
sound development and management of the Nation's water and related land
resources. The budget incorporates objective performance-based metrics
for the construction program, funds the continued operation of
commercial navigation and other water resource infrastructure, provides
significant funding for the regulatory program to protect the Nation's
waters and wetlands, and supports restoration of significant aquatic
ecosystems, with emphasis on the Florida Everglades, Louisiana coast,
California Bay-Delta, and Columbia River & Missouri River restoration
efforts. Additionally, it emphasizes the basic need to fund emergency
preparedness activities for the Corps as part of the regular budget
process.
Reimbursed Program
Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Services Program we
help non-DOD Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments,
and other countries with timely, cost-effective implementation of their
programs. Rather than develop their own internal workforce to oversee
large design and construction projects, these agencies can turn to the
Corps of Engineers, which has these capabilities. Such
intergovernmental cooperation is effective for agencies and the
taxpayer by using the skills and talents that we bring to our Civil
Works and Military Program missions. The work is principally technical
oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and
construction contracts performed by private sector firms, and is
totally financed by the agencies we service.
Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 70 other
Federal agencies and several State and local governments. Total
reimbursement for such work in fiscal year 2011 is projected to be $2.5
billion. The exact amount will depend on requests from the agencies.
investigations program
The budget for the Investigations program would enable the Corps to
evaluate and design future projects that are most likely to be high-
performing within the Corps three main mission areas: commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration. The budget includes $104 million for these and related
activities in the Investigations account and $846,000 in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account.
construction program
Within available resources, the goal of the construction program is
to produce high value to the Nation by delivering new, or replacing,
rehabilitating, or expanding existing, flood damage reduction,
environmental restoration, commercial navigation, or hydropower
benefits that serve the Nation's water resource needs. Our fiscal year
2011 budget includes $1.69 billion in discretionary funding in the
Construction account and $85.29 million in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account to further this objective. Consistent with this
objective, the budget also gives priority to projects that address a
significant risk to human safety.
Using objective performance measures, the budget allocates funding
to 99 construction projects, including 4 Mississippi River and
Tributaries projects, 10 dam safety assurance, seepage control, and
static instability correction projects, 20 projects that address a
significant risk to human safety, and 69 other projects. This program
also includes, for example, significant funding for our efforts in the
Columbia River Basin and Missouri River Basin to support the continued
operation of Corps of Engineers multi-purpose projects by meeting the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
Performance measures, which the Corps uses to establish priorities
among projects, include the benefit-to-cost ratios for projects with
economic outputs; and, for aquatic ecosystem restoration projects, the
extent to which the project cost-effectively contributes to the
restoration of a significant aquatic ecosystem. 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 criteria, resources are allocated
based on performance. This approach significantly improves the
realization of benefits to the Nation from the Civil Works construction
program and will improve overall program performance by allowing the
Nation to realize the benefits of the projects with the best net
returns (per dollar invested) sooner.
operation and maintenance program
The facilities owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the Corps of
Engineers are aging. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are working
to ensure that its key features continue to provide an appropriate
level of service to the Nation. Sustaining such service poses a
technical challenge in some cases, and proper maintenance is becoming
more expensive in some cases as infrastructure ages.
The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program for the fiscal year
2011 budget includes $2.361 billion, and an additional $153.864 million
under the Mississippi River and Tributaries program, with a focus on
the maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, hydropower, and other facilities. Specifically, the
operation and maintenance program supports completed works owned or
operated by the Corps of Engineers, including administrative buildings
and laboratories. 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.
One of the contributions the Civil Works program can make to the
Nation is to support and create opportunities for returning and wounded
veterans. Through continued funding of the Veterans Curation Project as
part of the Cultural Resources program, the Corps can provide such
support in ways that directly benefit the Civil Works program by
addressing the backlog of historic properties needing curation, while
also benefiting returning and wounded veterans.
value of the civil works program to the nation's economy and defense
We are privileged to be part of an organization that directly
contributes to the President's priorities to secure the homeland and to
revitalize the economy.
The way in which we manage our water resources can improve the
quality of our citizens' lives. It has affected where and how people
live and influenced the development of this country. The country today
seeks economic development as well as the protection of environmental
values.
Corps of Engineers personnel from across the Nation continue to
respond to the call to help during national emergencies, such as
hurricanes and the recent earthquake in Haiti. The critical work they
are doing reduces the risk of damage to people and communities.
Research and Development
Civil Works Program research and development provides the Nation
with innovative engineering products, some of which can have
applications in both civil and military infrastructure spheres. By
creating products that improve the efficiency and competitiveness of
the Nation's engineering and construction industry and providing more
cost-effective ways to operate and maintain infrastructure, Civil Works
program research and development contributes to the national economy.
The National Defense
Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to
support the mission to help Afghanistan build foundations for
democracy, freedom and prosperity.
I also want to recognize the many Corps of Engineers civilians--
each of whom is a volunteer--and soldiers who are providing engineering
expertise, quality construction management, and program and project
management in other nations. The often unsung efforts of these
patriotic men and women contribute daily toward this Nation's goals of
restoring the economy, security, and quality of life for all.
In Afghanistan, the Corps is spearheading a comprehensive
infrastructure program for the Afghan national army, and is also aiding
in important public infrastructure projects.
conclusion
The Corps of Engineers is committed to staying at the leading edge
of service to the Nation. We are 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.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

STATEMENT OF ANNE CASTLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER
AND SCIENCE
Senator Dorgan. Secretary Castle, you may proceed. Thank
you for being here.
Ms. Castle. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Dorgan and
Senator Bennett and members of the subcommittee. Thanks for the
opportunity to be here today in support of the President's 2011
budget for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah
Project Completion Act.
With me is Mike Connor, the Commissioner of Reclamation.
And, as Senator Bennett noted, Reed Murray is here, the
Director of the Central Utah Project Completion Act Office. He
will be here and available if you have any questions about that
program.
The Department of the Interior's people and lands and
programs touch virtually every American. It's our job to
protect natural resources and our country's cultural heritage,
and we have trust responsibility for all American Indians and
Native Alaskans. We truly are the Department of America.
The Department's 2011 budget focuses on six priorities:
implementing a new energy frontier, climate change adaptation,
tackling our country's water challenges, protecting our
treasured landscapes, empowering Native American communities,
and engaging our youth in natural resources.
I'm going to focus today on one of the programs that seeks
to tackle our water challenges, and that's our new WaterSMART
program. That project was launched just 2 weeks ago, and it
implements a sustainable water strategy for the Department of
the Interior. WaterSMART stands for Sustain and Manage
America's Resources for Tomorrow. And we're doing it; we're
implementing that program because we simply have to focus on a
sustainable water strategy for this country. Our water supply-
and-demand equation is out of balance, and we need a national
commitment to address that imbalance. We have the imbalance
because of a variety of factors--population growth, climate
change impacts on water supplies, increased recognition of the
need for water for ecosystem sustainability, and increased need
for water because of increased domestic energy production.
The WaterSMART program is designed to help correct that
supply-and-demand imbalance. The program includes coordination
of the water sustainability and conservation efforts of all the
agencies within the Department of the Interior and also of our
Federal and State and private partners, and that includes a
focus on the energy-water nexus, so that we'll recognize the
water demands of different types of energy development projects
and take those into account and also recognize the
opportunities for saving energy through water conservation.
We'll have an Internet-based clearinghouse for best
practices and incentives and the most cost-effective
conservation and recycling technologies. We'll coordinate with
the Department of the Interior's climate change programs, and
we have a water footprint reduction program for Interior
facilities that will achieve the President's goal of reducing
overall water consumption within the Federal agencies.
The 2011 budget request includes $72.9 million for the
WaterSMART program. That's an increase of over $36 million over
2010 for those various different component programs. Sixty-two
million is for the Bureau of Reclamation's WaterSMART programs,
and those include its basin studies, West-wide water risk
assessments, and its cost-share grant programs for water
efficiency and water recycling and reuse projects.
Another $10.9 million funds the USGS water availability and
use assessment. That was what we have known as the Water
Census, and that program implements the provisions of the
Secure Water Act in Public Law 111-11.
The overall budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation is
$1.02 billion. Commissioner Connor will be discussing the
details of the Reclamation request, but I'll just emphasize
that this budget proposal is designed to promote reliable and
sustainable water supplies, and provide them in an economically
and environmentally sound manner.
The 2011 budget request for the Central Utah Project
Completion Act is $43 million. That's $1 million more than in
2010. That funding provides for the continued design and
construction of the Utah Lake system, and it also increases the
funding for mitigation and conservation projects.
This 2011 Interior budget represents our best effort to
work within the tough economic times that are facing our
country, to do our part to reduce the spending deficit but
still implement the core mission and the priorities of the
Department.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I'd like to express my appreciation for the very strong
support that this subcommittee has shown for both the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Central Utah Project. And I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne Castle
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 2011 budget for the Department of the Interior
and to update you on progress in implementing our fiscal year 2010
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 392 national park units, 551 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
2011, 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 55 million acres held in trust for Indian Tribes and
individual Indians, over $3.6 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 dormitories, and supports 30
tribally controlled community colleges, universities, and post-
secondary schools.
the first year
In January 2010, President Obama and Secretary Salazar marked their
first anniversary by recognizing the achievements of Interior's 70,000
employees, including:
--Restoring the Everglades--beginning construction of the 1-mile
bridge on the Tamiami Trail and breaking ground on the Picayune
Strand Restoration project in the Everglades in Florida--to
restore water flows and revive 55,000 acres of wetlands for
wildlife habitat;
--Negotiating a settlement of the long-running and highly contentious
Cobell v. Salazar class-action lawsuit--resolving trust
accounting and management issues after 14 years;
--Advancing renewable energy development--establishing renewable
energy coordination offices in four States and teams in six
States to facilitate renewable energy production on public
lands and issuing four exploratory leases for renewable wind
energy production on the OCS;
--Moving forward to invest $3.0 billion available from the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act in facility renovation and energy
efficiencies, habitat restoration, increasing water supplies
and water conservation, supporting renewable energy
development, and reducing human hazards;
--Restoring confidence and accountability in our energy programs by
beginning an orderly termination of the Royalty-in-Kind program
and reforming the management of onshore oil and gas resources;
--Coming to the aid of drought-stricken California with emergency aid
and infrastructure investments;
--Expanding opportunities for youth--employing 8,200 young adults in
2009;
--Opening the crown of the Statue of Liberty for public access--the
crown has been closed to the public since 9/11;
--Ending a stalemate at the Flight 93 National Memorial--completing
the acquisition of land in cooperation with willing sellers and
clearing the way for construction of a memorial to honor the
Nation's heroes;
--Delisting the brown pelican--a case of complete recovery for a
species that was first listed as endangered in 1970;
--Increasing transparency--reversing and withdrawing flawed oil and
gas leases with potential impacts to national parks in Utah and
oil shale research, development, and demonstration leases that
may have shortchanged taxpayers; and
--Helping to negotiate a collaborative solution that would end
decades of conflict and potentially allow for the restoration
of the Klamath River Basin in California and Oregon.
overview of the fiscal year 2011 budget
Interior's 2011 budget reflects an aggressive agenda in the context
of challenging fiscal times. The 2011 Interior budget request for
current appropriations is $12.2 billion. Permanent funding that becomes
available as a result of existing legislation without further action by
the Congress will provide an additional $5.8 billion, for budget
authority totaling $18.0 billion for Interior in 2011.
The request for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, funded under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee, is $1.1 billion. The fiscal year 2010 Reclamation
discretionary budget request is $1.02 billion in current appropriations
and the request for the Central Utah Project is $43.0 million.
climate change adaptation
Resource managers consider climate change to be the single most
challenging issue they face. In order to equip them with the tools and
strategies they need, Interior's Climate Change Adaptation initiative
will investigate the causes and formulate solutions to mitigate climate
impacts to lands, waters, natural and cultural resources. As the pre-
eminent manager of lands and resources, Interior will leverage its
experience and expertise in partnership with other governmental and
non-governmental entities. Interior's Climate Science Centers and
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) will conduct and communicate
research and monitoring to improve understanding and forecasting for
those natural and cultural heritage resources that are most vulnerable
to climate change impacts.
The Department's High Priority Performance Goal for Climate Change
Adaptation is to identify areas and species most vulnerable to climate
change and begin implementing comprehensive adaptation strategies by
the end of 2011. Beginning with the 2011 budget, Reclamation will
identify dedicated climate change funding, including an increase of
$3.0 million for its Basin Studies Program. Through the Basin Studies
Program, Reclamation will work with State and local partners to analyze
the impacts of climate change on water and power operations throughout
basins in the Western States, and will identify options to mitigate or
adapt to those impacts.
watersmart
The 2011 budget proposes a sustainable water strategy to assist
local communities to stretch water supplies and improve water
management. A High Priority Performance Goal is established to increase
water supply for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental
uses in the western United States up to 350,000 acre-feet by the end of
2011 through conservation programs including water reuse and recycling
and WaterSMART (formerly Challenge) grants.
The budget for the WaterSMART program--Sustain and Manage America's
Resources for Tomorrow--includes $72.9 million, an increase of $36.4
million over the 2010 enacted level for sustainability programs in
Reclamation and USGS. Reclamation will use $62.0 million, an increase
of $27.4 million, to improve water management by encouraging voluntary
water banks; reducing demand; implementing water conservation and water
reclamation and reuse projects; and taking action to improve energy
efficiency and reduce environmental conflicts. The USGS will use $10.9
million, an increase of $9.0 million, for a multi-year, nationwide
water availability and use assessment program.
treasured landscapes
The 2011 budget includes funding for an increased effort by
Reclamation to conduct studies, projects, and other efforts in the
California Bay-Delta. These activities will support the December 22,
2009 Bay-Delta Interim Action Plan, investing in short and long-term
actions for sustainable water and ecosystem restoration. This request
will fund habitat restoration efforts, the development of fish screens
and fish ladders, efforts to eradicate or mitigate invasive species,
various water quality and quantity studies and assessments, and other
efforts.
supporting tribal nations
The 2011 budget for Reclamation contains funding in support of
tribal nations through projects such as the Animas-La Plata project to
continue implementation of the Colorado Ute Settlement Act and funding
for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
President's fiscal year 2011 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 2011 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 tribal nations.
This concludes my overview of the fiscal year 2011 budget proposal for
the Department of the Interior. I am happy to answer any questions that
you may have.

Senator Dorgan. Commissioner Connor.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER
Commissioner Connor. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan,
Senator Bennett, and members of the subcommittee, for the
opportunity to discuss the Bureau of Reclamation's 2011 budget.
With me today is Bob Wolf, who is the Director of our
Program and Budget Office at the Bureau of Reclamation.
As noted by Secretary Castle, the fiscal year 2011
discretionary request for Reclamation is $1.02 billion.
Overall, the budget reflects a set of wide-ranging activities
and initiatives that support Reclamation's mission. According
to a recent departmental economic analysis, Reclamation's
mission is to supply water, generate power, and provide
recreation opportunities to millions of Americans. It supports
over 260,000 jobs on an annual basis and $39.5 billion in
economic activity.
At its core, however, the goal of Reclamation's budget is
simply to promote certainty and sustainability in the use of
limited water resources, whether it is for agricultural,
municipal, industrial, environmental, or power-generation
purposes. Certainty and sustainability require Reclamation to
take action on many fronts, and our budget proposal was
developed with that principle in mind. Through these efforts,
we believe we can continue to provide the economic benefits I
just described.
Secretary Castle identified six priorities that are focal
points of the Department's fiscal year 2011 budget. Very
briefly, I want to speak about several of those items.
The first is tackling the Nation's water challenges and the
New Energy Frontier. Addressing water challenges and energy
needs starts with operating, maintaining, and improving the
condition of our existing facilities. Accordingly, the 2011
budget requests a total $424 million for facility operations,
maintenance, and rehabilitation activities. This amount
represents almost one-half--46 percent--of the Water and
Related Resources account. The remaining balance of that
account is used for water, energy, land, and fish and wildlife
resource management activities, which amount to $490 million in
total, or 54 percent of the remaining part of the Water and
Related Resources account.
Included within this $490 million allocation is the
WaterSMART program that was just described in detail. As noted,
WaterSMART includes a specific focus on energy-water issues. In
addition to promoting energy efficiency through water
conservation, Reclamation will be working with our numerous
partners to facilitate new renewable energy generation
development in association with Reclamation facilities and its
operations.

CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

In the area of climate change, Reclamation will do its part
to assist the Department in implementing an integrated strategy
to better understand and respond to climate change impacts on
water and associated resources.
As identified in our budget documents, the Department will
be establishing Climate Science Centers (CSCs), Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), and a Climate Effects
Network. Reclamation's 2011 budget includes an increase of $3
million for Reclamation's Basin Studies program to implement
West-wide risk assessments and to establish two LCCs.
Reclamation's Science and Technology program will also devote
$4 million in support of the science agenda being carried out
by the Climate Science Centers. This funding represents a
critical investment that will help our stakeholders better
understand and plan for a future impacted by increasing
temperatures.

TREASURED LANDSCAPES AND RESTORING RIVERS

Protecting the Nation's treasured landscapes is another
departmental priority, and it is imperative that Reclamation do
its share. First, maintaining our ability to deliver water and
generate power requires protecting and restoring the aquatic
and riparian environments affected by our operations. Beyond
that, restoring the health of our rivers will help avoid future
conflicts and provide more flexibility in addressing the
challenges presented by drought, increasing populations,
increasing energy demand, environmental needs, depleted
aquifers, and a changing climate. Included within the Restoring
Rivers program are our endangered species recovery programs,
which are an increasing part of Reclamation's budget.

SUPPORTING TRIBAL NATIONS

The final priority I want to briefly discuss is
Reclamation's support for tribal nations. The 2011 budget
continues this support through our ongoing efforts to implement
Indian water rights settlements. Included in the request is
$12.5 million in support of the Animas-La Plata project and the
Shiprock Pipeline, which are the critical items in the Colorado
Ute Settlement Act amendments. Those are anticipated to be
completed in 2013.
The request also includes $10 million for the Navajo-Gallup
Water Supply Project, a key element of the Navajo Nation Water
Rights Settlement in the San Juan River basin in New Mexico.
There's also $4 million for the Soboba Water Rights
Settlement to complete funding for the United States' share of
constructing, operating, and maintaining the basin recharge
project that's central to that settlement.
And outside settlements, Reclamation is addressing tribal
needs through its rural water program. Sixty-two million
dollars is requested for this program to continue the
construction of authorized rural water projects, several of
which benefit tribal nations in the Great Plains and Upper
Colorado River regions.
Mr. Chairman, please allow me to express my sincere
appreciation for the continued support that this subcommittee
has provided the Bureau of Reclamation. I stand ready 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 discuss with you the President's
fiscal year 2011 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 who
rely on Reclamation for their water and power.
Our fiscal year 2011 request continues support for activities that
deliver water and generate hydropower, consistent with applicable State
and Federal law, in an environmentally responsible and cost-effective
manner.
The budget continues to emphasize working smarter to address the
water needs of a growing population in an environmentally responsible
and cost-efficient manner; and assisting States, tribes, and local
entities in solving contemporary water resource challenges. It also
emphasizes the operation and maintenance of Reclamation facilities in a
safe, efficient, economic, and reliable manner; assuring systems and
safety measures are in place to protect the public and Reclamation
facilities. Funding for each project or program within Reclamation's
request is based upon administration, departmental, and Bureau
priorities. Key focus areas include Water Conservation, Climate Change
Adaptation and Renewable Energy, Restoring Rivers, and supporting
tribal nations.
Reclamation's 2011 budget request is $1.1 billion, which includes
$49.9 million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF).
This request is offset by discretionary receipts in the CVPRF,
estimated to be $49.6 million. The request for permanent appropriations
in 2011 totals $167.0 million.
water and related resources
The 2011 budget request for Water and Related Resources,
Reclamation's principal operating account, is $913.6 million. The
request includes a total of $489.9 million for water and energy, land,
and fish and wildlife resource management and development activities.
Funding in these activities provides for planning, construction, water
conservation activities, management of Reclamation lands including
recreation, and actions to address the impacts of Reclamation projects
on fish and wildlife.
The request also provides a total of $423.7 million for facility
operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation activities. Providing
adequate funding for these activities continues to be one of
Reclamation's highest priorities. The Bureau 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 2011 request for water and related
resources
I would like to share with the subcommittee several highlights of
the Reclamation budget including an update on the WaterSMART (Sustain
and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow) Program and Interior's
establishment of a High Priority Performance Goal target to enable
capability to increase available water supply for agricultural,
municipal, industrial and environmental uses in the western United
States by 350,000 acre-feet by the end of 2011.
WaterSMART Program.--The request focuses resources on the
Department of the Interior's WaterSMART program. The program
concentrates 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. The U.S. Geological Survey is a partner
in WaterSMART.
The Department plays an important role in providing leadership and
assistance to States, tribes, and local communities to address these
competing demands for water and to be more energy efficient in the
operations of its facilities. Reclamation is proposing to increase its
share of the WaterSMART Program by $27.4 million over the fiscal year
2010 enacted level for total funding of $62.0 million. The three
ongoing programs include: the WaterSMART (formerly the Challenge) grant
program funded at $27.0 million; the Basin Study program funded at $6.0
million; and the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program funded
at $29.0 million. Through these programs, Reclamation will provide
competitive grants for water marketing and conservation projects;
implement basin-wide planning studies that will help identify the
impacts of climate change, identify potential adaptation measures and
address comprehensive water supply and demand in the West; and continue
funding of water reuse and recycling projects.
Other Significant Programs and Highlights Include
Climate Change Adaptation and Renewable Energy.--The Department is
implementing an integrated strategy for responding to climate change
impacts on the resources managed by the Department, through the
establishment of DOI Climate Science Centers (CSC), Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) and a Climate Effects Network. The 2011
budget requests an increase of $3.0 million for use within
Reclamation's Basin Studies program for total funding of $6.0 million
to implement West-wide climate change risk assessments. Reclamation
will take the lead to coordinate work at two LCCs. Reclamation's
Science and Technology program will devote $4.0 million to support
scientific work through the Department's CSCs. Reclamation is also
assessing and implementing new renewable energy generation development
in association with Reclamation facilities in cooperation with other
Federal and State agencies, water users, and private sector entities
through its Power Program Service program.
Restoring Rivers.--In order to best maintain Reclamation's ability
to meet its core mission goals of delivering water and generating
hydropower, a growing part of its mission must focus on the protection
and restoration of the aquatic and riparian environments influenced by
its operations. This growing focus area will help Reclamation better
balance its environmental mission with its role as a water supplier and
power generator, thus better positioning Reclamation to address the
ongoing challenges presented by drought, climate change, increasing
populations, the growing water demand associated with energy
generation, and environmental needs. Reclamation's Restoring Rivers
agenda involves a large number of activities, including its Endangered
Species Act recovery programs.
The 2011 request provides $171.7 million for operating, managing
and improving California's Central Valley Project. This amount includes
$39.9 million for the CVP, Sacramento River Division, Red Bluff pumping
plant, which will be constructed to facilitate passage for threatened
fish species, as well as providing water deliveries. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 also provided $109.8 million for
the Red Bluff pumping plant. The funding for CVP also includes $11.8
million for the Trinity River Restoration program that includes
development of a comprehensive monitoring and adaptive management
program for fishery restoration and construction of channel
rehabilitation projects at various sites along the Trinity River. This
request includes $21.7 million for the CVP Replacements, Additions, and
Extraordinary Maintenance program, for modernization, upgrade, and
refurbishment of facilities throughout the Central Valley.
The request includes $25.3 million for Lower Colorado River
Operations to fulfill the role of the Secretary as water master for the
Lower Colorado River. The request provides funding for management and
oversight of both the annual and long-range operating criteria for
Colorado River reservoirs; water contract administration; and
implementation of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation
program. The Bureau of Reclamation remains committed to maximizing
efficient ways to deliver water under its contracts and to conserve
water for multiple uses, including endangered species protection.
The budget requests $23.7 million for Endangered Species Act
Recovery Implementation programs. The request includes $12.7 million in
the Great Plains Region to implement the Platte River Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation program, based upon approval of the
program by the Secretary and the Governors of Colorado, Nebraska, and
Wyoming in late 2006 and authorized by the Consolidated Natural
Resources Act of 2008. Implementation of this program provides measures
to help recover four endangered or threatened species, thereby enabling
existing water projects in the Platte River Basin to continue
operations, as well as allowing new water projects to be developed in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act. It also provides an
increase of $4.9 million for a total of $8.4 million for the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery program, which was established
in January 1988, to provide habitat management, development and
maintenance; augmentation and conservation of genetic integrity; and
conservation of other aquatic and terrestrial endangered species. The
increase will fund construction of a system that automates canal
operations to conserve and redirect water for instream flows.
The Klamath project request is $22.5 million and includes funds for
studies and initiatives related to improving water supplies to meet the
competing demands of agricultural, tribal, wildlife refuge, and
environmental needs. Key areas of focus include continuing a water
bank; making improvements in fish passage and habitat; taking actions
to improve water quality; developing a basin-wide recovery plan;
increasing surface and groundwater supplies; and continuing
coordination of Reclamation's Conservation Improvement program.
The Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Studies are being
conducted as a result of negotiations initiated in 2005 and completed
in 2010 regarding restoration of the Klamath River. Study results will
be used to inform a Secretarial Determination to decide if removing
PacifiCorp's four dams on the Lower Klamath River is in the public
interest and advances restoration of the Klamath River fisheries. The
Reclamation request includes $5.0 million to further assess the costs
and benefits of removing the dams. The Fish and Wildlife Service,
funded under the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations subcommittee, also has $2.0 million in its request to
support these studies.
The Middle Rio Grande project request is $25.1 million and will
continue funding of endangered species activities and Reclamation's
participation in the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act
Collaborative program. Funding of the repair of priority river levee
maintenance sites is also included.
The Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project request is $12.4
million, which will continue funding grants to Benton and Roza
Irrigation Districts and Sunnyside Division Board of Control, to
implement conservation measures and monitor the effects of those
measures on the river diversions.
Supporting Tribal Nations.--The fiscal year 2011 Reclamation budget
supports tribal nations through a number of projects. The request
includes $12.5 million for the Animas-La Plata project to continue
implementation of the Colorado Ute Settlement Act. Project completion
is anticipated in 2013, and 2011 funding will provide for directional
drilling and pipeline construction on the Navajo Nation Municipal
Pipeline and the continued filling of Lake Nighthorse.
The request includes $10.0 million for the Navajo-Gallup Water
Supply Project, a key element of the Navajo Nation Water Rights
Settlement on the San Juan River in New Mexico. The project will
provide a reliable and sustainable municipal, industrial, and domestic
water supply from the San Juan River to 43 Chapters of the Navajo
Nation.
The request includes $4.0 million for the Soboba Water Rights
Settlement Project to complete funding for the payment or reimbursement
for constructing, operating, and maintaining the portion of the basin
recharge project that the United States is responsible for under the
Settlement Agreement.
The 2011 Reclamation budget requests $62.0 million for on-going
authorized rural water projects. The projects that benefit tribal
nations include Mni Wiconi, the rural water component of the Garrison
Diversion Unit; Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie; Jicarilla Apache
Reservation; and Rocky Boys/North Central Montana. Other rural water
projects include Perkins County and Lewis and Clark.
Safety of Dams.--A total of $95.2 million is requested for
Reclamation's Safety of Dams program, which includes $45.0 million
directed to dam safety issues at Folsom Dam. Funding also includes
$29.3 million to initiate other safety correction activities and $19.0
million for safety evaluations of existing dams. This includes $1.9
million to oversee the Interior Department's Safety of Dams program.
A total of $30.3 million is requested for Site Security to ensure
the safety and security of the public, Reclamation's employees, and key
facilities. This funding includes $9.2 million for physical security
upgrades at high risk critical assets and $21.1 million to continue all
aspects of Bureauwide security efforts including law enforcement, risk
and threat analysis, personnel security, information security, security
risk assessments and security-related studies, and guards and patrols.
Section 513 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
includes provisions for the treatment of Reclamation site security
costs. Under these provisions, Reclamation will collect approximately
$20.0 million, as indexed for inflation, in security-related operation
and maintenance costs that are reimbursable under Reclamation law.
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.
policy and administration
The $61.2 million request in fiscal year 2011 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
The 2011 budget includes a request of $49.9 million for the CVPRF.
This budget request is offset by collections estimated at $49.6 million
from mitigation and restoration charges authorized by the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act. The San Joaquin River Restoration Fund
section below describes the impact that the San Joaquin River
Restoration Settlement Act has on the CVPRF.
The 2011 program funds a variety of activities to restore fish and
wildlife habitat and populations in the CVP service area of California,
including: acquiring water for anadromous fish and other environmental
purposes; providing for long-term water deliveries to wildlife refuges;
continuing the anadromous fish restoration program with the goal of
doubling their natural production; monitoring the effectiveness of
restoration actions; acquiring fee title or conservation easements to
facilitate better management; restoring land to improve wildlife
habitat, conserve water, and reduce drainage; and continuing funding
for fish screens on diversions along the Sacramento River.
san joaquin river restoration fund
While there is a $72.1 million request for discretionary
appropriations in fiscal year 2011, receipts will be used, as
authorized by the 2009 San Joaquin River Restoration Act, to implement
terms of the settlement of the litigation. Funding in fiscal year 2011
will be used to continue planning, engineering, environmental
compliance, fishery management, water operations, and public
involvement activities.
california bay-delta restoration fund
The budget requests $40.0 million for the California Bay-Delta
Restoration Fund, pursuant to the CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act
that was signed into law on October 25, 2004. The legislation provides
a 6 year Federal authorization to implement the collaborative Bay-Delta
program. Authorities authorized by the Water Supply, Reliability, and
Environmental Act were extended until 2014, by the Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. A consortium
of Federal and State agencies fund and participate in the Bay-Delta
program, focusing on the health of the ecosystem and improving water
management and supplies. In addition, Bay-Delta activities address the
issues of water supply reliability, aging levees, and threatened water
quality.
Funding for Bay-Delta is requested in the amount of $40.0 million
for the following program areas: $5.0 million for water storage
studies; $3.5 million for the conveyance program; $7.5 million for
water use efficiency; $8.5 million for the science program; $5.0
million for water quality assurance investigations; $8.5 million for
ecosystem restoration projects; and $2.0 million for Reclamation's
oversight function to ensure program balance and integration.
fiscal year 2011 planned activities
Reclamation's fiscal year 2011 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 has set a goal to prevent an additional 12,700 tons
of salt from entering the water ways in fiscal year 2011. The actions
Reclamation will take to accomplish this goal include selecting new
salinity control projects through a competitive process.
Moreover, the fiscal year 2011 budget request demonstrates
Reclamation's commitment to 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 2011 and beyond.
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.

Senator Dorgan. Mr. Connor, thank you very much. We
appreciate that.
Senator Harkin has asked for the privilege of asking a
single question in order that he may chair a hearing at 10
o'clock, and if there's no objection on the subcommittee, I
would honor that request.
Senator Harkin.

CEDAR RAPIDS FLOODING

Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate the indulgence of the subcommittee.
I just have one question for Secretary Darcy. Cedar Rapids,
the second largest city in Iowa, suffered a major flood, as you
know, in 2008. It was broadcast all over the world. We saw
houses floating down the river. It destroyed a great part of
downtown Cedar Rapids. Over 5,000 homes were destroyed. The
water was higher than even 1,000-year floods. It was the
highest ever, ever on record. The Rock Island District is now
working on the feasibility of doing a flood control project
involved--improving Cedar Rapids' ability to withstand future
floods.
Here's the problem, some parts of that project may meet the
traditional requirements of the cost-benefit ratio. That would
be improvements on the east side of the river that protects
most of downtown and another part that protects some
industries, Quaker Oats being the major one.
But it looks unlikely that the traditional cost-benefit
analysis would be positive for the west side of the river.
Well, on the west side of the river, we have over 4,000 homes
of moderate- to low-income people. Many of them were damaged in
the flood, and what happens--these are families of modest
means. If the project moves on the west side of the river, you
can then see that the west side may experience a worse flood in
various scenarios because the east side would be protected.
I was pleased to see the December 3, 2009 proposed national
objectives, principles, and standards for related resources
draft. It looks at non-monetary fix, such as community impacts
on groups such as those with lower incomes and the effects on
the economy of the area.
So, I think it's extremely difficult to move forward with
only protecting the higher income and the downtown areas, while
increasing--actually increasing--the flood risk to those with
lower incomes, modest incomes, on the other side of the river.
The traditional national economic analysis just simply does not
take these considerations into effect and also what it would
mean economically for that side of the river, in terms of
businesses and things like that, that simply wouldn't go there.
My question is--I just want to get your views on the need
to move forward with a project that is crucial and whether or
not it would be appropriate to consider these other concerns
for a project like this.
Ms. Darcy. Your reference to the Principles and Guidelines
being drafted is exactly what that's designed to do.
Traditionally, we have only looked at national economic
benefits when considering water resources projects. With the
new Principles and Guidelines, we are looking at more than just
the economic impact; we're looking at the environmental impact,
the impact to the community as well as to other impacts,
including social values. With the new Principles and
Guidelines, we'll get at exactly the concern that you have in
your study.
Senator Harkin. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Senator Harkin.
For the information of members who weren't here when I
began, I indicated that I have to leave at 10 o'clock. We have
the FAA bill on the floor, and I also have to be at a Commerce
Comcast-NBC merger hearing ever so briefly. So, Senator Tester
will take the chair at 10 o'clock.

EFFECT OF PROPOSED BUDGET ON AUTHORIZED BUT UNFUNDED PROJECTS

Let me ask a couple of questions. Secretary Darcy, again, I
understand your role, and that is to support this budget and
not vary even one degree if you can avoid it, but it seems to
me that we have $67 billion of authorized unfunded Corps
projects. Some of them will never be built, but we guess that
somewhere around $20-25 billion of those projects are going to
be built. They are authorized, but at the current level of
funding, it will take a long, long, long time to build and
invest in that infrastructure. It just seems to me that a
reduction of nearly one-half a billion dollars in fiscal year
2011 in investment in Corps water projects is not going to be
able to do what we need to do to invest in these infrastructure
projects. What is your judgment about that?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we can always use more money, but we
are going to make the best investments with the dollars that we
have, not only for the infrastructure but for the entire Corps
mission and the Corps program. We have a lot of challenges. We
have many unmet needs. The infrastructure in this country, we
all know, is aging. But within the dollars that we have
proposed in this budget, I think that we are going to do the
best we can with the high-performing projects that we are going
to be able to afford to fund.
Senator Dorgan. Yes. I would guess the consensus of this
subcommittee will be to re-prioritize the funding in the series
of accounts in order to avoid a one-half-billion-dollar cut in
water infrastructure funding. I just don't think that that's
what we ought to be doing at this point.
Let me ask General Van Antwerp a question. You used one
word that concerned me. You said, ``I think we have the funding
for this flood fight this spring.'' Did you mean to use
``think''?
General Van Antwerp. We do have the resources. Let me
clarify. We do have the resources right now for everything that
we can predict that we're going to need to do.
Senator Dorgan. My colleagues will remember last year that
the Red River flood fight went on for nearly a month. According
to the National Weather Service, it appears there is nearly a
100 percent chance that we will see major flooding within the
coming weeks, particularly in the Fargo-Moorhead area. So, they
are also working on a flood control project and Secretary Darcy
and I and others have talked about this. It's a very important
issue for them because it is a recurring problem and puts a lot
of population at risk and property and so on.

RURAL WATER PROJECTS

Let me ask, if I might, of the Bureau of Reclamation, how
did you arrive at the funding decisions for rural water
projects? Most of them seem funded at minimal levels, and the
fact is at these levels, inflation is probably going to
increase the project cost faster than the funding that we are
investing in the project. So, can we get some notion of how you
made these judgments about rural water?
Commissioner Connor. With respect to the rural water
program, we have been able to increase the level of funding up
to the $62 million, which I think reflects a similar amount to
that that was proposed in the 2010 budget. So, we are trying to
keep a budget that makes some continued progress with respect
to the two projects that have significant construction activity
and are nearing completion. Those would be the Garrison project
and Mni Wiconi. Within the available resources, given all the
competing priorities, we're trying to present a budget that
sustains activity in those other projects, keeps the
administrative activity on the ground, and helps people
continue to do their planning efforts and to do some level of
maintenance on the project facilities that have been
constructed since they're anywhere from 10 percent to 84
percent fully constructed.
So, I completely concede the point that at the funding
level of $62 million, several of those projects are going to
fall behind from an inflation perspective versus what we are
able to invest. But it's a level that has been brought up from
prior budgets over the last 3 or 4 years. We were able to make
significant inroads in some of the activity with respect to
Recovery Act money, and we're trying to prioritize within the
available resources in that account on a couple projects and
keep the others going.

INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION

Senator Dorgan. With respect to the Bureau, something
Senator Bennett asked about or raised during his opening
statement was that a recently passed lands bill, as Senator
Bennett indicated, gave Reclamation the authority to address
the rehabilitation of its aging infrastructure. Prior to this,
it had been a non-Federal responsibility. But much of the
infrastructure of the Bureau is well over one-half a century
old, and some of it is in pretty poor condition, and yet no
funding was provided in the budget.
And I guess the question I would ask is does this mean this
will be and remain a low priority for the administration? And
with the infrastructure over 50 years old, much of it over one-
half a century old, the problem will increase rather than
decrease; so has Reclamation developed contingency policies in
the event of the failure of infrastructure?
Commissioner Connor. Infrastructure is a very high priority
in our budget, and our budget starts with baseline numbers of
what it takes to operate and maintain our projects. That's
where building our budget starts, with those activities. That's
an annual view of maintenance to keep projects in operating
condition. We do have a significant issue with respect to major
rehabilitation, and the tool provided in the omnibus public
lands bill was a very valuable tool. Previously, there was just
no opportunity for our stakeholders to make that investment
beyond a 1-year period. Now we have a tool that, if resources
are provided, they can enter into a repayment contract not to
exceed 50 years.
So, that's part of what we need to be doing. We don't have
any money request in the budget. You're correct. But we're
still evaluating the needs in that situation. We invested $10
million of Recovery Act money to assess the condition of our
major canals. We're doing 95 stretches of canals that we
anticipate we will have reports on through the end of this
calendar year that will identify the need of where we think we
need to make investments. We are talking with some stakeholders
about their major rehabilitation needs, such as in Idaho, and
initiating discussions on what a repayment contract would look
like so that we can put that tool to work, should there be
resources.
And, finally, if we can do this without a major increase in
our appropriations for this activity, one of the keys is to
have the loan guarantee program that was authorized in the 2006
Rural Water Project Act. In trying to implement that loan
guarantee program, we came across several issues that need to
be evaluated, and that's going to be on our agenda this year,
to go back to the Office of Management and Budget and have that
dialogue on that loan guarantee program.
Senator Dorgan. Secretary Darcy, do we have the full
commitment of the Corps of Engineers to work with the Red River
Valley in Minnesota and North Dakota and the interests as they
move forward, not only to fight that flood this year again, as
they've done so many years, but also as they work locally to
make judgments about the comprehensive flood control project
that is necessary to protect the largest population center on
the Red River Valley? Is the Corps prepared to work fully with
State and local interests with respect to the Federal interest
on these projects?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Senator, we are.
Senator Dorgan. And anxious to do that?
Ms. Darcy. Can't wait.
Senator Dorgan. Happy to do that? It's going to be very
important. I mean, we've got people living on an edge here that
has been very troubling for them and now facing a very
significant, major flood threat once again. So, I appreciate
that.
Let me make one comment, and that is that, you know, 50
years ago, half a century ago or more, in this country we built
new things. We did a lot of projects, a lot of new projects. We
built an interstate highway system that connected the entire
country. We couldn't do that now in a million years. You
couldn't propose spending that kind of money to connect America
with an interstate highway system, but the fact is, if we don't
get serious about the infrastructure, yes, roads, bridges,
water projects, you name it, we won't be the kind of country we
used to be in the minds of people from around the world who
came to see what America built. You know, we won't be making
anything, and we won't be building anything. We've already gone
way down the road in not making anything.
But this budget is very important. This subcommittee is a
very important decisionmaker about what our country is going to
be in terms of the infrastructure we build for the future.
These are big investments that create significant assets for
decades to come. So, I want you all to work very hard inside
the administration next year to bring better budgets if you
can, because we're going to have to make significant judgments
and changes in this budget. I just think it substantially and
dramatically underfunds our water programs.
As I indicated, we will have 7-minute rounds. I exceeded
mine by a minute or so, but let me call on Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for your statement. I agree with you absolutely that
this subcommittee is going to have to exercise its authority to
try to correct some of the problems we have in this budget.

QUAGGA MUSSEL R&D PROGRAM

Senator Voinovich focused on the carp and the difficulties
that would create in the Great Lakes. People in Utah are very
concerned about Quagga mussels and the impact that they will
have as an invasive species in Lake Powell and other places.
And in fiscal 2010, we provided funding to the Bureau of
Reclamation to establish the Quagga mussel R&D program, and I'd
like to know what the status of that is.
Ms. Castle. Yes, Senator, the Quagga mussel program--the
science and technology and research and development on both
looking at materials that will resist the attachment of Quagga
mussels and also looking at ways to kill them selectively
without killing other life in the water--that is ongoing in
Reclamation's Technical Services Center. The budget for science
and technology this year, proposed for 2011 for the Bureau of
Reclamation, is about $6 million. Of that, approximately $2
million--and Commissioner Connor and Mr. Wolf can be more
specific--is for that Quagga mussel research.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I appreciate that specificity
and simply want to reaffirm the importance of following through
on that.

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT

You made reference, Secretary Castle, to CUPCA, the Central
Utah Project Completion Act, and the budget is up $1 million
compared to fiscal 2010. Obviously, you will insist that this
is the right number, but can we probe that just a little and
see what the total funding capability for CUPCA in fiscal 2011
and why you think that's adequate?
Ms. Castle. Senator, we were actually delighted to have an
increase in the CUPCA budget for 2011 given the austerity of
the overall budget. CUPCA also benefited, as you know, and you
were responsible for significant Recovery Act funding. It's my
understanding that CUPCA normally has about three project
contracts going at a time. We now have nine as a result of the
Recovery Act additional boost. So, that money has really
allowed us, together with the 2010 and 2011 budgets, to move
forward much more expeditiously than we had anticipated with
CUPCA, and we are fulfilling the capability of the Central Utah
Conservancy District.

2011 DROUGHT OUTLOOK

Senator Bennett. Very good. Let's talk about drought. What
is the drought outlook for the West in 2011? You've budgeted
$380,000 for drought assistance, and that means you must be
looking at a pretty wet year. Give me your background and your
attitude with respect to that.
Ms. Castle. Well, I'll take a crack at it, Senator, and
then turn to Commissioner Connor. The drought outlook varies
every year. We're used to seeing very significant droughts in
the Southwest. This year, it looks like we're going to have
significant drought in the Northwest, in the Columbia River
system, in the Upper Colorado Basin. And we're focused on that
in looking at our water management operations and trying to
plan for the best use of the available water. Fortunately, many
of our reservoirs have been able to refill over the past year,
so we're going into this, in these drought locations, in better
shape than might have been the case.
The drought assistance money that the Bureau of Reclamation
has had has not been huge amounts over its history. We have
authority for drought assistance. That authority expires at the
end of 2010 fiscal year. We do have $380,000 in the budget for
the contingency that we are able to spend that money for
drought assistance. We're able to use it for temporary
structures and for the construction of wells to assist in
drought relief. And that's something that we may want to work
with the subcommittee on to look again at the authorization for
drought assistance and determine whether those particular
authorizations make sense in light of current conditions.

LAKE POWELL

Senator Bennett. You say the reservoirs are refilling, and
that is true in the Central Utah Project. Do you have any sense
of where Lake Powell is going to be at the end of this year?
Back up, but how much or is that just a----
Ms. Castle. Yes----
Senator Bennett. Yes, I realize, but you've probably done
some studies as to where you think Lake Powell is going to be.
Ms. Castle. The most recent figures that I've seen indicate
that stream flows and precipitation, snow pack in the Upper
Colorado, the source of fill for Lake Powell, is about at 68
percent. So, it's been coming down and down and down. It
started the water year out very well, but things have not
progressed the same way. So, Lake Powell may not get any fuller
than it was--last year it was about 60 percent at its peak of
capacity. But let me defer to Commissioner Connor, who may have
more specifics on that.
Senator Bennett. Yes.

COLORADO RIVER BASIN

Commissioner Connor. Just a couple additional thoughts. I
think Lake Powell currently is a little over 60 percent of
capacity. The real issue is the Colorado River Basin--and all
the figures that Secretary Castle quoted are the ones we're
working with. As a result, Lake Powell will probably release
the minimum 8.23 million acre-feet this year to satisfy the
Colorado River Compact obligations.
Lake Mead is only at 44 percent capacity, and that's the
real concern at this point in time in the Colorado River Basin.
Fortunately, it was at 42 percent just a couple months ago. So,
the moisture in southern California and that area has helped us
save water, and that has improved the situation. And the
coordinated operations agreement that the seven basin States
put in place a couple years ago has helped us have an objective
set of criteria to manage those two reservoirs so that
everybody understands the rules and is dealing with them. But
if we don't turn around and have a good precipitation year--
we're in a 10-year drought cycle in the Colorado River basin--
we're looking at the possibility, within a couple years, of
having to declare a shortage in the Lower Colorado River basin.
So, things are touch and go with respect to that system.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tester [presiding]. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Moving from Utah
to Louisiana is about as different as you can get on this
subcommittee, and it shows how difficult and challenging our
work is, and your work, to accommodate the extraordinary needs
of the Nation with very limited resources. The Senator was just
questioning you about the lack of water, and I'm going to
question you about the fact that we have so much of it we don't
quite know what to do with it. And if we could keep it in our
rivers instead of out of neighborhoods and cities where homes
fill up to the roof with water, we would be in better shape,
and that's what my line of questioning is.

LOUISIANA COASTAL RESTORATION

I want to begin on a positive note, though, by thanking
this team and particularly the President for, in all of the
budget, designating only two new starts and one of those being
the coastal restoration efforts in Louisiana, which we have put
extraordinary and mighty and, I think, good work into getting
the Nation's attention about the great need. And I want to say
that we're grateful for the $10 million that is in this bill to
begin turning dirt, at least the Federal Government begin
really turning dirt, on Louisiana coastal projects, which
protect not just south Louisiana and parts of Mississippi and
actually benefit some parts of Texas, but actually benefit the
entire Nation as we are the largest drainage basin in the
Nation, the fifth or sixth largest delta in the entire world.
We have the largest land loss anywhere in the lower 48. And
it's quite an urgent matter.
But my question is this: We have $10 million for new
construction. That is going to be applied to 18 projects,
currently approved and pending authorizations, General or the
Secretary, the total of which is $2 billion in authorization.
So, I just did a little rough math, assuming these projects
will take anywhere from now to 7 years. We need $300 million a
year just to finish these 18 projects, which are the first
piece of the Louisiana coastal restoration effort. And you've
given us $10 million. We're grateful, but how are we going to
get where we need to go?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, as you say, this is a start. The needs
in coastal Louisiana have been identified by not only the
Congress but on the ground down there. We've got ongoing
studies also in the budget this year. We are funding six
additional studies--the six studies for the LCA program.
Senator Landrieu. I appreciate that. I don't want to
interrupt. I appreciate that, but the point is this--that we've
actually been studying this, the Federal Government has been
studying this now for more than 20 years, and this is the first
$10 million that's been directed in a budget for construction,
of studies associated with coastal security and restoration. We
don't really need more studies. What we actually need are more
hard dollars to construct what we already know we should be
doing. So, I just want to leave you, you know, with that
challenge.
I will second, ask for some comments from you, Madam
Secretary, about the White House Working Group on Coastal
Louisiana, which I know you were a part of, and this was part
of the outcome of this work. How--I'm encouraged by the first
step; I'm encouraged by the report that was released. How do
you think--and I'd like, General, you to comment as well--how
can we accelerate our work based on this new working group, and
what does the Corps--how does the Corps either its changing
role or a different role based on what this report has already
indicated? And maybe, General, I'll ask you, and then come back
to you, Madam Secretary.
General Van Antwerp. Thank you, Senator. First of all, I
think what it really is, is a signal for partnership and
collaboration and really working with local authorities to get
all of the input that we need so we get the preferred solution,
the best solution, and the one that has the best benefit-cost
ratio. I think it is definitely a move in the right direction.
Senator Landrieu. Did you all talk about accelerating the
time for planning, construction, and implementation?
General Van Antwerp. We have had a lot of discussion about
cutting the amount of time in the planning process. The other
issue that we've been discussing is the external reviews, in
that how can we make sure we get those done so that we get the
best and the brightest working with us, but not to extend the
time that it takes to get this done, to actually cut it down.
We're really looking at saving time to get to the end state, to
get to construction, as you've mentioned.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I would just mention to my
colleagues, this is really an unprecedented effort that's going
on between the Corps and many of the environmental groups, the
marine industry, the fisheries industry, the agriculture
industry, the oil and gas industry, the State of Louisiana, and
it really is an exciting project, but we're going to continue
to need to accelerate the work and find additional resources.

LEVEE CERTIFICATION

Going up to the top of my State, to Louisiana and actually
up to the Mississippi, there is great concern--you've heard it
mentioned again, and I guess maybe, Secretary, this would be
for you--about the recertification of the levees. Now, these
levees--this levee system was built in large measure after the
great flood of 1927, and that was generations ago. We didn't
even have GPS and the technology we have today to give accurate
elevation accounts. Now we're--the Corps of Engineers is
traveling up and down these levee systems through all of our
States, coming up with accurate data, but it's causing a
recertification of these levees, Madam Secretary. My question
is; is there any money in this budget to help even one
community with increased insurance costs or increased cost-
share?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, the money included in this budget is
not for certification for those levees. As you know, the local
sponsor is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and the
certification of those levees. We're finding across the country
that they are challenged mostly because of the time constraints
in getting a levee either certified or repaired, and then when
the FEMA flood insurance requirements will kick in.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I'm going to ask the Corps to
submit to this subcommittee an estimate of the total amount of
money that is going to be needed to accommodate these new
certifications. I think this subcommittee is going to be
shocked when the numbers come in, about what our communities
are going to have to either step up or pay in money that they
don't have or pay in additional insurance premiums to get flood
insurance coverage, and for Ouachita, for Rapides Parish in my
State. But it's all the way up the Mississippi River and
perhaps in some of the other river systems as well, so.
I have several other questions, but my time is out. I'll
submit the rest for, you know, written response, and just to
invite any of you that want to travel to the Netherlands, we're
taking a third trip. This subcommittee has been gracious about
supporting these efforts over time, and we've found some
extraordinary peer opportunities in the Netherlands about water
management, living with water safely, which is something I
think our country needs to learn how to do a little bit better.
Thank you.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. And it does
affect other drainages. I will defer till the end.
Senator Cochran.

EXPEDITING PROJECTS FOR JOB CREATION

Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Darcy, we appreciate very much your efforts to
work with the elected officials in our State of Mississippi to
identify and try to help move forward water projects,
reclamation projects, and protection of gulf coast areas that
are threatened. And our Governor is hard at work trying to
identify some of the things that can be done in cooperation
between the State and its responsibilities and Federal
Government agencies.
The reason this has taken on a new urgency is that just
this morning, we received word that unemployment in the State
of Mississippi has reached 12 percent. That was not expected,
but it--the news comes as a warning that we need to get busy
and figure out ways to deal more effectively with unemployment
problems and look to Government agencies who can contribute
with accelerating projects that were already approved, already
been funded, but where work and actual job-creating activity is
not moving as fast as it could be. So, I'm hopeful that we can
work with you and General Van Antwerp and others in the Federal
agencies and the Corps of Engineers to try to identify some of
these opportunities.
One permitting project that can be expedited, I'm told,
that has already be funded is the port at Gulfport, where work
can be done to help modernize and recover from some of the
damages that were sustained during Hurricane Katrina. We've had
serious damages done there that need attention, and we can
start work very quickly. There's a Mississippi coastal
improvement plan which is also finished. It's my understanding
that the Corps is looking at ways to improve and expand port
capacity in the Gulf of Mexico. We have a Panama Canal
expansion that's under way.
So, things are coming together now and providing
opportunities for us to really do some things that will help
economically both State and national interests.
So, I'm wondering--and I don't know which witness wants to
take this question, but what is the time line now for
implementation of the Mississippi Coastal Improvement Plan? We
provided $439 million for barrier island restoration work, and
we wonder when the work is actually going to begin.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I believe the work on that particular
program which was authorized in an appropriations bill and
included funding of $439 million, I believe that some of that
work has begun. In addition to that, we have submitted to the
Congress the Chief's report for additional ecosystem
restoration for the barrier islands and others along the coast
of Mississippi. It was the first Chief's report that we
actually submitted to the Congress earlier this year, and I
think that included 12 additional projects on the coast,
including the barrier island restoration.
Senator Cochran. General Van Antwerp, do you have
information you can provide us?
General Van Antwerp. I think that information covers it,
but your other question about getting the permits required--
we're committed to getting the permits as quickly as we can in
some of the areas like the Gulfport Harbor expansion. We are
probably going to need an EIS there because of its large amount
of fill and other things. Generally, an EIS takes 18 to 24
months. We're looking at all of those aspects to try and
expedite the permit process.
Senator Cochran. Well, our Governor, Haley Barbour, is
working very hard in his capacity as Governor of the State of
Mississippi to help contribute to expediting these projects.
And so, what I'm hopeful is that if you run into any delays
that can be dealt with either by legislation or by accelerating
appropriations directed toward some of these projects, you will
please let us know. I'd like for you to look at the budget
request you've submitted and find some areas where we can
provide funding that will help achieve these goals of better
and higher levels of protection and job-creating activities
where the projects have been approved, Congress has approved
them, directed that they be done, funding has been
appropriated, but nothing is happening. So, we hope we can
change that and we will have your cooperation in doing it.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Senator. I had the opportunity to tour the
coast of Mississippi with the Governor several months ago, and
he was adamant about not only expediting permits but, I think,
to quote the Governor, about the expansion of Gulfport Harbor,
he was ``as serious as a heart attack'' about that project. So,
we're well aware of it.
Senator Cochran. Well, with the Panama Canal expansion, the
opening of the new parts of that, we're going to see a lot more
traffic coming into the Gulf of Mexico, bigger ships. We're
going to have to accommodate those ships at gulf coast ports.
And the port at Gulfport is ideally suited geographically. The
public supports the expansion. You're not going to have people
out there lying down in front of the workers when they start to
work. People are going to be cheering and applauding because
they know it's a good idea economically, and in terms of
environmental concerns, it has already been cleared. Thank you
for whatever you can do to help expedite that.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Senator Johnson.

BUDGET POLICY OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Senator Johnson. I want to thank the panel for appearing
before this hearing. It is nice to see you again, Commissioner
Connor. And I hope that you are enjoying sitting on your side
of the desk after all the years you've spent in the U.S.
Senate. I also want to commend the Bureau on using the Recovery
Act funds to speed up the completion of key projects on water
systems in the Great Plains and South Dakota.
Commissioner Connor, it is my understanding that the
Bureau's first priority in funding rural water projects is a
required O&M component, and then for construction, the priority
is on projects nearest to completion and projects serving
Indian tribes. That stated policy doesn't seem to align with
the actual budget. I'm profoundly disappointed, in fact angry,
at the Bureau's budget for South Dakota projects in particular.
What the Bureau proposed was a budget that did not fund
drinking water projects with a tribal component, such as Mni
Wiconi, at their full capability, and then provided what
appears to be a fig leaf of money for projects without a tribal
component, such as Lewis & Clark. Can you explain to me what
appears to be an absolute disconnect between the Bureau's
budget policy and the actual funding requests?
Commissioner Connor. Senator Johnson, there is some
consistency with the priorities, given the fact that Garrison
and Mni Wiconi did receive the most resources in the budget
request, based on both their tribal components and where they
are in the construction phase, being two of our most advanced
projects.
With respect to the other projects, we are within the
resources we have, once again, which do not reflect capability,
as you noted. We are trying to maintain some activity on those
projects to allow there to continue to be planning activity and
for there to continue to be some level of maintenance of the
facilities that have been constructed. We did, as threshold
matter, take into account O&M as the priority. So, we have $15
million of the $62 million that's been identified in the budget
is for O&M. I think it amounts to $5 million for Garrison and
$10 million Mni Wiconi. And those are, quite frankly, eating up
an increasing part of the overall budget that we can make
available within the resources we have right now.
So, I think the answer to your question is we are trying to
allocate those resources on a proportionate basis, based on
those priorities, those are the overall amounts that we have. I
certainly understand it doesn't keep up with the construction
schedules that could be attended to if there were available
resources, and we're trying to do our best to keep the projects
in some level of activity as we move forward.
Senator Johnson. I would remind you that the State and
local share has been completely exhausted, and all that's left
is the Federal share.
I know that the State of California has required quite a
bit of your time and energy over the past several months.
Speaking for members of the Great Plains region, I'd like to
extend an invitation to you to travel to South Dakota to see
for yourself the progress being made in completing these
important rural water projects serving hundreds of thousands in
South Dakota.

NORTHERN PLAINS FLOODING

General Van Antwerp, the Northern Plains region are under
the threat of significant overland and river flooding this
spring as a combination of very wet snow pack and saturated
grounds from a rainy, wet fall. Can you please describe in
detail what actions the Corps of Engineers are taking now to
prepare for a possible severe flooding?
General Van Antwerp. Thank you, Senator. We're taking a lot
of action right now. To outline a few of the things--first of
all, we've gotten with NOAA and we have the projections, as
best as they can determine right now, and that gives us the
early warning. We know that there is going to be significant
flooding. We've started with our community involvement. It's
actually been going on for quite some time, with the State and
Federal agencies. We've looked at the request for advance
measures and have received a lot of those where we've looked at
our inventories of things such as sand bags for example, and
things that would be part of those advance measures. We have
the resources we feel necessary to fight these floods. We
actually have people out on the levees today with the local
folks.
One of the other things we do is we lower the water levels
at our reservoirs. We're doing that right now in anticipation
so that we can be as ready as we can. We had a meeting
yesterday with all of our Commanders associated with this and
our security chiefs that have to do with the flood fighting
just to make sure those personnel resources can be made
available and are available when this happens.
We also have another event pending in the Pennsylvania
area, in which our Pittsburgh District handles. We're going to
be all across the country, maybe as early as this weekend.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tester. Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Bennett, for holding the meeting, my apologies for arriving
late. Senator Murray and I have the responsibility to try to
straighten out HUD with Secretary Donovan. She is questioning
him at length and will be here, and I'm going back. Anybody
wants to go take a few shots in the interim, please do so.
But, Lieutenant General Van Antwerp and Madam Assistant
Secretary thank you very much for your testimony.
Jo-Ellen, we welcome you back to the Senate. I hope I won't
get you in trouble with the administration to say that we all
were glad to have a long-time friend from the legislative side
on the other side of this debate. So, I hope it doesn't mess
you up.
But as you all know well, there's one issue that's near and
dear to the hearts of several of us. Senator Dorgan and I are
both very interested in the regulation of the Missouri River.
Now that Senator Dorgan and I have full lakes and a full
navigation season, our work is complete, so we both are able to
retire from the Senate in 2011. I know how much you will miss
us both and all our helpful counsel, but with us gone now the
entire burden lies on you, don't blow it.
We finally got the lakes and the rivers full, and it's up
to you to keep it going.

INLAND WATERWAY MANAGEMENT

But on waterways in general, we have some very difficult
economic times, and we're all looking for stimulus. There's a
lot of money being spent. I hope that you two are being strong
advocates within the administration for budget priorities. And
there are budget priorities that are very important.
We have immense capacity on our rivers for shipping. It's
efficient. It takes far less energy, releases far less
pollution, and it's a big answer to long-term congestion
problems. This is a win-win opportunity. We have projects in
the backlog that are shovel-ready, and I hope you're looking at
these and fighting for them. They need to be--they need to be
included in the budget and the plans. A big priority for a lot
of us in the Midwest is modernizing the Social Security-age
locks on the Mississippi River. If you are for increased trade,
commercial growth, and job creation, all of which we
desperately need right now, you cannot get there without
supporting the basic transportation and infrastructure, like
the much-needed new locks and dams on the Mississippi.
As we look 50 years into the future, we have to ask
ourselves a fundamental question: Should we continue to be
stuck with a system that was designed in a transportation
straightjacket for 1950 rather than 2050? It was designed when
we still had paddle wheel boats, and we are strangled. I've
visited those locks. I've seen the double locking they have to
go through. And we know that if one of those locks--they don't
just leak right now; sheets of water come down when the water
is low. If one of those locks on the lower Mississippi--one of
the lower ones goes out our trade is going to be crippled.
You remember what happened--well, those of us in
agriculture territory know what happened when Hurricane Katrina
blocked the mouth of the Mississippi River. I mean, it was a--
it was a huge shock to the entire economy of rural Midwest.
That's where I live. That's where my people live. And I was
very troubled and disappointed that while funds for river
modernization are authorized, there's no money for those
projects in the budget. The oversight is disappointing since
the locks are our Nation's most important inland waterways and
the projects are ready to go. I'm stumped by the budget
oversight. Since the President has been on his--you may
remember he was a lead partner with me in authorizing the
project, and the future is now in his hands. Get the word to
the Budget Office.
I see this as a most promising opportunity to get something
big and important underway. It is good for jobs. It is good for
reducing energy dependence, and it is the best thing we can do
in transportation right away for lessening pollution. This
project would involve 48 million man-hours, creating much
needed jobs. And our friends in labor, throughout the Midwest,
are crying for this job stimulus, which is good for the
economy, good for the environment. It will put--it will help
people in the Heartland grow, mine, manufacture things, and be
more competitive.
Additionally, river modernization has broad ecosystem
restoration components, and while that doesn't create as many
jobs as we would see on the commercial side, it would help
broaden the support for pressing forward with a meaningful
project with bipartisan support. And, as I said, the President
when he was in the Senate was a vigorous supporter of this, and
we need OMB to get the joe.
Now, I guess I'm going to be sending a letter to the
administration, but, General, let me ask you, are you working
on these opportunities? Are you looking for similar
opportunities where the Corps can work with stakeholders, work
on American job creation, and work to get the necessary
financing behind the projects that I think anybody who has paid
any attention to it knows we badly need? What's happening?
Where are you going? When are we going to see some budget
recommendations?
General Van Antwerp. Thank you, Senator. There are a lot of
questions in there. I'll try and give it my best shot. I was--
--
Senator Bond. How are we going to get--we need money in the
budget.
General Van Antwerp. Right.
Senator Bond. That's the question.
General Van Antwerp. That's the bottom line.
Senator Bond. What are you doing to get it there?
General Van Antwerp. I guess the first thing is to really
know what we have and what condition they're in, and we do know
that now.
Senator Bond. Yes.
General Van Antwerp. So, we can prioritize those things.
You know we had some lock chamber problems this year, and what
we don't want is unscheduled outages because that's what backs
up the industry. We do know what we have, and we've taken these
dollars in this budget and, as best we can, prioritized for
those that are most crucial, have the largest impact, and have
the most--I guess the most opportunity for failure. So, that's
how we've budgeted right now.
Senator Bond. But you know there--the needs are far greater
than the dollars in the budget.
General Van Antwerp. The needs are far greater than the
dollars we have----
Senator Bond. Far greater.
General Van Antwerp [continuing]. To put against them. Yes.
Senator Bond. What can you do to help get the dollars
there?
General Van Antwerp. Well, I think that the first step
really is what we've done, and that is to let the need be known
with the priorities, so that we know that with whatever dollars
we have, we're able to do the best we can. We have some
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars in the O&M
account, about $2 billion in the civil works arena. That helped
a lot, but the backlog is great. The American Society of Civil
Engineers says the infrastructure backlog in the country is
$2.2 trillion. That is what we're up against, and we have a
part of that, as you said. It's Social Security age. I like the
way you stated that. That's the age of our lock system.
Senator Bond. Unfortunately, when we talk about Social
Security age, I'm at the age where ``don't ask, don't tell''
refers to the year I was born in so, I know something. The
locks are older than I am which should be shocking.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to--I'm going to have to go back
to the hearing, but I know that Senator Murray obviously has
quite a few things she'd like to ask. But I'll leave you with
good wishes and the profound hope that we can work together and
make sure we get the money in the budget for what is a
tremendous opportunity that we're missing now.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator Bond. And tell Senator
Murray that, when she gets here, we'll be open for business,
but tell her to move quickly.
Senator Bond. I'll do that.
Senator Tester. Thank you.

LEVEE CERTIFICATION

This is a question for Secretary Darcy and General Van
Antwerp, and it deals with a singular town, but by Senator
Landrieu's questions, it's more broad-spread than that, and I
think you know that.
Right now, the city of Great Falls is having--Great Falls,
Montana, is having a serious problem getting their levees
certified for inclusion on the FEMA flood maps. Last July, FEMA
let Great Falls know that their levees would need to be
certified. When Great Falls went to the Army Corps for help, it
turns out that those policies changed the January before to say
that no Federal funds could be used on levee certification
unless it was in an active Army Corps area project. That left
not only Great Falls but a lot of folks scrambling to find out
how they could come up with an engineering firm that was
qualified to do the work and, second and even more challenging,
a way to pay for it. Because all the communities in Montana are
rural, you do not have the population to be able to spread out
those costs.
I was just wondering why that change was made, why the Army
Corps made the change to not do any more certification, and
what are they doing to help small communities with levee
certification.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, the decision was made to change the
policy because of resource limitations to certify the levees.
We, at the moment, are trying to work with the locals in order
to provide some sort of way to help them with their
inspections, but at this time, we don't have a budgeted
resource for that service.
Senator Tester. Okay. So, ultimately--I mean, Senator
Landrieu asked a question of how much it was going to cost.
We've heard anywhere from, well, around $30,000 a mile. The
folks in Great Falls that I talked to said it was going to be
more than that. How are we going to solve this problem? Because
the fact is, if we don't get the levee certified, if they don't
have the means to do it, and the flood insurance goes up,
houses don't get sold--it further depresses an already
depressed economy. How are we going to fix it?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I think one of the things we can look
at doing is working with FEMA. I think one of the challenges
that many of the local sponsors are finding is one of time,
that there's a 2-year window here in order to get your levee
certified before the increased flood insurance rates would kick
in, and in many instances, it may just be a matter of time in
order to get the resources and get the levee in shape to get
certified.
I think if we can work with FEMA in order to look at some
kind of--I'm not sure what the end result would be, but I think
we need to look at that because there are lots of people, not
only in Montana, but around the country who are faced with the
same challenge. And it's not that they were bad actors; it's
just there's not the time nor the resources to do whatever is
needed to bring the levee up to certification.
But your point about is there a firm in their geographic
area or nearby who has the capability and----
Senator Tester. Right.
Ms. Darcy [continuing]. And the wherewithal to provide that
certification.
Senator Tester. And it's not only time; it's liability,
too, because during that 2-year period, the liability shifts to
local cities, towns, counties. Is there anything that can be
done about that?
Ms. Darcy. That, again--I think we have to address it. I
can't tell you right now what that would be.
Senator Tester. Okay.
General Van Antwerp. Senator, if I might add, one thing
we're doing right now is we're trying to get the databases for
inspections that have been done so that it can cut down on the
cost of certification. There are a lot of A-E firms out there
that will do the certification today, but, as you suggested,
it's the cost. And it can range from between $150,000 to $1
million depending on----
Senator Tester. How big the levee is?
General Van Antwerp [continuing]. The levee.
Senator Tester. Yes and the other issue is bonding, because
of the liability issue.
General Van Antwerp. Right, your liability associated with
that.
Senator Tester. Yes. Along those lines, you are
performing--the Army Corps is performing some work on those
levees. Is it your opinion that work will be able to be used in
the recertification project to help drive costs down, even if
the recertification is done by a private engineering firm?
General Van Antwerp. We basically have four types of
levees. We have levees that are Corps-built, Fed-built, and
Fed-operated O&M.
Senator Tester. Yes.
General Van Antwerp. Then we have the Fed-built, but
locally maintained.
Senator Tester. Right.
General Van Antwerp. And then we have some that are in a
category that we flood-fight, and then we have the others. And
the others are about 100,000 miles worth.
Senator Tester. That's fine.
General Van Antwerp. So----
Senator Tester. The question is, is where you are already
doing certification work, is it possible to use that
certification work to help keep costs down by a private firm
that's doing certification work? And----
General Van Antwerp. We're working----
Senator Tester [continuing]. Is that being done now,
because there's a lot of work that has to be done.
General Van Antwerp. Where we're doing certification work
right now is in the area where it's Fed-owned and Fed-
maintained, and so that's the limit of what our resources
allows us to do. So, that other area, other than giving them
all the data we have for those other types of levees, that's
been our contribution to try and help them cut costs.
Senator Tester. Okay. And just to confirm, I heard you,
Secretary Darcy, say that you were going to--because this is my
next question. I think you may have already answered it. That
the Army Corps was going to work with FEMA to help with local
communities with the flood issue. Because it's--I mean, we've
got them across the board. I mean, town that have--Malta,
Glasgow, Chinook, Saco. I mean, some of these are really small
towns. There has to be a solution for this; otherwise, we're in
big trouble.
Ms. Darcy. I think that we will need to work with FEMA in
order to help to address that concern because, as you noticed
and as you have stated, it's nationwide.
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to kick it over
to Senator Murray, and then I've got some questions for the
Corps after Senator Bennett gets done.
Senator Bennett. I'm waiting to hear what Senator Murray
has to say following on Senator Bond. So----
Senator Murray. I will just send him back to
Transportation, so.
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate your having this hearing. I know the Corps is facing
some tough budget times ahead, and I appreciate the work all of
you do out on the ground.

HOWARD HANSON DAM

General, I wanted to talk to you because, as you know,
Howard Hanson Dam in my home State of Washington, has a
significant seepage problem that is putting all of our
downstream communities at serious risk of very, very dangerous
flooding, and I really want to thank you and Assistant
Secretary Darcy for coming out, visiting the dam and seeing
first-hand how important this is to all the people in the Green
River Valley below it. And I see that General Grisoli and
General McMahon are in the audience as well. They came and
talked with all of us last week. I know they are up to date on
this. And I appreciate the tremendous amount of work on this.
I know that the Corps is currently working on a study now
to determine what needs to be done at Howard Hanson Dam, and as
you know, this study needs to be completed by a certain point,
by June of this year, in order to be considered for the fiscal
year 2012 construction funding. I sent a letter to you all back
in February urging you to move quickly on the study so that we
will know what we need to do to protect our Green River Valley
communities, and I can't stress enough how important it is that
the Corps get that done.
So, my question to you this morning, General, is what
assurances can you give me that this study will in fact be
ready by June of this year?
General Van Antwerp. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
I'm getting the latest and greatest information right now.
Senator Murray. I can see that.
General Van Antwerp. The study will be at the point that we
will have alternatives identified so that we can begin the
process of the design.
Senator Murray. By June of this year?
General Van Antwerp. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. Okay. I really appreciate that. And,
Secretary Darcy, thank you so much for your work and working
with us a lot on the advance measures for Howard Hanson and,
again, for coming out. I want to continue working with you to
find ways, as we move forward on this, to make sure everybody
is as safe as possible.

COLUMBIA RIVER

But I do want to ask you this morning about another
critical issue to my State. I worked very hard and was able to
include $26.6 million in the Recovery Act for the Army Corps to
complete the Columbia River Channel Deepening Project in
Washington State. It was a big victory for the region. That
deeper channel is so important to us to accommodate larger
ships, to help the economy in the region, and to support 40,000
jobs that depend on that maritime commerce. That project, right
now, creating jobs is people at work. I was there a few weeks
ago. It is really laying the foundation for long-term economic
growth, and that's why I thought it was such an important use
of recovery funding.
But I am concerned still that all of that work that we've
done and all the time we put into that will be for nothing if
the Columbia River jetties fall into disrepair. Those jetties
are so important to our shipping industry. That supports
billions of dollars in economic activity throughout the region.
Those jetties actually protect the mouth of the Columbia River
from all the ocean waves as well as a lot of beach sand that
clogs that shipping channel. And their continued effectiveness
is absolutely essential to this region and to our economic
health.
So, I was really happy that the Corps did put forward a
plan to bolster those jetties, and I'm committed to working
with you to make sure that you have the resources you need to
get that done.
But my question this morning is, directly to you, will you
continue to work with me and our local communities to make sure
that we move forward in a timely fashion on those critical
jetties' repair?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, we will, Senator.
Senator Murray. And you'll continue to prioritize that
issue, plan budgets to make sure we have the necessary funds
for it as well?

ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY

Ms. Darcy. We will strongly consider it always.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
And, finally, Commissioner Connor, while you're here, I
wanted to ask you--I'm really disappointed that the President's
budget doesn't include funding for our Odessa Subarea Special
Study. You know the Columbia Basin Project is a critical tool
for our farmers in my home State of Washington and neighboring
States. It secures a reliable surface water supply for the
producers. That's very important to making sure that the
continuation of agriculture in central Washington and to
protect our ground water supply as well. Can you tell me this
morning how the Bureau is progressing with the funding Congress
has provided? And are you still on track for completion in
2011?
Commissioner Connor. At this point in time, we are making
good use of the resources that Congress has provided and that
you specifically were able to get for us with respect to the
study activity. So, we are on track right now with the
environmental impact study to get a draft out this spring 2011.
Hopefully, we will not have a whole range of issues, and the
game plan is then to be able to finalize that document in the
spring of 2011. So, we still are on track at this point in time
with the funding provided by this subcommittee, plus the State
funding. I think we've got enough. We will keep your office
posted if we think we're going to run short of funds.
Senator Murray. Okay. Please stay in very close touch with
us. This is very important for that region of our State--
actually, for our entire economic region there. So, I
appreciate it very much, and we want to continue to work with
you on that.
Commissioner Connor. Absolutely.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me jump
in, I appreciate it.
Senator Tester. Absolutely. I thank you, Senator Murray.
A couple questions more for the Corps, and then we'll go
over to the Bureau of Reclamation.

CERTIFICATION COSTS

The Omaha folks from the Army Corps were in my office 10
days ago, and we talked about the certification issue. One of
the things that they brought up that I didn't follow up with
them, so I will with you, is could the Corps do certification?
They've said it would cost a lot more for the Corps to do the
certification than it would for a private engineering firm to
do it. Is that correct, and if it is correct, why?
Ms. Darcy. I don't know if that's correct.
Senator Tester. Okay. That's all--that's good enough.
Ms. Darcy. I couldn't tell you which was more costly.
Senator Tester. Okay. That's cool. Since we've got the
Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation here today, it is good to
have you all here. And, by the way, from the lines of
questioning, you've got a very difficult job, and I appreciate
the work you do. Everybody's got their priorities, and it seems
like some of them are at loggerheads with one another.

ST. MARY'S REHABILITATION PROJECT

But I want to ask you about a project in Montana we've
talked about. The chairman of this subcommittee has helped with
it a lot. The St. Mary's Rehabilitation Project. That project
is probably nearly as old as Senator Bond's dad.
Last time I went out there, there were chunks of concrete
falling off the dam. The Bureau of Reclamation has been getting
appropriations for the studies to rehabilitate the project. In
the last water bill, the Army Corps was authorized to do the
project on a cost-share. Since you're both here, my question
is, which one is going to take the lead?
Ms. Darcy. Did you see us looking at each other?
Senator Tester. You can arm-wrestle in the middle, if you'd
like.
Commissioner Connor. He who speaks first--is that the----
Ms. Darcy. The WRDA authorization of 2007 did give
authority to the Corps and at that cost-share; however, it is
not budgeted for in the Corps budget. And I think that the
Bureau has $3 million--is that right--for this year? I'm not--
--
Senator Tester. So that indicates that the Bureau will be
taking the lead.
Commissioner Connor. At this point in time, we have some
resources.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Commissioner Connor. We see a process to start dealing with
the diversion dam issues with ESA; we can also look at
rehabilitation. So, that's what's happening in 2010.

RURAL WATER PROJECT BACKLOG

Senator Tester. Super. Commissioner Connor, you testified,
I think last--it was last fall now that you have about $2
billion in authorized rural water projects as a backlog. What
are we going to do about it? Do you guys have a--do you have a
plan for that to get them addressed? And the reason I bring it
up is because--the comments I made in my opening statement. A
project that I started working on 12 years ago that was $100
million is--two of them. They were each $100 million projects.
Now they're each $300 million projects. The money that's been
appropriated over the--well, the money that's been
appropriated, with the exception of the Recovery Act dollars,
hasn't even kept up with inflation. And I'm sure they're all in
that same boat if they're backlogged in. What do you have--I
mean, what--what's your vision?
Commissioner Connor. Well, the vision right now is one
that's an incomplete picture, quite frankly. Through the last 2
years with the increases in our budget that have been provided
by Congress, plus the priority placed on rural water through
the Recovery Act, we've been fortunate to be able to invest
something to the tune of $460 million in these rural water
projects. That still leaves a $1.2 billion backlog in
authorized projects, and if you add in the pipeline projects
we're doing associated with Indian Water Rights Settlements, we
are at the $2 billion figure.
Senator Tester. Correct.
Commissioner Connor. So, we've got a good work plan for
2010, even through 2011, since there's a large amount of
construction activity. But then we're in a situation where
there's a big gap in how we're going to fund. With respect to
some of the Indian Water Rights Settlement programs, we've got
some help on the way in 2020 through some direct expenditures
that are available through the Reclamation Fund, and that was
part of Public Law 111-11.
But right now, we are looking at a situation where, you
know, the facts tell the story. We are at $62 million per year,
given the construction schedules and the need versus that $1.2
billion, we are not keeping up with inflation dollars at this
point in time, and we are looking at Government-wide flat
budgets for the next few years. So, we will continue to try and
prioritize the projects, get done what we can as we've done
with prioritizing Garrison and Mni Wiconi this year. We may
look at reallocating some funds, not much, but we are in the
process of finalizing how we're going to reallocate Recovery
Act funds to make sure we can meet the statutory deadlines. But
I can't sit here and tell you I have a game plan that's going
to solve that issue right now, in the coming years.

FORT PECK

Senator Tester. All right. All right, last question--it
actually goes off of Senator Bond's question. I wasn't going to
ask this, but I've got to. We've got a little lake in Montana
called Fort Peck, and a few years ago, when you flew over Fort
Peck, it didn't look like a lake anymore; it just looked like a
river because it was pretty well depleted. It has not--I don't
think it's close to full pool at this point in time. I think
it's got a long ways to go to get to that point. But it is
better than it was a few years ago.
The question I had, since you--the Army Corps is
responsible for that, is there enough water to take advantage
of the recreational opportunities in a place like Fort Peck,
that's critically important to their economy, and take care of
our shipping needs downstream? Or is that--must that be
prioritized? And what's the Army Corps's priority? Is it for
the shipping or is it for recreation, as we move forward?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I think, with regards to Fort Peck, the
releases from Fort Peck into the Missouri River are, many of
them, dictated by some endangered species that are downstream,
as opposed to the shipping interests. I think we currently need
to sustain the population of the pallid sturgeon and the least
tern----
Commissioner Connor. And----
Ms. Darcy [continuing]. On the Missouri, in that stretch of
the river between Fort Peck and the Missouri. That is what is
helping to dictate the operation manual for Fort Peck.
Senator Tester. So, it isn't dictated off of shipping?
Ms. Darcy. It's dictated off of the authorized use of Fort
Peck, of the Fort Peck Dam that was built there.
Senator Tester. Okay. Let me back up a little bit. Is
release based off of endangered species or is it--is it based
off of shipping needs downstream?
Ms. Darcy. It's based off of the authorized purpose of the
Fort Peck Dam.
Senator Tester. Which is?
Ms. Darcy. Which is--I believe it is recreation and----
Senator Tester. Okay.
Ms. Darcy. It is multi-purpose.
Senator Tester. Just--yes.
Ms. Darcy. I know its recreation.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. But I know--but I know part of what is
determining the operation--when the master manual was redone--
--
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. Darcy [continuing]. In the late 1990s.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. Consideration had to be made for the endangered
species downstream.
Senator Tester. Okay. We'll continue the dialogue as we
move forward because, as we talk about flooding downstream in
the Missouri River, I don't think it's going to come out of the
mountains of Montana. We're at about 60 percent of normal in
snow pack. And so, that's going to put the water level at Fort
Peck becoming a big issue again, as it always is.
I want to thank you all for being--Senator Bennett, did you
have anything?

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

At this time I would ask the subcommittee members to please
submit any questions they have for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Departments for response subsequent to
the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy and Lieutenant General
Robert L. Van Antwerp
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
general budget questions
Question. The budgetary criteria used for determining the budget
request is not statutory, correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, that is correct.
Question. How is the criteria developed?
Ms. Darcy. The budgetary criteria were developed in response to the
Government Performance and Results Act, establishing Civil Works
business lines and developing criteria to delineate performance and
prioritize programs, projects, and activities for inclusion in the
budget.
The four principal metrics for the Civil Works program are, in
brief, Benefit-to-Cost Ratio, (BCR), potential to contribute to human
safety, potential to cost-effectively restore important aquatic
ecosystems, and effectiveness in reducing risk of failure in high
consequence situations. Applicable criteria are applied to each
project. Where more than one criterion applies to a project, these
criteria are considered in conjunction to make a balanced decision on a
project's merits. The Corps continues to refine the performance
metrics.
Question. What happens if a project that the administration
determines to be worthwhile does not meet the established budgetary
criteria?
Ms. Darcy. All eligible projects that are consistent with
administration policies compete on a level playing field for inclusion
in the budget. Projects that are considered for budgeting are
consistent with the Corps' main mission areas and the projects'
environmental and economic performance. Projects that do not meet
budgetary criteria are not included in the budget.
Question. Is the criteria adjusted during preparation of the
budget?
General Van Antwerp. Adjustments to the criteria are occasionally
made during formulation of the President's budget to reflect
administration priorities. For example, ongoing non-structural projects
with BCRs of 1.0 or greater were considered for funding in fiscal year
2011 because of the importance to the administration of ecosystem
restoration and non-structural solutions to water resource challenges.
The BCR thresholds for inclusion in the budget also may vary over time,
depending on the funding available for the Civil Works program within
the President's overall priorities.
Question. How would the budget request differ if you only used the
statutory requirements for considering projects?
Ms. Darcy. Statutory requirements do not provide a basis for
prioritizing eligible projects for funding. BCRs, Regardless of what
criteria are used, projects still need to be prioritized for funding,
because the universe of authorized projects far exceeds the amount of
funding available.
Question. Would it be correct to say that the budgetary criteria
are arbitrarily changed from year to year to accommodate funding
amounts or does the budgetary criteria drive the funding amounts
provided?
Ms. Darcy. Budgetary criteria can change periodically to reflect
changing National priorities, but that does not mean they are
arbitrary. Objective performance criteria are used to determine the
high performing projects to be included in the President's budget. The
total amount of funding available in the budget for the Civil Works
program is a function of the President's overall policies and
priorities.
Question. How do you explain the reduced request from fiscal year
2010 to fiscal year 2011?
Ms. Darcy. The fiscal year 2011 budget supports the
administration's commitment to constrain the overall level of non-
security discretionary spending. The fiscal year 2011 funding level
reflects a practical, effective, and sound use of the Nation's
financial resources.
arra
Question. Why has the administration consistently refused to fund
shore protection projects with ARRA particularly when in some cases
these projects have higher benefit to cost ratios than projects the
administration has chosen to fund?
Ms. Darcy. Last Spring, the administration allocated ARRA funds to
high priority infrastructure work. At the same time, the administration
engaged in a review of executive branch policies for shore protection
projects. Subsequently, shore protection projects with the highest
benefit cost ratio were included in the Presidents fiscal year 2011
budget.
Question. What is the status of the obligation of the ARRA funding?
General Van Antwerp. Approximately $3.2 billion, or 70 percent of
the total of $4.6 billion, has been obligated.
Question. How much of the ARRA funds have gone to small businesses?
General Van Antwerp. To date, 73 percent of all ARRA contracts and
45 percent of ARRA funding, or $1.3 billion, went to small businesses.
Question. How do the projected jobs to be created by ARRA compared
with the actual job creation?
General Van Antwerp. Comparisons are difficult for several reasons:
Not all recipients of Civil Works ARRA funds reported initially, and
there was uncertainty about how to calculate the jobs supported by ARRA
funds. Also, recipients of ARRA funds do not report jobs supported by
their subcontractors, which likely is a significant number for the
construction and maintenance work the Corps has funded. I understand
that the rule of thumb used by the Council of Economic Advisers is
$92,000 per job. For $4.6 billion, this would translate into about
50,000 jobs over the total period of spending. For the fourth quarter
of fiscal year 2009, recipients of Civil Works funds reported that
Recovery Act funds were creating or retaining jobs at an annual rate of
2,145. In the second quarter the number of jobs reported to be created
or retained was 6,047 at an annual rate.
Question. How accurate do you feel your job creation count is?
General Van Antwerp. There have been challenges with under-
reporting and data accuracy. The Corps is working closely with ARRA
recipients to ensure complete job data is provided for the recovery
reporting job count. The target for the next fiscal quarter is 100
percent accuracy in reporting by 100 percent of the recipients required
to report.
new orleans technical report on category 5 protection
Question. Is the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration
technical report complete? It is now over 2 years overdue for
submission to Congress. Where is the report now and when do you plan to
submit it to Congress?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps of Engineers has completed its
technical evaluation and transmitted it to the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works. Additional information will be provided to
the Assistant Secretary's office as soon as possible, to enable
completion of their review.
Question. Once the State of Louisiana has provided input on its'
views regarding the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Report
and you provide the report to Congress, how will you move forward on
the findings of the report?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps will engage with the State to
establish a cost sharing agreement and establish priority coastal areas
and risk reduction options for further evaluation. Some of the final
risk reduction options identified in the Louisiana Coastal Protection
and Restoration Technical Report are already being incorporated for
further evaluation under other ongoing feasibility study efforts such
as Donaldsonville to the Gulf of Mexico and Southwest Louisiana Coastal
studies.
Question. The Mississippi Coastal Improvements program report,
started at the same time as the Louisiana report, recommended near term
and long term solutions--some of which have already been funded. In the
drafts of the Louisiana report, there seems to be more of a focus on
providing options without providing recommendations. If you as our
experts cannot make recommendations to improve hurricane and storm
damage protection along the Louisiana coast, who should be making those
recommendations?
General Van Antwerp. The findings of the Louisiana Coastal
Protection and Restoration technical analysis identified multiple
effective approaches for greater reduction of risk in any specific area
of coastal Louisiana. However these approaches produce varying levels
of risk reduction in exchange for varying and significant exchanges, or
tradeoffs, of impacts to the public directly, social and economic
viability, and the environment, in addition to a range of significant
fiscal investment at the Federal and State level. As a result it is
viewed as critical that the final recommendations involve an
interactive consideration of the risk tradeoff values of the affected
communities and region and not be solely a function of technical
evaluation by the Corps.
louisiana hurricane protection system
Question. What is the status of the repairs to the existing
hurricane protection system?
General Van Antwerp. By June 2006, the Corps had repaired and
restored 220 miles of the system to the pre-Katrina level of
protection. The Corps also constructed 5 new safe rooms so pump station
operators can safely operate during storm events; added storm proofing
features to pump stations in Jefferson Parish for more than $28
million; completed 47 pump station repairs in Jefferson, Orleans and
St. Bernard parishes for a total of more than $56 million; and awarded
contracts for 16 pump station repairs in Plaquemines Parish for more
than $19 million--all completed with the exception of the Elaine Pump
Station which is scheduled for completion in November 2010. The safe
rooms and pump station repairs were all 100 percent Federal funded.
Question. What is the status of the improvements to the existing
system funded by Congress?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps has made significant progress on the
Hurricane Storm Damage Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS) in the last 4\1/
2\ years. More than 240 construction contracts have been awarded. To
date, $7.4 billion (or 51 percent) of the almost $15 billion program
for the HSDRRS Program has been obligated, including almost $2 billion
worth of direct contracts to small business firms.
The system is now stronger and more resilient than at any time in
history. Execution of the HSDRRS is more than one-third complete. The
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Surge Barrier at Lake Borgne is over 50
percent complete. The West Closure Complex, another major navigable
surge barrier and pump station that will reduce storm surge risk for
the West Bank, is 20 percent complete. Floodwall and levee projects in
New Orleans Metro area are 90 percent complete.
Question. Will the system be functional by June 2011 as promised in
the previous administration?
General Van Antwerp. We remain confident in our ability to deliver
the 100-year system on schedule and within budget. I would note that
the Corps shares responsibilities with local sponsors and other
partners who must provide real estate interests, borrow areas,
relocations and other technical matters, to deliver the HSDRRS program
to the public within the cost and schedule commitment. The support and
contributions of partners and stakeholders are essential to execute
this immense and complex program.
The HSDRRS is a top priority of the Corps of Engineers; the Corps
is using the overall resources of the entire Mississippi Valley
Division and other Corps expertise from across the Nation to keep the
program on schedule and deliver on the commitment to having the
physical features in place to provide 100-year level of risk reduction
by hurricane season 2011.
Question. What do you see as the current weak link in the system?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps of Engineers undertook an exhaustive
scientific analysis to determine the physical features and design
elevations necessary to deliver a uniform system of storm surge risk
reduction for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity and West Bank and
Vicinity projects. Upon completion of physical features of the system
in 2011, the project will deliver a uniformly robust and resilient
system, built to provide a 100-year level of risk reduction.
Question. There has been considerable discussion over the
replacement of the temporary pump stations constructed on the three
main outfall drainage canals after Katrina. The city wanted the
replacement stations to also replace the existing pump stations on the
canals so that water would only have to be pumped once. Congress
rejected this proposal in the fiscal year 2010 E&W Act. Am I correct
that this would not improve hurricane surge protection or storm damage
reduction?
General Van Antwerp. That is correct. The city's preferred plan,
Option 2 or 2a, provides no greater level of storm surge protection
than Option 1, the current plan to replace the temporary pump stations
with permanent, robust structures.
Question. What would the plan that the city desires do exactly? Do
any additional benefits accrue to the Federal Government or are they
all local benefits?
General Van Antwerp. Option 2 significantly modifies the city's
interior drainage by deepening and lining the outfall canals to
accommodate gravity flow of interior rain water to Lake Pontchartrain,
eliminating the need for pump stations at the interior of the canals.
The estimated cost (pre-feasibility level of design) is $3.4 billion.
Option 2a adds a plan to intercept and divert Jefferson Parish
(Hoey's Basin) rain water from the 17th Street canal to the Mississippi
River. The estimated cost (pre-feasibility level of design) is $3.5
billion.
Options 2 and 2a provide no greater level of storm surge risk
reduction than Option 1, the planned permanent canal closures and
pumps. Option 2 is a complex construction project that would take
several years to construct, at considerable impact and disruption to
the surrounding communities.
No additional benefits accrue to the Federal Government.
Question. Will the system work as the Corps has currently proposed?
Has it been tested?
General Van Antwerp. The proposed plan to build permanent closures
and pump stations at the mouths of the three outfall canals will
replace the temporary features in place today. These temporary features
performed exactly as planned during the coordinated pumping operations
with the Sewerage and Water Board during Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. The
Corps exercises these pumps frequently during regular operations and
maintenance as well as emergency operation exercises conducted with our
partners at the Sewerage and Water Board.
The permanent pump stations will have the capacity to handle the
current and planned future capacity of the S&WB.
Question. I understand that the Corps has agreed to modify, at
Federal expense, the permanent pump stations on the outfall canals so
that the State could install the locally preferred plan at a later
date. Has the State signed the cost sharing agreement on the
replacement of the temporary pumps for the three major outfall canals?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps has committed to replacing the
temporary pump stations in a way that would facilitate later
improvements to the local interior drainage system, should they be
authorized and funded or constructed by the State in the future.
The Army plans to execute a Project Partnership Agreement (PPA)
Amendment with the State of Louisiana, Coastal Protection and
Restoration Authority (CPRA) on March 12, 2010.
Question. What is considered the design life of the temporary
pumps?
General Van Antwerp. The temporary pumps were designed and built in
time for the June 2006 hurricane season. They have a limited project
life (5-7 years).
Question. What does that mean? Will the pumps fail or won't they?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps will provide the necessary
maintenance of the temporary pumps to assure their operability until
they are replaced. The temporary pumps will experience diminished
reliability and increased maintenance costs the longer they are kept in
service.
Question. Does not initiating construction going to drive
completion of the permanent pumps past the point of when the temporary
pumps will become much less reliable?
General Van Antwerp. Following the scheduled execution of a Project
Partnership Agreement Amendment between the Army and the State of
Louisiana on March 12, 2010, the Corps will have the ability to move
forward to provide robust, sustainable protection at the outfall
canals. The Corps anticipates completion of the permanent closure
structures and pump stations by fall 2014.
Question. Isn't the delay in initiating construction of the
permanent pumps putting the citizens of New Orleans at increased risk
WHEN, not if, the next hurricane hits?
General Van Antwerp. The temporary closure structures and pump
stations at the three outfall canals currently provide 100-year level
of risk reduction. However, they have a limited project life (5-7
years). The Corps will provide the necessary resources to ensure their
operability until the permanent closure structures and pump stations
are constructed.
national levee inventory
Question. Please report on progress on the National Levee
Inventory: How many levee miles have been inventoried to date?
General Van Antwerp. (1) Civil Works Program--14,000; (2) Other
Federal Programs--0; and (3) Non-Federal Programs--0.
Question. How many miles within WRDA 2007 authorities remain to be
inventoried?
General Van Antwerp. (1) Civil Works Program--Complete; (2) Other
Federal Programs.--Number of miles unknown. Will start to identify
levees in fiscal year 2010-2011; and (3) Non-Federal Programs--Number
of miles unknown. Will start to identify levees in fiscal year 2010-
2011 to the extent voluntarily provided by States and local
communities.
The Corps will continue to expand the National Levee Database (NLD)
to other Federal agencies and all the States. In accordance with title
IX, USACE will implement a process to collect available levee
information from States and communities for inclusion in the NLD.
Additionally, the Corps will work with stakeholders to facilitate their
use of the NLD for local levee safety programs.
allocations of fiscal year 2011--$15 million
Question. National Levee Inventory--$10 million to inventory yet to
be determined levee miles.
General Van Antwerp. Activities will include: (1) work with States,
other Federal agencies, tribes, and communities on the transfer of
technology and practices on levee inventory; (2) inventory newly
eligible levees within the Corps' authority; (3) operate and maintain
the National Levee Database; and (4) prepare a report to Congress on
the general condition and consequences of failure of levees within the
Corps' authorities.
The Corps is developing policy and procedures required for the
implementation of Tolerable Risk Guidelines (TRG) within its Levee
Safety program. The TRG build on the TRG policies implemented for the
Corps Dam Safety Program, include stakeholder review and feedback, and
serve the purpose of providing a framework for consistent, risk-
informed decisionmaking on the built levee infrastructure. We
anticipate having final policy and procedure completed within the
timeframe of the comprehensive Levee Safety Engineering Regulation
currently under development and to be published in Jan 2012.
Question. National Committee on Levee Safety--$5 million to do
what?
General Van Antwerp. The National Committee on Levee Safety (NCLS)
will work to further develop the governance structure of the
Commission, a stakeholder involvement plan, and a strategic plan to
implement recommendations in the Report.
NCLS recommendations can be found at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/
ncls/.
Question. What is the plan for completing the National Levee
Inventory to the full extent of the WRDA 2007 authorities?
General Van Antwerp. For the inventory and inspection, the Corps is
preparing a rollout strategy for the public release of the National
Levee Database. There will be different levels of access depending on
the user--Federal agency, State/local agencies, or general public. In
the second quarter of fiscal year 2010, the Corps will initiate a
survey (the Levee Census) by questionnaire that will define unique
identifiers for levee segments and facilitate development of the
inventory of levees by name and location. The elements of the survey
will contain requirements to determine the number of miles of levees in
the national inventory and other key attributes to define the scale of
effort in building a comprehensive National Levee Database. By the
first quarter of fiscal year 2011, the Corps will finalize a report
summarizing the results of the questionnaire and guidance for non-
Federal stakeholders to voluntarily provide available levee
information.
Once the National Committee on Levee Safety completes further
development of recommendations and the strategic plan, this requirement
of title IX of WRDA 2007 will be complete in fiscal year 2011.
Question. Is additional authorization needed to expand the National
Levee Inventory to include all levees in the Nation?
General Van Antwerp. Currently, title IX of WRDA 2007 only provides
the Corps the authority to collect available information for levees
outside the Corps' program only if it is voluntarily provided by State
or local governmental agencies. Since levee information in many cases
is scarce or nonexistent, completing a comprehensive National Levee
Database based on available information may not be achievable. The
Corps does not have the authority to conduct a one-time inventory and
inspections of all levees in the Nation, although such an inventory and
inspections could provide the quality of data necessary in a more
accurate national inventory that would include the general condition of
the levees. The term ``inventory'' includes surveying/geo-referencing
all features of the levee to populate the database. ``Inspection'' in
this case would be defined as the Corps periodic inspection for levees,
which is an inspection conducted by a multi-disciplinary team that
verifies proper operation and maintenance; evaluates operational
adequacy, structural stability and, safety of the system; and compares
current design and construction criteria with those in place when the
levee was built.
north dakota floods
Question. Based on past experience with the 2008 flooding, what is
the Corps doing to prepare (advance measures) for potential flooding in
North Dakota?
General Van Antwerp. While there were significant floods in the
Midwest (in particular on the Cedar River in Iowa) during 2008, even
more experience was gained when a flood of record was set in Fargo,
North Dakota during the spring of 2009. The James River Basin, located
in North and South Dakota, also set pools of record in 2009 which led
to many lessons learned about preparing and installing emergency
levees. The greatest lesson learned from the 2008 and 2009 flooding was
to engage locals, State, and congressional officials as early as
possible.
Since January 2010, the Corps' St. Paul and Omaha Districts have
been engaged with the National Weather Service (NWS) and the U.S.
Geological Survey in preparing for potential flooding in the Red River
basin. The Corps is currently preparing to activate the St. Paul
District Emergency Operations Center and to deploy its flood fighting
assets for the upcoming flood fight on the Red River of the North river
basin. Contracts for emergency construction will be in place up to an
entire month prior to the potential flooding.
The Corps has been receiving requests for advanced measures
projects and currently has 15 project information reports in various
stages, from preparation to review for construction of flood risk
management features.
The Corps put flood engineers on the ground this week, meeting with
local officials to determine flood fight needs. To date, the Corps has
received requests for technical and/or direct assistance from North
Dakota's Cass and Richland counties and the cities of Fargo, Lisbon,
Oxbow, Enderlin, Grafton, Harwood, North River, Jamestown, LaMoure and
Fort Ransom. Corps personnel are currently meeting with these
communities and providing technical assistance in preparing for this
year's potential flood event.
Corps reservoirs in North Dakota and Western Minnesota are being
drawn down to provide the maximum flood control storage in anticipation
of the high spring snowmelt runoff. These draw downs are part of our
normal operation procedures, but are being coordinated with local
agencies because they are being done in an accelerated way.
Question. Does the Corps have adequate resources and funds
available?
General Van Antwerp. Funding, supplies and flood fight personnel
are expected to be sufficient for a successful flood fight. The States
of North Dakota and Minnesota have specific information on the Corps'
inventories and understand that we will release our equipment at their
request, once local, county and State materials have been exhausted.
Question. What is the forecast for a potential flood this year?
General Van Antwerp. According to the 2010 National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, (NOAA) National Hydrologic Assessment,
there is an above average risk of significant flooding across North
Dakota this spring. The document notes that early season heavy rain
saturated soils which froze deeply before snow fell across the northern
Plains, and combined with substantial snowpack, has created an area of
above average flood risk.
The area of snow cover is more extensive than last year, creating
the potential for a more widespread flooding event. The Red River at
Fargo, North Dakota is expected to exceed the major flood stage.
Locations that have a greater than 90 percent risk of reaching or
exceeding major flood level are Fargo, Abercrombie, Lisbon, Harwood,
and West Fargo. Additional locations that have a greater than 50
percent chance of reaching or exceeding major flood level include
Wahpeton, Valley City, Halstad, Grand Forks, Oslo, Drayton, Pembina on
the Red River of the North, and Grafton on the Park River. Deeply
frozen rivers which froze at a high level in the region have created an
above average risk of ice jam flooding. The Souris Basin has been
spared significant rain so far this winter, but heavy snowfall has
resulted in a snowpack that is in many ways comparable to that of last
year at this time, especially in the immediate Minot area. The areas
north and west of Minot hold less snow and water equivalent overall and
continue to decrease upstream of Lake Darling.
Question. Is the ongoing Red River of the North study addressing
potential future flooding?
General Van Antwerp. Yes, the study is developing a Watershed
Management Plan which will identify possible flood storage locations,
provide technical assistance for local communities developing levee
plans, and develop detailed models allowing for easier implementation
of local plans.
Question. Given the damages resulting from the 2008 floods, what
other measures should be taken to lessen impacts from future flooding?
General Van Antwerp. The June 2008 flooding of the Midwest led to a
significant amount of Federal disaster flood relief given to victims.
The lesson learned for lessening impacts is to start the flood
preparations earlier and engage officials many months prior to the
expected flood. While there are several actions that should be taken to
lessen the impacts of flooding, there is nothing that can eliminate
flood risk and impacts.
The best way to lessen the impacts of future flooding is to prevent
development in the floodplain. This allows rivers to continue their
natural use of the floodplain and ensures that stages in existing
developed areas are not increased due to encroachment by additional
development. Local governments should enact and enforce strict
floodplain development ordinances.
Buying out flood impacted properties and relocating people out of
the floodplain is another important way to prevent future damages. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides some funding for
buyouts, but local and State governments are also actively purchasing
properties without Federal assistance. When FEMA funds a buyout, the
Agency places a deed restriction on the property that prevents future
uses of the land, including construction of flood control measures.
When local funding is used, no restrictions need to be imposed, so
permanent or emergency measures can be built to protect remaining
properties.
Other measures that should be considered include constructing
levees, diversions, and flood storage where such measures can be
justified. Non-structural approaches including raising existing
structures above the flood level can also be effective in reducing
flood damage. The Corps of Engineers is considering these alternatives
in several studies, including the Fargo-Moorhead Metro feasibility
study, the Fargo-Moorhead and Upstream study, the Red River Watershed
Study, and the reconnaissance studies for the Sheyenne River Basin and
Valley City, North Dakota.
Finally, all property owners located in or near a floodplain should
purchase flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program.
Although this will not prevent flood damage or the personal disruption
caused by flooding, it does mitigate the financial risk to individuals.
fargo-moorhead
Question. When will the Fargo-Moorhead Metro study be completed?
General Van Antwerp. The study is currently on an aggressive
schedule for a Chief of Engineers report to be completed by December
2010.
Question. What is the likelihood that the Federal Government would
recommend and cost share a 35,000 cfs Minnesota diversion?
General Van Antwerp. The National Economic Development (NED) plan
is still undergoing refinement. Initial results identified it as a
20,000 cfs diversion through Minnesota, but, there now appear to be a
number of factors supporting a larger Minnesota diversion as the NED
plan. The next step is for the Corps to fully develop the rationale for
recommending a larger plan, and then submit a request for a waiver of
the NED plan in favor of selecting a larger plan as the Federal
supported improvement plan to the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works) for approval.
Question. Would the administration support and budget for a North
Dakota diversion as a locally preferred plan?
Ms. Darcy. A Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) has not been identified
by the local interests. Once an LPP is identified, it would require
administration review and approval. While preliminary coordination has
been initiated, administration support of a North Dakota diversion as
an LPP is subject to review of documents supporting the plan. A locally
preferred plan with the non-Federal sponsor bearing the costs above the
NED plan and a BCR above 1.0-to-1 would be consistent with long-
standing policy. However, whether the project would be budgeted is a
future decision, and the project would need to compete with other
worthy projects for funding in the President's budget.
devils lake levee raise
Question. What is the status of the Devils Lake embankment raise
and are there any issues that could delay construction?
General Van Antwerp. Phase 1 construction is ongoing and the
Independent External Peer Review for this work is scheduled for
completion on March 24, 2010 so the Notice to Proceed on the embankment
work can be issued. The design is being completed on Phase 2, although
due to poor soils and additional design challenges, the decision has
been made to split the work into 2 contracts. Phase 2A is scheduled to
be advertised later this summer. The Corps is continuing to work with
the city and local residents to ensure the project is completed in a
timely and safe manner, although there are a number of challenges to be
addressed. Issues that could delay construction include: (1)
acquisition of the real estate on an aggressive schedule, including the
relocation of homes and businesses; (2) completion of the environmental
review; and (3) addressing the poor soil conditions to ensure the
structure can be constructed safely while under load (holding back
water).
Question. Does the project provide 100-year flood protection?
General Van Antwerp. No Sir. Previously, the Corps provided a
letter to FEMA stating that there was reasonable assurance that the
embankment could contain the 1 percent event. Since then, the lake has
risen such that the position taken in that letter is no longer
applicable. An updated letter is being prepared at FEMA's request. One
hundred-year protection will not be achievable until the entire
alignment is complete.
bayou meto, ar&la
Question. This project was funded in fiscal year 2010 for
construction. Has the Project Partnering Agreement (PPA) been signed by
the sponsor?
Ms. Darcy. No, the PPA has not been signed by the sponsor.
Question. Why did this project not receive ARRA funds?
Ms. Darcy. During initial identification of projects to receive
ARRA funds in the April 2009 timeframe this project had not received
construction funds and, therefore, was considered to be a new project.
ARRA specifically prohibits funding new Civil Works projects with ARRA
funds.
grand prairie, ar
Question. What is the status of the Grand Prairie project?
General Van Antwerp. Construction is continuing on the Grand
Prairie project under a PPA executed in June 2000. The project sponsor
continues to provide their share of project costs. Four items are
currently ready to be advertised: (1) DeValls Bluff, AR Pumping Station
sub-structure $6.5 million Federal share; (2) DeValls Bluff, AR Pumping
Station super-structure, pending Federal funds $21.7 million; (3)
DeValls Bluff, AR Pumping Station discharge and outlet structure,
pending Federal funds $16.8 million; and (4) DeValls Bluff, AR Pumping
Station electrical sub-station, pending Federal funds $3 million.
Question. This project has work ready to be executed that meets the
criteria for ARRA funds. Why wasn't this project funded with ARRA
funds?
Ms. Darcy. There are more projects eligible for funding than there
is ARRA funding available. Therefore, this project, like many others,
competed for these funds and the determination was made that there were
other more worthy projects that provide a high return on investment in
the Corps traditional mission areas of flood damage reduction,
navigation, and environmental restoration.
ozark-jeta taylor project, ar
Question. I note that this powerhouse rehab project is not in your
budget this year. Why?
General Van Antwerp. Ozark-Jeta Taylor, Powerhouse Rehab, AR
project is not in the budget because it did not meet the performance-
based construction guidelines used to prioritize projects in the fiscal
year 2011 budget.
Question. Last fiscal year you used ARRA funds to avoid terminating
the contract. Is lack of funding in the fiscal year 2011 budget going
to again force you to consider a contract termination?
General Van Antwerp. Customer funding will be requested through the
Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) to fund anticipated contractor
earnings in fiscal year 2011. If SWPA is unable to obtain Customer
funding, the Corps will proceed under the provisions of the ``special''
continuing contract clause to terminate the contract at the convenience
of the Government. The Corps anticipates making a decision on the way
forward within the next couple of months.
Question. How much will it cost to terminate the contract versus
provide funding in fiscal year 2011?
General Van Antwerp. It will cost $20 million to terminate the
contract. The Corps could use $23.5 million in fiscal year 2011 but I
must add that the capability estimate for each study or project is the
Army Corps of Engineers estimate for the most that it could obligate
efficiently during the fiscal year for that study or project. However,
each capability estimate is made without reference to limitations on
manpower, equipment, and other resources across the Army Civil Works
program, so the sum of the capability estimates exceeds the amount that
the Corps actually could obligate in a single fiscal year.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
Question. In June 2009, the administration released a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) entitled ``Implementing the Interagency Action Plan
on Appalachian Surface Coal Mining.''
The MOU noted that ``Federal agencies will work . . . to help
diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and promote
the health and welfare of Appalachian communities. This interagency
effort will have a special focus on stimulating clean enterprise and
green jobs development. . . .''
How will the Corps implement this new focus during its review and
prioritization of projects and proposed activities? For instance, how
will the Corps exercise a special focus on economic diversification and
clean enterprise, during the course of conducting its ``public interest
review'' of proposed activities?
General Van Antwerp. Stimulation of clean enterprise and green jobs
development may result in increased project permit applications
requiring authorization to discharge fill material into waters of the
United States. If these projects would result in the construction and
implementation of energy projects, they would receive higher priority
regulatory review from the Corps over non-energy related projects. This
higher priority review for energy-related projects is based on both the
Corps implementing regulations for section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Executive Order 13212.
In accordance with 33 CFR 320.4(n), district engineers will give
high priority to the processing of permit actions involving energy
projects. Further, under Presidential Executive Order (EO) 13212, dated
July 30, 2001, all Federal agencies have been directed to expedite
their review of permits for energy-related projects or take other
actions as necessary to accelerate the completion of such projects,
while maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections.
With respect to the Corps' public interest review, the decision
whether to issue a section 404 permit is based, in part, on an
evaluation of the probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the
proposed activity on the public interest. Decisions reflect the
national concern for both protection and utilization of important
resources. The benefit, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from
the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable
detriments. All factors that may be relevant to the proposal will be
considered, including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are:
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards,
floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality,
energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and
welfare of the people. Any positive effects of a proposed project are
balanced against any foreseeable negative effects the activity would
have on relevant factors within the Corps' scope of Federal control and
responsibility. AA permit will be issued if the project is found not to
be contrary to the public interest.
Question. What new resources is the administration requesting for
the Corps to advance economic diversification in Appalachia?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps does not have a specific action in
this area.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. The Army Corps of Engineers operates or has authority
over a large quantity of space behind dams for flood control purposes.
California is still recovering from 3 years of drought, and the water
situation is likely to remain critical, or near critical, for years to
come.
To what extent can the Army Corps reoperate, or change the
management, of some of its projects to consider water supply benefits
in key areas across the State, including those on tributaries to the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and on rivers and streams throughout
Southern California?
Will you report back on potential for water supply benefits from
projects like Whittier Narrows, Prado Dam, Hanson Dam, and Seven Oaks?
Ms. Darcy. There may be potential for additional water supply
benefits from existing Corps flood control reservoirs throughout
California. The Army recognizes the balance to address flood risk
management and dam safety, along with the safety of the public and
water supply demands. Currently, the Army is coordinating with co-
operators to operate the reservoirs for both flood control and future
water supply during these critical dry years. In those instances where
there is potential for significant water supply benefits, an
appropriate means of addressing improved reliability of water supply
would be to seek reauthorization to reallocate reservoir storage and
add water supply as a project purpose in those cases where it is not
already an authorized project purpose.
Additionally, there are ongoing feasibility studies to assess water
supply and conservation. For example, the Army is conducting a
Reservoir Re-operation study as part of the Central Valley Integrated
Flood Risk Management Study. The Corps is completing a water quality
study and evaluation of water conservation at the Seven Oaks Dam as
part of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project. Also, issues such as
water conservation and addressing Dam Safety related to the Whittier
Narrows dam are being assessed. These studies have potential to provide
water supply benefits at existing projects.
Question. I am concerned about the Dam Safety Assurance Program.
This program is supposed to fund the most critical dam improvement
projects in the Nation. However, the President's budget only includes
$49.1 million. I understand that the capability for the program is
$70.4 million.
Why is the President's budget not at the Corps Capability for this
program? Is Dam Safety a top priority for this administration?
Ms. Darcy. Individual dam safety, seepage and instability
correction projects that are budgeted for construction are funded at
capability, and are funded in the 2011 budget to a total of $446
million. The separate line-item for planning and design of additional
such projects--the Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program
(DSS)--is funded at $49.1 million, which will be allocated to priority
dam safety studies and design. The amount was determined to be the
correct amount for fiscal year 2011, in consideration of funding
available overall for the Civil Works program.
Question. The Corp is developing new national policies for the
allowance and/or removal of trees and other vegetation from levee
projects. Meanwhile, the Corps has participated in a collaborative
effort with the State of California to develop vegetation-removal
guidelines for the Central Valley. This collaborative effort holds
promise for reaching a reasonable and balanced program for assuring
levee integrity and, at the same time, taking into consideration unique
circumstances and resources found in many areas in the Central Valley,
and the Corps' past involvement with the region's levees.
Can you assure me that your national policy will embrace and be
fully compatible with situations like those found in the Central
Valley? How will the national guidance accommodate the collaborative
effort you've participated in for California?
General Van Antwerp. The Army is committed to collaborating with
California and other stakeholders in flood risk management in a
systematic manner. The implementation of system-wide flood risk
management strategies such as the one developed for the Central Valley
is one of the Corps' top priorities for water resources actions
nationwide. National policies for vegetation are incorporated into the
collaborative solutions developed and implemented to address both
national resource and public safety goals. The California Framework
Agreement will continue to be the guiding document as the State of
California continues to develop its long-term plan to resolve
vegetation issues; a plan we understand will be finalized in July 2012.
Question. The administration included two new construction starts
in the Corps' portion of the President's fiscal year 2011 budget. How
were the two ``new starts'' in the President's budget selected? What
criteria were used? What did the administration hope to demonstrate
through selection of these particular projects?
Ms. Darcy. The two projects are priorities that demonstrate this
administration's commitment to Ecosystem Restoration and non-structural
solutions to water resource challenges.
Question. The President's budget request reduced the enacted
funding level for the Corps by $500 million. This has been cited by
some as a reason to keep new starts to a minimum. On the other hand, it
could also be argued that, in tight budget times, it is even more
important to make the best possible use of scarce resources, and that
some old projects should be discontinued, while newer projects that
represent a better way of doing business are moved forward.
Will the administration be reviewing priorities to determine
whether some projects should be scaled back or discontinued in order to
allow construction to begin on newer and better designed projects that
contribute more significantly to national public safety and
environmental goals?
Ms. Darcy. As in previous years, the administration's budgets for
the Army Corps of Engineers will focus funding on those projects with
the highest net economic and environmental returns to the Nation,
highest contributions to reducing risk to human safety, and highest
contributions to environmental restoration in order to efficiently
realize the benefits of those projects. New starts are not precluded as
a general rule. The selection process focuses on the highest return
studies and projects that are the administration priorities for that
particular year.
specific california projects
Question. In February, I wrote to you about the dam safety seismic
remediation project at Success Dam. I appreciate the response I
received this week to that letter. However, the lack of funding in the
President's budget for this project continues to concern me about this
project and the Army Corps of Engineers' commitment to dam safety in
general.
Why was there not enough funding in the President's budget to do
anything on this project in fiscal year 2011, now that real estate
acquisitions and construction are ready to move forward?
Is Success Dam no longer a safety threat?
Ms. Darcy. The Army is committed to dam safety and regards public
safety as a crucial mission and obligation to our Nation. The Corps is
prioritizing dam study and repair nationally, based on risk informed
decisions to maximize benefits of our dam safety investments. There are
risks associated with Success Dam, but other Corps projects pose
greater concern at this time, based on the Corps improved understanding
of structural performance and risk consequences.
Even though Success Dam is not in the highest risk class, the study
is still underway. In 2010, past and present study methods are being
analyzed to determine if the overall project approach can be revised to
reduce risk in a more cost effective and timely manner. Also, interim
risk reduction planning has been performed to provide the downstream
communities additional levels of flood risk reduction. The interim
safety measures will remain active until the remediation is complete.
Question. Hamilton City Flood Control is a project in my State of
California that will produce both flood risk reduction and ecosystem
restoration benefits. It involves construction of a new 6.8 mile-long
set-back levee to provide enhanced protection for an economically
challenged community of 2,500 on the Sacramento River while
reconnecting over 1,400 acres of floodplain to the river--allowing for
ecosystem restoration that benefits several species listed as
threatened or endangered. It will also provide enhanced protection for
the community's sewage treatment plant, and therefore produces water
quality benefits.
It has been cited as a model for collaboration among diverse
stakeholders, and for achieving multiple societal goals simultaneously.
It would seem to be an excellent example of a new and better way of
doing business at the Corps. It is also ready to go. Design is
complete, and the non-Federal cost-share has been secured.
Since this project appears to encapsulate the administration's
goals for multi-benefit projects, I believe it would be an excellent
project for consideration in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget.
What else does the Hamilton City project need to do to be included in
the President's fiscal year 2012 budget?
Ms. Darcy. The Hamilton City project satisfies the administration
goals and objectives by emphasizing Ecosystem Restoration solutions to
water resource challenges. This multipurpose project also meets
numerous State, local and other non-governmental agencies objectives
and goals for public safety, environmental stewardship and restoration.
The project's design phase is fully funded and the Corps expects to
complete it this year. The project will be considered along with other
high performing projects in the Nation for consideration by the
administration for New Starts in fiscal year 2012.
Question. Last November, I wrote to alert you that the Sacramento
District had encountered a cost-increase for their scheduled repairs to
Marysville Ring Levee, which surrounds and protects the 12,000
residents of the city of Marysville. Construction on Marysville, a
separable element of the Federal authorized Yuba River Basin Project,
is scheduled to begin in August. I understand you are personally
working with the State of California and the local sponsors to close
the funding shortfall to take advantage of the construction season, so
several functional segments can be completed all at once.
What is the status of your efforts to secure the additional funds
the District needs for this project?
Ms. Darcy. The Yuba River Basin, Marysville Ring Levee Phase 1
contract has been allocated sufficient ARRA funds. The contract award
is scheduled for the summer of 2010, pending completion of the
Engineering Design Report and execution of the amended Project
Partnership Agreement.
Question. The Napa River Flood Protection Project has been the
premiere flood protection/multiple purpose project of the Corps for the
last 10 years and I appreciate the commitment made to the project by
this administration, both in last year's budget and by providing almost
$100 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This is
the type of project the Corps should be proud of: a project that
delivers 100-year flood protection, creates over 700 acres of tidal
wetland, and will lead to the economic rebirth of a flood prone
community.
What is your plan to keep this project on schedule and to move it
aggressively toward completion?
General Van Antwerp. The Napa Salt Marsh project, rather than the
Napa River flood risk reduction project, is the project that would
provide 700 acres of tidal wetland. The Napa Salt Marsh project is
funded in the fiscal year 2011 budget. Because the project is quite
large and complex and construction activities are accelerating, the
Corps recently has increased public outreach efforts. Weekly meetings
are held with the local sponsor, County of Napa--Flood Control and
Water Conservation District, and the city of Napa so that any issues
related to effects of ongoing construction activities on local
businesses and residences are quickly addressed. Short term schedules
are posted on the current contractor's Web site. Meetings with area
residences and businesses are held in advance of upcoming work to seek
input and make adjustments to construction work efforts, where
practical, to accommodate their suggestions.
With ongoing construction occurring in Napa, the Corps recognizes
the need to continue design efforts and assess the Federal interest on
the remaining project features. The Corps is striving to have the next
design contract completed as soon as possible.
Question. Murrieta Creek Flood Protection and Environmental
Restoration is a similar multi-benefit project in southern California,
which will also deliver 100-year flood protection, restore a riparian
habitat corridor, create 160 acres of wildlife habitat, and develop a
55-acre regional sports park. Since fiscal year 2004, Congress has
provided $14 million for construction of the Murrieta Creek project.
However, we have seen little movement by the Corps in constructing the
project and yet the Corps spends the funds on non-construction tasks,
including project management.
Will you provide a full accounting of where the funding we have
appropriated has gone? What are the administrative costs that are
causing this funding to be spent without any physical results?
General Van Antwerp. From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2010,
appropriations for Murrieta Creek Project totals $16,062,000. During
this same period, a total amount of $537,000 was lost to Savings and
Slippage (S&S), and/or Rescission. A total of $3,455,000 was
reprogrammed into the project, for a total work allowance of
$18,980,000 (see Table below).

SUMMARY OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION FUNDING (2003 TO 2010)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Work
Fiscal Year Conference Savings and Rescission Allowance Net Final Work
Slippage (S&S) (IWA) Reprogramming Allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003................................................... $1,000,000 ($179,000) ($6,000) $815,000 $254,000 $1,069,000
2004................................................... 1,000,000 (141,000) (5,000) 854,000 2,869,000 3,723,000
2005................................................... 1,500,000 (157,000) (11,000) 1,332,000 370,000 1,702,000
2006................................................... 3,750,000 .............. (38,000) 3,712,000 (38,000) 3,674,000
2007................................................... 1,760,000 .............. .............. 1,760,000 ............... 1,760,000
2008................................................... 1,813,000 .............. .............. 1,813,000 ............... 1,813,000
2009................................................... 3,349,000 .............. .............. 3,349,000 ............... 3,349,000
2010................................................... 1,890,000 .............. .............. 1,890,000 ............... 1,890,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The physical construction for Phase 1 of the Murrieta Creek project
was completed in fiscal year 2004 for total cost of approximately $3
million. In 2005, this completed portion was damaged during the 2005
flood season. Emergency repairs and upgrades incurred a total cost of
approximately $3.6 million. In addition, annual O&M and environmental
and water quality monitoring costs of this completed portion are paid
for by project funds until this phase is turned over to the sponsor.
Supervision and administration costs for the project are slightly over
$500,000 through fiscal year 2009.
On the non-construction costs, engineering and design costs for the
project totals to approximately $11 million. In addition to already
completed engineering design and environmental documentation products,
these costs include on-going work such as the following: (1)
development of the Design Documentation Report which includes Sponsor's
request to do technical analysis of other alternatives for the basin
design; (2) preliminary design to include the ecological restoration
and recreation features of the basin to its flood control feature are
also being made; and (3) plans and specs for Phase 2 are near
completion after several modifications to address several constraints
and issues.
Design of Phase 1A is also being prepared to account for necessary
design changes due to the Metropolitan Water District's requirements.
The Environmental Assessment reports for Phase 1A and Phase 2 are being
developed. In addition, the presence of nesting birds requires a
section 7 consultation and therefore, more coordination with U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Our environmental and water quality monitoring
produced reports to assure compliance with water quality and the
project mitigation requirements.
The following summarizes the total project expenditures through
fiscal year 2009:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
Expenditures
Work Category Though Fiscal Year
2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lands............................................... $41,268
Relocations......................................... ..................
Ecosystem Restoration............................... ..................
Channels............................................ 3,348,830
Recreation.......................................... ..................
Pre-construction Engineering and Design............. 1,492,000
Engineering and Design.............................. 11,261,621
Supervision and Administration...................... 564,655
-------------------
Total......................................... 16,708,374
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question. The local sponsor, the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District, is working to develop an innovative, more
cost-effective alternative to the basin design which the community
prefers to the Corps' plan which we believe will reduce costs and
increase the benefit/cost ratio significantly.
Will you commit the Corps to reviewing the sponsor's cost reduction
recommendations, including more cost-effective designs, in order to
find a more economical project that the administration can budget?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps' Los Angeles District is working
with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
and the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula in an effort to move the
project forward. In October 2009, there was a meeting to discuss
available options to start construction of Phase 1A and Phase 2. The
Corps has committed to reviewing recommendations for a more cost-
effective design and to continue to work to move the project forward.
Question. The Llagas Creek Flood Protection Project, will provide
flood protection for 1,100 homes, 500 businesses and over 1,300 acres
of agricultural land and preserve the creek's habitat, fish and
wildlife. This project was initiated in 1954 and is only 60 percent and
the adjoining communities continue to flood on a regular basis.
Despite regular appropriations, this project has not progressed
well. What can the Army Corps do to prioritize this project for
implementation in order to complete construction within the next
several years?
General Van Antwerp. The project cost sharing is inconsistent with
standard Corps cost-shares and due to low performance, the project does
not compete well for funding against other Corps projects. However, the
Corps will continue to evaluate this project for funding during budget
development.
Question. The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Project will
provide flood protection to Silicon Valley from the existing, deficient
non-engineered levees where tidal flooding and land subsidence occur
along with the real risk of sea level rise. I have been advised that,
even though the Corps commits to schedules and budgets, the feasibility
study which was projected to cost approximately $12 million and be
completed in 5 years, now is estimated to cost $25 million and will be
completed in 10 years. This is unacceptable.
One solution to moving the project quickly is for the San Francisco
District to work more collaboratively with the local sponsors, both to
allow them to advance portions of the project to provide flood
protection and to allow the sponsors to complete certain pieces, or
even the remainder of the feasibility report, in concert with the Corps
to reduce costs and expedite the schedule significantly.
Will you report back on positive efforts to facilitate these steps
and recommend other innovative approaches to allow for securing
expedited completion and approval of the Chief's Report for the Project
and initiation of Corps' consideration?
General Van Antwerp. Although progress on the Shoreline Study has
been slower than originally anticipated, the Corps will complete the
without-project phase of the planning process in August 2010. This
major milestone will identify existing and future tidal flood risks and
associated economic damages to the South Bay communities should a
project never be built. The Corps continues to work closely with the
sponsors. One-half of the study costs ($12.5 million) will be provided
by the sponsors primarily as in-kind credit for contracts they are
managing and staff time to participate in the study in an integral way
through meetings and technical reviews.
The Corps is assisting the sponsors in applying the technical
analysis to develop smaller, early implementation projects for flood
risk management under our section 104 authority that they can move
forward with on their own. This work in advance of a Corps authorized
project will help bring flood protection to the communities most at
risk sooner, and provide early restoration opportunities. If these
projects become part of the authorized project the local sponsors can
receive credit during construction for the work they perform. Although
there is an authority under Navigation studies for a local sponsor to
complete a feasibility report on their own, no such authority exists
for Flood Risk Management studies.
The with-project phase of our planning process includes the
development and evaluation of alternatives for both flood risk
management and ecosystem restoration. Due to the complexity of the
hydrodynamic modeling within the study area and multi-purpose planning
challenges, we have scheduled a significant amount of time for this
effort. We are assessing every possible way to streamline the
evaluation and comparison of project alternatives with the goal of
shortening the schedule.
Other options to consider are to continue with a single purpose
plan of Flood Risk Management, or to reduce the geographic scope of
this first study. The goal is to collaborate with both the Conservancy
and Santa Clara Valley Water District in developing a plan to move
forward in the most expeditious and beneficial manner for all parties.
Question. As stated in the Assistant Secretary's testimony, the
Hamilton Airfield Wetlands Restoration-Bel Marin Keys Project is one of
the Army Corps' premier wetlands restoration projects. However, I am
concerned about reports I am hearing of how the project is being
implemented and I believe your personal involvement is required.
First, I was recently made aware that after about a year of
negotiating the Project Cooperation Agreement to include the
authorization of the Bel Marin Keys V portion of the project into the
base Hamilton Project at the authorized cost-sharing of 75 percent/25
percent in the Corps' own documents, that in the last month the Corps
made the decision to change the cost-sharing to 65 percent/35 percent.
Second, while the project is authorized at a total of $228 million,
last year the San Francisco District estimated the total cost would be
$500 million. This year, the Corps came back with an estimate of $300
million, but could not detail for the local sponsor how much dredged
material that amount would move, nor could they quantify the minimum
amount of dredge material needed to meet the habitat goals. This
inability to determine the total cost of this project is concerning.
Can you report back to me on both of these issues?
General Van Antwerp. Because of changes to project authorities, the
cost share did start out as 75/25 and is now 65/35. Specifically,
section 2037 of WRDA 2007 amended the section 204 authorization the
project was started under to increase the non-Federal cost share to 35
percent. WRDA 2007 modified the Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project
(HWRP) to add the Bel Marin Keys Unit V (BMK) site to the existing
project at a first cost of $228.1 million. The authorized fully funded
total project cost estimate for the combined project, escalated to
today's dollars is $267 million. This estimate assumes that the total
project will be constructed with the expected amount of dredged
material and environmental outputs of the project as specified in the
Chief's Report.
sacramento
Question. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and the
California Department of Water Resources are collaborating on urgently
needed levee improvements for the Natomas basin, in close cooperation
with the Army Corps of Engineers. In fact, the Corps is preparing a
Post-Authorization Change Report (PACR) to support the Federal
component of the project. The Corps has committed to completing the
PACR this summer, in time for Congress to act on as it considers
authorization of water projects.
Can you confirm the Corps' schedule and commitment to this project?
Please provide a detailed schedule for completion of the PACR.
General Van Antwerp. The Corps is committed to the Natomas Basin
project, including executing in accordance with the following schedule:
Schedule American River Common Features (ARCF) Post Authorization
Change Report:
--Complete the draft Post-Authorization Change (PAC) by June 15,
2010.
--Submit the final PAC package to HQ by August 31, 2010.
--Sign Chief's Report by December 31, 2010.
The Chief's Report for the ARCF GRR is scheduled for December 31,
2010.

Question. Greater Sacramento remains one of the most at-risk urban
areas in the Nation. I want to acknowledge my appreciation that the
President's budget once again includes funding for Sacramento area
flood control projects. However, several projects, especially the
American River Watershed ``Common Features'' project and the Folsom Dam
Modification project are at the point of heavy construction activity.
Do you anticipate that the administration will support the large
funding requirements that are necessary to keep these projects on
schedule?
Ms. Darcy. I cannot commit to future budget amounts, since those
are future decisions. However, I can affirm that this project has
consistently been considered a priority.
Question. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and California
Department of Water Resources are working together to lead what I
believe is a perfect example of non-Federal initiative for initiating
and financing major flood control works in the Natomas Basin. I believe
this could serve as a model for more collaborative Federal/non-Federal
partnerships nationwide, which can move needed projects forward more
efficiently and leverage limited Federal resources.
Would you consider reviewing this model as a potential template for
future partnerships?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, we will review this model. Non-Federal partners,
the State of California and SAFCA have been outstanding partners and
instrumental in assisting the Corps move forward quickly and
effectively on this project.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
louisiana coastal area (lca)
Question. The budget request includes a new start in the
Construction account, one for the Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem
restoration project. Can construction on the Louisiana Coastal Area
project be initiated in fiscal year 2011, given the status of the
planning study?
General Van Antwerp. Provided that LCA project reports favorably
complete the administration review process, yes, construction can be
initiated in fiscal year 2011. The LCA study farthest along is for the
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material (BUDMAT) Program. The programmatic
feasibility study for BUDMAT was submitted by the Corps to my office in
March 2010 for review. The study outlines a framework for using
material generated through maintenance dredging of authorized channels
for restoration efforts.
The BUDMAT study provides criteria for identifying individual
projects that could proceed after completing the relevant planning and
environmental studies. Pre-construction engineering and design of the
first BUDMAT projects will start in late fiscal year 2010, with
construction of those individual projects expected to be initiated in
fiscal year 2011.
Question. Can you assure us today that the funding would result in
on the ground projects if it was included in an appropriation bill?
General Van Antwerp. If the LCA BUDMAT Program report receives a
favorable administration review, the Corps is prepared to work with the
State of Louisiana to execute a Project Partnership Agreements in
fiscal year 2010 in preparation to begin construction in fiscal year
2011. The Corps will capitalize on the scheduled maintenance dredging
at authorized channels where the material can be used for restoration
projects that meet the LCA Program objectives.
Question. The Louisiana coast continues to be negatively impacted
from subsidence and sea level rise. Beyond the near term benefit of
wetland restoration, how will the work proposed under the LCA account
for these factors. Are we essentially wasting our money for very short
term gains?
General Van Antwerp. Sea level rise and subsidence were factors in
developing the plans for the LCA projects. While the projects cannot
stop sea level rise and subsidence, the projects can slow down the
disappearance of the landforms by eliminating some of the causes of
coastal erosion. The addition of sediments through direct placement or
river diversions will increase the ability of the restored area to
continue to function and provide habitat with minimum continuing
intervention over time. The soft, fluid Louisiana coastal formations
erode in nature, and the services produced by a given project will
change as the land erodes. The landforms continue to function as
coastal habitats and ecosystem regulators even though they do not
maintain their original construction footprint.
Question. Will the LCA project actually restore the Louisiana
coast? It appears to me that the best you will be able to accomplish
with this program is perhaps to reduce the current loss of wetlands.
Even that goal is unclear if it can be met. How do you justify spending
funds to initiate construction on something that has such speculative
benefit?
General Van Antwerp. The projects identified in the LCA 2004 report
are restoration elements that could be implemented in the near term to
address critical needs of the Louisiana coast. As indicated in the LCA
2004 report, the design and operation of these features would reduce
the current rate of loss, maintain the opportunity for, and support the
development of large-scale, long range comprehensive coastal
restoration.
The near term projects are intended to work in concert with each
other to improve the sustainability of the Louisiana coast. Maintaining
natural landscape features and hydrologic processes is critical to
sustainable ecosystem structures and functions. The Louisiana coastline
represents 90 percent of the wetlands in the contiguous United States
and is currently disappearing at an alarming rate. This unique and
scarce habitat has high fish and wildlife values and serves to protect
nationally important oil and gas infrastructure, as well as coastal
communities and cultures.
Question. Why is the LCA project more of a priority for the
administration than other restoration projects?
Ms. Darcy. Execution of the LCA projects would make significant
progress toward achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can
support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of southern
Louisiana and thus, contribute to the economy and well-being of the
Nation.
With no action the capacity of the coastal wetlands to buffer storm
surges from tropical storm events will diminish, which will increase
the risk of significant damage to oil, gas, transportation, water
supply and other private and public infrastructure and agriculture
lands and urban areas. A continued decline of the natural ecosystem
will result in a decrease in various functions and values associated
with wetlands, including corresponding diminished biological
productivity and increased risk to critical habitat of Federal-listed
threatened and endangered species.
Question. Why is funding included in both the GI and the
construction accounts?
Ms. Darcy. For fiscal year 2011, funds from the Investigations
account would be used to continue the feasibility level analysis for
components of the LCA Program and funds from the Construction account
will be used to undertake construction for those components where
construction can be initiated.
Question. WRDA 07 conditionally authorized six projects subject to
a favorable report of the Chief of Engineers not later than December
2010. Are you on schedule to meet this report requirement?
Ms. Darcy. The Corps and the State of Louisiana are currently on
schedule to have a signed favorable report of the Chief of Engineers
Report by December 2010.
general budget questions
Question. Understanding that development of the budget is an
iterative process between the agency and the administration, is it safe
to assume that the Corps initial budget request to OMB differed from
what we have before us today?
Ms. Darcy. The Corps' recommendations are the foundation of the
Army's budget recommendations to the President. The advice and counsel
leading up to the Army's recommendations are part of the internal
deliberative process.
Question. Without going into specific projects are funding levels,
can you tell us a little bit about how it might have differed?
Ms. Darcy. The President must make government-wide budget decisions
in consideration of his the overall policy, spending and deficit goals.
In order to provide the President the full benefit of advice from the
agencies and departments, budget deliberations are considered to be
pre-decisional, internal information.
Question. Was the initial amount that the Corps recommended higher
than what is before us today?
Ms. Darcy. The advice and counsel leading up to the recommendations
that form the basis of the President's budget are part of the internal
deliberative process and are considered confidential advice to the
President.
Question. Was a specific area or business line of the budget
request more impacted by the budgetary criteria?
Ms. Darcy. The budget is performance based, and benefit cost ratio
(BCR) is a primary allocation metric. Some business lines are more
likely to carry higher benefit-to-cost ratios, although consideration
also is given to reducing risks to human life and providing important
environmental restoration benefits.
yazoo backwater
Question. Why does the fiscal year 2011 budget propose to cancel
$58 million previously appropriated for the Yazoo Backwater project?
Ms. Darcy. As a result of Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
veto of the Yazoo Backwater Pumps Project under section 404(c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act, the project cannot proceed and,
therefore, the funds appropriated specifically for implementation of
the Yazoo Backwater pumps project are not needed.
Question. Will this cancellation affect completion of the center
associated with the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge?
Ms. Darcy. The requirement of the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus
Appropriation Act that some of the funding appropriated for the Yazoo
Pumps project in that act be used for the Interpretive Center has been
satisfied.
Question. What about the ongoing litigation? It is inappropriate to
propose cancellation of these funds before the final decision is made.
Ms. Darcy. The Army is not a party to this litigation. The court
has allowed six environmental groups to intervene as defendants in the
lawsuit. The court will decide the lawsuit on motions for summary
judgment based on the administrative record.
Question. There is an inconsistency between the administration's
budget appendix and the Corps' press release. The budget appendix
assumes $58 million is cancelled. The press book shows only $52
million. Are either of these numbers correct?
Ms. Darcy. The $58 million reflected in the administration's budget
appendix is the amount of funds appropriated in fiscal year 2004 thru
fiscal year 2009 for implementation of the Yazoo Backwater project. Due
to a misunderstanding about the effect of language in the fiscal year
2009 Omnibus Appropriation Act, the press book reduced the amount by
$6,000,000.
levee certification
Question. There is considerable controversy over the minimally
acceptable rating for levee certification. Please explain the Corps
inspection process and how the FEMA rating system has affected the
Inspection of Completed Works program.
General Van Antwerp. The Corps conducts Routine Inspections on an
annual basis of levees including those the Corps operates and
maintains; those Federal authorized and operated/maintained by a local
sponsor; and those locally constructed and locally maintained, but have
applied and been accepted into the Corps' Public Law 84-99 program. The
purpose of these Routine Inspections (also referred to as Annual
Inspections or Continuing Eligibility Inspections) is to ensure the
levee system is being properly operated and maintained in accordance
with project cooperation agreements, if applicable, as well as to
determine eligibility for Federal rehabilitation funds under Public Law
84-99.
The Corps uses an inspection checklist and provides a levee
``system'' rating. A levee system is defined as comprising one or more
levee or floodwall segments which collectively provide flood risk
reduction to a defined area. The levee system is inclusive of all
features that are interconnected and necessary to ensure flood risk
reduction of the associated separable floodplain. A levee system can
have one or more local sponsors or maintainers, but is rated as one
entity. The Corps provides a rating for each individual item/component
on the checklist and then gives the levee an overall system rating.
The Corps' inspection ratings include the following:
Acceptable Item.--The inspected item is in satisfactory condition,
with no deficiencies, and will function as intended during the next
flood event.
Minimally Acceptable Item.--The inspected item has one or more
minor deficiencies that need to be corrected. The minor deficiency or
deficiencies will not seriously impair the functioning of the item as
intended during the next flood event.
Unacceptable Item.--The inspected item has one or more serious
deficiencies that need to be corrected. The serious deficiency or
deficiencies will seriously impair the functioning of the item as
intended during the next flood event.
Acceptable System.--All items or components are rated as
Acceptable.
Minimally Acceptable System.--One or more items are rated as
Minimally Acceptable or one or more items are rated as Unacceptable and
an engineering determination concludes that the Unacceptable items
would not prevent the system from performing as intended during the
next flood event.
Unacceptable System.--One or more items are rated as Unacceptable
and would prevent the system from performing as intended, or a serious
deficiency noted in past inspections (which had previously resulted in
a minimally acceptable system rating) has not been corrected within the
established timeframe, not to exceed 2 years.
If a levee system is rated Unacceptable, that system is placed in
Inactive status in Public Law 84-99 until corrections are made. An
Inactive levee is no longer eligible for Federal rehabilitation funding
if damaged from a flood event. The Corps will still participate in
flood fighting activities.
Inspection results are provided to the local sponsor and to FEMA.
If the Corps is on record as having previously certified the levee for
FEMA purposes, then the Corps will evaluate how the inspection results
may or may not impact the certification. If the Corps did not certify
the levee, then FEMA will decide if the certification needs to be
revisited based on the inspection results.
An ``Acceptable'' inspection rating by the Corps does not equate to
a levee certification.
An ``Unacceptable'' inspection rating by the Corps does not
automatically ``decertify'' a levee.
A Periodic Inspection, conducted every 5 years, is the next level
of inspection in the Corps Levee Safety Program and is conducted by a
multidisciplinary team, led by a professional engineer. It includes a
more detailed, comprehensive and consistent evaluation of the condition
of the levee system. Activities under the Periodic Inspection include
evaluating Routine Inspection items; verifying proper operation and
maintenance; evaluating operational adequacy, structural stability and,
safety of the system; and comparing current design and construction
criteria with those in place when the levee was built. The final
Periodic Inspection rating is based upon the Routine Inspection
checklist.
FEMA does not have any type of rating system for levees or levee
certification.
Question. We understand that levees that were designed for
underseepage may now receive a minimally acceptable rating under the
new rating system. How will this impact the levee being certified or
accredited by FEMA?
General Van Antwerp. Inspection ratings by the Corps do not have a
direct correlation to levee certification for FEMA purposes.
Certification for FEMA purposes only evaluates a levee at the 1 percent
flood event (or 100 year or base flood) and any type of condition, such
as underseepage, will need to be taken into account for this
evaluation. For example, deficiencies could exist that may not impact
the levee's ability to perform at the 1 percent flood event.
Question. What happens if a levee loses certification and how will
this impact taxes paid to levee districts for funding levee
maintenance?
General Van Antwerp. When levees do not meet certification
criteria, the areas behind them are mapped as if the levee is not
there. Depending on the hydraulics, these areas could be shown on
FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps as high-risk Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHAs). Flood insurance and other flood plain management
requirements are mandatory in SFHAs.
The Corps cannot comment on how local taxes are implemented or
impacted.
Question. Who is responsible for the cost to bring a levee that was
previously certified in the past up to current standards for levee
certification?
General Van Antwerp. For Inspection of Completed Works levees
(Federal authorized/locally maintained), the local sponsor has the
responsibility to ensure the levee will perform to the authorized
design level, which may be below, at, or above the 1 percent (or 100
year or base) flood event for levee certification.
For levees the Corps operates and maintains, the Corps has the
responsibility to ensure the levee will perform to the authorized
design level. For all other levees, the entity seeking certification
has responsibility to ensure the levee meets certification criteria.
Question. How does the Corps Levee Safety program support levee
certification?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps will provide any levee information
available to the local sponsor in support of certification efforts.
Question. When is levee certification a Corps of Engineers
responsibility?
General Van Antwerp. It is the local levee sponsor's or community's
responsibility to provide levee certification documentation to FEMA.
Local communities must legally adopt and administer FEMA's National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements and have responsibility for
operation and maintenance of their levees.
If the Corps operates and maintains the levee, the local community
that must adopt the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map as part of their
requirement for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
may request the Corps to perform the certification of that levee. If
funding is available, the Corps may perform the certification. The
purpose of levee certification is to determine how FEMA will map the
floodplain behind the levee for flood insurance purposes as part of the
NFIP. The 1 percent annual chance exceedance flood, also called the
100-year or base flood, is an insurance standard. It is not a safety
standard nor does it eliminate risk.
Question. For levee projects that once had 100-year certification
and now find that they are a couple of feet too short or have other
structural issues, what is the likelihood that current Corps policy
would allow the Corps to participate in finding solutions that would be
economically justified?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps has various authorities and programs
in the area of Flood Risk Management to collaborate in finding
potential solutions, such as section 205--Flood Damage Reduction;
section 216--Review of Completed Projects; Floodplain Management
Services, Planning Assistance to States, interagency teams, or
initiation of reconnaissance study.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. The U.S. Army Corps recommends a mere $2.868 million for
the Kentucky Lock and Dam project in the fiscal year 2011 budget, which
will cause the project to slip even further behind. How many years
delayed is the project, and what additional funds are now needed
complete it? What is the Army Corps' long-term plan for Kentucky Lock?
General Van Antwerp. The Kentucky Lock Project received $65.6
million in ARRA funds to date that has allowed for award of the
Upstream Lock Monoliths construction contract. This contract
encompasses all the critical activities of the project through at least
the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. For this reason, the project
did not require significant funding in fiscal year 2011 from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF).
The $2.868 million in the fiscal year 2011 budget is sufficient to
complete the ongoing highway/railroad relocations superstructure
construction contract. The project's completion date has been extended
for 3 years due to the solvency issues of the IWTF. If enacted, the
draft plan to restore solvency to the IWTF would provide sufficient
funding to complete the project before 2020.
Question. The Army Corps has indicated that $143.2 million could be
used to further construction at Olmsted Locks and Dam; however the
President's budget for fiscal year 2011 includes $136 million for the
project. How many years behind is the project from its scheduled
completion date? At what point does the budget for Olmsted take a
severe budget cut, like the Kentucky Lock Project, because of the
inability of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to fund ongoing projects?
General Van Antwerp. The Olmsted project completion date of 2012
has slipped, due to a number of factors including river conditions,
design changes, materials and supply escalation, and differing site
conditions. If optimal funding were to be available, the project could
be completed in 2018. For fiscal year 2011 thru fiscal year 2015 the
estimated efficient funding stream for the project is approximately
$140-$145 annually.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. In the wake of Judge Magnuson's July 2009 ruling
concerning the Corps' illegal operations in the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, the Corps was forced to withdraw
its scoping report for the ACF Water Manual Update and issue a revised
scoping report. The Corps is also preparing a new water control manual
for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basin, but Judge Bowdre
has not yet ruled on the legality of the Corps operations in the ACT
Basin.
In light of the experience with having to withdraw the ACF scoping
report, has the Corps considered suspending the ACT manual update
process until Judge Bowdre issues her ruling? If not, how can the Corps
justify expending scarce resources to continue with the ACT manual
update process when Judge Bowdre's ruling may require that the process
start over?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps is updating the ACT water control
manuals and associated NEPA documentation in accordance with direction
provided by then Secretary of the Army Pete Geren in October 2007, and
Army regulations. Updating the water control manuals and NEPA
documentation is a complex and time-consuming deliberative process that
includes extensive model development and data analysis, as well as
coordination with Federal, State, regional and local agencies.
The Corps is confident that its operations in the ACT basin, and
its process in updating the ACT manuals, are fully in compliance with
applicable law. While the possibility exists that some adjustments to
the update may be appropriate in response to a future ruling by Judge
Bowdre in the ACT litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, the majority of the work being performed
now would still be needed and of value in implementing any water
control manual update.
Although the Corps did decide to reopen public scoping of the ACF
water control manual updates and EIS in November 2009, to account for
Judge Magnuson's July 17, 2009 ruling in the consolidated cases styled
In re Tri-State Water Rights Litigation, No. 3:07-md-01 (M.D. Fla.),
the Corps is continuing the process of updating the ACF water control
manuals, in accordance with Secretary Geren's earlier direction, and
released an updated scoping report in March 2010. The July 2009 ruling
is currently on appeal.
Question. Explain how the Corps has factored the legal principles
underlying Judge Magnuson's ruling concerning the ACF into Corps' ACT
manual update process.
General Van Antwerp. Judge Magnuson's ruling addressed the
authorities for operating Buford Dam/Lake Sidney Lanier and did not
address the ACT manual update process.
Question. What steps has the Corps taken to address the fact that
Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority withdraws more water than they are
entitled to withdraw from Lake Allatoona under their contract with the
Corps?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps notified CCMWA in a letter dated
November 2, 2007 that its water supply withdrawals from Lake Allatoona
were exceeding the amount of water available in storage allocated to
CCMWA pursuant to its storage contract. There are on-going discussions
with CCMWA regarding this issue.
Question. What is the status of the Hickory Log Creek Reservoir in
Georgia and when is it anticipated that the pumping facility on the
Etowah River will begin operations?
General Van Antwerp. Construction of the reservoir is essentially
complete and the reservoir is approximately 80 percent full due to
plentiful rains in the fall of 2009 and spring 2010. The Etowah River
pump system is completed, but some land acquisition problems have
arisen. Pursuant to DOA permit conditions CCMWA cannot pump from the
Etowah River until it completes its compensatory mitigation. The
estimated time until the pumping from the Etowah begins is now December
2010. However, to date, the Corps has not received a formal request
from CCMWA to start pumping from the Etowah River.
Question. Has the Corps imposed any restrictions on the timing and
duration of pumping from the Etowah River into the Hickory Log Creek
Reservoir to minimize the impact upon inflows into Lake Allatoona?
General Van Antwerp. The State of Georgia has established
conditions for when pumping from the Etowah River into Hickory Log
Creek can occur. These conditions limit withdrawals from the Etowah
River when the river is below 25 percent of Annual Daily Discharge
(ADD).
______

Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich
Question. In the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations
Act, Congress provided the Corps with emergency authority to implement
measures for Asian Carp that were included in an interim or final
Feasibility Study, which was authorized in WRDA 2007. Has this
authority been helpful and does the Corps support the continuation of
this authority?
Ms. Darcy. The Army has found the authority useful and supports its
extension. The authority has provided the Corps with the opportunity to
complete studies for the Secretary's approval that can be implemented
quickly to address the high level of concern in the Great Lakes
community over the migration of Asian Carp. One example of using the
authority is the construction of fencing and barricades to prevent
bypass of the Corps' electric barrier system in the case of flood
events.
Question. For many years, I have raised concerns about the
significant backlog of Corps work throughout the country as well as in
the Great Lakes. This backlog problem is, in part, the result of the
Corps practice of treating the Great Lakes as a coastal system and
comparing individual ports using tons as a budget metric. In contrast,
the Corps budgets our Nation's river systems on a ton-mile metric. The
current budget process and metrics put the Great Lakes navigational
system at a disadvantage compared to other domestic navigational
systems. How do you plan to address the backlog of Corps' work across
the country, and in particular the Great Lakes?
General Van Antwerp. The Corps budgets for key maintenance needs
across the entire spectrum of Civil Works projects by prioritizing
projects based on objective performance criteria. In navigation, the
Corps focuses on funding harbors and waterways that have high volumes
of commerce. However, funds are budgeted based on other factors as
well, such as those ports and channels that serve as critical harbors
of refuge, subsistence harbors, or facilitate U.S. Coast Guard search
and rescue operations.
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 often linear and interdependent on each other. For
example, if users are traversing more than one lock and dam a single
closure in the system will stop that traffic. For other than short-haul
movements, or movements south of St. Louis, 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.
Question. Despite the significant backlog of Corps work, the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund has approximately a $4 billion surplus that is
growing each year. As you know, the money collected for the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund is intended for a specific purpose--maintaining
harbors and channels. Do you believe that additional money should be
provided to the Corps from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund?
Ms. Darcy. The source of funds is just one of many factors
considered in the budget development process. The overall Civil Works
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, and is limited by our overall budget
authority.
______

Questions Submitted to Hon. Michael L. Connor
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
drought
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. Reclamation utilizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Climate Prediction Center to monitor drought
conditions. Currently, the Center shows that the States of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming are experiencing some
level of drought ranging in intensity from abnormally dry to extreme.
While the El Nino winter has improved the drought conditions in the
Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies, it has expanded the drought in
the Hawaiian Islands.
rural water
Question. There are a number of projects in the fiscal year 2010
Energy and Water Act that were not included or included at low levels
in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request. Can you provide us
the capability amounts needed for those projects?
Answer. The first priority for funding rural water projects is the
required O&M component, which is $15.5 million (Reclamation-wide) for
fiscal year 2011. For the construction component, Reclamation allocated
funding based on objective criteria that gave priority to projects that
serve on-reservation needs and are nearest to completion.
--Fiscal year 2011 is the second time Jicarilla-Apache Rural Water
System (RWS) in New Mexico is in the budget request. The
request is for $0.5 million.
--Perkins County Rural Water System (RWS) in South Dakota is in the
budget request. The request is for $1 million.
--Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana RWS in Montana is in the budget
request. The request is for $1 million. At full capability, $20
million would be used to install additional core system
pipeline from the Tiber Dam to the Rocky Boy's Reservation.
--Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie RWS in Montana is in the budget
request. The request is for $2 million. At full capability, $15
million would be used to complete pipeline from the water
treatment plant to Wolf Point and Poplar.
--Lewis and Clark RWS in South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota, is in the
budget request. The request is for $200 million. At full
capability, $35 million would complete construction on Phase II
of the water treatment plant.
Question. How did you arrive at the funding decisions for rural
water projects? Most of them seem to be funded at minimal levels.
Answer. The first priority for funding rural water projects is the
required O&M component, which is $15.5 million (Reclamation-wide) for
fiscal year 2011. For the construction component, Reclamation allocated
funding based on objective criteria that gave priority to projects that
serve on reservation needs and are nearest to completion.
Question. Are these projects not part of Reclamation's mission of
bringing water to the West?
Answer. Yes. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation 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 fiscal year 2011 President's budget balances several
priorities, including funding for constructing authorized rural water
projects. Given the need to work within the framework of today's budget
realities, as well as the need to be attentive to priorities associated
with existing water and power infrastructure throughout the West,
Reclamation is unable to fund all of the ongoing rural water projects
at their full capability levels.
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 progress in funding rural water
projects throughout North and South Dakota and Montana. The Mid-Dakota
Rural Water System was completed in fiscal year 2006; numerous features
within the Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota have been completed;
and the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System is scheduled to complete in 2013.
Reclamation also allocated $200 million in American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act funds (ARRA) to further construction on these projects.
title xvi recycled water
Question. Title XVI programs are traditionally not well supported
by the administration. I am pleased to see an increase for these
projects in your budget. However, can you explain how the unallocated
$20 million will be allocated to projects?
Answer. Fiscal year 2011 is a transition year for the title XVI
Water Reclamation and Reuse program (title XVI) because a number of the
individual projects authorized under title XVI of Public Law 102-575,
as amended, that have been included in the President's budget in the
past are completed or are approaching Federal cost-share ceilings.
Reclamation plans to post a funding opportunity announcement to invite
project sponsors to submit requests for fiscal year 2011 funding. The
procedure will be similar to the steps used to allocate over $135
million in ARRA funding to title XVI projects in 2009, when proposals
were reviewed and ranked to identify individual projects for funding.
The funding opportunity will be open to authorized projects that have
received Federal funding in the past and those that have not received
Federal funding to date. Reclamation proposes to consider construction
and pre-construction activities that can be commenced in fiscal year
2011 and completed within 24 months (i.e., not previously completed
construction). Generally, criteria will focus on reducing existing
diversions or addressing specific water supply issues in a cost-
effective manner, addressing environmental and water quality concerns,
and meeting other program goals.
Question. What modifications do you believe could be made to the
title XVI program that would make it more acceptable to the
administration?
Answer. This administration recognizes the key role water reuse
plays in addressing western water issues, as indicated by this
increased request. Title XVI is an important part of the WaterSMART
program, which seeks to achieve a sustainable water strategy to meet
the Nation's water needs. Title XVI projects can stretch water supplies
using both time-tested methodologies and piloting new concepts.
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). Together, those
authorized projects have a remaining Federal cost share balance in
excess of $600 million--after more than $135 million allocated under
ARRA has been applied.
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 rehab 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 as directed by Omnibus Public Land
Management Act (Public Law 111-11, subtitle G--Aging Infrastructure).
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 facility review programs. The
recommendations resulting from the reviews are the basis for
prioritization of funding for identified needs.
Question. No funding was provided in your budget for this
authority. Does this mean that this will be a low budget priority for
the administration?
Answer. No. Reclamation believes that the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act (Public Law 111-11, subtitle G--Aging Infrastructure)
provides the authority to undertake such a program, and plans to
consider the appropriateness of funding requests to support these
efforts on a project by project basis given current budget constraint.
As stated in above, Reclamation periodically evaluates the condition of
its facilities through existing review programs and 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
this work in advance. Allowing repayment over a term of up to 50 years
will greatly ease the burden these entities have faced in the past in
repaying the reimbursable costs of this work. In addition, Reclamation
would pay for the share of 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.
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.
Reclamation believes that the Omnibus Public Land Management Act
(Public Law 111-11, subtitle G--Aging Infrastructure) 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 given current budget constraints.
Question. Now that the CALFED Program has been extended, will the
administration be providing a Cross Cut Budget document showing
expenditures and accomplishments, either this year or in next year's
request?
Answer. Reclamation and the other Federal CALFED agencies prepared
a Federal Cross Cut Budget for fiscal year 2011 in accordance with the
extension of Public Law 108-361 through fiscal year 2014. That is
currently posted with the President's fiscal year 2011 budget on the
OMB Web site under Analytical Perspectives. Under the newly established
Delta Stewardship Council which replaced the California Bay-Delta
Authority and assumed the CALFED Program, the Federal CALFED agencies
anticipate continuing to work with the State to meet the goals
identified in the CALFED Bay-Delta Programmatic Record of Decision and
our Federal responsibilities as defined in Public Law 108-361. OMB will
continue to work with the Federal CALFED agencies through fiscal year
2014 to ensure a Federal Cross Cut Budget is prepared and submitted
unless replaced by some other process or defining legislation.
Question. On December 22, 2009, the administration released an
``Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta''. How will
the administration report expenditures by agencies on items within this
plan and accomplishments of the plan?
Answer. The administration will work closely with our State and
other Federal partners in developing a coordinated report on
obligations and accomplishments of the Federal Action Plan for the
California Bay-Delta. As many of the activities under the Action Plan
will also be associated with the activities of the new Delta
Stewardship Council, we will work together to provide a concise and
meaningful report of the obligations and accomplishments under the
Federal Action Plan that is fully coordinated with the annual reporting
requirements of the extended CALFED Program. This reporting includes
the Annual Cross Cut Budget submittal unless replaced by some other
process or defining legislation.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
calfed
Question. Now that the CalFed Bay-Delta Authorization is extended
through 2014, will the administration be providing a Cross Cut Budget
document showing expenditures and accomplishments, either this year or
in the fiscal year 2012 budget request?
Answer. Reclamation and the other Federal CALFED agencies prepared
a Federal Cross Cut Budget for fiscal year 2011 in accordance with the
extension of Public Law 108-361 through fiscal year 2014. That is
currently posted with the President's fiscal year 2011 budget on the
OMB Web site under Analytical Perspectives. Under the newly established
Delta Stewardship Council which replaced the California Bay-Delta
Authority and assumed the CALFED Program, the Federal CALFED agencies
anticipate continuing to work with the State to meet the goals
identified in the CALFED Bay-Delta Programmatic Record of Decision and
our Federal responsibilities as defined in Public Law 108-361. OMB will
continue to work with the Federal CALFED agencies through fiscal year
2014 to ensure a Federal Cross Cut Budget is prepared and submitted
unless replaced by some other process or defining legislation.
Question. On December 22, 2009, the administration released an
``Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta''. How will
the administration report expenditures by agencies on items within this
plan and accomplishments of the plan?
Answer. The administration will work closely with our State and
other Federal partners in developing a coordinated report on
obligations and accomplishments of the Federal Action Plan for the
California Bay-Delta. As many of the activities under the Action Plan
will also be associated with the activities of the new Delta
Stewardship Council, we will work together to provide a concise and
meaningful report of the obligations and accomplishments under the
Federal Action Plan that is fully coordinated with the annual reporting
requirements of the extended CALFED Program. This reporting includes
the Annual Cross Cut Budget submittal unless replaced by some other
process or defining legislation.
red bluff diversion dam
Question. The President's budget includes $39.9 million to continue
construction of the new fish screen and pumping plant at the Red Bluff
Diversion Dam on the Sacramento River. The administration also
allocated $109.9 million in stimulus dollars toward this project.
However, in order to keep this project on schedule to meet the
requirements in the June 4, 2009 Biological Opinion for the Operating
Criteria and Plan for the Central Valley Project, this project requires
$61.3 million in fiscal year 2011. Why does the budget not include this
amount?
Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget includes the minimum required
to keep pace with the expected construction expenditures. Additional
funding that would be available to the project in fiscal year 2011
would be obligated to the pumping plant and fish screen construction
contract to reduce the amount remaining to be funded on the contract.
Reclamation will continue to assess project funding needs as more
refined cost estimates are available.
san joaquin river restoration
Question. The San Joaquin River Settlement dedicates revenues from
the Friant surcharge and capital repayment obligation to fund
implementation of the agreement. The State of California also has
committed funding to the Settlement. But the Parties to the Settlement,
including the Interior Department, know that full implementation will
require more than these dedicated revenues and the promised State
funding. That's why the Settlement Act authorizes an additional $300
million in appropriations. The Parties, including the Interior
Department, always assumed--and assured me--that Settlement
implementation would be funded each year with a mix of appropriations
and non-appropriated dedicated revenues.
Yet for the second year in a row, the Department has requested no
new appropriations for the Settlement in fiscal year 2011. The budget
request includes only the dedicated revenues from the Friant surcharge
and capital repayment for Settlement implementation plus a small amount
from the CVP Restoration Fund. This is not in keeping with my
understanding of what was agreed to, nor does it conform to the
understanding of the water users and conservation organizations who are
Parties to the Settlement. They tell me that they are concerned that
this budget reflects a lack of commitment by the Department to
implement the agreement as agreed to.
As you know, a significant portion of the Settlement's non-
appropriated dedicated revenues will come in a few years before the
Settlement's largest expenditures for river restoration and water
management projects, which will exceed those revenues. If you spend all
or even most of the Settlement's non-appropriated funds in the short-
term, how will the Department fund the major implementation costs that
are coming within the next few years?
Answer. Funding for projects required by the Settlement can be
funded by direct spending from dedicated revenues (subject to an $88
million cap until 2019), appropriated discretionary funds, and State or
local contributed funds.
Question. Do you expect to fund these projects entirely or mostly
with appropriations?
Answer. With the funding cap of $88 million on the direct spending
from dedicated revenues until 2019, most of the implementation costs
will need to come from both State contributions and Federal
discretionary appropriations.
Question. Wouldn't funding the Settlement with a mix of
appropriated and non-appropriated funds now tend to reduce and even out
appropriation requirements in the future when costs will be the
greatest?
Answer. Yes, Federal appropriations, such as the $5 million in
fiscal year 2010, will reduce the magnitude of future appropriations
required to implement the Settlement.
Question. If so, why isn't the Department following this course?
Answer. The Department's fiscal year 2011 budget request maintains
a strong commitment to make progress on these issues, which are high
priorities for the Department. There is $2 million in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund request in addition to the mandatory
revenues available.
Question. Can the Department please provide me with a chart
displaying an annualized estimate of funding needs for implementing all
Settlement and Settlement Act projects, programs and activities
together with an annualized estimate of revenues to the San Joaquin
River Restoration Fund from all sources, including State funding?
Answer. The requested chart is provided below. The chart is not a
reflection of or estimate of future funding requests in the President's
budget. A list of assumptions made in developing the chart is also
provided below.

Estimated funding need includes completion of the Settlement's high
priority channel and structural improvements projects (also referred to
as the Phase 1 projects), water management activities, fishery
reintroduction planning and permitting, and management and monitoring
of flows. The estimated funding need does not include costs for the
Settlement's Phase 2 projects, Settlement Paragraph 12 projects (other
projects recommended by the Restoration Administrator), and fisheries
reintroduction activities due to the current uncertainty of the scope
and need for these actions. The estimated funding need for the Friant-
Kern and Madera Canal Capacity Correction Project assumes funding this
project over time as incremental improvements are made. Due to the
requirement in section 10203 of Public Law 111-11 that funding for the
Friant-Kern Canal Reverse Flow Project cannot impact or delay
implementation of any other Settlement requirement, it is assumed that
this project will not be initiated until 2017. Based on these
assumptions, the estimated funding need for the program from fiscal
year 2010 through fiscal year 2018 is approximately $520 million.
Total funding available within the fiscal year includes funds from
the following sources: Friant surcharge; Friant capital repayment;
other Central Valley Project Improvement Act funding; appropriations in
fiscal year 2010; and an estimate of State funding. Funds from the
Friant surcharge and Friant capital repayment are assumed to be subject
to the $88 million Pay As You Go (PAYGO) cap. From fiscal year 2010 to
fiscal year 2018, Reclamation estimates collecting approximately $148.3
million above the $88 million PAYGO cap that is not accounted for in
the total funding available as it will require additional
appropriations for use. Using these assumptions, the estimated total
funding available from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2018 is
approximately $292 million.
The remaining funding need is the difference between the total
funding available and the estimated funding need. Using the assumptions
we have described previously, the remaining annual funding need from
fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2018 is approximately $313
million.
Question. Please also indicate how much of the revenues collected
to date into the SJR Restoration Fund have been expended as ``mandatory
spending'' and how much is left within the current Pay As You Go
(PAYGO) cap as available for mandatory spending from the SJR Fund.
Answer. As of April 1, 2010, approximately $168,000 of the funds in
the SJR Restoration Fund has been obligated as mandatory spending.
Reclamation estimates that mandatory spending from the SJR Restoration
Fund at the end of fiscal year 2010 will be $5.6 million leaving $82.6
million available after fiscal year 2010 under the $88 million cap.
Question. In fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009, this
subcommittee provided a total of $1.4 million for projects to restore
the original water carrying capacity of the Friant-Kern and Madera
Canals. Those projects were included in the Settlement Act to help meet
one of the Settlement's goals of avoiding or minimizing water supply
impacts to Friant water users. Interim flows this year will exceed
200,000 acre-feet and therefore the water supply impacts addressed by
the Water Management Goal have already begun and can be expected to
occur each year from now on. Bringing Water Management Goal projects
online as soon as possible is important to the success of the
Settlement. Yet despite 2 years of study funded by this subcommittee,
the Department doesn't plan to start work on the canal repairs or other
significant water management projects--in fiscal year 2011.
Answer. Reclamation has used the funding provided for these
projects in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 to make progress.
Question. Why?
Answer. Reclamation has been working to expedite the completion of
the feasibility studies required by Public Law 111-11 (passed in March
2009), environmental permitting, and engineering design activities for
these projects. For both the Friant-Kern and Madera Canal Capacity
Correction Project and the Friant-Kern Canal Reverse Flow Project,
preliminary design reports are scheduled for completion in June 2010,
the National Environmental Policy Act compliance activities in July
2010, and feasibility reports in August 2010. Final design and
preconstruction activities would be completed in fiscal year 2011. Due
to the need to construct the canal capacity correction project in the
winter, when the canals are dewatered, this project would not be ready
for construction until fiscal year 2012. The pump-back project could go
to construction in late fiscal year 2011; however, as it currently
stands, the Friant-Kern Canal Reverse Flow Project is assumed to be
delayed until 2017 as it will be challenging to make the findings
required in section 10203 of Public Law 111-11 if this project is
funding with monies from the SJR Restoration Fund.
Question. With regard to the Settlement's restoration activities,
there have also been unexplained delays. For example, please explain
why the Fisheries Management Plan is already significantly late when
all the needed funding has been available?
Answer. Although Reclamation and other implementing State and
Federal agencies have been working diligently to implement the
Settlement, some restoration activities have been delayed. The primary
causes for the delays are: (1) the Federal legislation to implement the
Settlement was enacted more than 2 years later than the Settlement
assumed; (2) access to private property has not been granted, which has
significantly delayed necessary field studies; (3) funding from the
State of California has required compliance with a variety of State
laws that Reclamation would not have otherwise had to comply with,
including the California Environmental Quality Act; and, (4)
Reclamation has incorporated a variety of processes to increase
coordination with the Settling Parties, Implementing Agencies, Third
Parties, and the public in an effort to increase the potential for a
successful program and facilitate permitting and approval actions.
Reclamation remains committed to implementing the Settlement.
The San Joaquin River Restoration Program released a public review
draft of the Fisheries Management Plan in June 2009. The Work Group
received comments on the Plan and is currently preparing an updated
version of the Plan in response to the comments received. The updated
version of the Plan is anticipated to be ready and included as an
attachment to the Program Environmental Impact Statement/Report, which
is scheduled for release in June 2010. The Fisheries Management Plan is
a living document that will be updated periodically as new information
is gathered and uncertainties are addressed through monitoring and
study activities.
Question. Why doesn't the Department plan to start significant
restoration projects in fiscal year 2011?
Answer. Reclamation is currently in the formal planning and
environmental compliance phases for the following three significant
projects: (1) the Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Channel Improvements
Project; (2) the Reach 4B, Eastside and Mariposa Bypass Low Flow
Channel and Structural Improvements Project; (3) the Arroyo Canal Fish
Screen and Sack Dam Fish Passage Project. These 3 projects address 9 of
the 10 Phase 1 improvements in paragraph 11(a) of the Settlement. Each
project includes substantial changes to the San Joaquin River system
that will require a significant amount of upfront planning and design
activities. Considering the time required to complete the planning,
environmental reviews, permitting, preliminary and final designs, land
acquisition, and awarding construction contracts, these projects are
scheduled to be ready for construction in fiscal year 2013 or early
fiscal year 2014.
Question. When will the canal projects and the pump-back project
authorized by Part III of the Settlement Act be ready for construction?
Answer. Construction of both projects could begin in fiscal year
2012. The canal capacity correction project could be ready for
construction late fiscal year 2011; however, to reduce interruptions in
water deliveries from the Friant-Kern and Madera canals and resulting
impacts to water users, this project needs to be constructed in the
winter when the canal is typically dewatered. Therefore, this project
would not be ready for construction until fiscal year 2012. The pump-
back project could also initiate construction in late fiscal year 2011;
however, as it currently stands, it will be challenging to make the
findings required in section 10203 of Public Law 111-11 if this project
is funded with monies from the SJR Restoration Fund.
Question. How can these projects be expedited without impacting
other Settlement activities?
Answer. Given the requirements of Public Law 111-11, the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other Federal
laws that must be complied with, it is unlikely that either of the
projects could initiate construction sooner than fiscal year 2012. To
expedite the initiation of the pump-back project and the completion of
the capacity correction project without impacting other Settlement
activities, a sufficient amount of Federal appropriated funding for the
other Settlement activities would be required.
Question. Could time and money be saved if non-Federal authorities
assumed responsibility for carrying out the projects through a
cooperative agreement with the Department?
Answer. The initial requirements called for in Public Law 111-11,
the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and
other Federal laws would still need to be completed and approved by
Reclamation, so it is unlikely that the construction schedule could be
expedited. It is possible that some time could be saved if non-Federal
authorities assumed responsibility for carrying out the final design
and construction of these projects through a cooperative agreement with
Reclamation. In general, these non-Federal authorities are able to
conduct more expedited contracting efforts which would result in a time
savings for the projects. However, it is unclear if money can be saved
as it is likely that both Reclamation and the non-Federal authority
would contract the work to an outside private entity.
Question. What is the status of guidelines for implementation of
the cost-shared groundwater program authorized in Part III?
Answer. Consistent with section 10202(c) of part III of subtitle A
of title X of Public Law 111-11, Reclamation released the public review
draft of the part III Guidelines for the Application of Criteria for
Financial Assistance for Local Projects (Guidelines) on March 29, 2010.
The Guidelines were available for a 60-day public review period.
Reclamation anticipates releasing final Guidelines in late summer 2010.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
quagga mussels
Question. In fiscal year 2010 we provided funding for Reclamation
to establish a Quagga Mussel R&D program to determine ways to deal with
this invasive species. What is the status of this effort?
Answer. Reclamation has a very active Research and Development
program underway, working with all of the western States and several
other Federal and local agencies, developing and testing several
methods for early detection of mussels, deterrence of mussel
attachment, removal of mussels, or killing of mussels in situ. Methods
being tested include high-capacity filters, ultraviolet light, pulsed-
pressure systems, bacterial by-product derived from Pseudomonas
fluorescens, foul-resistant and foul-release coatings, high and low pH
modulation, and predatory fish. Emphasis is placed on methods that are
environmentally friendly and do not require costly permitting for use
in open water systems. Reclamation is also developing a research plan
in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission to test multiple untested
new and existing methods for cleaning mussels from recreational boats.
Beginning in 2009 and continuing in 2010, Reclamation applied ARRA
funds to test approximately 200 reservoirs and other water bodies in
the West for the earliest possible detection of mussel larvae. This
program is coordinated closely with all of the western States. Results
are reported to each of the States and to the associated Reclamation
operating offices. This careful monitoring will provide the greatest
lead time (up to 5 years) to plan, budget, and implement facility
protection strategies if larvae are detected in a reservoir, before the
infestation creates substantial problems for operation of our
facilities.
Reclamation recently briefed the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, the Water Research Foundation, and the USGS on
current research and discussed new avenues for collaboration.
Reclamation is also hosting the 2010 International Conference on
Aquatic Invasive Species in August, with a primary focus on invasive
quagga and zebra mussels in the western United States.
Question. How much funding is included in Reclamation's budget to
address the control of quagga mussels?
Answer. Reclamation does not have a line item for addressing quagga
mussels. Approximately $1.5 million is allocated within the Science and
Technology line item to support development and testing at several of
our lower Colorado River dams that are already impacted by quagga
mussels. Approximately $200,000 is included annually in each region's
O&M budget to support prevention, development of response plans,
facility vulnerability assessments, public outreach and education, and
coordination efforts with other agencies, stakeholders, and interested
organizations.
Question. What are the estimated costs to Reclamation to deal with
quagga mussels at Reclamation projects?
Answer. Apart from basic monitoring and outreach, the only Region
expending significant funds on retrofitting facilities for control,
management, and protection against mussels is the Lower Colorado
Region, which has been dealing with invasive quagga mussels in Lakes
Mead, Mohave, and Havasu since 2008. The table below provides a general
summary of Reclamation-wide costs associated with planning, prevention,
and mitigation for invasive quagga mussels to date. Reclamation is
monitoring more than 100 of its high-risk reservoirs for early presence
of quagga mussel larvae. However, it is not possible at this time to
forecast how quickly the infestation will spread and, therefore, what
the longer term costs will be for prevention and mitigation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Reclamation Costs and Budget for Quagga/Zebra Mussels 2008 Actual 2008 Direct 2009 Enacted 2009 Direct ARRA Funding 2010 Enacted 2010 Direct Total
Appropriated Fund \1\ Approp. Fund Approp. Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevention...................................................... $72,750 $1,828 $160,947 $25,804 .............. $458,000 $50,000 $769,329
Early Detection/Rapid Response.................................. 114,550 10,000 104,056 59,458 $4,500,000 478,000 100,000 5,366,064
Control and Management.......................................... 109,506 220,000 279,629 267,000 .............. 510,000 305,000 1,691,135
Research........................................................ 927,390 23,090 1,093,000 .............. .............. 1,490,000 .............. 3,533,480
Education and Outreach.......................................... 262,001 1,158 403,208 22,142 .............. 521,940 20,000 1,230,449
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 1,486,197 256,076 2,040,840 374,404 4,500,000 3,457,940 475,000 ..............
===============================================================================================================================
Total..................................................... 1,742,273
2,415,244 4,500,000 3,932,940 12,590,457
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Direct Funding includes all funds and services provided by Reclamation customers, including power revenues, in-kind services, cost share contributions and direct or contributed funds.

quagga and zebra mussels costs/budgets
Category Key
Prevention.--This includes specific prevention measures such as the
preparation of facility assessment plans, boat/equipment inspection/
cleaning, and related training. Early Detection and Rapid Response:
This includes monitoring of invasive species that are beginning to
appear, and quick coordinated responses, including the development of
plans to destroy or contain invasive species before they become too
widespread.
Control and Management.--This includes actions taken to control,
limit, or reduce the impact of zebra and quagga mussels on water system
function. Control methods are generally categorized under four topics:
biological control, chemical control, cultural control, and mechanical
control
Research.--This includes efforts to identify, develop, demonstrate,
and implement (on a pilot or small-scale basis) conventional and
promising new strategies and technologies to protect facilities from
zebra and quagga mussels that which have potentially broad application
for water and power infrastructure.
Education and Outreach.--This includes education and outreach
programs to make the public aware that their actions can result in the
introduction and spread of quagga and zebra mussels. Some examples
include posting or distribution of signs, posters, and handouts in
public recreation sites, or sponsoring public workshops and training.
This also includes participation and leadership in regional, national,
and international professional efforts to review and share knowledge on
efforts to prevent, detect, and conduct research on quagga and zebra
mussels.
desalination research and development
Question. What research and development plans does Reclamation have
for the Brackish Groundwater National Desalination Research Facility in
2011?
Answer. In general, the work at this facility focuses on resolving
environmental issues and reducing the cost of treating inland brackish
groundwater. Emphasis is being placed on the testing of technologies
for the pretreatment and treatment of 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 (Facility) were transferred to New Mexico State
University (NMSU) in fiscal year 2008 ($3.365 million) and fiscal year
2009 ($2.0 million). In fiscal year 2010, NMSU developed the program
for research at or associated with the Facility with requests for
competitive, merit reviewed proposals to be advertised in late fiscal
year 2010 and fiscal year 2011. Reclamation is advertising a fiscal
year 2010 funding opportunity announcement for $1.0 million for a
project in which at least one pilot plant will be carried out at the
Facility and much of the research will lead to pilot projects that will
be constructed and/or conducted at the Facility. For fiscal year 2011,
Reclamation has requested $1.6 million for O&M of the Facility, and
$2.066 million for research on advanced water treatment technologies,
some of which will occur at the facility.
To date, research at the Facility has included work with NMSU,
General Electric, Sandia National Laboratories, University of Texas at
El Paso, Colorado School of Mines, Veolia Water, and Ohio University.
Funding for this research comes from a number of sources including
Department of Defense (Army and Navy), Department of Energy, State of
New Mexico, State of Texas, as well as the Bureau of Reclamation.
Several other projects are in the discussion stages including renewable
energy driven processes, innovative energy recovery systems, new
desalination processes, and a partnership with the city of Alamogordo
New Mexico, a major private sector company, and a local university.
The Facility provides all the required resources for researchers
working with desalination systems, concentrate management issues,
renewable energy/desalination hybrids, and small and rural systems.
Question. Will the fiscal year 2011 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 define and guide research priorities
at the Facility for those appropriations that Reclamation controls. The
amounts requested in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget are
sufficient to undertake the important work of 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 biofouling 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 Facility.
In addition, Reclamation is exploring potential options 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/
pretreatment, and alternative desalination technologies such as forward
osmosis, membrane distillation, electrodialysis, capacitive
deionization, thermal technologies and others.
Question. Do you see any potential for Reclamation becoming
involved in the construction of desalination plants?
Answer. Reclamation was involved in the design and construction of
the world's first large-scale reverse osmosis desalination plant in the
1970s and 1980s, the Yuma Desalting Plant. The YDP applied innovations
developed by the old Office of Water Research and Technology on a very
large scale. Since then, a number of brackish desalination projects
have received construction funding through the Water Reuse Program.
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 business. 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. Potential examples include small scale plants that are part
of a Reclamation Rural Water project, applications on tribal lands, and
applications that are otherwise integrated with Reclamation projects.
Question. 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.
miscellaneous
Question. You have only budgeted about $380,000 for drought
assistance in fiscal year 2011. Is that funding sufficient to address
the drought issues that are anticipated next year?
Answer. 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.
Because Reclamation prepares its budget 2 years in advance, we are
unable to forecast emergency needs for drought. However, we make every
effort to address the greatest need with the funds available.
In addition to the Drought Program, Reclamation also addresses
competing demands for finite water supplies through WaterSMART, which
includes funding for the title XVI, WaterSMART Grants, and Basin
Studies.
Question. What is the drought outlook for the West in 2011?
Answer. Precipitation outlooks are generally unreliable beyond 3
months. Because Reclamation does not forecast weather or drought
conditions, we rely on the information provided by other agencies that
focus 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).
Question. In particular which areas are anticipated to experience
the biggest impacts?
Answer. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Climate Prediction Center, drought conditions through
June 2010 are forecast to persist in the Pacific Northwest and northern
Rockies due to low snowpack and above-average temperatures. In
addition, the El Nino winter has expanded drought conditions in the
Hawaiian Islands.
rural water authority
Question. Can you update us on the status of the Rural Water
Program?
Answer. We began accepting applications for funding under the new
Rural Water Program in the summer of 2010. Currently, Reclamation is in
the process of finalizing internal directives (Directives and
Standards) describing key aspects of program implementation, including
the required content of appraisal investigations and feasibility
studies as well as the process for approving those studies. Reclamation
published the Directives and Standards for the Rural Water Program in
July 2010, and plans to post a Funding Opportunity Announcement on
grants.gov for the program in May 2010. Reclamation received 21
proposals totaling $5.4 million in Federal funding request.
Question. We have appropriated more than $3 million for the Rural
Water program over the last 2 years, and yet no studies have been
started. Will any studies for rural water systems be initiated this
year with the $2.7 million requested?
Answer. Rural water studies will be initiated this year.
Reclamation expects to post a funding opportunity announcement on
grants.gov in May 2010 and anticipates selecting studies for funding in
late August. After the funding opportunity announcement is posted,
project sponsors will also have the opportunity to submit an appraisal
investigation or a feasibility study previously conducted without any
financial or technical support from Reclamation. Reclamation will
review these independent study submittals for eligibility and technical
adequacy and will prepare the appraisal or feasibility reports for
independent studies determined to be eligible for inclusion in the
program, technically adequate, and conforming to Reclamation standards.
Reclamation expects to receive at least six independent study
submissions this year.
cupca
Question. The budget for CUPCA is up $1 million when compared to
fiscal year 2010. Is this funding level sufficient to continue to make
progress on this critical project?
Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget request together with funding
from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the fiscal
year 2010 appropriation will allow the CUPCA program to continue making
sufficient progress.
Question. What is your total funding capability for CUPCA in fiscal
year 2011?
Answer. Although there is always additional funding capability, the
fiscal year 2011 budget request represents a prudent and manageable
level of capability.
Question. What would this additional capability accomplish?
Answer. Additional capability would accelerate current projects.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator Tester. I want to thank you all for coming today. I
appreciate your service, and I appreciate the work you have to
do. It's a tough job. Thank you.
The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., Thursday, March 11, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

----------

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 2011
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers--Civil

Prepared Statement of the San Mateo County Harbor District
oyster point marina/park breakwater reconfiguration
The San Mateo County Harbor District requests your support for a
fiscal year 2011 appropriation of $400,000 to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Continuing Authorities section 107 account to complete this
vital project, which will facilitate the first new water transit
service on San Francisco Bay and essential waterborne emergency
response capability serving the northern San Francisco Peninsula.
Through this project, the breakwater entrance has been widened to
enable safe, fast, and comfortable access by new ferryboat service to
and from the Marina serving east San Francisco Bay.
Completion of the project requires installation of wave attenuators
and adaptive management to dissipate wave energy now entering the
Marina's berthing area because of the entrance widening. This last task
will provide increased protection to berthed vessels from southeasterly
storm surges and protection of Marina facilities and property.
Oyster Point Marina/Park is located in the city of South San
Francisco, and is operated for the city by the Harbor District under a
Joint Powers Agreement. Oyster Point was designated by the San
Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) as
the initial expansion terminal facility for WETA's new regional ferry
service on San Francisco Bay. This is due to the significant employee
base working near the Marina in and around South San Francisco in life
science industries. There are currently around 25,000 employees within
a 4.5 mile radius from the Marina, which is forecasted to double by
2015. Many of these workers commute over the Bay bridges and
contribute, and are adversely affected by, traffic congestion and air
pollution. Water transit is an economically and environmentally viable
alternative.
Additionally, the Marina has been identified as a vital component
of WETA's emergency response plan for San Francisco Bay. The breakwater
project including the wave attenuators is required to accommodate rapid
waterborne emergency response activities, expanded vessel traffic,
improve vessel access and safety, and new ferry traffic.
northern half moon bay shoreline improvement project
The San Mateo County Harbor District requests your support for a
fiscal year 2011 appropriation of $100,000 to the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers Continuing Authorities section 111 account for this project.
Project goals are (a) to halt shoreline erosion now threatening the
Coast Highway, which, as the only coastal artery in the region, is a
homeland security concern as evidenced by the recent tsunami advisory
for the California coast; (b) to enable restoration of anchorage area
to the only designated Harbor of Refuge between San Francisco and
Monterey Bay; (c) to restore public shoreline access and use adjacent
to a major metropolitan area; (d) to demonstrate beneficial sand
replenishment methods that may have broader environmentally sound
applicability; and (e) overall, to insure that the Federal Pillar Point
Harbor breakwater performs as intended.
The Pillar Point Harbor breakwater was built around 1960 to create
a harbor of refuge for the commercial fishing fleet and other vessels.
While serving its primary function, the breakwater has caused erosion
of the adjacent beach and bluff areas by preventing sand movement along
the shoreline and by scouring the area next to the breakwater. This
shoreline erosion has increased over time, destroying one road and
threatening California Highway 1 and several structures, and causing
loss of a heavily used public beach. A July 2009 Army Corps of
Engineers Initial Appraisal concluded that there is sufficient cause
for Federal interest in a shoreline improvement project, which is
supported by government agencies and the public.
pillar point harbor, california
The San Mateo County Harbor District requests your support for a
fiscal year 2011 appropriation of $2.2 million to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account to complete storm damage
repairs to the Federal breakwater at Pillar Point Harbor. Completion of
repairs already in progress will restore breakwater integrity and
navigation safety to a designated critical Harbor of Refuge vital for
the fishing industry, waterborne commerce, recreational boating, and
local and regional economies.
Breakwater-caused shoreline impacts south of the breakwater are
adversely affecting adjacent State highway safety, causing loss of
public beach use, and affecting shoreline property, and must be
addressed by a demonstration project. The recent tsunami advisory for
the California coast highlighted the need for the proposed action,
especially as State Highway 1 is the only traffic artery on this
stretch of coast available for emergency response needs. This project
element will address damage prevention or mitigation along the northern
open-ocean shoreline of Half Moon Bay that are attributable to
construction of the Federal breakwater.
The eroding beach shoreline fronts on Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary waters, which are administered for this sanctuary under
agreement by the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.
Project performance will show how human activities can be sustained
without causing adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources.
This project thus addresses urgent Federal concerns with navigation
safety, homeland security, marine resource protection, and public use,
and will complete work already begun.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Shore & Beach Preservation
Association
I am Mayor Harry Simmons of Caswell Beach, North Carolina and
President of the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association. ASBPA
appreciates this opportunity to provide written testimony to the Senate
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee on the fiscal year 2011
budget of the Corps of Engineers. Over the years, the Appropriations
Committees, and Congress as a whole, have been extremely supportive of
what is known as the Federal shore protection program. We are very
grateful for the many times you stood up to what has seemed like the
never-ending efforts of one administration after another to cripple or
terminate this program.
The Federal coastal restoration program represents our Nation's
commitment to responsible coastal stewardship. Our coasts are the
gateway to America. They provide the seagoing and intracoastal water
highways which carry most of America's commerce. They are the home to
hundreds of animal and plant species that are not likely to be found
elsewhere. They sustain tens of thousands of middle-class and service
worker jobs which, together with taxes on business profits, bring
billions of dollars into the Federal Treasury each year.
This administration has been far more willing to discuss and budget
for coastal programs and projects than at any time since 1995. That is
indeed refreshing. However, the recommendation the President has made
in his fiscal year 2011 budget of approximately $55 million is only
one-tenth of what ASBPA's national survey shows as the need for $460
million for the Federal cost-share of what is needed to fund authorized
shoreline projects and studies. Inevitably and regrettably, this
optimal funding number increases each year that we have done this
analysis. The Federal Government has not provided its share of the cost
of studies and projects while non-Federal sponsors have their 35 to 50
percent share in hand because they have set aside funds in advance.
Following are our recommendations for funding some of the national
programs promoting coastal stewardship. They are not listed in priority
order. ASBPA hopes the subcommittee will give consideration to each of
these requests. Thank you for considering our views. We look forward to
continuing to work with the subcommittee on the funding and
effectiveness of coastal programs.
national planning centers of expertise (gi)
The Corps of Engineers designated six national Planning Centers of
Expertise and identified their roles in support of plan formulation and
complex technical evaluations associated with plan formulation. These
Planning Centers of Expertise provide specialized planning talent to
enhance and supplement the capabilities of the districts. They include
Deep Draft Navigation and Small Boat Harbors, Inland Navigation,
Ecosystem Restoration, Coastal Storm Damage Reduction, Flood Risk
Management, and Water Management and Reallocation Studies.
ASBPA has found that the Coastal and Storm Damage Reduction
Planning Center of Expertise (Coastal PCX) has been extremely helpful
to Districts and their customers and has increased the quality of the
Corps work product and re-instilled confidence on the part of local
sponsors in the Corps of Engineers. In fiscal year 2009, Congress
designated some funding allocated to the Planning Support Program (GI
account) for the 6 centers. In fiscal year 2010, the Senate bill
designated funding specifically for the Coastal PCX. This was not
carried over in conference.
ASBPA Request.--$1,500,000 for the 6 PCX's as a separate line item
under the GI account. No funding is included in the President's budget
request.
water resource priorities report (gi)
Section 2032 of WRDA 2007 provides the Corps of Engineers with the
direction and authority to examine risk assessment and risk reduction
in the broadest and yet most practical approach imaginable. We
understand the Corps has requested but not received funding from
Congress to do the report.
ASBPA Request.--$2 million to undertake what is likely to be a 2-
year effort to meet the mandate of section 2032. No funding is included
in the President's budget request.
section 2038--national shoreline erosion control development program
(cg)
Section 227 of WRDA 1992 created a program to test new technologies
that will improve the performance of Federal beach restoration projects
and reduce their cost. Section 2038 of WRDA section 2038 moved the
section 227 program into the section 103 Small Shoreline Protection
Projects Continuing Authorities Program. The President has earmarked
every dollar of the funding he requested for section 103 projects, and
not one of those dollars is requested for the Shoreline Erosion Control
development program.
ASBPA Requests.--$8,975,000 to plan, construct, and/or monitor at
least 9 demonstration projects. No funding is included in the
President's budget request.
regional sediment management research program (o&m)
RSM is not a faster way to plan and execute water resources
projects; it is a better way. It is a systems-based approach that
solves sediment-related issues through integrated management of
littoral, estuarine, and riverine sediments and projects to achieve the
type of balanced and sustainable approach that is lacking when planning
and funding is done on a project-by-project basis. RSM will be a major
factor in protecting environmental resources while also bringing
efficiencies and greater effectiveness that would otherwise not be
achievable.
ASBPA Request.--$9 million to continue Federal, State, and local
cooperative RSM efforts in almost a dozen States. The President has
requested $2 million for this program.
regional sediment management program authorized by section 2037 of wrda
2007 (cg)
This is now known as the section 204 program and is separate from
the RSM research program above. This program enables the Corps to do at
least two things that the Research program cannot do: (1) Construction
RSM projects; and (2) Cooperate with States that have initiated their
own RSM studies.
ASBPA Request.--$15 million to fund the planning and construction
phases of RSM projects from New England to California. There is no
funding included in the President's budget request.
national coastal mapping program (gi)
This is an interagency effort to survey the U.S. shoreline on a
recurring basis to support regional sediment management, construction,
operations and maintenance, and regulatory functions in the coastal
zone. With this data, governmental entities at all levels will be
better able to manage America's coastal resources.
ASBPA Request.--$13 million to complete the first survey of the
entire U.S. shoreline of the lower 48 States. The President has
requested $7 million for this program.
coastal field data collection program (gi)
Without good data, there can be no project planning for the present
and no systems planning for the future. CFDC includes the Corps' Field
Research Facility which obtains data on longer-term coastal processes,
the Wave Information Study to develop and analyze new surge and wave
data. This line items also includes several other programs such as
SWIMS, PILOT, and MORPHUS.
ASBPA Request.--$6,600,000 to complete construction of projects and
continue monitoring and evaluation of completed projects. The President
has requested $1.4 million for all of the programs under this heading.
coastal data information program (o&m)
This is the first year the President has proposed funding a
separate line item. Nevertheless, this program was established in 1975
and has now been deployed at over 142 stations and has archived 200 GB
of wave duty, The CDIP also contains information that is accessed daily
by the Navy, Coast Guard, Marines, as well as those commercial
fisherman and others in the private sector.
ASBPA Request.--$5 million. The President's budget request contains
$3 million for this line item, which does not permit to expand to the
east coast.
national shoreline management study (gi)
Authorized by WRDA 1999, this study will provide the first detailed
report since 1971 on which sections of the U.S. shoreline are accreting
and which are eroding. Without this basic information, none of us knows
how serious a problem coastal erosion is.
ASBPA Request.--$500,000. The President has requested $375,000 for
this study.
national hurricane program (gi)
This program is a cooperative effort with FEMA. The studies
provided by the National Hurricane Program (NHP) help State and local
communities establish evacuation plans by determining the probable
effects of a hurricane; predicting public response to the threat and
advisories, and identifying appropriate shelters. Specifically, NHP
conducts hazard and vulnerability analyses for coastal communities
considering different types of storm threats. This includes an
assessment of storm surge and wind impacts; existing road and other
transportation systems, population (e.g., demographics, behavior
analysis) and shelters. This information helps officials determine
where individuals are most likely to go when evacuating from a storm.
The NHP assists coastal communities by developing evacuation zones,
which helps determine where and when the public should be ordered to
evacuate as a storm approaches. This recommendation is negotiated among
decisionmakers within each community. Once the evacuation zones are
established, the NHP provides each community with corresponding
evacuation maps and suggested clearance times for the various types of
storm categories. The communities determine how to utilize these tools
and recommendations, in developing their evacuation plans.
ASBPA Request.--$3 million as a separate line item in O&M. It is
currently part of the National Emergency Preparedness Program and was
allocated $1 million from that program in fiscal year 2010.
flood control and coastal emergencies (fcce)
According to the President's budget justification for this
important category of funds: ``FISCAL YEAR 2011 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS:
This activity consists of functions required to ensure that USACE
activities are ready to provide baseline response to disasters and
emergencies . . . Planning and preparedness funding should be sought as
part of the regular budget process, instead of relying on emergency
supplementals. Recent earthquakes, Nor'easters, ice storms and tsunamis
illustrate the need for preparedness funding and the ability to provide
trained staff and resources immediately after or even prior to an
event.'' ASBPA agrees with the need to include FCCE funding in the
regular appropriations bill. Unfortunately, this has not been the case
in recent years. When emergencies arise, the Corps has no money on hand
to deal with them and must wait for a Supplemental Appropriations bill
for that purpose.
ASBPA Request.--$50 million. The President has requested $30
million which is substantially below his fiscal year 2010 request.
______

Prepared Statement of the Fifth Louisiana Levee District
The Board of Commissioners for the Fifth Louisiana Levee District
respectfully requests that construction funding for Mississippi River
Levees be increased from the $29,150,000 contained in the proposed
budget for fiscal year 2011, to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers'
capability of $56,238,000, and the Mississippi River Levee maintenance
allocation be increased from the proposed $7,582,000 to $20,270,000.
Reduced funding, combined with the inability to let construction
contracts under a continuing contract clause, has left thousands of
people in Louisiana vulnerable to the adverse effects of a deficient
levee system. Construction of levee enlargements is essential if the
levee is to contain the ``Project Flood'' which is estimated to be 20
percent greater than the record Flood of 1927.
The effect of fully funded contracts for levee construction, now
required under Public Law 109-103, (sec. 106 and 108), adopted by the
109th Congress in 2005, as opposed to the previous system of continuing
contract clauses, has virtually halted enlargement of the Mississippi
River Levee System in Louisiana. Year after year, as the cost of
projects and maintenance has increased, funding for levee systems and
flood control has been reduced. The current proposed budget is no
exception, with only $240 million allocated for the entire Mississippi
River and Tributaries (MR&T) project. We request that be increased to
the Corp's capabilities of $550 million.
Since the Mississippi River and Tributaries project was
established, less than $11 billion has been invested. This investment
provides benefits far beyond their actual cost to the taxpayer by
offering protection to the 4 million citizens, 1.5 million homes,
33,000 farms, and countless vital transportation routes from
destructive floods.
With the help of Congress, great progress has been made in the
Mississippi River Valley over the years, but there is still much to be
done, and because of that, we urge Congress to increase funding to the
Corp of Engineers in fiscal year 2011, to insure that the Corp is not
forced to halt or delay contracts for levee construction essential to
the well being of this Nation. It is vital that the MR&T project(s) be
completed at the earliest possible date. This can only be accomplished
through adequate funding and repeal of the mandate for contracts to be
fully funded prior to the beginning construction.
______

Prepared Statement of the Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-
Mississippi Delta
These are changing times for this country's flood control community
and those whom they seek to protect. As you in your wisdom consider
such weighty matters as Levee Certification coupled with FEMA's new
mapping initiative, the Clean Water Act, new Objectives, Principles and
Standards for the Corps of Engineers and a related Executive order, a
new WRDA bill and 2011 funding for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project, we urge you to do so with one guiding principle:
First do no harm.
As you craft a new approach to flood control activities for the
21st century, we urge you not to lose sight of the successes of the
20th and what they have meant to this country. The land in and around
the Mississippi River Valley is among the most fertile and bountiful on
earth. Not only is it home to the salt-of-the-earth men and women of
the Nation's heartland, but within it is produced a significant slice
of the U.S. export pie--the food and fiber that feed and clothe this
Nation and the rest of the world.
You in this body and we in the flood control community are its
stewards and as we move forward, we must do so always keeping in mind
our duty to protect it. Update the Clean Water Act, but maintain its
critical Navigable Waters clause; write new guidelines and standards,
but avoid any radical departure from what has worked; enact a new WRDA
bill, but enact one whose principal theme is to preserve and protect.
We are also keenly aware of the fiscal tightropes which must be
walked in this country's current economic environment. Every dollar is
critical and every expenditure must be prioritized. But what priority
trumps the protection of our people and the wealth they produce? What
role of government is more critical?
The administration proposes 2011 funding for the MR&T, truly one of
this Nation's success stories with a virtually unmatched benefit to
cost ratio, at $240 million, an amount far less than you appropriated
for 2010 and an amount even farther less than the Corps of Engineers'
capability. But the final word is that of Congress, and we urge you to
fund the MR&T umbrella of needed public works at the Corps capability
level of $550 million.
As a local levee board, our first priority should be and is the
protection of the lives and livelihoods of our people. Simply put, the
Mainline Mississippi River Levee makes life and development possible
within the Mississippi Delta. Therefore, we ask you to fund Mississippi
River levees construction at $56.238 million and their maintenance at
$20.270 million.
Our levee board is proud to have been the sponsor of the Upper
Yazoo Projects, one of the most successful such endeavors in the
country, given testament by the fact that it faces absolutely no
environmental opposition. To advance its completion, we urge that you
appropriate $13.3 million.
Mississippi's four flood control reservoirs have proven to be
remarkably successful structures, but they are aging and we request the
appropriation of a total of $54.113 million for their maintenance.
Also of primary importance to us is the Delta Headwater Project,
which helps to prevent our Delta streams from filling with soils eroded
from the hills. We ask that it be funded at $23.2 million.
The other investigations, construction projects and maintenance
efforts of importance to our levee district are as follows. We ask they
be funded in 2011 at their respective Corps of Engineers capability
levels:
--Channel Improvements--$59.646 million.
--Big Sunflower River--$2.2 million.
--Main Stem--$25,000.
--Yazoo Basin Reformulation--$1.6 million.
--Channel Maintenance--$89.484 million.
--Revetments and Dikes--$72.328 million.
--Vicksburg Harbor Maintenance--$750,000.
--Big Sunflower Maintenance--$1.684 million.
--Main Stem Maintenance--$3.4 million.
--Tributaries--$1.017 million.
--Whittington Auxiliary Channel--$400,000.
______

Prepared Statement of the Big Bear Municipal Water District
The Big Bear Municipal Water District appreciates the opportunity
to submit this testimony for the record in support of the $650,000
request in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the Santa Ana River
and Tributaries, Big Bear Lake, CA for the general investigations
budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Big Bear Municipal
Water District is an independent special district of the State of
California, responsible for the overall management of Big Bear Lake,
Southern California's Premier recreational Lake.
Located 100 miles east of Los Angeles, the Big Bear Lake
recreational area attracts visitors from across southern California and
beyond. Annually, the greater Big Bear area receives over 6.5 million
visitors from around the world. The Lake is a unique recreational and
natural resource, offering some of the most beautiful high elevation
scenery in southern California. The lake has a depth of 72 feet, and is
about 7 miles in length and about 1.5 miles wide at its greatest width.
The problems at Big Bear Lake are very similar to the more
publicized environmental problems at Lake Tahoe. The purpose is to
implement a project for aquatic habitat restoration in Big Bear Lake.
Most of the Lake's environmental problems are created by the activities
in the Federal owned lands in the surrounding watershed. The removal of
nutrient laden sediment that has accumulated is critical to improving
the Lake's water quality, controlling nuisance aquatic plant growth,
enhancing the wildlife habitat, and maintaining boating and fishing
access. The Lake is on the EPA's 303d list of impaired water bodies,
with listings for nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen), invasive
aquatic plants, and mercury. Big Bear Lake dry year TMDL's for
nutrients and invasive aquatic plants have been developed. Removal of
sediment loads is a major remediation requirement. Big Bear Lake is
adjacent to the Pacific Flyway and is home to numerous waterfowl,
including the wintering bald eagle. Most recently, the Lake is
threatened by the introduction of the invasive species, Quagga Mussel.
We are in the 8th year of an ecosystem restoration feasibility
study being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, general
investigations program. We are seeking funds for completion of the
feasibility phase. The water district is the cost-sharing sponsor and
has met all our local cost sharing responsibilities.
The Congressional Interests for this feasibility study are Senator
Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-
41st).
Our Contact information is: Mr. Scott Heule, General Manager, Big
Bear Municipal Water District, P.O. Box 2863, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315-
2863. Telephone: 909-866-5796, Fax: 909-866-6485, e-mail Address:
[email protected].
recommendation for your consideration
We support the $650,000 request to provide in the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers General Investigation Budget, for fiscal year 2011 to
advance the Santa Ana Tributaries, Big Bear Lake, CA aquatic habitat
restoration study being conducted by the Corps. Thank you.
______

Prepared Statement of The Little River Drainage District
Dear Senator Dorgan: My name is 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 dollar
expended. What a good investment.
The $4.6 billion of stimulus funding provided the Corps of
Engineers in 2009 was greatly appreciated. Several needed projects were
commenced and completed which otherwise would not have occurred. Much
more needs to be done to provide the Mississippi Valley the flood
protection its citizens need and the extreme need to modernize our
inland waterway system.
Many jobs would be realized and many products would be purchased
throughout the entire Mississippi Valley and the watersheds which
discharge into this system if an aggressive modernization of our Inland
Waterway was put in motion. We must put people back to work and this
will help considerably. The stimulus funds helped, however, there still
remains room for more funding. This District supports the request of
the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association for funding levels at
$550 million for the MR&T Project. This project as well as all of the
subsidiary projects within it are returning back to the U.S. Treasury a
minimum of $6 for each $1 invested.
Many of our locks and dams are over 70 years old and we are sitting
idly by letting them deteriorate further. The current administration
pledged to improve the infrastructure in this Nation. We are waiting to
see that promise fulfilled. These much needed improvements are
investments in this Nation's future. When they are fully underway many
jobs will be created in the private sector thus serving a twofold
purpose. Please hear us and help us improve this vital part of our
Nation.
We believe Congress needs to intervene and reverse the trend of
OMB, this administration 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. Local businesses 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.
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 expected. 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 additional comments for your benefit and
consideration.
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, its infrastructure. When are we going to commence?
Our Federal road systems are crumbling. We must not wait for
bridges to fail as recently happened in Minnesota 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 each year until we have completed
the task.
Are we truly interested in fuel independence--a cleaner
environment--a better economy? If we are why don't we have someone step
forward to 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
of 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 benefited 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 to
$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 billion each 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 in the past. We trust
you will hear our pleas once more and act accordingly.
______

Prepared Statement of the 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 $8 million in the Army
Corps of Engineers budget for the Rio de Flag flood control project in
fiscal year 2011. 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 $20
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 2011.
Like many other projects under the Army Corps's jurisdiction, Rio
de Flag received no funding in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget,
although the Corps has expressed a capability of $8 million to continue
construction on the project and have been unwavering in their support
of it. We are hopeful that the subcommittee will fund the Rio de Flag
project at $8 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 one-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 and 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 $8 million in fiscal year 2011 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 $8 million for fiscal year 2011.
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 had 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 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.
Furthermore, the amount of money invested in this project by the
Federal Government and the city--approximately $54 million (as
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.
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 $8 million for this project in the fiscal year 2011 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations bill. Thank you in advance for
your consideration.
______

Prepared Statement of the Port of Harlingen--Harlingen, Texas
history and background
Port Harlingen, also known as the Rio Hondo Port, is on the Arroyo
Colorado and Farm Road 106, on the eastern city limits of Harlingen.
The channel connecting Arroyo Colorado with the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway was completed and dedicated on February 27, 1952. It is 12
feet deep and 125 feet wide and has a turning basin measuring 400 by
600 feet. By 1962 the port was handling $2.5 million in commerce. In
1983 commodity shipments amounted to 455,430 short tons, and they
increased to 801,003 short tons in 1984, when the port housed 10
industries with commercial leases. In 1989 Port Harlingen handled
728,954 short tons.
The port is located 4 miles east of Harlingen, Texas on Highway
106. It is 25 miles west of Mile Marker 646 on the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, which stretches from the Mexican border at Brownsville,
Texas, along the entire coast of the Gulf of Mexico to St. Marks,
Florida. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway provides over 1,300 miles of
protected waterway. The Harlingen channel is maintained to a width of
125 feet and a depth of 12 feet and is supplied by the Arroyo Colorado,
a fresh water river.
project description
The project is located in the vicinity of Rio Hondo and Harlingen
in Cameron and Willacy Counties, Texas. The project consists of a
channel 25.8 miles long. The channel extends with the main channel of
the GIWW through the Arroyo Colorado to the turning basin at Harlingen.
It also included a barge-mooring basin near the channel's junction with
the GIWW. Authorized channel dimensions are 12 feet by 125 feet. One
hundred percent of all the sugar (180,000 tons), 95 percent of all
commercial fertilizer products and 30 percent of all gasoline products
for south Texas is shipped through the Port of Harlingen. The Corps of
Engineers has determined a need for levee work in Harlingen Channel
that were destroyed during recent storms in Texas.
economic impact of the port of harlingen
The Port of Harlingen provides efficient and economical
transportation to points as close as Corpus Christi and as far as the
Great Lakes. Terminal docks and other facilities ease shipments into
and out of the Port of Harlingen, and over 150 acres of on-and-off
channel sites are available for industrial firms requiring economical
transportation and attractive land lease rates. The port is also an
important link in the comprehensive transportation network of the Rio
Grande Valley of Texas. Southern Pacific Company rail lines at the
port, along with switching capabilities with Union Pacific Railways,
keep products moving to Texas locations and on throughout the U.S. and
Mexico. Additionally, as was stated in the project description above,
100 percent of all the sugar (180,000 tons), 95 percent of all
commercial fertilizer products and 30 percent of all gasoline products
for south Texas is shipped through the Port of Harlingen.
community and industry support
One industry the Port of Harlingen is involved in is sugar. The
Port of Harlingen Authority has bid and is building a $3.8 million
sugar transfer building to load barges of sugar for shipment to
Louisiana. The sugar mill shipped 171,962 short tons of sugar to
Louisiana in 2006-2007 and should ship in excess of 180,000 short tons
in 2007-2008. The mill cannot ship raw sugar by rail because the finish
mills in Louisiana are not currently capable of receiving raw sugar by
rail, and instead are organized to ship finished sugar by rail. To ship
the sugar by truck would take over 6,878 truckloads at 4 times the
cost. If this occurs, recent economic studies have determined that it
would put the mill out of business.
Additional industries present at the Port are Agro Alliance, Helena
Chemical, UAP and Wilber Ellis, which have facilities at the port or
down stream that handle 99 percent of all of the commercial liquid and
dry fertilizer for south Texas. CMX also has a terminal at the port
that handles much needed concrete sand shipped from Victoria and Cement
shipped in from Mexico.
Valero Energy Corporation, which once actively sent gas and diesel
fuel to the Port of Harlingen by barge, also has projects underway at
the Port. In October 2005, Valero finished a pipeline to the valley to
service all three terminals and stopped all barge traffic. In July 2006
they started barging (about two barges a month) ultra low sulfur diesel
to the valley. They are currently shipping the entire ultra low sulfur
diesel by barge and the traffic is almost back to levels achieved
before their pipeline was built.
what we need from the subcommittee in fiscal year 2011
The administration's fiscal year 2011 budget did not include
funding for the levee work needed in Harlingen Channel. As
deliberations on the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations
commence, we would appreciate your help in securing the Corps
capability of $805,000 so that this project can move forward and ensure
that the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway--Port of Harlingen received the
important levee work identified by the USACE.
______

Prepared Statement of the Brazos River Harbor Navigation District--
Freeport, Texas
history and background
Port Freeport is an autonomous governmental entity authorized by an
act of the Texas Legislature in 1925. It is a deep-draft port, located
on Texas' central gulf coast, approximately 60 miles southwest of
Houston, and is an important Brazos River Navigation District
component. The port elevation is 3 to 12 feet above sea level. Port
Freeport is governed by a board of six commissioners elected by the
voters of the Navigation District of Brazoria County, which currently
encompasses 85 percent of the county. Port Freeport land and operations
currently include 186 acres of developed land and 7,723 acres of
undeveloped land, 5 operating berths, a 45 feet deep Freeport Harbor
Channel and a 70 feet deep sink hole. Future expansion includes
building a 1,300-acre multi-modal facility, cruise terminal and
container terminal. Port Freeport is conveniently accessible by rail,
waterway and highway routes. There is direct access to the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River Diversion Channel, and State
Highways 36 and 288. Located just 3 miles from deep water, Port
Freeport is one of the most accessible ports on the gulf coast.
project description
The fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations signed into
law included a $100,000 appropriation to allow the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to conduct a reconnaissance study to
determine the Federal interest in an improvement project for Freeport
Harbor, Texas. The USACE, in cooperation with the Brazos River Harbor
Navigation District as the local sponsor, has completed that study. The
report indicates that ``transportation savings in the form of National
Economic Development Benefits (NED) appear to substantially exceed the
cost of project implementation'', thus confirming ``a strong Federal
interest in conducting the feasibility study of navigation improvements
at Freeport Harbor''. Congress has to date appropriated over $ 4
million for the study phase of the channel improvement project. This
last phase of study for PED will move the project to completion of the
feasibility report and ready the channel for construction.
Port Freeport has the opportunity to solidify significant new
business for Texas with this improvement project. In addition, the
improvement to the environment by taking a huge number of trucks off of
the road, transporting goods more economically and environmentally
sensitive by waterborne commerce is infinitely important to the
community, the State, and the Nation. Moreover, the enhanced safety of
a wider channel cannot be overstated. The emergence of an LNG facility
at Port Freeport--a joint venture of Conoco-Philips and Cheniere Energy
further solidifies the importance of keeping this critical waterway at
optimum depth and width.
economic impact of port freeport
Port Freeport is 13th in foreign tonnage in the United States. It
is responsible for augmenting the Nation's economy by over $9 billion
annually and generating over nearly 24,000 jobs in Texas, over 11,000
direct. It also augments the economy by providing annual State and
local taxes of over $150,000 and an additional of over $300 million in
Federal tax revenues. Its chief import commodities are bananas, fresh
fruit and aggregate while top export commodities are rice and
chemicals. The port's growth has been staggering in the past decade,
becoming one of the fastest growing ports on the gulf coast. Port
Freeport's economic impact and its future growth is justification for
its budding partnership with the Federal Government in this critical
improvement project.
Examples of existing tenants at the Port include:
Dole Fresh Fruit.--Dole has a weekly sailing arriving at Port
Freeport with green fruit and other exotic fruits, mainly from
Guatemala and Honduras. Dole has been a tenant of Port Freeport for the
past 23 years, occupying lease sites comprising of 12 acres and has
just renewed its lease for another 5 years. There are approximately 450
jobs associated with this operation.
Chiquita Fresh North America.--Chiquita is very similar to the Dole
operation. Chiquita also has a weekly sailing and has been a tenant of
Port Freeport for the past 12 years. There are about 400 jobs
associated with this operation.
Turbana Banana & Isabella Shipping.--Turbana and Isabella,
divisions of Uniban, based in Colombia import 2,000 pallet loads of
green fruit and other exotic fruits into Port Freeport weekly. The
fruit is processed in a newly built chiller, which the Port undertook
and built 2 years ago at a cost of $7 million. In addition to their
import activities, they also export general cargo back weekly to ports
in Costa Rica and Colombia. Since moving to Freeport 2 years ago,
Turbana has increased their business 38 percent. This highly labor-
intensive company accounts for 500+ jobs. Turbana and Isabella recently
announced a significant expansion of their Freeport operations that
will double their cargo throughput within the next 4 months.
American Rice Inc./Grupo SOS.--As a 20-year tenant of the Port,
this company has the largest rice milling operation in the United
States located on water. They are one of the largest suppliers to Iraq
in the effort to help rebuild their economy. American Rice was recently
acquired by the Spanish firm Grupo SOS, based in Madrid.
Grupo SOS recently announced an expansion project at the Port
Freeport site totaling $150 million dollars. Once all the new
facilities are built, Port Freeport will be the distribution center for
all North America, sending product out by ship, truck, and rail to
Mexico, Canada, the Tropics, and South America as well as throughout
the United States. With the expansion, there will be approximately
2,000 jobs associated with this operation.
Freeport LNG/ConocoPhillips.--Port Freeport was successful 4 years
ago in attracting Freeport LNG to a site on Quintana Island, owned by
the Port. This facility, the first new liquefied natural gas plant to
be built in the United States in the last 25 years, will begin
operations in the first quarter of 2008. The volume of natural gas
imported in Phase I will be equal to 10 percent of the total gas
production of the State of Texas and Phase II will equal over 20
percent of the entire State's production from this one terminal. The
docks at the terminal are designed to handle the largest LNG ships
being designed for the future, will require a wider ship channel which
will need to be maintained for these larger ships. The investment in
the LNG facility is $1 billion. The importance of this facility cannot
be understated. With gas prices spiking at $13/bcf (from $3) recently,
local petrochemical plants had to shut down some production units, as
an example, Dow Chemical Freeport purchases $1 million of LNG daily to
fire up their various production facilities.
In addition to the Port tenants listed above there a numerous U.S.
and international chemical and crude processing facilities in the
immediate area. Some of the larger international corporations utilizing
the Freeport ship channel are as follows:
Dow Chemical.--A diversified chemical company that offers a broad
range of products and services to customers in more than 175 countries,
helping them to provide everything from fresh water, food and
pharmaceuticals to paints, packaging and personal care products. Dow
has annual sales of $49 billion and employs 43,000 people worldwide,
with 4,000 full time employees in the Texas operations and another
3,000 contract employees. Texas Operations in Freeport is Dow's largest
integrated site where 44 percent of Dow's products are sold in the
United States and more than 21 percent of Dow's products sold globally
are manufactured. Dow's Freeport Marine Terminal and Operations (FMTO)
uses the Freeport Harbor channel and handles the movement of 100
different Dow products at 15 billion pounds annually. Marine vessels
transport 46 percent of Dow's volume through Dow docks on the Freeport
channel.
ConocoPhillips owns and operates a 247,000 bpd refinery at Old
Ocean, Texas, that relies heavily on marine operations for the delivery
of crude oil and other feedstock supplies; and, to a lesser extent, for
product shipments. In particular, ConocoPhillips utilizes both its own
proprietary terminal and the Teppco crude oil terminal at Port
Freeport. Maintaining and improving the Port Freeport channel is
critical to overall refinery operations.
Seaway Crude Pipeline Company is a partnership between wholly owned
subsidiaries of TEPPCO and ConocoPhillips. The pipeline transports
crude oil from the Texas gulf coast to Cushing, OK, a crude
distribution point for the central United States and a delivery point
for the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). The Seaway system is a
critical link in the crude oil supply chain for Central and Midwest
refining centers. Seaway also provides marine terminaling and storage
services for Texas gulf coast area refineries. TEPPCO is the operator
of Seaway Crude Pipeline. The Freeport, TX, marine terminal is the
origin point for the 30-inch diameter crude pipeline. Three large
diameter lines carry crude oil from Freeport to the Jones Creek Tank
Farm, which has 6 storage tanks capable of handling approximately 3.3
million barrels of crude. This private terminal also acts as the
receiving terminal for crude delivered to the Bryan Mound Strategic
Petroleum Reserve operated by the Department of Energy.
Schenectady Chemical, Shintech, Air Liquide, Nalco, Rhodia, Rhone-
Poulenc, S F Sulfur Corp and Silica Products are other large
international companies in the immediate area. All of these companies
depend on, in some form or fashion the delivery or dispatch of product,
crude or feedstock by vessel. There is well over $100 billion in assets
in the immediate area, assets that are in the ground, provide for
30,000 direct jobs supplying our country with everything from gasoline
for our vehicles to baby diapers.
Recent Port improvements include the Velasco Terminal, which was
launched last October as our first major container terminal. This
facility, presently under construction will boast a berthing line of
2,400 linear feet with 90 acres of backland for development. Phase I,
building Velasco terminal will cost $35 million dollars and should be
completed in 18 months. We have three, large international companies
submitting proposals to act as terminal operators. Overall build out
cost could go as high as $200 million and is designed to handle as many
as 700,000 containers.
defense support of our nation
Port Freeport is a strategic port in times of National Defense of
our Nation. It houses a critically important petroleum oil reserve--
Bryan Mound. Its close proximity to State Highways 36 and 288 make it a
convenient deployment port for Fort Hood. In these unusual times, it is
important to note the importance of our ports in the defense of our
Nation and to address the need to keep our Federal waterways open to
deep-draft navigation.
community and industry support
This proposed improvement project has wide community and industry
support. The safer transit and volume increase capability is an
appealing and exciting prospect for the users of Freeport Harbor and
Stauffer Channel. The anticipated positive benefit to cost ratio that
was indicated from the Corps of Engineers reconnaissance study firmly
solidified the Federal interest.
what we need from the subcommittee in fiscal year 2011
The administration included no funding for PED for the widening and
deepening project for Port Freeport; therefore, we need an add on of
$500,000 to initiate PED. The administration did include $3,538,000 in
O&M for maintenance of Freeport Harbor; however, that amount falls
short of the Corps capability. Maintenance dredging of Federal harbors
is a Federal responsibility; therefore, we respectfully request the
additional funding of $7,374,000 to restore the harbor to its
authorized depth. The Corps will need to continue to move this
important project through the system on an optimum schedule and most
cost-efficient timeframe for the Federal Government and the local
sponsor. We respectfully request that the full amount of the Corps
capability for PED and O&M be included in the House mark-up.
Not only is the widening and deepening project currently under
consideration as a feasibility study by the Corps needed to ensure the
continued growth of the port and surrounding industries, we need
continued support from the Federal Government to insure our channel is
maintained at it's Federal authorized depth of 45 feet to assure our
current customers that we will continue to be able to serve them.
______

Prepared Statement of the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation
District, Texas
history and background
The Rivers and Harbor Act of 1890 originally authorized navigation
improvements to Cedar Bayou. The project was reauthorized in 1930 to
provide a 10 foot deep and 100 foot wide channel from the Houston Ship
Channel to a point on Cedar Bayou 11 miles above the mouth of the
bayou. In 1931, a portion of the channel was constructed from the
Houston Ship Channel to a point about 0.8 miles above the mouth of
Cedar Bayou, approximately 3.5 miles in length. A study of the project
in 1971 determined that an extension of the channel to project Mile 3
would have a favorable benefit to cost ratio. This portion of the
channel was realigned from mile 0.1 to mile 0.8 and extended from mile
0.8 to Mile 3 in 1975. In October 1985, the portion of the original
navigation project from project Mile 3 to 11 was deauthorized due to
the lack of a local sponsor.
In 1989, the Corps of Engineers, Galveston District completed a
Reconnaissance Report dated June 1989, which recommended a study for an
improvement to a 12 foot by 125 foot channel from the Houston Ship
Channel Mile 3 to Cedar Bayou Mile 11 at the State Highway 146 Bridge.
Subsequently, at the completion of the feasibility report, the
preferred plan recommendation was to construct a 10 foot by 100 foot
channel. The feasibility report was approved by both the ASA of Civil
Works for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Office of Management and
Budget.
The Texas Legislature created the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou
Navigation District in 1997 as an entity to improve the navigability of
Cedar Bayou. The district was created to accomplish the purpose of
section 59, Article XVI, of the Texas Constitution and has all the
rights, powers, privileges and authority applicable to Districts
created under chapters 60, 62, and 63 of the Water Code--Public Entity.
The Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District then became the
local sponsor for the Cedar Bayou Channel.
project description and reauthorization
Cedar Bayou is a small coastal stream, which originates in Liberty
County, Texas, and meanders through the urban area near the eastern
portion of the city of Baytown, Texas, before entering Galveston Bay.
The bayou forms the boundary between Harris County on the west and
Chambers County on the east. The project was authorized in section 349
of the Water Resources Development Act 2000, which authorized a
navigation improvement of 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide from mile 2.5
to mile 11 on Cedar Bayou. Corps studies have indicated that the
preferred plan is to widen the channel to 100 feet and deepen it to 10
feet which is the current plan of action.
justification and industry support
First and foremost, the channel must be improved for safety. The
channel is the home to a busy barge industry. The most cost-efficient
and safe method of conveyance is barge transportation. Water
transportation offers considerable cost savings compared to other
freight modes (rail is nearly twice as costly and truck nearly four
times higher). In addition, the movement of cargo by barge is
environmentally friendly. Barges have enormous carrying capacity while
consuming less energy, due to the fact that a large number of barges
can move together in a single tow, controlled by only one power unit.
The result takes a significant number of trucks off of Texas highways.
The reduction of air emissions by the movement of cargo on barges is a
significant factor as communities struggle with compliance with the
Clean Air Act. Several navigation-dependent industries and commercial
enterprises have been established along the commercially navigable
portions of Cedar Bayou. Several industries have docks at the mile
markers that would be affected by this much-needed improvement. These
industries include: Reliant Energy, Bayer Corporation, Koppel Steel,
CEMEX, US Filter Recovery Services and Dorsett Brothers Concrete, to
name a few.
project costs and benefits
Congress appropriated $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 for the Corps of
Engineers to conduct the feasibility study to determine the Federal
interest in this improvement project. The study indicated a benefit to
cost ratio of the project of 2.8 to 1. The estimated total cost of the
project is $16.8 million with a Federal share estimated at $11.9
million and the non-Federal sponsor share of approximately $4.9
million. Total annual benefits are estimated to be $4.8 million, with a
net benefit of $3 million. Congress thus far has appropriated nearly
$1.7 million for this project.
It has also become an important project for the Port of Houston
Authority--the Nation's busiest port in foreign tonnage. They hope to
institute a container on barge facility as soon as this project is
accomplished. We would appreciate the subcommittee's support of the
required add of the $100,000 to initiate construction of this important
improvement project. The users of the channel deserve to have the
benefits of a safer, most cost-effective Federal waterway.
current status
In July 2006, the project feasibility report was accepted and
approved by Assistant Secretary of the Army John P. Woodley and OMB as
a viable, economically justified and environmentally accepted project.
The project is ready for construction. The Federal Government has
already invested nearly $1 million for the studies to justify this
project and the local sponsor has advanced the total local share. We
are ready to begin construction.
______

Prepared Statement of The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey;
State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation; State of New York,
Empire State Development Corporation
Endorsed By: APM Terminals; Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers,
Inc.; Board of Commissioners of Pilots of the State of New York;
Business Council of New York State; Cashman Dredging Company;
ConocoPhillips Bayway Refinery; CSX Corporation; Donjon Marine Co.,
Inc.; Environmental Defense Fund; Hudson County Chamber of Commerce;
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company; Greater Maritime Port Council of
New York/New Jersey and Vicinity; I.L.A. Local 1235; International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 25 Marine Division; Maher Terminals;
Manhattan Chamber of Commerce; Maritime Association of the Port of NY/
NJ; Marine Engineers Beneficial Association; Maritime Trades Department
AFL-CIO; Matrix Development Group; Nation'sPort; NJ Sandy Hook Pilots
Association; New Jersey Alliance for Action; New Jersey State AFL-CIO;
New York Sandy Hook Pilots; New York Shipping Association; New York-New
Jersey Port Promotion Association; Newark Regional Business
Partnership; Norfolk Dredging Company; Norfolk Southern Corporation;
Seafarers International Union; Weeks Marine Inc.
This subcommittee has consistently supported the Nation's
navigation system, including the Port of New York and New Jersey. We
thank you for your continued support. Now more than ever, we are in
need of your assistance as we near the end of the construction of the
New York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project (HDP), but face a $33
million reduction from last year's funding level. The HDP has received
strong financial support since 2004, which has enabled the Federal
Government and us to improve the infrastructure required to handle
cargo growth in our region and the Nation. In order to keep this top
priority project on schedule, we respectfully ask that the President's
request for the NY & NJ Harbor Deepening Project be augmented to
$80,000,000, which is less than the level that was appropriated this
fiscal year. We also respectfully request added funds totaling
$5,000,000 to construct the vital Liberty State Park wetlands
restoration project, $1,500,000 to move forward on other essential
Hudson-Raritan Estuary (HRE) restoration projects, and $50,838,000 to
address critically important operations and maintenance needs.
We understand the fiscal constraints facing the subcommittee and
the Nation, but would like to emphasize that the Federal investment in
the Port has yielded great returns. New York and New Jersey marine
terminals handled over 4 million TEU's in 2009. This freight moved
throughout the region and to most States in the continental United
States accounting for approximately 13 percent of the Nation's
containerized imports and exports and 22 percent of the Nation's import
of refined petroleum products such as heating oil. The Port supports
more than 269,000 on and off-terminal jobs locally and nation-wide, and
the NY/NJ port industry contributed $5.8 billion in local, State and
Federal tax revenues. The Port continues to serve as a critical
economic engine in these trying times of an economic downturn.
The Port and its partners are mindful of the need to balance
commerce with protection of the environment. The Port Authority has
dedicated funds to expand its rail capacity in New York and New Jersey
in order to reduce truck congestion and associated air emissions. The
funds also financed the acquisition of environmentally sensitive land
for preservation and studies to identify and prevent sources of
contamination from entering the harbor estuary. The Port Authority has
also spent over $20 million for emission-offset programs associated
with the HDP. In 2010 we will have reduced 796 tons of NOX
emissions annually in the Harbor due to these efforts; by 2013, we will
have reduced NOX emissions by over 1,100 tons per year.
These improvements and emissions reductions are a legacy to this
region; their benefits continuing long after the HDP is completed. Over
40 million cubic yards of dredged material will be removed in
association with the HDP. To date 100 percent of the material dredged
has been beneficially reused within the region to improve the Historic
Area Remediation Site, enhance artificial reefs within the coastal
waters of New York and New Jersey, and support upland activities such
as landfill closures and brownfield remediation projects. Additionally,
terminal operators have voluntarily installed electric cranes, switched
to ultra-low sulfur diesel and replaced cargo-handling equipment with
cleaner models--a strong signal of private sector commitment toward
greening the Port. In addition the Port Authority, together with its
sister agencies and port partners, has developed and is implementing a
Clean Air Strategy for the Port of New York and New Jersey. The HDP,
including our partnership with the Corps, is the centerpiece of a
commitment to make this important American gateway internationally
competitive while restoring the harbor estuary and protecting our
environment. We invite all members of the subcommittee and staff to
visit the Port to learn more about its role in the environment and the
U.S. transportation system. Below are our comments on the fiscal year
2011 budget request. We respectfully request that the subcommittee
appropriate additional funds for the specific projects as discussed
below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's
Construction Fiscal Year 2011 Port Request
Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York and New Jersey Harbor...... $57,000,000 $80,000,000
Liberty State Park.................. ................ 5,000,000
-----------------------------------
TOTAL......................... 57,000,000 85,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York and New Jersey Harbor.--This project was authorized by
section 101(a)(2) of WRDA 2000 (Public Law 106-541). We respectfully
request that the President's request for the NY and NJ Harbor Deepening
Program be augmented to $80,000,000, which while higher than the budget
request would be 12 percent lower than the appropriated level for the
current year. The continuing NY and NJ Harbor Deepening Project will
improve transportation efficiency and benefit the national markets
served by this port. In order to complete the 50-foot deepening of the
pathways to the container-handling facilities in the Harbor by fiscal
year 2013 and reap the full benefits of the Federal Government's
investment, a significant number of contracts must be awarded over the
next 2 years. Project slippage will have serious negative impacts on
maritime commerce and the regional and national economy. The
President's budget allows for the construction of this project to
continue, but does jeopardize the timeline at a critical juncture. The
project currently stands near the 50 percent completion mark. With only
3 years remaining in the schedule, reduced funding at this time hampers
construction efficiencies, delays the benefits of sections already
constructed, and subjects the project to possible further delays and
increased cost as the price of labor and construction inevitably rises
in the next years. Any hindrance to the timely completion of this
project risks the possible delay of the realization of first year
economic benefits to the Nation in the range of $140 million. In
addition, a delay in funding could mean that this nationally important
project would not be completed by the opening of the Panama Canal's
third set of locks. For these reasons, we urge adoption of our
$80,000,000 funding recommendation, which is a continuation of the
funding levels the subcommittee has approved in previous fiscal years.
This approach is consistent with the stated goal of the administration
of placing priority and resources on the completion of Corps projects
already underway.
Liberty State Park.--We also request $5,000,000 to execute the
Project Partnership Agreement with the State of New Jersey and
construct the critical wetlands restoration project within Liberty
State Park. The project was authorized for construction in WRDA 2007.
This project will both restore critical habitat within the estuary and
also provide significant public access and education opportunities.
Continuing Authority Program (CAP).--We request that CAP sections
1135 and 204 are funded to fund the following ongoing projects within
the Jamaica Bay complex: Plumb Island, NY ($500,000) and Spring Creek,
NY ($50,000).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's
Surveys (Studies) Fiscal Year 2011 Port Request
Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HRE, Hackensack-Meadowlands, NJ..... $200,000 $250,000
HRE, Lower Passaic River, NJ........ 200,000 250,000
HRE New York & New Jersey........... 200,000 1,000,000
-----------------------------------
TOTAL......................... 600,000 1,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

HRE-Hackensack Meadowlands.--We respectfully request an increase in
funding of an additional $50,000 for a total of $250,000 to continue
design work. The area's wildlife habitat preserves are threatened by
dwindling open marshes. In April 2003, the Corps executed the FCSA with
the NJ Meadowlands Commission, and initiated the feasibility study.
HRE-Lower Passaic.--An increase in funding by $50,000 for a total
of $250,000 is needed for the HRE-Lower Passaic River to complete a
Draft Comprehensive Restoration Plan for the entire lower 17-mile
watershed. The plan is critical component of the integrated Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study underway with EPA as a pilot project of
the joint Corps-EPA Urban Rivers Restoration Initiative. Many changes
have occurred over the last year and it is important that the positive
momentum gained not be lost on this critical project.
HRE (overall), NY and NJ.--There is a critical need to increase
funding to $1,000,000 to allow the Corps to complete the Comprehensive
Restoration Plan (CRP) that will outline the unified vision of a
restored estuary based on specific science based and stakeholder
endorsed ecosystem targets. It will also continue the feasibility study
and programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which is needed to
implement the CRP. This study, as well as the Hackensack Meadowlands
and Lower Passaic River studies, were authorized by House Resolution
dated April 25, 1999 and are critical components to achieving the
common stakeholder vision of a World Class Harbor estuary that
recognizes ecological restoration as being of equal importance with
economic development. This project directly aligns with other
administration initiatives and focus for the Corps in fiscal year 2011.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's
Operation and Maintenance Fiscal Year 2011 Port Request
Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newark Bay, Hackensack and Passaic $100,000 $10,200,000
Rivers, NJ.........................
Project Condition Surveys, NJ....... 1,506,000 1,953,000
Raritan River to Arthur Kill Cut- 100,000 1,450,000
off, NJ............................
Raritan River, NJ................... 80,000 120,000
Buttermilk Channel, NY.............. 8,600,000 10,000,000
East River, NY...................... 2,800,000 3,350,000
East Rockaway Inlet, NY............. 200,000 1,750,000
Eastchester Creek, NY............... 150,000 150,000
Flushing Bay and Creek, NY.......... 100,000 100,000
Hudson River Channel, NY............ 100,000 200,000
Jamaica Bay, NY..................... 120,000 120,000
New York and New Jersey Channels, NY 6,150,000 6,150,000
New York Harbor, NY................. 3,796,000 3,998,000
Portchester Harbor, NY.............. 60,000 60,000
Project Condition Surveys, NY....... 1,928,000 2,092,000
Westchester Creek, NY............... 100,000 100,000
New York Harbor, NY and NJ (Drift 7,200,000 7,900,000
Removal)...........................
New York Harbor, NY and NJ (Prevent 1,045,000 1,145,000
Obstructive Deposits)..............
-----------------------------------
TOTAL......................... 34,135,000 50,838,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operation & Maintenance.--Maintenance projects are critical to the
commerce, navigation and security of this National Priority port
system, its channels and the Nation. Billions of public and private
dollars are continuing to be spent to deepen the Port's channels and
improve landside infrastructure. The considerable investment in
deepening the network of channels is devalued if the system is not
adequately maintained, especially in one of the most highly utilized
ports in the country. Additionally, the risk of groundings will
increase. The new budget continues the unfortunate pattern of past
budgets that enable only partial channel maintenance, leaving
significant areas and in some cases whole shipping lanes at inefficient
and potentially unsafe depths. The Port is the Nation's busiest
petroleum port, and the Arthur Kill (under NY and NJ Channels) is
critical to that trade, which serves the greater NY/NJ Metropolitan
area and much of the Northeast. Channel maintenance in this National
Strategic Port is needed to support the industry and military.
Maintenance also protects and perpetuates the Federal infrastructure
investment. We identified several critical projects with pressing
channel safety concerns and it is important to state for the record
that this part of the fiscal year 2011 budget is insufficient to meet
the practical needs of commerce. The irony is that the budget proposes
using only around 50 percent of the estimated Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund receipts for the fiscal year. As such the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund is fully capable of covering the full cost of dredging in our port
and a good many others. To provide additional perspective, a January
2010 report from the Congressional Research Service (7-5700) notes that
the NY/NJ port is a ``large net generator'' of Harbor Maintenance Tax
revenue. It also illustrates how the NY/NJ port is one of most
efficient ports when measured in HMTF maintenance expenditures per ton
of cargo. We respectfully request the budget be increased as shown in
the above list.
Conclusion.--The Port of New York and New Jersey continues to be a
major international gateway for the Nation and a significant producer
of Harbor Maintenance Tax revenue to support the Nation's port system.
Furthermore we would be remiss if we did not highlight the importance
of continuing contracts as a valuable tool in managing the complexities
of channel deepening and maintenance. National projects, like the NY
and NJ Harbor Deepening Project, are better served with 2-year
continuing contracts supported by a 5 and 10 year Corps priority
project schedule. The Corps' Civil Works Program, coupled with public
and private sector investments, has served the Nation's economic and
security interests well for the better part of two centuries. We are
proud of our part in that history. We commit to continuing our
productive partnership with the Federal Government and to ensuring that
continued development and use of the Port and its supporting
infrastructure is balanced between commerce and the environment.
______

Prepared Statement of the City of Maricopa (Arizona)
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Bennett, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify in support of
$150,000 for the city of Maricopa, Arizona for a Flood Plain Management
Services (FPMS) study under General Investigations for the Army Corps
of Engineers in the fiscal year 2011 Energy and Water Development bill.
Maricopa is a small but thriving community 35 miles south of
Phoenix. Incorporated in 2003 with a population of approximately 1,000
people, Maricopa is now a burgeoning community of more than 40,000 and
growing at the rate of approximately 200 people per month. Maricopa is
located in Pinal County, which is one of the fastest growing regions in
one of the fastest growing States in the Nation. With this newfound
growth has brought increased risk of death and the loss of public and
private property due to flooding of the Santa Cruz River that splits
the city. Mitigating this potential flood hazard is critical to this
area's growth and prosperity. A major flood today would devastate
homes, businesses, schools, infrastructure and more. It is only a
matter of time before another devastating flood hits this area. Flood
control improvements are urgent and necessary to protect the public
health and safety.
The Santa Cruz River Basin consists of 8,200 square miles in
southern Arizona and 400 square miles in Sonora, Mexico. The Basin has
a long history of damaging floods. Damages included a broad range of
categories, including agricultural, commercial and residential
structures, utility lines, and transportation facilities. These
flooding problems have been studied repeatedly by Federal, State, and
local agencies, but no comprehensive solution has been implemented due
to a lack of economic viability.
The Bureau of Reclamation had previously carried out appraisal
investigations of the Santa Cruz River in 1965 when the city and areas
within the basin were largely agricultural. It became apparent at that
time that the municipal and industrial water-supply needs of the Santa
Cruz River Basin were of far greater magnitude and urgency than had
been previously estimated.
In 1976, Congress, under the authority of the Flood Control Act of
1938 funded a Corps of Engineers/Bureau of Reclamation study of the
Lower Santa Cruz River from the Red Rock area to the river's confluence
with the Gila River. The Corps was tasked with evaluating the flood
control problems, and the Bureau of Reclamation was tasked with
evaluating the development potential of water resources. The results of
this study, released in August 1983 found no economically justified
solution. Benefits to cost ratios (BCR) ranged from 0.3 to 0.7 for
three different alternatives for diversion of floodwaters from the
Greene's Canal area to the Tat Momolikot Dam reservoir. In October
1983, a flood along the Santa Cruz River caused over $45 million (1994
dollars) in damages, including extensive damage to many of the channel
and dike improvements constructed by the agricultural flood control
districts in the area. A similar devastating flood occurred in 1993. At
this time, the city of Maricopa had very little residential or
commercial infrastructure and less than 1,000 residents.
After the floods, the Corps reevaluated the alternatives in their
study and were able to develop a BCR of 1.03. Since the 1983 and 1993
floods, construction of the Central Arizona Project lateral canals, and
associated irrigation infrastructure, have added additional potential
damages from future events due to changes in the hydraulic
characteristics of the flood prone areas. In addition, extreme land
subsidence is extensive over portions of the Santa Cruz River Basin.
In June 1989, Pinal County requested a flood control study of the
Lower Santa Cruz River from the Corps of Engineers. The Corps released
the Lower Santa Cruz River Feasibility Analysis Summary Report in
September 1994. This report developed several alternative plans and
found that the best alternative was still diversion to the Tat
Momolikot Dam with a BCR of 1.05. The 1994 report concluded that
additional engineering work was needed due to geotechnical issues in
the area and also the altered hydraulic characteristics of the area due
to the Central Arizona Project and irrigation district infrastructure.
The study was terminated without a recommendation.
With the recent influx of residential growth into Maricopa and most
of Pinal County since 2001, the flood prone areas of the Lower Santa
Cruz River had become candidates for development. Several large master
planned residential projects have been proposed along the Lower Santa
Cruz River from the Red Rock area to the city of Maricopa, which has,
at this point, the largest and most expansive development. These
projects have been planned in Maricopa, Casa Grande, and many other
flood prone locations in Pinal County's Santa Cruz River Basin. The
loss of life and property has increased exponentially since the Corps
conducted its initial studies. The time to act is now.
Maricopa is one of the fastest growing communities in Arizona. By
2020, it is estimated to have nearly 200,000 residents. Similarly,
other cities, such as Eloy and Casa Grande are expected to see similar
growth of their communities. Larger communities will translate into
larger damages and loss of life in the event of a catastrophic flood
event. An FPMS study would help us begin to address this problem before
its too late.
It is important to note that a large stakeholder group is being
formed to work on a collaborative solution for this growing problem.
Stakeholders include the city of Maricopa, the Ak-Chin Indian
Community, the Gila River Indian Community, Pinal County, numerous
irrigation and flood control districts, and the University of Arizona.
Realizing the importance of this endeavor, the city of Maricopa has
committed $9 million over the next 3 years to begin this important
project.
Therefore, I respectfully request that the subcommittee includes
$150,000 for the city of Maricopa, Arizona for a Flood Plain Management
Services (FPMS) study under General Investigations for the Army Corps
of Engineers in the fiscal year 2011 Energy and Water Development bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, as well as your time and
attention to this important matter.
______

Prepared Statement of the Association of State Floodplain Managers
The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) is submitting
comments on three items in the budget request: under Investigations--
Planning Assistance to States and Flood Plain Management Services and
under Operation and Maintenance--National (Levee) Flood Inventory.
ASFPM and its 29 Chapters represent over 14,000 State and local
officials and other professionals who are engaged in all aspects of
managing and mitigating flood risk to address the loss of life and
property from natural hazards. These aspects include land management,
hazard mitigation, mapping, engineering, planning, building codes and
permits, community development, hydrology, forecasting, emergency
response, water resources and insurance. Most of our members work with
the Nation's 21,000 flood prone communities to reduce losses from all
flood related hazards.
ASFPM strongly believes that the USACE can contribute significantly
to better informed flood hazard reduction decisions in our Nation's
communities through providing technical advice and assistance. As the
Corps moves toward helping States and local governments with a
comprehensive approach to flood risk management, the Flood Plain
Management Services (FPMS) and Planning Assistance to States (PAS)
programs are essential. For many years, these valuable programs have
been funded at about one-half of their authorized levels. The budget
request for fiscal year 2011 would continue that level of funding. The
request for FPMS is $8 million. The request for PAS is $7 million.
ASFPM recommends funding both programs at a significantly higher level
and at their fully authorized amounts if possible.
We support the budget request of $15 million for the National
(Levee) Flood Inventory. We urge that the inventory proceed
expeditiously and that it include not only Corps built, owned and
maintained levees, but all levees. Information on the number and
location of levees in the Nation and a general assessment of their
condition is critical as the Congress and Federal Government move to
develop a national levee safety program. Because of its importance to
addressing the hazards to public safety and property associated with
levee failure or overtopping, it is important that the levee inventory
proceed with deliberate speed.
The Association of State Floodplain Managers appreciates this
opportunity to share our views on these important Army Corps programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the Stockton Port District, CA
The Port of Stockton (``Port'') appreciates the opportunity to
submit this testimony for the record in support of the fiscal year 2011
appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Operations and Maintenance and Construction General Programs. The
funding amounts are detailed in the paragraphs below.
Stockton has an unemployment rate of 21.9 percent (Source: CA
Economic Development Dept., Jan. 2010). San Joaquin County has an
unemployment rate of 18.4 percent. With the highest home foreclosure
rate in the Nation, this region continues to suffer the hardest impacts
of the national and global economic recession.
The Port of Stockton is widely viewed as one of the primary
economic engines for the recovery of this distressed region. The
positive economic outlook for the Port includes introduction of new
container facilities at the Port in year 2011, thanks to the DOT TIGER
grant for marine highways. Significant developments are also expected
for Rough and Ready Island. The Port has been, and will continue, to
focus on jobs creation at a family wage level for this region.
The Port of Stockton's recovery, and the regional recovery, is
dependent on adequate funding of the four projects shown below in the
Army Corps of Engineers civil works budget.
The San Joaquin River--Stockton Channel is our highest priority
appropriations request in the Corps O&M budget. Federal
responsibilities include annual maintenance dredging of the Federal
channel and maintaining existing riverbank protection. This project is
consistently under funded so that the authorized 35-foot ship channel
has been blocked at depths of 32-33 foot feet. These blockages, often
last 6 months or more, have denied a stable 35-foot ship channel for
much of the past 5 years. Past O&M appropriations have been primarily
in the $2.6 million to $3.1 million range, insufficient for the State's
largest inland port and fourth busiest California port.
An amount of $9.8 million is requested for the San Joaquin River--
Stockton Channel project in fiscal year 2011 to adequately maintain the
ship channel at a safe year round Federal depth and satisfy additional
State water quality requirements for environmental sampling, testing,
and disposal of maintenance dredged material.
The San Francisco Bay to Stockton (John F. Baldwin and Stockton
Channels) is our second highest priority request in the Corps
Construction General budget. This $141 million project would deepen the
Stockton ship channel to 40-feet. The State Transportation Commission
has designated this project for a $17.5 million construction grant;
construction must begin in year 2012. Last year, our appropriations
request for $2 million was zeroed out of the fiscal year 2010 budget
for reasons unknown to us. With a zero appropriation for the project,
the Port must recapture the schedule, including possible reprogramming
of funds.
Two million dollars in Construction General funding is requested
for the San Francisco Bay to Stockton project in fiscal year 2011. We
have recently added strong cost sharing partners with the Western
States Petroleum Association, along with our long time partner, Contra
Costa County.
The Rough and Ready Island Storm Water Drainage Project is our
third priority request in the Corps Construction General budget. The
current storm water system on Rough and Ready Island is obsolete and
must be replaced. The EPA is demanding a replacement. Based on WRDA
2007, Public Law 110-114, section 5158, $3 million is authorized for
this storm water system, which includes drainage detention and lift
facility. The project will also minimize environmental problems,
increase flood protection and create more usable land for economic
growth.
An amount of $925,000 is requested in the Corps fiscal year 2011
Construction General budget for the Rough and Ready Island, Storm Water
Drainage Project. This project is authorized in accordance with Public
Law 102-580, 1992, section 219 Environmental Infrastructure and
subsequent Water Resources Development Acts.
The Pinole Shoal, CA Management Study (Delta Long Term Management
Strategy) is an ongoing study that we support with Contra Costa County
and many regulatory resources agencies. Authorized in Public Law 108-
447, page 905 of Conference Report (Consolidated Appropriations Act,)
this study has been funded since fiscal year 2005. Funding would be
used to develop and approve a joint agency permit and general regional
water quality control board order for dredging and beneficial reuse of
dredged material; implement a Delta Dredging and Reuse Management Team
with a MOU, charter, and operating principles; develop regional
disposal and reuse of dredged sediment alternatives; initiate a
programmatic biological assessment, and conduct a pilot project. Fiscal
year 2011 Federal funds would be used as follows: salaries $300,000,
A&E and professional service contracts $2,200,000.
An amount of $2.5 million is requested in the Corps fiscal year
2011 O&M budget for the Pinole Shoal, CA Management Study.
Thank you for your consideration.
______

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 85th Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana, on February
18, 2010 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 2011 budget included $4.9 billion for
the civil works programs. This is a drastic 10 percent cut from what
Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2010. The administration fails to
recognize the Corps' critical role as stewards of our Nation's water
resources, and the vital importance of our water resources
infrastructure to our economic and environmental well-being. 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. The $4.9 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 $6
billion for fiscal year 2011. 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, recreation 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.
Congress did appropriate funding for the civil works program
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The
majority of those funds went toward backlog maintenance (O&M) at
completed Corps projects, no construction funds were received in the
Red River Valley. Many critical maintenance items were addressed;
however, that should not be a reason to reduce the Corps' fiscal year
2011 budget. We have the opportunity to truly reduce our maintenance
backlog, but a reduced Corps budget will allow those issues to increase
and hinder our ability to catch up.
We want to point out that we appreciate the funding Congress
enacted in fiscal year 2010 and that an appropriation bill was enacted
in November 2009. We encourage Congress to increase the ``water'' share
of the total Energy and Water bill closer to the $6 billion Corps
capability.
We have a serious issue for the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway O&M in
the President's budget. The administration allocated $7,745,000 for
fiscal year 2011, $3,733,000 less than appropriated in fiscal year 2010
($11,478,000)! This drastic reduction will directly impact the ability
to conduct maintenance dredging and the authorized 9 foot channel will
not be maintained. It is difficult to understand why the administration
would fund the O&M at the $11 million range for 5 years and suddenly
make a drastic reduction that will have such a negative impact on a
Waterway that has yearly increased its tonnage. If the required funding
level of at least $11 million is not appropriated the Waterway may
actually shut down to all traffic and industry will see the Waterway as
unreliable and choose alternative modes of transportation, impacting
ports and jobs.
A national issue that must be addressed is levee certification.
FEMA has mandated that all levee systems go through a certification
process. If a levee district does not meet their designated deadline
their levee will be taken off the flood plain maps. This will greatly
increase the current flood insurance paid by landowners and discourage
economic development. The requirements of the engineering analysis for
levee certification are cost prohibitive by most all districts.
Considering that many of these levees were constructed over 80 years
ago construction criteria then do not meet current methods and
procedures. Additionally, levees have deteriorated and weathered over
time. Levee districts can not be expected to absorb the expense to
upgrade their levees to meet current criteria. There must be a national
program to address this issue. It is too large an expense to be
absorbed in the civil works underfunded budget. We recommend Congress
address this issue and develop a program that would be funded through
FEMA and executed by the Corps of Engineers and cost shared with levee
districts.
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 Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) is inadequately funded by
the existing fuel tax rate. There is no doubt that something must be
done to increase the revenue in the fund. 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 Waterway Trust Fund. The final proposal must be fair to
tributary waterways and be applied equally to all industries using the
waterways.
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.
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, has invested $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. This project is a reality and there are many
more industries considering using our Waterway and locating at the
ports.
You are reminded that the Waterway is not complete, 12 percent
remains to be constructed, $246 million. We appreciate Congress'
appropriation level in fiscal year 2010 of $6,613,000. There is a
capability for $20 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-feet, 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-feet year
round.
The feasibility study to continue navigation from Shreveport-
Bossier City, Louisiana, into the State of Arkansas will be completed
in CY 2012. This region of SW Arkansas and NE Texas continues to suffer
major unemployment and this navigation project, although not the total
solution, it 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 $50,000 to
conduct the re-evaluation of freight rates, ``Navigation into SW
Arkansas Study''.
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.
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 Red River Levee District (AR) is prepared to
provide lands, easements and rights of way for the next major
rehabilitation of the Lafayette County levees.
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 $12 million will construct one more levee section
in Lafayette County, Arkansas 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 $11.3 million in fiscal year 2011, ``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 the Oklahoma
Governor in support of a re-evaluation report.
Total request for the ``Chloride Control Project'': $8,300,000 for
the Texas and Oklahoma areas.
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--$250,000; Cross Lake Water Supply
Study, LA--$100,000; SE Oklahoma Water Resource Study, OK--$500,000; SW
Arkansas Study, AR--$50,000; 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. We request that the Corps O&M
projects be funded at the expressed, full Corps capability.
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.
Grant Disclosure.--The Red River Valley Association has not
received any Federal grant, sub-grant or contract during the current
fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years.

RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2011 APPROPRIATIONS CIVIL WORKS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RRVA Fiscal President
Fiscal Year Year 2011 Fiscal Year Local Sponsor Requirements
2010 Approp Request 2011 Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies (GI)

Navigation into SW Arkansas: Feasibility... ........... $50 ........... (ARRC)
Red River Waterway, LA--12 foot Channel, ........... 100 ........... (RRWC)
Recon.
Bossier Parish, LA......................... $278 250 ........... (Bossier Levee)
Cross Lake, LA Water Supply Supplement..... 90 50 ........... (Shreveport)
SE Oklahoma Water Resource Study: 233 500 ........... (OWRB)
Feasibility.
SW Arkansas Ecosystem Restoration: Recon 170 47 ........... (ANRC/AR Game & Fish)
Study.
Cypress Valley Watershed, TX............... 90 175 ........... (NETWD)
Sulphur River Basin, TX.................... ........... 1,000 ........... (Sulphur Auth)
Washita River Basin, OK.................... 171 500 ........... (L)
Wichita River Basin above Lake Kemp, TX: ........... 100 ........... (L)
Recon.
Red River Above Denison Dam, TX & OK: Recon ........... 100 ........... (L)
Red River Waterway, Index, AR to Denison ........... 44 ........... (?)
Dam.
Mountain Fork River Watershed, OK & AR, ........... ........... ........... (?)
Recon.
Walnut Bayou, Little River, AR............. ........... 100 ........... (ANRC)
Little River County/Ogden Levee, AR, Recon. ........... 100 ........... (ANRC)
Red River Waterway, Index to Denison, ........... ........... ........... (?)
Bendway Weir.

Construction General (CG)

Red River Waterway: J. B. Johnston 6,613 20,000 $1,500 (RRWC)
Waterway, LA.
Chloride Control Project, TX & OK Texas- 1,332 8,300 ........... N/A
7,500/Oklahoma-800.
Red River Below Denison Dam; AR & LA....... 2,035 12,000 ........... (Levee Districts)
Bowie County Levee, TX................. ........... ........... ........... ............................
Red River Emergency Bank Protection........ 1,986 11,300 ........... (Levee Dist.)
Big Cypress Valley Watershed, TX: Section 1,450 ........... ........... (Jefferson)
1135.
Palo Duro Creek, Canyon, TX: Section 205... ........... 90 ........... (Canyon, TX)
Millwood, Grassy Lake, AR: Section 1135.... 181 100 ........... (ANRC)
McKinney Bayou, AR, PED.................... ........... ........... ........... (?)
Miller County Levee, AR, Section 1135...... ........... ........... ........... (Miller Levee)

Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA........... 11,478 23,864 7,745 ............................
Lake Kemp, TX--Total Need.................. 311 817 467
Basic Annual O&M....................... ........... 214 ........... ............................
Reallocation Study..................... ........... 350 ........... ............................
Service Bridge & Gate Repair........... ........... 253 ........... ............................
Lake Texoma, TX & OK--Total Need........... 8,740 31,617 10,057 ............................
Basic Annual O&M....................... ........... 7,000 ........... ............................
Shoreline Management Plan.............. 1,158 ........... ........... ............................
Backlog Maintenance.................... ........... 24,617 ........... ............................
Chloride Control Project, TX & OK.......... 1,481 2,025 1,439 ............................
Old River Lock, LA (MR&T).................. 9,854 12,755 9,255 ............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Missouri River Association of States and
Tribes
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Bennett: We are requesting
your support for four items in the fiscal year 2011 budget for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), related to the Missouri River Basin.
These include: (1) $78.4 million to continue implementation of the
Missouri River Recovery Program, (2) $5.5 million to continue funding
for the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study, (3) $10 million to
increase the operations and maintenance budget for the Northwestern
Division, Omaha District, for protection of cultural and historical
sites impacted by the operation of the Missouri River Mainstem
Reservoir System and (4) inclusion of a provision in the fiscal year
2011 budget to allow reimbursement of travel expenses by tribal, State
and non-governmental members of the Missouri River Recovery
Implementation Committee to attend its meetings. No new funds are
required for this action as the travel reimbursement can be paid with
funds appropriated for the Missouri River Recovery Program, if the
prohibition against reimbursement of travel in section 5018 WRDA 2007
is amended by a provision in the budget bill.
The Missouri River Association of States and Tribes (MoRAST) is an
association of representatives of the Governors of the States of
Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas
and many of the American Indian tribes in the Missouri River Basin.
MoRAST is interested in the proper management and protection of natural
resources, including water resources, fish and wildlife and other
related issues of interest to the States and tribes in the basin,
including cultural resources. The programs and operations of the USACE
are very important to our members, especially due to the legal
responsibilities of the States and tribes related to water and the fish
and wildlife resources in the basin, as well as the trust
responsibilities of the USACE to the tribes. The following paragraphs
provide detailed information regarding the bases for our support of the
four items referred to above for fiscal year 2011 budget of the USACE,
as outlined below:
Funding for Missouri River Recovery Program.--$119 million is
needed for compliance with the Biological Opinion (BiOP). We strongly
support the $78.4 million in the President's budget as the minimum
necessary for current year compliance with the BiOP. The Missouri River
Recovery Program (MRRP) was established by the USACE as a collaborative
program to protect, recover and restore the Missouri River ecosystem
and its native species, including the endangered pallid sturgeon, least
tern and piping plover. This program is authorized by sections 3109,
3176 and 5018 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2007.
Support for this program is critical to ensure at least enough funding
is available for compliance with the Biological Opinion, as amended in
2003. Compliance with the BiOP also protects economic uses as failure
to comply with the Biological Opinion could require changes to
reservoir operations and negatively impact other purposes.
The USACE, various tribal, State and Federal cooperating agencies
and the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC) that
includes various Stakeholders, are also in the process of developing a
collaborative study and plan known as the Missouri River Ecosystem
Restoration Plan (MRERP) to identify and guide long term actions
required to restore ecosystem functions, mitigate habitat losses, and
recover native fish and wildlife on the Missouri River, while seeking
to balance social, economic, and cultural values for future
generations.
In addition to recovery and mitigation projects on the Missouri
River Mainstem, a project to provide for fish passage through a
diversion dam on the Yellowstone River near Intake, Montana is
especially important to the recovery of the endangered Pallid Sturgeon,
as it will open up a large segment of free flowing river. Work on this
important tributary project is underway with fiscal year 2010 funding
and is being implemented through a cooperative effort of the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, USACE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and the State of Montana.
In summary, funding the Missouri River Recovery Program at a
minimum of $78.4 million for fiscal year 2011 is essential to ensure
compliance with the Biological Opinion on the Missouri River and to
implement the project on the Yellowstone River near Intake, Montana,
both of which are of critical importance to the recovery of endangered
species and the restoration of the ecosystem.
Funding for the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study (MRAPS).--
We strongly support appropriation of $ 5.5 million to continue funding
for MRAPS in fiscal year 2011. Congress appropriated $4.483 million in
fiscal year 2010. MRAPS was authorized to study the Missouri River
Projects under the 1944 Flood Control Act (FCA) to determine whether
changes to the purposes and existing Federal infrastructure may be
needed. The study was authorized for a total cost of $25 million at
full Federal expense.
The Missouri River Basin Project (Pick-Sloan Program) envisioned a
comprehensive system of projects and facilities in the Missouri River
basin constructed by both the Bureau of Reclamation and the USACE. The
plan was only partially completed and there continue to be water needs
and related issues in the basin, many of which are different than they
were in 1944. This study is important for many reasons. It has been
about 65 years since the 1944 FCA was enacted and many changes have
occurred. The Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System continues to be
operated in accordance with the 1944 FCA for various authorized
purposes including flood control, water supply, water quality,
irrigation, hydropower, navigation, recreation and fish and wildlife.
However, while the construction of the reservoir system and other works
have resulted in large project benefits from some of the authorized
purposes and much less for others, it has also created substantial
negative impacts on the economies and resources of Indian tribes and
others, as well as large environmental losses, such as wetlands and
habitat for a number of native species, including three that are
threatened or endangered.
In summary, there have been many changes in the physical, economic
and environmental conditions that affect the Missouri River Projects
and the basin since 1944. The USACE needs $5.5 million for the study in
fiscal year 2011. That amount should be provided so the study can
objectively determine whether changes are needed to the 1944 FCA in
order to best meet the contemporary needs of the Missouri River Basin.
Once the study is complete, Congress can decide whether the law should
be changed or not.
Funding to Protect Tribal Cultural Resources.--It is requested that
Congress specifically appropriate $10 million for fiscal year 2011 as a
line item for the Omaha District, Northwestern Division, USACE for the
stabilization of cultural and historic sites that continue to be
negatively impacted by the operation of the Missouri River Mainstem
Reservoir System. Funding for the protection of cultural and historic
sites within the Omaha District has remained at $3 million for the past
several years. Past funding through the USACE operation and maintenance
budget has been woefully inadequate to address the ongoing damage to
sites from operation of the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System.
The USACE has identified over 400 historic and cultural sites
protected by Federal law that will be potentially damaged by the
current annual operations plan and the tribal nations in the Missouri
River Basin have identified many more sites that could be impacted.
However, there have only been funds to mitigate damage to a few sites
each year. The USACE has a unique trust responsibility to the 28
Missouri River Basin tribes arising from the government-to-government
relationship between the tribes and the United States Government, as
well as an obligation under section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, applicable Executive orders, and other Federal laws,
which require the USACE to either halt any Federal undertaking that
will damage or destroy sites protected, or to mitigate the potential
damage.
Funding for Travel and Participation in MRRIC and MRRP
Activities.--We support inclusion of a provision in the fiscal year
2011 budget bill to remove the prohibition on Federal reimbursement of
travel expenses for non-Federal members of the Missouri River Recovery
Implementation Committee (MRRIC) to attend its meetings. No new funds
are required for this action as it can be funded through the Missouri
River Recovery Program (MRRP), but this action is needed to improve the
functionality and chances for success of MRRIC.
Section 5018 of WRDA 2007 authorized the creation of MRRIC, but
prohibited Federal reimbursement of travel expenses for non-Federal
members of the committee. The same section of WRDA 2007 also authorized
the development of a Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan (MRERP),
which is a part of the MRRP. The failure to reimburse travel expenses
is a hardship for some MRRIC members. It also hinders participation and
prevents balanced representation by tribal, State and non-governmental
members on the committee. Lack of travel reimbursement also makes
participation difficult by States and tribes difficult as cooperating
agencies for the MRERP study, especially during these trying economic
times and budget shortfalls for States, tribes and others.
The USACE has a unique trust responsibility to the 28 Missouri
River Basin tribes and their participation in both MRRIC and MRERP
activities is vital to the success of efforts to restore the ecosystem
of the Missouri River consistent with the social, cultural and economic
needs in the Basin. The failure to fund travel for the tribes to attend
these meetings will not save money and may result in delay or the need
for more extensive government-to-government consultations if the tribes
are not able to participate adequately during the course of efforts by
MRRIC to make recommendations to the USACE regarding recovery programs
and the development MRERP.
We recognize that section 5018 could also be amended by the next
WRDA bill to remove the prohibition on travel reimbursement for
attendance at MRRIC meetings. However, that may take more time, while
the need to fund travel reimbursement should begin as soon as possible
so that all members can participate, receive the background materials,
develop relationships and provide meaningful recommendations to the
USACE and other agencies regarding Missouri River Recovery programs as
may be appropriate through the MRRIC process.
In summary, we believe each of these programs is essential to the
success of efforts to properly manage and protect the natural resources
of the Missouri River Basin, satisfy the USACE trust responsibilities
to the Indian nations in the basin and operate its projects in
accordance with applicable Federal law. We would appreciate your help
in providing adequate funding for these important programs and
projects. Please let David Pope, MoRAST executive director, or me know
if you have questions.
______

Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development
On behalf of LADOTD, Office of Public Works and Intermodal
Transportation, we present recommendations for fiscal year 2011
appropriations for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects in
Louisiana.
Louisiana contains the terminus of the Mississippi River, third
largest drainage basin in the world, draining 41 percent, or 1\1/4\
million square miles, of the contiguous United States and parts of two
Canadian provinces. Consequently, a comprehensive and extensive flood
control system is required to ensure that these drainage flows are
contained and safely passed to the gulf. Almost 3,000 miles of levees
(1,500 in the MR&T system) constructed jointly by Federal, State and
local entities allow Louisiana to be habitable year-round. Concentrated
behind these levees are the vast majority of Louisiana's urban centers
and petro-chemical complexes. Nearly 75 percent of the population lives
and works in those same areas. Approximately 60 percent of the State's
agricultural products are produced in these protected areas. Louisiana
has the second largest refining capacity in the Nation, producing 15
billion gallons of gasoline annually at 19 refineries. Louisiana ranks
second in produced natural gas and third for oil production. The
pipeline system which supplies much of this Nation with natural gas and
refined petroleum products originates in Louisiana. It is important to
note that the petrochemical, oil and gas industries in Louisiana that
contribute significantly to the economic well being of the entire
Nation are almost totally dependent on this Federal constructed flood
control system to protect their facilities.
It is equally important to note that this same river drainage
system forms the backbone of the Federal constructed Inland Waterway
System which provides the Nation's heartland cost effective access to
the global marketplace via the 230 mile deepwater channel of the lower
Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to the gulf. This strategic gateway
to international markets is the largest port complex in the world. The
Inland Waterway System--the whole system--allowed industrial facilities
scattered throughout the central portion of the Nation to obtain raw
materials and fuel from distant locations and to reach worldwide
markets. These industries, and most of the agricultural industries in
mid-America, are heavily dependent on the Federal maintained navigable
waterways to remain globally competitive in transporting their
products. Unfortunately, the administration's budget proposals in
recent years indicate a lack of concern for the preservation and
efficient operation of this system which is rapidly deteriorating due
to lack of maintenance and is in desperate need of renovation and
modernization.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project (MR&T), which
encompass both flood control and navigation features, has been underway
since 1928 and isn't scheduled for completion until beyond 2031. We
strongly support the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association's
request for the MR&T Project and urge your support of this level of
funding.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2011 FOR LOUISIANA
FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, HURRICANE PROTECTION & WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA PROJECTS REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS STUDIES

Amite River-Ecosystem Restoration, LA................... $500,000
Calcasieu Lock, LA...................................... 2,000,000
Red River (JBJWW) Recon Study........................... 100,000
Southwest Coastal LA Hurricane Protection, LA........... 1,500,000
St. Charles Parish Urban Flood Control, LA.............. 445,000
West Shore--Lake Pontchartrain, LA...................... 500,000
Bossier Parish Levee & FC............................... 250,000
Cross Lake Water Supply................................. 50,000
Ouachita River and Tribs................................ 200,000
Ouachita and Black...................................... 100,000

PED

Bayou Sorrel Lock, LA................................... 2,239,000
Calcasieu River Basin, LA............................... 250,000
Calcasieu River & Pass Navigation, LA................... 1,000,000
Port of Iberia, LA...................................... 1,000,000

NEW STUDIES

South Central LA Coastal Protection..................... 100,000
Port Fourchon Enlargement, LA........................... 100,000
Cameron Loop, Calcasieu Pass............................ 100,000
East Fork, Calcasieu Pass............................... 100,000
University Lakes........................................ 200,000
Bayou Rigaud Ext. Dredging & Breakwater Prot............ 100,000
Chenier Caminada Levee Ext. & Levee Armoring Grand Isle, 100,000
LA.....................................................
Laurel Ridge Levee Ext., Ascension Parish............... 100,000

CAP

Kenner Environmental Infrastructure..................... 500,000
Lafourche Parish Environmental Infrastructure........... 500,000
Plaquemines Parish Environmental Infrastructure......... 500,000
St. Bernard Environmental Infrastructure................ 500,000
St. Charles Environmental Infrastructure................ 500,000
St. James Environmental Infrastructure.................. 500,000
St. John the Baptist Environmental Infrastructure....... 500,000
St. Tammany Environmental Infrastructure................ 500,000
West Baton Rouge Environmental Infrastructure........... 500,000

CONSTRUCTION GENERAL

Comite River, LA........................................ 25,000,000
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA............................. 25,000,000
Larose to Golden Meadow................................. 5,500,000
IHNC Lock............................................... 13,000,000
Red River Below Den Dam (AR, LA)........................ 12,000,000
Ouachita River Levees................................... 2,600,000
J Bennett Johnston WW, Miss. R. to Shreveport........... 20,000,000
Calcasieu River & Pass, Dredged Material Management 12,000,000
Program................................................
Southeast Louisiana..................................... 21,200,000
Violet Freshwater Diversion............................. 5,500,000
West Bank & Vicinity, LA................................ 5,000,000
Ascension Parish Environmental Infrastructure........... 2,000,000
East Baton Rouge Environmental Infrastructure........... 2,000,000
Livingston Parish Environmental Infrastructure.......... 2,000,000

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE GENERAL

Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf & Black.......... 36,700,000
Barataria Bay Waterway.................................. 135,000
Bayou Lafourche......................................... 4,300,000
Bayou Segnette.......................................... 37,000
Bayou Teche............................................. 8,900,000
Bayou Teche & Vermilion................................. 650,000
Calcasieu River & Pass.................................. 57,233,000
Freshwater Bayou........................................ 14,875,000
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.............................. 41,000,000
Houma Navigation Canal.................................. 7,100,000
Mermentau River......................................... 11,410,000
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf.............. 170,169,000
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet at Venice................. 8,338,000
Waterway Empire to the Gulf............................. 47,000
WW. IWW to Bayou Dulac.................................. 30,000
Ouachita & Black Rivers (AR, LA)........................ 24,135,000
Bayou Bodcau............................................ 6,922,000
Caddo Lake.............................................. 347,000
Wallace Lake............................................ 886,000
Bayou Pierre............................................ 49,000
J Bennett Johnston Waterway............................. 23,864,000
Lake Providence Harbor.................................. 1,200,000
Madison Parish Port..................................... 150,000
Inspection of Completed Works (N.O.).................... 1,161,000
Inspection of Completed Works (V)....................... 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR LOUISIANA
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA PROJECTS REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FC, MR&T GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Alexandria to the Gulf (PED)............................ ..............
Donaldsonville to the Gulf.............................. $1,200,000
Houma Navigation Canal Deepening (PED).................. 500,000
Morganza to the Gulf (PED).............................. 3,000,000
Spring Bayou Area, LA................................... 50,000

FC, MR&T CONSTRUCTION

Atchafalaya Basin....................................... 25,000,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System....................... 2,631,000
Channel Improvement (N.O. Dist.)........................ 11,861,000
Mississippi Delta Region................................ ..............
Mississippi River Levees, LA (N.O. Dist.)............... 15,338,000
Mississippi River Levees (LA) (V. Dist.)................ 30,000,000
Channel Improvement (LA) (V. Dist.)..................... 27,930,000

FC, MR&T MAINTENANCE

Atchafalaya Basin....................................... 39,900,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System....................... 1,878,000
Baton Rouge Harbor (Devil's Swamp)...................... 42,000
Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries.......................... 47,000
Bonnet Carre Spillway................................... 5,300,000
Channel Improvement (N.O. Dist.)........................ 14,128,000
Dredging (N.O. Dist.)................................... 700,000
MS Delta Region......................................... 1,921,000
Old River............................................... 12,755,000
Mississippi River Levees (LA) (N.O. Dist.).............. 6,500,000
Mississippi River Levees (LA) (V. Dist.)................ 4,400,000
Revetments & Dikes (LA) (V. Dist.)...................... 21,052,000
Dredging (LA) (V. Dist.)................................ 5,023,000
Boeuf & Tensas Rivers................................... 3,244,000
Red River Backwater..................................... 9,496,000
Lower Red River......................................... 498,000
Inspection of Completed Works (V)....................... 681,000
Inspection of Completed Works (N.O.).................... 940,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

______

Prepared Statement of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association respectfully
requests that the sum of $550 million be appropriated in fiscal year
2011 for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
In view of the fact that there are some new members of the
subcommittee, it seems appropriate to very briefly explain a little of
the history of the Flood Control Association that was first organized
in 1922 by a group of interested citizens from the States of Arkansas,
Mississippi and Louisiana. From that first meeting, held in Memphis,
Tennessee, a group was selected to come to Washington in an attempt to
convince both the Congress and the executive branch that the prevention
of catastrophic floods in the lower Mississippi River Valley was beyond
the capabilities of the local people and was in fact too large for any
group other than the United States Government. This group of dedicated
citizens was without luck until the record flood of 1927 swept through
the Mississippi River Valley with the fury of devastation not seen
before. An unknown number of people perished along with thousands of
heads of livestock and all manner and large numbers of wildlife. Some 7
percent of all the productive land on this planet was under water for a
period of almost half a year. The Congress, after extensive hearings,
passed the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 that was signed into law
by then President Calvin Coolidge.
The Flood Control Association, acting under the erroneous
assumption that the United States Government would provide all that was
needed to prevent flooding in the valley, disbanded. In 1935 it became
apparent that additional legislation was required and the association,
under the leadership of then Senator John Overton from Louisiana, was
re-organized and has been in continuous and active existence since.
This is our 75th year to hold a meeting in Washington, to request funds
for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
We have been fortunate since 1935 to have as our President and two
Vice Presidents, Members of the United States Congress with Congressman
Ed Whitfield from the Commonwealth of Kentucky serving as our president
and Congressmen Mike Ross from Arkansas and Phil Hare from Illinois
serving as our vice presidents.
We appear before you today after having carefully considered the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project. We find, as usual, that the executive department
has sadly un-funded the Corps of Engineers civil works budget for the
up-coming fiscal year. We also note that the Corps has stated that they
have a capability under the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project
to use $550 million in fiscal year 2011. We would respectfully request
that the Congress appropriate the amount of $550 million for the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
This Nation is still faced with a war on terror and the economic
situation is poor to say the least. We are ever mindful of these facts
but we feel that we are justified in requesting additional
appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project
because the assets and resources of this great Nation must not be
neglected at this time. We are unaware of any other appropriation that
contributes as much to national wealth and resources as does flood
control and navigation for the major rivers of this country and that is
certainly true for the mightiest of them all, the Mississippi, the
third largest watershed on the planet.
Millions of acres of what were once overflow lands are now highly
productive and contributes to our national wealth. These lands by
reason of their geographic location are the most fertile of the Nation
and ample water is available so that they can produce an abundance of
food and fiber for the general welfare and prosperity of the country.
This is only possible because of the coordinated work performed by the
triad of the United States Corps of Engineers, the United States
Congress and the local people. The appropriations made by the Congress
for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project are investments in
this Nation's future.
We are aware of the ever increasing demand on the Federal dollars
and the many complex problems that the Congress is confronted with, but
we believe that this project is economically sound, environmentally
necessary, and we urge its completion with all deliberate haste. Our
request of $550 million is required to meet this goal.
The ultimate goal to be accomplished with the passage of the act of
1928 was that the lower valley would never again be destroyed by a
flood such as that of the fateful year of 1927. By law, the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project provides protection against the
``greatest possible flood'' even though not yet completed. For over 80
years the project has worked to perfection with not one acre flooded
that was designed not to be flooded. The project has also insured the
permanency of location for harbor facilities and industrial sites and
to obtain a more reliable navigation channel. With the help of the
Congress we have made great strides in the Mississippi River Valley but
the job is not yet completed. All the people of the valley will not
feel or be safe until the job is completed.
______

Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and Bureau of Reclamation.
Our 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. 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. We believe the public investments we are
requesting now will pay 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 Nature Conservancy (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 projects under the Continuing
Authorities Program in fiscal year 2011: Spunky Bottoms (sec. 1135),
and Emiquon East (sec. 206). Both are model projects to restore
floodplain wetlands by reconnecting them to the Illinois River. Each
project needs funding to complete its respective feasibility study,
develop a project partnership agreement, and begin designs for the next
phase. The Conservancy is the non-Federal cost share partner for both
projects, and we request $500,000 for the Spunky Bottoms project and
$185,000 for the Emiquon East project. Additional funds will be
necessary for the planning, specification, construction and monitoring
phases.
We continue to be concerned about the subcommittee's guidance for
these programs. The prioritization requirements and ``no new starts''
rule included in the fiscal year 2009 report and renewed in fiscal year
2010 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.
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. In recognition of the
current budgetary constraints, we request a NESP fiscal year 2011 new
start of $15 million. The Conservancy also supports $25 million for EMP
in fiscal year 2011.
Illinois River Basin Restoration Program.--This Federal-State
partnership sustains the health of the entire Illinois River Basin
through projects that restore habitats, species, and the natural
processes that sustain them. It complements other Federal programs such
as EMP and NESP, but is unique in its basin-wide approach to
restoration. The Conservancy supports $7.9 million in Construction
funding and $1 million in Investigation funding for this program in
fiscal year 2011.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Dispersal Barrier.--The Conservancy
supports funding for the construction and maintenance of the Dispersal
Barriers on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) at no less than
$12,650,000 in fiscal year 2011. Additionally, we request at least $1
million in fiscal year 2011 to conduct an expedited feasibility study
of the comprehensive set of permanent solutions to prevent the movement
of all invasive species though the CSSC. We note that the Corps has the
capacity to effectively expend up to $23,650,000 on construction and
$2,500,000 on the separation study, and we encourage the subcommittee
to consider this greater investment to address this urgent problem.
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 allows
expenditures in the upper basin States as well. 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 $119 million for the MRRP in fiscal year 2011, including $20
million to continue progress on the design and construction of fish
passage and screens at Intake Dam.
Cartersville Diversion Dam Fish Passage.--This project would
construct a fish passage at Cartersville Dam, allowing fish, including
the Federal listed endangered pallid sturgeon, to reach the upstream
portions of the Yellowstone River. This project, along with its
companion project at Intake Dam, would open an additional 296 miles of
habitat, which is critically needed for successful recovery of the
sturgeon population. The Conservancy supports $300,000 for this project
in fiscal year 2011.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program.--Corps flood control
projects, coupled with agricultural and urban development, have
degraded the Everglades, 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), and we support funding for the Indian River Lagoon South,
Picayune Strand, and the Site 1 Impoundment. We place priority on
funding the Kissimmee River Restoration Project, which is almost 75
percent complete and already a success story. The Conservancy requests
$246 million for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration program in
fiscal year 2011.
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 was completed in 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 2011 to complete the first phase of
construction.
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery.--Native 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
oyster populations toward sustainable levels. The requested
appropriation will create more than 60 acres of oyster habitat. The
Conservancy supports $6 million in fiscal year 2011.
sustainable rivers project
The Sustainable Rivers Project (SRP) is an initiative launched by
the Corps in partnership with the Conservancy that recognizes the
urgent need to update decades-old water management practices to meet
society's needs today and in the coming decades. Currently working in
eight demonstration river basins, 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. The Conservancy supports funding for several
initiatives that will support the SRP:
Global Change Sustainability.--Evolving and accumulating challenges
to water management, such as expanding water and energy demands,
shifting economic and land use patterns and environmental degradation,
require innovation in our water management practices. This project will
allow the Corps to advance a variety of new practices through several
initiatives, including the SRP, working with other Federal agencies to
develop a national strategy for climate change adaptation, updating
drought contingency plans, and others. The Conservancy supports $10
million in fiscal year 2011 for this program.
National Portfolio Assessment for Reallocations.--Launched in
fiscal year 2008, this assessment is a national effort to learn from
past water management techniques and improve upon them. A national
database will incorporate data from water supply surveys, climate
studies, drought contingency plans, and other sources, helping the
Corps assess its past practices and make project- and basin-scale
predictions for the future. The SRP will be part of this effort,
developing new methods that can be used at Corps dams nationwide. The
Conservancy supports $1 million in fiscal year 2011 for this program.
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. The ultimate goal of this study is to enable
system-wide changes in dam operation and floodplain management that
improve fish and wildlife habitat and community flood protection. The
Conservancy supports $153,000 in fiscal year 2011 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 $750,000 in fiscal year
2011 for this project.
White River Basin-wide Comprehensive Study.--The ecology of the
White River Basin is impacted by Federal impoundments, water
withdrawals for agriculture, power generation, and modifications for
navigation. This project will help determine the condition of the basin
and its future ecological and human needs. The Conservancy supports
$1,500,000 in fiscal year 2011 for this study.
Big Cypress Basin Watershed Study.--This study, part of a project
to restore the natural river flow of Big Cypress Bayou to enhance
aquatic ecosystem health and the globally significant Caddo Lake
wetlands, would allow the Corps to evaluate the potential ecosystem
restoration benefits and impacts of flow recommendations developed with
the Conservancy. It would also develop sediment and nutrient load
guidelines and consider modifying the Caddo Lake weir to allow
manipulation of lake levels for bald cypress regeneration and aquatic
plant control. We support $175,000 in fiscal year 2011 for this study.
other corps investigation priorities
Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project.--The recovery
of Puget Sound is a top priority for Washington State and the Corps'
Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) comprises
one of the most important pieces of the Governor's recovery plan. The
Conservancy requests $1.5 million in fiscal year 2011 (in the
Investigations account) to advance this critical project. The
Conservancy also requests $7 million (in the Construction account) in
fiscal year 2011 for the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Program--a
program that provides funding for early action projects to restore
Puget Sound.
Long Island Sound Oyster Restoration.--This project will develop a
comprehensive Master Plan for the restoration of oysters and other
shellfish in Long Island Sound, supporting both ecological and economic
well-being by providing a sustainable oyster fishery and creating
habitat for other coastal and marine species. The Conservancy supports
$250,000 in fiscal year 2011 for this important effort.
Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment.--Flood control and
drainage systems have accelerated erosion and habitat loss along the
954-mile Lower Mississippi River and its tributaries. Working with the
U.S. Department of Interior, the Corps will evaluate the state of river
management, habitat and public access along the Lower Mississippi and
recommend action to address current and future needs. The Conservancy
supports $200,000 in fiscal year 2011 for this project.
West Pearl River Navigation Study.--The aquatic communities of the
Pearl, West Pearl and Bogue Chitto Rivers are severely disrupted by old
and disused navigation structures. This study will allow the Corps to
consider removing them or repurposing the structures to accommodate
environmental and recreational needs. The Conservancy supports $100,000
in fiscal year 2011 for the Reconnaissance study.
Thames River Basin Watershed Study.--The Thames River Basin
ecosystem depends on naturally variable water flow, good water quality
and suitable habitat. This study will determine which research and
measures are necessary to improve the management of water control
structures in the basin. We support $100,000 in fiscal year 2011 to
complete the reconnaissance phase.
Middle Potomac River Watershed Comprehensive Study.--This study
will develop a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional sustainable
management plan for the Middle Potomac watershed, balancing the
ecological functions and services provided by the river with the human
demands upon it. To help complete the watershed assessment, we support
$68,000 in fiscal year 2011.
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 2011.
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
basin-wide study will investigate low flow conditions and establish
goals and standards for low flow management. The Conservancy supports
$400,000 in fiscal year 2011 for this project.
corps expenses
Mid-Atlantic River Basin Commissions.--The Delaware, Potomac, and
Susquehanna River Basin Commissions are essential to advancing and
coordinating the water management and conservation interests of the
Federal Government, the affected States, and the Conservancy. Funding
was restored in fiscal year 2009, but it was not continued in fiscal
year 2010. The Conservancy requests that the Federal Government
continue support of the Commissions' work by appropriating $2,365,000
in fiscal year 2011.
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. The Conservancy
supports $8,354,000 in fiscal year 2011 for these Programs.
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.--An agreement between
the Governors of Wyoming, Nebraska and Colorado and the Secretary of
Interior sets forth a plan to restore habitat for five endangered or
threatened species in the Platte River basin. The Conservancy supports
$12,707,000 for this recovery effort in fiscal year 2011.
Basin Studies and WaterSMART.--Basin Studies are a component of the
new WaterSMART program that helps the Bureau of Reclamation address the
threat of climate change across our Nation's western waters. The Basin
Study being conducted on the Colorado River will assess and work to
resolve water supply and demand issues that may be exacerbated by
climate change, while considering impacts on the basin's ecological
resiliency. The WaterSMART program can complement that study by
delivering grants to local stakeholders developing mechanisms to
improve both water supply imbalances and environmental flows. The
Conservancy supports a $62 million appropriation to the Bureau of
Reclamation for the WaterSMART program in fiscal year 2011, including
$6 million for its Basin Studies.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments on the Energy
and Water Appropriations bill.
______

Prepared Statement of the Ventura Port District of California
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on
behalf of the Ventura Port District of California. My name is Richard
W. Parsons. I am the Dredging Program Manager of the Port. The
President's fiscal year 2011 request within the operations, maintenance
and dredging component of the civil works budget for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is $2,840,000 for the annual dredging of Ventura
Harbor. Informal communications with the Corps indicate that $4,300,000
will be required to meet dredging needs of the port between October 1,
2010 and September 30, 2011. This higher amount is consistent with the
dredging requirements of the past several years. Accordingly, it is
respectfully requested that the Congress appropriate an additional
$1,460,000 beyond the President's request to meet anticipated Corps of
Engineer requirements. It is worthy of note that employment associated
with the commercial fishing industry in the Port of Ventura area is
directly related to the dredging activities of the Corps. An estimated
71 million pounds of seafood were unloaded at the facilities associated
with the Port of Ventura which provides significant employment in the
area. Thank you very much for your favorable consideration of this
request.
______

Prepared Statement of the City of Santa Barbara, California
operations and maintenance dredging--funding request
As your distinguished subcommittee writes the fiscal year 2011
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations bill, I would like to bring a
very important Corps of Engineers' project to your attention. The city
of Santa Barbara requests $3,700,000 from the Army Corps of Engineers'
(ACOE) Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Account in fiscal year 2011
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for essential annual
maintenance dredging of Santa Barbara Harbor's Federal Navigational
Channel.
project justification
In 1970 Congress authorized (Public Law 91-611, sec. 114) full
funding for ACOE maintenance dredging for the Harbor's Federal Channel
to reduce storm damage, shoaling and navigational hazards. Today more
than ever, the Harbor continues to serve and support our National
interests. The Harbor is home port for the 87 foot U.S. Coast Guard
Cutter Blackfin and NOAA R/V Shearwater serving Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS). Blackfin's harbor location is
crucial to its mission of patrolling waters all the way to Morro Bay
(100 miles north) and is critical to ocean safety and rescue, together
with emerging Homeland Security Defense System (USCG) requirements
along the California coastline. Santa Barbara Harbor also provides a
staging area, facilities and resources required for oil spill
prevention and response, and is a designated harbor of safe refuge.
Santa Barbara Harbor was constructed in the late 1920's providing
the closest harbor of refuge to the notoriously dangerous waters off
Pt. Conception. Various improvements over the years have created an
all-weather harbor with 1,133 slips for vessels ranging from 20 feet to
150 feet in length serving hundreds of thousands of people annually.
The Harbor serves as a key economic engine for the city. In addition,
the Harbor both directly and indirectly creates several thousand jobs,
which are vital to the local economy, commercial fishing, businesses
and maritime industry.
Santa Barbara Harbor impedes the transport of sand downcoast
resulting in shoaling of the Federal Channel and potential coastal
erosion at several nearby coastal communities. The Corps of Engineers
conducted comprehensive studies of the harbor in the 1950's and
determined that annual dredging of the harbor was necessary to maintain
navigability and nourish downcoast beaches preventing erosion. It is
essential to dredge approximately 250,000 cubic meters (c.m.) of sand
from the Federal Channel every year to maintain access for the
commercial fishing fleet (annual catch is valued at $25 million), U.S.
Coast Guard Cutter Blackfin, NOAA R/V Shearwater serving Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary as well as thousands of recreational
vessels.
Annual dredging costs of the Federal Channel have recently been as
low as $1,650,000 for minimal critical maintenance dredging and can
cost over $3 million depending on winter storms and sand accumulation.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) contracts with a private dredge company
to undertake annual dredging between October and March of the fiscal
year.
A recap of the last several years demonstrates the continuing trend
of reduced dredge funding, which could impact Harbor operations and
eventually accumulated sand could close the channel during winter
storms.
Fiscal Year 2008: Conference.--$1,940,000
Fiscal Year 2009: Omnibus Bill.--$1,940,000
Fiscal Year 2010: Conference Report.--$1,606,000
funding request
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget recommendation includes
$2,040,000 for operations and maintenance dredging for Santa Barbara
Harbor. I respectfully request that the U.S. Senate, through your
subcommittee, support that level of funding contained in the
President's budget submittal for dredging of the Harbor. In addition,
the city of Santa Barbara is requesting that the subcommittee recommend
an additional, $1.7 million for maintenance dredging for fiscal year
2011 (Total $3.7 million).
Dredging costs per cubic yards removed, have increased dramatically
in recent years. Due to these escalating costs, the Corp of Engineers
has increased the project costs to $3.7 million for maintaining the
Federal Channel in Santa Barbara Harbor.
We respectfully request your support for this requirement to
maintain the Federal Channel and thank you for the opportunity to
submit this statement.
______

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

Prepared Statement of the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.
Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. respectfully submits this
written testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development for appropriations of $3.142 million for fiscal year
2011. This project was authorized under Public Law 106-136.
Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. (PCRWS) gained the approval
of the Office of Management and Budget and the Bureau of Reclamation to
proceed with construction in 2004. With funding for 2010, we have been
appropriated to date $16.9 million. In 2009 and 2010, we received $2.65
million and $1.0 million respectively. Three million dollars is
basically the lowest amount that we could receive and still do enough
construction to move our project forward. Cost share for the System is
75 percent Federal, 25 percent State and local funds. The State of
South Dakota has legislated to loan PCRWS the local share for 40 years
at 3 percent interest to keep costs down to the consumer. We have used
all of our State of South Dakota funds. With local and State funds to
date, we would now be able to cost share up to $36.4 million. Total
project funds are projected at $32.0 million to finish with $24 million
of that amount to be Federal funds.

BREAKDOWN FOR THE PROJECT FOR 2011 IS AS FOLLOWS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 BUDGET:
INCOME:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION........................... $3,142,000
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA........................... ..............
LOCAL FUNDS..................................... 25,000
---------------
TOTAL......................................... 3,167,000

EXPENSE:
NORTH DAKOTA STATE WATER COMMISSION............. 886,760
FINISH CONSTRUCTION ON DISTRIBUTION............. 2,280,240
---------------
TOTAL......................................... $3,167,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PCRWS would need $3.167 million for the next year to complete the
project by 2011. This consists of 250 miles of various pipe sizes
ranging from 1.5 inch to 8 inch, booster stations, and a pump station
capable of moving 800 gallons of water per minute, two or more storage
tanks and telemetry to operate the whole system from one localized
location.
The chart below shows the amount of Federal funds in comparison to
State and local funds. The amount of State and local funds has exceeded
the cost share for both. Therefore, all funds except for approximately
$25,000 per year will have to be Federal funds.

The quality of water in northwest South Dakota is the main concern
for the health and well being of the people. Although the water
typically meets primary standards established by the USEPA, most of the
dissolved solids are exceedingly high by the State of South Dakota
standards. Water quality and quantity in Perkins County, South Dakota
has been a plague for the county over many years.
Droughts, such as the one Perkins County is in now, are a fact of
life for the people in this area. With surface water gone and wells
being depleted, farmers and ranchers are desperately trying to hold
onto their livestock herds. Rains will raise grass and small crops, but
water for drinking is a constant problem for all.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of PCRWS and the people of
Perkins County, South Dakota, thank you for allowing us to enter this
testimony in the subcommittees report.
______

Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--FISCAL YEAR 2011 APPROPRIATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum's
Recommendation:
Title II Program (Basinwide Program) Authorized in $17,500,000
1995 (Public Law 104-20)...........................
Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program.... ( \1\ )
Paradox Valley Unit and Grand Valley Unit........... ( \1\ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Administration request.

This testimony is in support of funding for the title II Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program. The Congress has designated the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), to be
the lead agency for salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. This
role and the authorized program were refined and confirmed by the
Congress when Public Law 104-20 was enacted. A total of $17,500,000 is
requested for fiscal year 2011 to implement the needed and authorized
program. Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant
economic damage in the United States and Mexico.
In recent years, the President's requests have dropped to below $10
million. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) finds
this unacceptable. Reclamation has requests for funding of many very
cost-effective proposals through its Basinwide Program that far exceed
this funding level. In the judgment of the Forum, this amount is
inappropriately low. Water quality commitments to downstream United
States and Mexican water users must be honored while the Basin States
continue to develop their Colorado River Compact-apportioned waters.
Concentrations of salts in the river cause about $353 million in
quantified damage in the United States with significantly greater
unquantified damages. Damages occur from:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins; and
--Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
The Forum, therefore, believes implementation of the program needs
to be accelerated to a level beyond that requested by the President in
the past.
The program authorized by the Congress in 1995 has proven to be
very successful and very cost effective. Proposals from the public and
private sector to implement salinity control strategies have far
exceeded the available funding and Reclamation has a backlog of
proposals. Reclamation continues to select the best and most cost-
effective proposals. Funds are available for the Colorado River Basin
States' cost sharing for the level of Federal funding requested by the
Forum. Water quality improvements accomplished under title II of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act also benefit the quality of
water delivered to Mexico. Although the United States has always met
the commitments of the International Boundary & Water Commission's
(Commission) Minute No. 242 to Mexico with respect to water quality,
the United States Section of the Commission is currently addressing
Mexico's request for better water quality at the International
Boundary.
Some of the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities
occur when Reclamation can improve irrigation delivery systems at the
same time that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) program is
working with landowners (irrigators) to improve the on-farm irrigation
systems. Through the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
adequate on-farm funds appear to be available and adequate Reclamation
funds are needed to maximize the effectiveness of the effort. These
salinity control efforts have secondary water conservation benefits at
the point of use and downstream at other points of use.
overview
In 2000, the Congress reviewed the program as authorized in 1995.
Following hearings, and with administration support, the Congress
passed legislation that increased the ceiling authorized for this
program by $100 million. Reclamation has received cost-effective
proposals to move the program ahead and the Basin States have funds
available to cost-share up-front.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was originally
authorized by the Congress in 1974. The title I portion of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the
United States made, through Minute No. 242, to Mexico concerning the
quality of water being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II
of the Act established a program to respond to salinity control needs
of Colorado River water users in the United States and to comply with
the mandates of the then newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially,
the Secretary of the Interior and Reclamation were given the lead
Federal role by the Congress. This testimony is in support of adequate
funding for the title II program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin States concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. The Congress revised the act in 1984. That revision, while
leaving implementation of the salinity control policy with the
Secretary of the Interior, also gave new salinity control
responsibilities to the USDA and to the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). The Congress has charged the administration with implementing
the most cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per
ton of salt removed). The Basin States are strongly supportive of that
concept as the Basin States cost share is 30 percent of Federal
expenditures up-front for the salinity control program, in addition to
proceeding to implement salinity control activities for which they are
responsible in the Colorado River Basin.
The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum
has become the seven-State coordinating body for interfacing with
Federal agencies and the Congress to support the implementation of the
program necessary to control the salinity of the river system. In close
cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pursuant
to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every 3 years the Forum
prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River,
anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep
the salinities at or below the concentrations in the river system in
1972 at Imperial Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity concentrations at these three locations have been
identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary for controlling
salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
of Implementation.'' The 2008 Review of water quality standards
includes an updated Plan of Implementation. The level of appropriation
requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed upon plan. If
adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages from the
higher salt concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the
United States and Mexico.
justification
The $17.5 million requested by the Forum on behalf of the seven
Colorado River Basin States is the level of funding necessary to
proceed with Reclamation's portion of the Plan of Implementation. In
July 1995, the Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act. The amended act gives Reclamation new latitude and
flexibility in seeking the most cost-effective salinity control
opportunities, and it provides for utilization of proposals from
project proponents, as well as more involvement from the private as
well as the public sector. The result is that salt loading is being
prevented at costs often less than one-half the cost under the previous
program. The Congress recommitted its support for the revised program
when it enacted Public Law 106-459. The Basin States' cost sharing up-
front adds 43 cents for every Federal dollar appropriated. The
federally chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council, created by the Congress in the Salinity Control Act, has met
and formally supports the requested level of funding. The Basin States
urge the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee to support the
funding as set forth in this testimony.
additional support of funding
In addition to the funding identified above for the implementation
of the most recently authorized program, the Forum urges the Congress
to appropriate funds requested by the administration to continue to
maintain and operate salinity control facilities as they are completed
and placed into long-term operation. Reclamation has completed the
Paradox Valley unit which involves the collection of brines in the
Paradox Valley of Colorado and the injection of those brines into a
deep aquifer through an injection well. The continued operation of this
project and the Grand Valley Unit will be funded primarily through the
Facility Operations activity.
The Forum also supports funding to allow for continued general
investigation of the Salinity Control Program as requested by the
administration for the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement
Program. It is important that Reclamation have planning staff in place,
properly funded, so that the progress of the program can be analyzed,
coordination between various Federal and State agencies can be
accomplished, and future projects and opportunities to control salinity
can be properly planned to maintain the water quality standards for
salinity so that the Basin States can continue to develop their
Colorado River Compact-apportioned waters.
______

Prepared Statement of the Colorada River Commission of Nevada
Dear Chairman Dorgan: As a Nevada representative of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum, the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada (CRCN) submits this written testimony in support of $17.5
million for funding the fiscal year 2011 budget for the Bureau of
Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. The CRCN
urges the Congress to appropriate funds requested by the administration
to continue to maintain and operate salinity control facilities as they
are completed and placed into long-term operations. Reclamation has
completed the Paradox Valley Unit which involves the collection of
brines in the Paradox Valley of Colorado and the injection of those
brines into a deep aquifer through an injection well. The continued
operation of this project and the Grand Valley Unit will be funded
primarily through the Facility Operations activity. The CRCN also
supports funding to allow for continued general investigation of the
Salinity Control Program as requested by the administration for the
Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program.
Salinity remains one of the major problems in the Colorado River.
Congress has recognized the need to confront this problem with its
passage of Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569. Your support of the
Forum's current funding recommendations in support of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program is essential to move the program
forward so that the congressionally directed salinity objectives
embodied in Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569 are achieved.
______

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 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the Tri-County Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: The Tri-County Water
Conservancy District Board respectfully requests your support for an
appropriation in the President's recommended budget for fiscal year
2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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.
We appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the Wyoming Water Association
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy and Western Resources
Advocates
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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.
We appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of PNM Resources, Inc.
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepares Statement of the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the State of Wyoming
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: I am Requesting your
support for the appropriation of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation included in the Presidents fiscal year 2011 recommended
budget in the Upper Colorado Region budget line-item entitled
``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program.'' This budget
line-item designates $800,000 for construction and construction
management activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; $7,154,000 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 are highly
successful collaborative conservation partnerships working to recover
the four species of endemic Colorado River fish on the Federal
endangered species list; while at the same time water use and
development has been able to continue in our growing western
communities. These programs are unique efforts involving the States of
New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies
and water, power and environmental interests. They are achieving
Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for water projects and fully
complying with interstate river compacts and the participating States'
water law.
Since 1988, the two programs, collectively, have provided ESA
section 7 compliance (without litigation) for over 1,850 Federal,
tribal, State and privately managed water projects depleting more than
3.7 million acre-feet of water per year. The Department of the Interior
recognized these programs with its nation-wide Cooperative Conservation
Award in April 2008 as outstanding collaborative partnerships
accomplishing substantial on-the-ground conservation results.
Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is
embodied in both programs.
As we do each year in support of these two region-wide cooperative
recovery programs, the State of Wyoming again requests the
subcommittee's assistance: it is absolutely essential that fiscal year
2011 funding be provided within the Bureau of Reclamation's budget
appropriation to assure that agency's continued financial participation
as directed by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The State of Wyoming thanks you for the past support and assistance
of your subcommittee; it has greatly facilitated the ongoing and
continued success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the State of Colorado
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: I am Requesting your
support for the appropriation of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation included in the Presidents fiscal year 2011 recommended
budget in the Upper Colorado Region budget line-item entitled
``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program.'' This budget
line-item designates the following: $800,000 for construction and
construction management activities for the San Juan River Basin
Recovery Implementation Program; $7,154,000 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 are highly
successful collaborative conservation partnerships working to recover
the four species of endemic Colorado River fish on the Federal
endangered species list; while at the same time water use and
development has been able to continue in our growing western
communities. These programs involve New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, multiple Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests in providing Endangered Species Act (ESA)
compliance for water projects in the region. They also fully complying
with interstate river compacts and the participating States' water law.
Since 1988, the two programs have collectively provided ESA section
7 compliance (without litigation) for over 1,850 Federal, tribal, State
and privately managed water projects. The Department of the Interior
recognized these programs as outstanding collaborative partnerships
with its nation-wide Cooperative Conservation Award in April 2008
accomplishing substantial on-the-ground conservation results.
Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding, exceeding 50 percent, is
embodied in both programs.
As I have done in the past, I am writing to support these two
region-wide cooperative recovery programs. On behalf of the State of
Colorado, I request the subcommittee's assistance. It is essential that
fiscal year 2011 funding be provided within the Bureau of Reclamation's
budget appropriation to assure that agency's continued financial
participation, as directed by Public Law 106-392.
On behalf of the State of Colorado, I thank you for the continued
support and assistance of your subcommittee; it has greatly facilitated
the ongoing and continued success of these multi-state and multi-agency
programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the State of New Mexico
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: I am Requesting your
support for the appropriation of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation included in the Presidents fiscal year 2011 recommended
budget in the Upper Colorado Region budget line-item entitled
``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program.'' This budget
line-item designates $800,000 for construction and construction
management activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; $7,154,000 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 are highly
successful collaborative conservation partnerships working to recover
the four species of endemic Colorado River fish on the Federal
endangered species list. These programs are unique efforts involving
the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes,
Federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests. The
programs provide Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for historic
and developing water projects throughout the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River basins, and respect State water laws and interstate
compacts. The requested fiscal year 2011 appropriation for the San Juan
River recovery program includes funding to construct a fish screen to
prevent entrainment of endangered fish by diversions for historic
Navajo tribal water uses in New Mexico.
Since 1988, the two programs, collectively, have provided ESA
section 7 compliance (without litigation) for over 1,850 Federal,
tribal, State and privately managed water projects depleting more than
3.7 million acre-feet of water per year. The Department of the Interior
recognized these programs with its nation-wide Cooperative Conservation
Award in April 2008 as outstanding collaborative partnerships
accomplishing substantial on-the-ground conservation results.
Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is
embodied in both programs.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs.
The State of New Mexico gratefully thanks you for that support. We
again request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these two region-wide cooperative recovery programs as
authorized and directed by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
______

Prepared Statement of the San Juan Water Commission
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 Pulic 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

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 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the Colorado Water Congress
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 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 2011 of $8,354,000
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: $7,154,000 for construction
activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure
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 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Energy Distributors
Association (CREDA)
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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.
CREDA is a non-profit organization representing the majority of the
firm electric service customers of the Colorado River Storage Project.
CREDA has participated in these programs since inception, and power
revenues have been a key funding source of the programs. These ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests are intended to recover endangered fish species
while water use and development proceeds in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act.
We appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of The Jicarilla Apache Nation
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: On behalf of the
Jicarilla Apache Nation, I am requesting your support for an
appropriation in the President's recommended budget for fiscal year
2011 of $8,354,000 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:
$7,154,000 for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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.
The Nation has been a voluntary participant in the highly
successful and widely supported program to recover endangered fish
species in the San Juan River basin since 1992 and fully supports the
same effort underway in the Upper Colorado River. More than 1,800
Federal, tribal and non-Federal water projects are involved in the
recovery efforts, these actions have resulted in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of The Southwestern Water Conservation District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

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 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: On behalf of the Board of
Directors of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern
Water), I am requesting your support for an appropriation in the
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to
the U.S. 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:
$7,154,000 for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 usage and development continue in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
Northern Water appreciates the subcommittee's past support and
requests the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to
ensure the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of Aurora Water
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2011 funding for the
Department of the Interior for the title II Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program (Public Law 93-320). By statute, Congress
designated the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) to be the lead agency for salinity control in the
Colorado River Basin. This successful and cost effective program is
carried out pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
and the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500). California's Colorado
River water users are presently suffering economic damages in the
hundreds of million of dollars per year due to the River's salinity.
The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
the State agency charged with protecting California's interests and
rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
In this capacity, California and the other six basin States through the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the interstate
organization responsible for coordinating the basin States' salinity
control efforts, established numeric criteria in June 1975 for salinity
concentrations in the River. These criteria were established to lessen
the future damages in the Lower Basin States, as well as, assist the
United States in delivering water of adequate quality to Mexico in
accordance with Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water
Commission.
To date, Reclamation has been successful in implementing projects
for preventing salt from entering the River system; however, many more
potential projects for salt reduction have been identified that could
be implemented through Reclamation's Basin-wide Salinity Control
Program. In the past, the Forum has presented testimony to Congress in
which it has stated that the rate of implementation of the program
beyond that which has been funded in the past is essential. This is
still the case, and California urges the Congress to fully fund
Reclamation's continuing implementation of this critical program.
In 2000, Congress reviewed the salinity control program as
authorized in 1995. Following hearings, and with the administration's
support, the Congress passed legislation (Public Law 106-459) that
increased the ceiling authorization for this program from $75 million
to $175 million. Reclamation has received proposals to move the program
ahead and the seven basin States have agreed to up-front cost sharing
on an annual basis, which adds 43 cents for every Federal dollar
appropriated.
In recent years, the Bureau of Reclamation's Basin-wide Salinity
Control Program funding has dropped to below $10 million. In the
judgment of the Forum, this amount is inappropriately low. Water
quality commitments to downstream U.S. and Mexican water users must be
honored while the basin States continue to develop their Compact
apportioned waters from the Colorado River. Concentrations of salts in
the River cause about $376 million in quantified damage in the United
States. However significant un-quantified damages also, occur. For
example, damages occur from:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling and reuse of the
water due to groundwater quality deterioration; and
--Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
For every 30 milligram per liter increase in salinity
concentrations, there are $75 million in additional damages in the
United States. The Forum, therefore, believes implementation of the
program needs to be accelerated to a level beyond that which has been
requested by the administration for the past recent years.
Some of the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities
occur when Reclamation can improve irrigation delivery systems in a
coordinated fashion with the activities of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) program through working with landowners
(irrigators) to improve on-farm irrigation systems. With the USDA's
Environmental Quality Incentive Program, more on-farm funds are
available and adequate funds for Reclamation are needed to maximize
Reclamation's effectiveness in addressing water delivery system
improvements. The Advisory Council, at its meeting in October 2009, in
Phoenix, Arizona, recommended a funding level of $17,500,000 for
Reclamation's Basin-wide Salinity Control Program to continue
implementation of needed projects.
In addition, the Colorado River Board recognizes that the Federal
Government has made significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico
and to the seven Colorado River Basin States with regard to the
delivery of quality water to Mexico. In order for those commitments to
be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2011, and in future
fiscal years, that Congress provide funds to the Bureau of Reclamation
for the continued operation of completed projects.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the 18 million residents of southern California,
including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water users in
Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and
Imperial counties. Preservation and improvement of Colorado River water
quality through an effective salinity control program will avoid the
additional economic damages to users in California and the other States
that rely on the Colorado River.
______

Prepared Statement of the Irrigation and Electrical Districts
Association of Arizona
The Irrigation and Electrical Districts Association of Arizona
(IEDA) is pleased to present written testimony regarding the fiscal
year 2011 proposed budgets for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)
and the Western Area Power Administration (Western).
IEDA is an Arizona nonprofit association whose 26 members and
associate members receive water from the Colorado River directly or
through the facilities of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) and
purchase hydropower from Federal facilities on the Colorado River
either directly from Western or, in the case of the Boulder Canyon
Project, from the Arizona Power Authority, the State agency that
markets Arizona's share of power from Hoover Dam. IEDA was founded in
1962 and continues to represent water and power interests of Arizona
political subdivisions and other public power providers and their
consumers.
bureau of reclamation
IEDA has reviewed the Reclamation budget and found, not
unexpectedly, that it does not address the enormous backlog of needs of
the agency's aging infrastructure. We are aware, for example, that the
Imperial Dam Electrification Project needs $5 million, money that will
be repaid to the Treasury with interest. However, we do support
important projects and programs that are included in the proposed
budget. We are especially mindful that the Yuma Desalting Plant is
undergoing a pilot project, which is an essential element of the
problem solving mechanisms being put in place for the Colorado River
and especially the Lower Colorado River. Problem solving on the Lower
Colorado River will be substantially improved by using the plant as a
management element.
We also wish to call to the subcommittee's attention the issue
concerning increased security costs at Reclamation facilities post-9/
11. Legislation has passed Congress addressing that issue and a budget
approved for Reclamation for fiscal year 2011 should reflect that this
legislation became law and affects Reclamation operations. We believe
security costs under that legislation should be reduced because of a
declining Consumer Price Index.
western area power administration
IEDA has reviewed the testimony submitted by Western's
administrator, Tim Meeks. We note that both this subcommittee and the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Water and Power
Subcommittee have a concern over the limited appropriation for
construction funding proposed for fiscal year 2011. We believe this
shortfall is irresponsible. Western has over 15,000 miles of
transmission line for which it is responsible. It has on the order of
14,000 megawatts of generation being considered for construction that
would depend on that Federal network. The existing transmission
facilities cannot handle all of these proposals. Moreover, the region
is projected, by all utilities operating in the region, to be short of
available generation in the 10-year planning window that utilities and
Western use.
The appropriation proposed in this category cannot come even close
to keeping existing transmission construction going. Repairs and
replacements will have to be postponed and considerable hardships to
local utilities that depend on the Federal network are bound to occur.
In Western's Desert Southwest Region, our region, work necessary just
to maintain system reliability will have to be postponed.
We would be the first to support additional customer financing of
Federal facilities and expenses through the Contributed Funds Act
authority under Reclamation law that is available to Western. However,
programs utilizing non-Federal capital formation require years to
develop. One such program proposed by the Arizona Power Authority in a
partnership with Western died because it was enmeshed in bureaucratic
red tape at the Department of Energy. There is no way that Western
customers can develop contracts, have them reviewed, gain approval of
these contracts from Western and their own governing bodies, find
financing on Wall Street and have monies available for the next fiscal
year. It is just impossible, especially in this economy.
There are impediments to using existing Federal laws to facilitate
non-Federal financing for construction of Federal electric transmission
facilities and Congress should eliminate them. In the meantime,
artificially designating customer funding for construction, in lieu of
real solutions, is bad public policy and should not be countenanced. We
urge the subcommittee to restore a reasonable amount of additional
construction funding to Western so it can continue to do its job in
keeping its transmission systems functioning and completing the tasks
that it has in the pipeline that are critical to its customers
throughout the West.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony. If
we can provide any additional information or be of any other service to
the subcommittee, please do not hesitate to get in touch with us.
______

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 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the Dolores 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 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of Colorado Springs Utilities
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, West
River/Lyman Jones Rural Water System, Rosebud Rural Water System, and
the Lower Brule Rural Water System
fiscal year 2011 request
The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries respectfully request $37.222
million in appropriations for construction and $11.093 million for
operation and maintenance (OMR) activities for fiscal year 2011, a
total request of $48.315 million:

FISCAL YEAR 2011 TOTAL REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction............................................ $37,222,000
OMR..................................................... 11,093,000
---------------
Total............................................. 48,315,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The construction request includes $1.0 million for Bureau of
Reclamation oversight, and the OMR request includes $1.447 million for
Bureau of Reclamation oversight.
construction funds
Construction funds would be utilized as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction
Project Area Request Fiscal
Year 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core................................................ ( \1\ )
Distribution........................................ $22,069,000
Wesr River/Lyman-Jones RWS.............................. 3,719,000
Rosebud RWS............................................. 11,434,000
---------------
Total............................................. 37,222,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete.

As shown in the table below, the project will be 88 percent
complete at the end of fiscal year 2010. Construction funds remaining
to be spent after fiscal year 2010 will total $54.518 million within
the current authorization (in October 2009 dollars). Additional
administrative and overhead costs of extending the project, additional
construction costs, and inflation at 3.7 percent over the next 3 years
are expected to increase remaining project costs to $111.667 million
after fiscal year 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Construction Funding (Oct 2009 dollars)... $460,014,364
Estinated Federal Spent Through Fiscal Year 2010........ $405,496,000
Percent Spent Through Fiscal Year 2010.................. 88.15
Amount Remaining after 2010:
Total Authorized (Oct 2009 dollars)................. $54,518,364
Adjusted for Extension to Fiscal Year 2013 and Other $103,958,000
Cost...............................................
Adjusted for Annual Inflation....................... $111,667,000
Completion Fiscal Year (Statutory Fiscal Year 2013; 2013
Public Law 111-161)....................................
Year to Complete........................................ 3
Average Annual Required for Finish in Fiscal Year 2013.. $37,222,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost indexing over the last 5 years has averaged 3.66 percent for
pipelines, primarily due to a 7.7 percent reduction last year during
recession. Pipelines are the principal components yet to be completed
(see chart below). Assuming average 3.66 percent inflation in
construction costs over the remaining 3 years, average funding of
$37.222 million is required.

This is an increase in the annual rate of appropriations needed to
complete the project since last year's estimate of $31.4 million.
Appropriations were limited to $22 million last year, which increases
the average annual rate of funding needed to complete in 2013 on the
statutory schedule.
The request will create an estimated 298 full-time equivalent (FTE)
construction jobs and 89 OMR jobs in an area of the Nation with the
lowest per capita income and deepest poverty.
oglala sioux rural water supply system (osrwss)
Core System
The Oglala Sioux Tribe has completed the core system. The
completion of the OSRWSS core system was an historic milestone and
permits greater focus in remaining years of the Project on completion
of the distribution systems.
Distribution System
The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation will receive significantly more
water from the OSRWSS core system in fiscal year 2010. This is another
historic year, but considerable work remains to distribute the water
supply throughout the reservation. Over 40 percent of the project's
population resides on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and only 52
percent of the distribution system is complete. The reservation public
received its first Missouri River supply in small amounts in 2009 after
waiting 15 years for construction of core facilities to the
reservation.
Project funds in fiscal year 2011 will continue building the on-
reservation transmission system between the community of Wounded Knee
and Pine Ridge Village. The latter community is the largest on the
reservation and the point of greatest demand. Funding will also be used
for transmission and service line development east of Pine Ridge
Village toward Wakpamni, Batesland and Allen and south toward the
Nebraska State line where groundwater is the most feasible water source
for the future. This area has been deferred in the past due to funding
constraints.
Delivery of Missouri River water to Kyle in fiscal year 2010,
delayed due to funding, will allow distribution to completed OSRWSS
pipelines that serve the communities of Kyle, Sharps Corner, Rocky
Ford, Red Shirt, Manderson, Evergreen and Porcupine and the large
number of rural homes between the communities along these pipelines.
Fiscal year 2011 funds will be used to extend service south of Wanblee
to Hisle.
As set forth above, activity on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
in fiscal year 2011 continues to focus on constructing the transmission
system that serves as the ``backbone'' of the project on the
reservation from the White River in the northeast corner of the
reservation to Pine Ridge Village. The tribe will continue focus on the
disinfection requirements to blend Missouri River water and high
quality groundwater without creating harmful contaminants. State-of-
the-art designs are being implemented for water quality control and
SCADA systems, and the project will serve as a model for other projects
requiring these facilities.
The Oglala Sioux Tribe is supportive of the funding request of
other sponsors.
west river/lyman-jones rural water system
West River/Lyman-Jones RWS projects for fiscal year 2011 include
standby generation facilities, conversion of community water systems,
storage reservoirs, SCADA, and cold storage additions.
The Upper Midwest and specifically the Mni Wiconi Project area
regularly experience power outages as the result of winter weather
conditions. Regulatory authorities in South Dakota have recommended
standby generation as the result of statewide power outages experienced
during the winters of 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. The Bureau of
Reclamation has concurred in the addition of standby generation to the
Mni Wiconi plan of work. WR/LJ has outlined a 3 year standby generation
project schedule.
The WR/LJ project includes four areas in which area ranchers are
served by a common well of limited capacity and unacceptable water
quality. The construction of WR/LJ facilities to serve them as
individual members of WR/LJ will provide the pipeline capacity and
water quality meeting Mni Wiconi project design standards.
Water storage needs include an elevated tower in the Reliance
service area, a ground storage reservoir in Mellette County and
supplemental storage in the Elbon service area.
System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) capability provides
accurate and efficient transmission of data and allows remote control
of pumping and storage facilities. The WR/LJ SCADA system will be
completed using the requested funding.
Storage facilities at the Murdo and Philip operations centers will
complete the building components of the WR/LJ project.
Previous Federal appropriations to the Mni Wiconi Project have made
possible the delivery of much needed quality water to members of the
West River/Lyman-Jones RWS and to the livestock industry in the project
area. This would not have been possible with State and Federal
assistance.
rosebud sioux rural water system--fiscal year 2011
In fiscal year 2011 work on the Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System
(RSRWS or Sicangu Mni Wiconi) focuses on supplying high quality water
to southern Todd County. It was hoped that this area of the Rosebud
Reservation would not need to be connected to the Mni Wiconi Project
because of the presence of the Ogallala aquifer. The estimated demands
for the area were however included in system planning and it now
appears this foresight was beneficial because portions of the aquifer
have high nitrates and other areas are not as high yielding as
originally thought.
Because of quality and quantity limitations of the aquifer, high
quality surface water from the OSRWSS will be conveyed by a
transmission pipeline to a new elevated storage reservoir at Sicangu
Village. The elevated reservoir is being constructed in fiscal year
2010 with ARRA funds. Sicangu Village is an expanding housing area and
the local wells cannot meet the demands associated with expansion. The
transmission line and elevated reservoir will provide a reliable supply
of high quality water to the development corridor centered on Highway
83 between Mission and Sicangu Village.
The other major projects will extend service to two schools in
southern Todd County. The wells that supply water to the schools have
high nitrates. The Mni Wiconi Project will ensure that future
generations on the Rosebud Reservation, both Indians and non-Indians
alike, will be supplied with water that meets safe drinking water
standards.
While supply to meet the demands in southern Todd County was
included as a contingency in the tribe's Needs Assessment and the Mni
Wiconi Final Engineering Report, costs of infrastructure were not. In
order to supply these schools, other areas may not be served unless an
amendment authorizing an increase in the project ceiling and extending
the sunset date is enacted.
The ongoing effort to connect rural homes to transmission and
distribution lines will also continue in 2011. This work is undertaken
through the tribe's force account program that not only provides a
reliable source of high quality water to rural homes but also provides
employment to numerous tribal members and helps circulate dollars on
the reservation thereby stimulating the local economy.
omr
The Sponsors will continue to work with Reclamation to ensure that
their budgets are adequate to properly operate, maintain and replace
(OMR) respective portions of the core and distribution systems. The
Sponsors will also continue to manage OMR expenses to ensure that the
limited funds can best be balanced between Construction and OMR.
The project is treating and delivering more water each year from
the OSRWSS Water Treatment Plant near Fort Pierre as construction
advances in the Rosebud, WRLJ and Oglala service areas. Completion of
significant core and distribution pipelines has resulted in more
deliveries to more communities and rural users. The need for sufficient
funds to properly operate and maintain the functioning system
throughout the project has grown as the project has now reached 88
percent completion. The OMR budget must be adequate to keep pace with
the system that is placed in operation.
The Lower Brule Rural Water System (LBRWS) is essentially complete
with all major components such as the water treatment plant, booster
stations and tanks/reservoirs in full operation. As a result, LBRWS's
operation and maintenance portion of the budget has reached a baseline
amount to which only slight adjustments along with inflation should be
made each year. The portion of the LBRWS OM&R budget that is somewhat
variable is the Replacement Additions and Extraordinary (RAX)
maintenance items. LBRWS will continue to work with the Bureau of
Reclamation and the other sponsors to prioritize their needs and ensure
that their system is operating to the standards that have been
established over the past several years. With that in mind, the LBRWS
request for OMR for fiscal year 2011 is $1,550,000.
The Mni Wiconi Project tribal beneficiaries (as listed below)
respectfully request appropriations for OMR in fiscal year 2011 in the
amount of $11.093 million.

FISCAL YEAR 2011 OMR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Area Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core................................................ $2,719,000
Distribution........................................ 3,100,000
Lower Brule............................................. 1,550,000
Rosebud RWS............................................. 2,277,000
Reclamation............................................. 1,447,000
---------------
Total............................................. 11,093,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

trust responsibility
Public Law 100-516, the Mni Wiconi Project Act, provides that ``. .
. United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate and
safe water supplies are available to meet the economic, environmental,
water supply, and public health needs of the . . . Indian
reservation[s] . . .''
The field staff and the Regional Office of the Bureau of
Reclamation have been extremely helpful in advancing this project, but
there is growing concern that Reclamation mid-managers are making
unilateral decisions that harm the trust relationship. We are also
concerned with the manner of budgeting. The following are specific
instances:
--Reclamation has re-distributed funds allocated to the Oglala Sioux
Tribe to West River/Lyman Jones without the urging of West
River Lyman Jones to further Reclamation performance
objectives. While OSRWSS has consistently carried funds over
from one fiscal year to another, there has never been an
instance or a threat of an instance of not spending funding
appropriated in the same year and the year that follows. The
Oglala Sioux Tribe strongly feels that this hampers the ability
of the OSRWSS to complete the OSRWSS distribution system
prescribed by the statutory completion date.
--To our complete satisfaction on construction, Reclamation has
yielded to the leadership of the Indian and non-Indian sponsors
to permit their collaborative development of annual funding
allocations and budgets. On the other hand, Reclamation has
imposed its structure and budget specifics in lieu of Indian
leadership on the formulation of annual OMR allocations and
budgets;
--Reclamation has prioritized total budgeted funds with a separation
between Construction and OMR accounts based on its trust
responsibility for OMR, which constrains the budgeted funds
available to complete construction. OMR budgeting has been held
relatively constant with higher percentages of construction
completion, and construction budgeting has decreased. The fixed
level of OMR funding has constrained the activities needed on
the Indian distribution systems. The construction budget is
diminishing at a time when acceleration of construction is
needed to deliver the benefits of the project to the Indian
people. At a minimum, the construction budget should be a
priority and should be held at a level needed to complete the
project on the statutory schedule in 2013 while providing an
adequate OMR budget. The trust responsibility for ensuring
adequate and safe water supplies for the reservations involved
necessarily includes both the construction and OMR activities;
--Mid-level managers often view the project as a Reclamation project,
rather than as an Indian project as provided by Public Law 100-
516, and their vision is affected.
______

Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Water Conservation District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: I am requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 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: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 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 in compliance with the Endangered Species Act,
while maintaining water use and development.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the San Diego County Water Authority
Dear Chairman Dorgan: Your support is needed to secure adequate
fiscal year 2011 funding for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's
participation in the Federal/State Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program. Reclamation is the lead agency for this successful and
cost-effective program, which mitigates problems caused by excess
salinity in the Colorado River.
The Colorado River is the primary source of drinking and irrigation
water for more than 3 million people in San Diego County. Excess
salinity causes economic damages in the San Diego region worth millions
of dollars annually. It also hinders local water agency efforts to
stretch limited supplies by recycling and reusing water. The local
impacts of excess salinity include:
--Reduced crop yields for farmers, who produce more than $1 billion
of agricultural products in the San Diego region;
--Reduced useful life of commercial and residential water pipe
systems, water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes
washers, and dishwashers;
--Increased household use of expensive bottled water and water
softeners;
--Increased water treatment facility costs;
--Difficulty meeting Federal and California wastewater discharge
requirements; and
--Fewer opportunities for water recycling due to excess salt in the
product water, which limits usefulness for commercial and
agricultural irrigation.
Reclamation has been successful in implementing projects that
prevent salt from entering the river system. Additional projects for
salt reduction have been identified that could further improve river
water quality. Some of the most cost-effective salinity control
opportunities occur when Reclamation can improve irrigation delivery
systems at the same time that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) program is working with landowners (irrigators) to improve the
on-farm irrigation systems. Adequate funding is needed to maximize
Reclamation's effectiveness.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, the interstate
organization responsible for coordinating the seven Colorado River
Basin States' salinity control efforts, in October 2009 recommended a
funding level of $17,500,000 for Reclamation's Basin-wide salinity
control program for fiscal year 2011. This funding would allow
Reclamation to continue its coordinated efforts to reduce salinity in
the Colorado River. The Water Authority agrees with the Forum's
recommendation, and urges your support for these needed funds. The
seven Colorado River Basin States are sharing costs for salinity
control, contributing 43 cents for every appropriated Federal dollar.
The Water Authority appreciates your support of the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program and asks for your assistance in securing
adequate funding for fiscal year 2011.
______

Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Dear Senator Dorgan: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (Metropolitan) has adopted a position supporting funding for
the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Title
II Program.
For 70 years Metropolitan has provided imported water to the
Southern California region from the Colorado River and the State Water
Project originating in Northern California. Our mission is to provide
high quality, reliable drinking water supplies primarily for municipal
and industrial use. Metropolitan is the Nation's largest provider of
imported water to an urban area. The population today in our service
area is 19 million and it is projected to rise to 25 million within the
next 25 years. Metropolitan is comprised of 26 member public agencies
that serve an area spanning 5,200 square miles and 6 southern
California counties.
Water imported via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) has the
highest salinity of Metropolitan's imported sources of supply,
averaging around 630 milligrams per liter since 1976 and causing
economic damages. For example, damages occur from:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the cost of water treatment and sewer fees in the
industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to
groundwater quality deterioration;
--Increased use of imported water for leaching; and
--Increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycled
water.
Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for
many years. To deal with the concern, the International Boundary and
Water Commission approved Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive
Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado
River in 1973, and the President approved the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act in 1974. High total dissolved solids in the
Colorado River as it entered Mexico and the concerns of the seven
Colorado River Basin States regarding the quality of Colorado River
water in the United States drove these initial actions. To foster
interstate cooperation on this issue and coordinate the Colorado River
Basin States' efforts on salinity control, the seven basin States
formed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum).
The salts in the Colorado River system are indigenous and
pervasive, mostly resulting from saline sediments in the basin that
were deposited in prehistoric marine environments. They are easily
eroded, dissolved, and transported into the river system.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program reduces salinity
by preventing salts from dissolving and mixing with the River's flow.
Irrigation improvements (sprinklers, gated pipe, lined ditches) and
vegetation management reduce the amount of salt transported to the
Colorado River. Point sources such as saline springs are also
controlled. The Federal Government, basin States, and contract
participants spend close to $50 million annually on salinity control
programs.
The Program, as set forth in the act, benefits both the Upper
Colorado River Basin water users through more efficient water
management and the Lower Basin water users, hundreds of miles
downstream from salt sources in the Upper Basin, through reduced
salinity concentration of Colorado River water. California's Colorado
River water users are presently suffering economic damages in the
hundreds of millions of dollars per year due to the river's salinity.
By some estimates, concentrations of salts in the Colorado River
cause approximately $350 million in quantified damages in the lower
Colorado River Basin States each year and significantly more in
unquantified damages. Salinity control projects have reduced salinity
concentrations of Colorado River water on average by over 100
milligrams per liter with an economic benefit of $264 million per year
(2005 dollars) in avoided damages.
In recent years, the Bureau of Reclamation Basin-wide Salinity
Control Program funding has dropped to below $10 million. In the
judgment of the Forum, this amount is inappropriately low. Water
quality commitments to downstream U.S. and Mexican water users must be
honored while the Upper Basin States continue to develop their Compact
apportioned waters from the Colorado River.
Metropolitan urges this subcommittee to support funding for the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program for fiscal year 2011 of
$17.5 million for the Department of the Interior--Bureau of
Reclamation's Basin-wide Salinity Control Program for the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program.
Over the past years, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
program has proven to be a very cost effective approach to help
mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado River.
Continued Federal funding of this important basin-wide program is
essential.
I would appreciate it if you make this statement a part of the
formal hearing record concerning fiscal year 2011 appropriations for
the Bureau of Reclamation. I thank you for your subcommittee's support
of this program in years past and hope that you will again support
funding to continue this valuable program.
______

Prepared Statement of the New Mexico State Engineer and Secretary, New
Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
summary
This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2011
appropriations for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program of
the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation).
Congress designated Reclamation to be the lead agency for salinity
control in the Colorado River Basin by the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act of 1974, and reconfirmed Reclamation's role by
passage of Public Law 104-20. A total of $17.5 million is requested for
fiscal year 2011 to implement the authorized salinity control program
of the Bureau of Reclamation. Recent years have followed a trend of
inadequate funding for the needs of the program. An appropriation of
$17.5 million for Reclamation's salinity control program is necessary
to restore the program to the level needed to protect water quality
standards for salinity and to prevent unnecessary levels of economic
damage from increased salinity in water delivered to the Lower Basin
States of the Colorado River. In addition, funding for operation and
maintenance of existing projects and sufficient general investigation
funding is required to identify new salinity control opportunities.
statement
The water quality standards for salinity of the Colorado River must
be protected while the basin States continue to develop their compact
apportioned waters of the river. The salinity standards for the
Colorado River have been adopted by the seven basin States and approved
by the Environmental Protection Agency. While currently the standards
have not been exceeded, salinity control projects must be brought on-
line in a timely and cost-effective manner to prevent future effects
that could result in unnecessary damages from higher levels of salinity
in the water delivered to the Lower Basin States of the Colorado River.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was authorized by
Congress and signed into law in 1974. The seven Colorado River Basin
States, in response to the Clean Water Act of 1972, formed the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), a body comprised of
gubernatorial representatives from the seven States. The Forum was
created to provide for interstate cooperation in response to the Clean
Water Act and to provide the States with information necessary to
comply with sections 303(a) and (b) of the act. The Forum has become
the primary means for the basin States to coordinate with Federal
agencies and Congress to support the implementation of the salinity
control program for the Colorado River Basin.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that quantified damages from the
Colorado River to U.S. water users are about $350 million per year.
Unquantified damages are significantly greater. Damages are estimated
at $75 million per year for every additional increase of 30 milligrams
per liter in salinity of the Colorado River. Control of salinity is
necessary for the States of the Colorado River Basin, including New
Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters of the
Colorado River.
Timely appropriations for the funding of the salinity control
program are essential to comply with the water quality standards for
salinity, prevent unnecessary economic damages in the United States,
and protect the quality of the water that the United States is
obligated to deliver to Mexico. The basin States and Federal agencies
agree that increases in the salinity of the Colorado River will result
in significant increases in damages to water users in the Lower
Colorado River Basin. Although the United States has always met the
water quality standard for salinity of water delivered to Mexico under
Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission, the
United States through the U.S. section of IBWC is currently addressing
a request by Mexico for better quality water. Continued strong support
and adequate funding of the salinity control program is required to
control salinity-related damages in the United States and Mexico.
Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in
July 1995 (Public Law 104-20). The salinity control program authorized
by Congress by the amendment has proven to be very cost-effective, and
the Basin States are standing ready with up-front cost-sharing.
Proposals from public and private sector entities in response to
Reclamation's requests for proposals and funding opportunity
announcements have far exceeded available funding appropriated in
recent years. Basin States cost-sharing funds are available for the
$17.5 million appropriation request for fiscal year 2011. The basin
States' cost-sharing adds 43 cents for each Federal dollar
appropriated.
Public Law 106-459 gave the Bureau of Reclamation additional
spending authority for the salinity control program. With the
additional authority in place and significant cost-sharing available
from the basin States, it is essential that the salinity control
program be funded at the level requested by the Forum and basin States
to protect the water quality of the Colorado River. Some of the most
cost-effective salinity control opportunities occur when Reclamation
improves irrigation delivery systems concurrently with on-farm
irrigation improvements undertaken by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The
basin States cost-share funding is available for both on-farm and off-
farm improvements. The EQIP funding appears to be adequate to
accomplish the on-farm work. Adequate funding for Reclamation's off-
farm work is needed to maintain timely implementation and effectiveness
of salinity control measures.
Maintenance and operation of Reclamation's salinity control
projects and general investigations to identify new cost-effective
salinity control projects are necessary for the continued success of
the salinity control program. Investigation of new opportunities for
salinity control is critical while the basin States continue to develop
and use their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River. The
water quality standards for salinity are dependent on timely
implementation of salinity control projects, adequate funding to
maintain and operate existing projects, and sufficient general
investigation funding to determine new cost-effective opportunities for
salinity control.
Continued funding primarily through Reclamation's Facility
Operation activity to support maintenance and operation the Paradox
Valley Unit and the Grand Valley Unit is critically needed. General
Investigation funding through Reclamation's Colorado River Water
Quality Improvement Program needs to be restored to a level that
supports the need for identification and study of new salinity control
opportunities to maintain the levels of salinity control needed to meet
water quality standards and control economic damages in the Lower
Colorado River Basin.
I urge the Congress to appropriate $17.5 million to the Bureau of
Reclamation for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, plus
adequate funding for operation and maintenance of existing projects and
adequate funding for general investigations to identify new salinity
control opportunities. Also, I fully support testimony by the Forum's
Executive Director, Jack Barnett, in request of this appropriation, and
the recommendation of an appropriation of the same amount by the
Federal chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council.
______

Prepared Statement of the Wyoming State Engineer's Office
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Domenici: This letter is
sent in support of fiscal year 2011 funding for the Bureau of
Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project--Title II
Program. A total of $17.5 million is requested for Reclamation's fiscal
year 2011 activities to implement authorized Colorado River Basin
salinity control program programs. Failure to appropriate these funds
will directly result in significant economic damages being accrued by
U.S. and Mexican water users.
The State of Wyoming also supports funding for Salinity Control
Program general investigations as requested within the Colorado River
Water Quality Improvement Program budget line-item. It is important
that Reclamation have properly funded planning staff in place, so that
the program's progress can be monitored, necessary coordination among
Federal and State agencies can be accomplished, and future projects and
opportunities to control salinity can be properly planned. Maintaining
the water quality standards for salinity in the Colorado River is
essential so as to allow the seven Colorado River Basin States to
continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado
River.
In addition to the funding identified above for the implementation
of the most recently authorized program, the State of Wyoming urges the
Congress to appropriate funds, as requested by the administration, to
maintain and operate completed salinity control facilities, including
the Paradox Valley Unit. At facilities located within the Paradox
Valley of Colorado subsurface saline brines are collected below the
Delores River and are injected into a deep aquifer through an injection
well. The continued operation of this project, and the Grand Valley
Unit, are funded primarily through the Facility Operations activity.
The Colorado River provides municipal and industrial water for over
30 million people and irrigation water to nearly 4 million acres of
land in the United States. The River is also the water source for some
2.5 million people and 500,000 acres in Mexico. Limitations on water
users' abilities to make the greatest use of this critically important
water supply on account of the River's high concentration of total
dissolved solids (hereafter referred to as the salinity of the water)
are a major concern in both the United States and Mexico. Salinity in
water supplies affects agricultural, municipal, and industrial water
users.
While economic detriments and damages in Mexico are unquantified,
the Bureau of Reclamation presently estimates direct and computable
salinity-related damages in the United States amount to $376 million
per year. The River's high salt content is in almost equal part due to
naturally occurring geologic features that include subsurface salt
formations and discharging saline springs; and the resultant
concentrating effects of our users man's storage, use and reuse of the
waters of the River system. Over-application of irrigation water by
agriculture is a large contributor of salt to the Colorado River as
irrigation water moves below the crop root zone, seeps through saline
soils and then returns to the river system.
The Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the 1972
amendments to the Clean Water Act required the seven basin States to
adopt water quality standards for salinity levels in the Colorado
River. In light of the EPA's regulation to require water quality
standards for salinity in the basin, the Governors of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming created the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum as an interstate
coordination mechanism in 1973. To address these international and
regionally important salinity problems, the Congress enacted the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. Title I addressed
U.S. obligations to Mexico to control the River's salinity to ensure
the U.S.A.'s water deliveries to Mexico are within the specified
salinity concentration range. Title II of the act authorized control
measures upstream of Imperial Dam and directed the Secretary of the
Interior to construct several salinity control projects, most of which
are located in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
Title II of the act was again amended in 1995 and 2000 to direct
the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a basin-wide salinity control
program. This program awards grants to non-Federal entities, on a
competitive-bid basis, which initiate and carry out salinity control
projects. The basin-wide program has demonstrated significantly
improved cost-effectiveness, as computed on a dollar per ton of salt
basis, as compared to the prior Reclamation-initiated projects. The
Forum was heavily involved in the development of the 1974 Act and its
subsequent amendments, and continues to actively oversee the Federal
agencies' salinity control program efforts.
During the past 37 years, the seven-State Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum has actively assisted the Federal agencies,
including the Bureau of Reclamation, in implementing this unique and
important program. At its October 2009 meeting, the Forum recommended
that the Bureau of Reclamation seek to have appropriated and should
expend $17.5 million for Colorado River Basin salinity control in
fiscal year 2011. We strongly believe the combined efforts of the
salinity control efforts of the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management constitute one of the
most successful Federal/State cooperative non-point source pollution
control programs in the United States.
The State of Wyoming greatly appreciates the subcommittee's support
of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program in past years. We
strongly believe this important basin-wide water quality improvement
program merits continued funding and support by your subcommittee.
Thank you in advance for inclusion of this letter in the formal hearing
record concerning fiscal year 2011 appropriations.
______

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Prepared Statement of the State Teachers' Retirement System, State of
California
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 2011, 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, Sec. 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 2011
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.
In the past, Department of Energy personnel have proffered 4
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 administration's fiscal year 2011
budget request states 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 2011 budget appendix, at p. 435). 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 2011 budget request detail states 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 Office of Hearings and Appeals is asking for additional
briefs from both parties before rendering their decision on the Stevens
Zone (the largest in Elk Hills). A final recommendation for the Shallow
Zone is pending.'' (p. 754). 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 administration's fiscal year 2011 budget
request states: ``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 2011 budget appendix, at p. 435). 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. In any event,
the trial in this litigation was completed at the end of 2009, and a
decision is expected by Spring.
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 2011 budget request.
In conclusion, 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 2011 installment of
compensation, in order to meet the Federal Government's obligations to
the State under the Settlement Agreement.
______

Prepared Statement of Precision Custom Components, LLC
Dear Mr. Chairman and ranking member: Precision Custom Components,
LLC (PCC), located in York, PA, is a manufacturer of custom fabricated
pressure vessels, reactors, casks, and heavy walled components for the
nuclear power industry and U.S. Navy. Since 1876 the company has made
large industrial turbines, nuclear reactor internals for the first
commercial nuclear power plant in Shippingport, PA, and spent nuclear
fuel shipping casks for the Navy and commercial power plants. In sum,
PCC has been an integral part of the U.S. manufacturing base for well
over a century.
The President's request for $38.8 million for research, development
and demonstration of small, modular nuclear power reactors is a modest
but well thought out program involving both public and private
investments. This request for funding is coming at just the right time
when engineering and design firms have presented credible new reactor
designs that are well within the capabilities of the U.S. manufacturing
industry, including PCC. But it is the time consuming and costly
regulatory review process at the NRC where joint Federal-private
assistance is needed.
The benefits of small, modular nuclear reactors are well
documented; from creating U.S. jobs, to creating new sources of carbon-
free baseload power, to improving the financial risk otherwise
associated with larger power plants. These innovations will also
incorporate some of the latest safety features and proliferation
resistant technologies bringing additional public benefits and export
opportunities.
If you could make this correspondence part of the record for
outside witness testimony PCC would like to be on record as supporting
the President's budget request for $38.8 million for the Department of
Energy's small, modular reactor program in fiscal year 2011, including
and encompassing light water reactor (LWR) based designs and other
technologies.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Insulation Association and the
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied
Workers
federal funding for mechanical insulation will create shovel ready,
green energy jobs all while saving energy and protecting the
environment
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Bennett, and members of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, on behalf of the National
Insulation Association (NIA) and the International Association of Heat
and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers (International Union), we are
writing in support of a programmatic increase to $3.5 million in fiscal
year 2011 for the Department of Energy's Industrial Technologies
Program specifically for a national mechanical insulation education and
awareness program.
NIA represents 95 percent of the products utilized in the
mechanical insulation industry, with members across the country at 800
corporate locations, and the International Union represents more than
25,000 workers and families employed in the mechanical insulation
sector across the country. Together, our members, of which the vast
majority are small businesses, have more than a century-long track
record of providing large- and small-scale, long-term energy
efficiency, emissions reductions, cost savings, and safety benefits at
manufacturing facilities, power plants, refineries, hospitals,
universities, and government buildings across the country.
We have joined together to advocate for a national comprehensive
advocacy program for increased use, maintenance, and retrofits of
mechanical insulation in the commercial and industrial sectors because
of its potential to create tens of thousands of jobs now, reduce carbon
emissions, increase energy savings, and provide a safer working
environment.
Buildings are responsible for 40 percent of U.S. energy demand and
40 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, making efficiency gains in
this area crucial if we are to markedly reduce America's energy
consumption and effectively combat climate change. The industrial
sector is similar in energy efficiency opportunities. At the
residential level, insulation is well publicized for its efficiency
benefits. However, the same cannot be said in the commercial and
industrial sectors, which together consume 2\1/2\ times more energy
than homes, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Commercial and industrial insulation--collectively known as mechanical
insulation--has the potential to slash the energy demand for the
building and industrial sector.
Congress has already signaled its support for a mechanical
education and awareness program through both the appropriations and
authorization process. Congress directed $500,000 be allocated in the
Department of Energy's budget for a mechanical insulation education and
awareness campaign in the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill (Public Law 111-85). This funding was a critical
start, and we thank members of the Appropriations Committee for
recognizing the value of this program, but more is needed to carry out
a successful campaign. Further evidence of Congress' support for such a
program is the inclusion of language to authorize a 5-year, $3.5
million a year national industrial energy efficiency education and
training initiative focused on mechanical insulation in H.R. 2454, the
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (section 275, page 521).
By increasing awareness and use of this energy-saving technology,
Congress will both create jobs now and reduce carbon emissions.
Creating jobs, particularly green jobs, is a top priority for Congress
and the administration. Using government data, NIA conservatively
estimates that maintenance of insulation at industrial facilities and
going beyond minimum levels in new construction can generate $4.8
billion in energy savings per year, reduce 43 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, and create 89,000
jobs annually.
Best of all, these jobs don't require additional research and
development. Mechanical insulation opportunities can be easily
identified, with potential energy savings and emissions reduction
determined with proven DOE-utilized software technology, and in many
applications implemented in weeks, making projects truly shovel-ready.
For facility owners and operators, the savings are swift and last
for many years; the return on investment from mechanical insulation is
typically less than 2 years (and sometimes as little as 6 months).
Mechanical insulation also improves infrastructure in the public,
educational, and health-care sectors, among others.
Fiscal year 2010 funding for mechanical insulation education
programs is insufficient to make an economic impact in the industrial
and commercial sector through energy savings, emissions reduction, and
job creation. Increased funding from Congress in fiscal year 2011 would
enable Federal agencies and industry partners to gather more data, work
with engineering schools, and reach out to facility managers and
owners, engineering and design professionals, and others to educate
them about the benefits of increasing their focus on the benefits of
mechanical insulation technology. Congressional funding would also
ensure the promotion of the most energy-efficient uses of mechanical
insulation in new construction, increased education about the energy
savings that can be realized through proper maintenance and a renewed
focus on retrofitting mechanical insulation in older buildings and
manufacturing facilities that together will generate substantial carbon
emissions reductions and sustainable jobs.
NIA and the International Union have cumulatively contributed $3.0
million in developing and beginning the implementation of the campaign
and are committed to matching the fiscal year 2011 funding to a
$500,000 level. As such, we have outlined program elements for a
comprehensive, persuasive awareness campaign to engage and motivate
industrial and commercial decisionmakers to take action.
Elements of the program would include:
--Develop curriculum and conduct NIA-led educational sessions
--Utilize web-based information for educational programs
--Provide educational programs at industry and government conferences
and workshops
--Implement awareness and educational marketing and advertising
campaign
--Develop needed data and seek media coverage of success stories and
the facts
--Engage NIA and Union members and other allies to actively support
the campaign
NIA, its members, and the International Union are committed to
working with Congress, the Department of Energy, other Federal
agencies, and key stakeholder groups on these and other initiatives
that will lead to greater energy efficiency nationwide. We have formed
alliances with engineering and other industry trade organizations and
have offered to work with the Department of Energy to bring together a
coalition to help develop, implement, and provide educational awareness
programs established and funded by Congress.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of a
program that is critical to job creation, economic growth, energy
savings, and emissions reductions.
______

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 the requested
level of $5.12 billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science
for fiscal year 2011. 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, for its strong support for the basic research mission of the
Department of Energy's Office of Science, and for recognizing that
funding for the Office of Science is an investment in America's future.
ASPB 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, 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 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 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.
--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. Indeed,
the importance of disciplinary integration is a central theme
of the recent National Research Council report ``A New Biology
for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the
Coming Biology Revolution.'' 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 Office of
Science has been the major source of funds for fundamental
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 the Office of Science to expand its research
portfolio in the area of photosynthesis and carbon capture.
--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. Given
the expected need for additional scientists and engineers who
are well-grounded in interdisciplinary research and development
activities, ASPB applauds DOE's Early Career Research Program
and calls for additional 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. It should be noted that this recommendation is also
directly in-line with the above mentioned ``New Biology''
report from the NRC.
--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 2 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. The above mentioned NRC report reinforces this
point through the recommendation that ``priority be given to
the development of new information technologies.'' One means to
address this need would be to expand the BER KnowledgeBase
initiative that is now only a pilot program.
--Considerable research interest is now being paid to the use of
plant biomass for energy production. If biomass crops are to be
used to their full potential, however, considerable effort must
be expended to improve our understanding of their basic biology
and development, as well as their agronomic performance.
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.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association (NMA)
Excess Uranium Sale.--Under current law, the Department of Energy
(DOE) can sell excess Government uranium inventories only after a
Secretarial Determination that such sales or transfers (1) will not
adversely impact the domestic uranium mining, conversion or enrichment
industries and (2) will obtain fair market value for such sale or
transfer. In December 2008, after obtaining a consensus agreement from
the nuclear industry, DOE published a plan to manage the sale or
transfer of excess Government uranium inventories. Critical to the plan
were (1) gradually ramped up sales in the early years of the plan (2)
sales of initial cores for new domestic reactors and (3) the
establishment of an emergency reserve for current nuclear reactors. In
July 2009, DOE announced plans to not follow the plan and to use
uranium barter transactions to fund accelerated cleanup of the
Portsmouth Ohio Enrichment Plant. Last year, the Energy and Water
Appropriations members responded to DOE's proposal and directed GAO to
evaluate the Department's management of the excess uranium inventories.
The members also increased funding for the Portsmouth cleanup. Over the
domestic mining industry's objections and USEC's acknowledgment that
DOE's proposal would adversely impact the uranium market, DOE initiated
the barter transaction with USEC in the fourth quarter of 2010. The
current budget request for Portsmouth cleanup will remove the need for
adverse excess uranium sales, allow DOE to follow its management plan,
and accelerate cleanup reducing the total amounts required to complete
cleanup of the site.
Loan Guarantee Program.--NMA was pleased to see the DOE move
forward in its request for additional authorizations for the title XVII
loan guarantee program. We firmly believe that this program, in
conjunction with other Federal financial incentives, can be used to
encourage the development of clean energy sources. We are however
concerned that the additional authorizations did not include all clean
energy sources such as coal with advanced technologies and carbon
capture and sequestration. Given the substantial role coal plays in our
energy mix, we encourage the Department of Energy to include them as
they continue to advance funding mechanisms for other clean energy
sources.
Office of Fossil Energy
Background.--NMA is disappointed that the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) fiscal year 2011 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 last year
included demonstration project and Clean Coal Power Initiative funding,
we do not believe that such funding justifies the 20 percent cut to all
fossil energy programs, in the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
Reductions of this magnitude will compromise advances in clean coal and
carbon capture and sequestration efforts. Such cuts also jeopardize
future funding of the projects by forcing them to continually rely on
supplemental spending bills. We would encourage the administration to
submit line item requests for these programs through the regular budget
process. In providing greater budgeting stability these programs will
be better equipped to achieve their intended goals within a timely
manner.
--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,
Illinois 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, Illinois. We support the $1 billion from
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for use in this
endeavor along with the $800 million for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI). Although CCPI received the necessary funding
to complete solicitations for the third round of the program,
we believe additional funding is necessary to meet the
administration's programmatic goal of wide scale CCS deployment
by 2016. The number of large scale commercial demonstration
projects that are currently underway is insufficient to meet
this deadline. We remain concerned that DOE continues to not
request any funding for large scale applications of CCS
technology as has been the case in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal
year 2011. NMA encourages DOE to provide support for a strong
domestic CCS program and to initiate a CCPI Round 4 program.
--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 $31 million for advanced
turbines (DOE's request: $31 million). We are, however, pleased
that DOE provides nearly $143 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 that 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.
Coal Tax Provisions
NMA objects to the fiscal year 2011 budget singling out coal mining
for $2.3 billion worth of tax increases. U.S. coal producers play an
integral role in fostering the Nation's continued economic prosperity
by meeting much of America's growing energy needs. To maintain
affordable energy prices and preserve jobs, Congress should reject
these unwarranted proposals to eliminate longstanding tax rules
affecting coal mining.
NMA does not support the administration's proposal to eliminate the
capital gains treatment of coal and lignite royalties. Under current
law, royalties received on the disposition of coal or lignite generally
qualify for treatment as long-term capital gain, and the royalty owner
does not qualify for percentage depletion with respect to the coal or
lignite. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes to repeal the capital
gain treatment of coal and lignite royalties and to tax those royalties
as ordinary income. There is no tax policy reason to single out coal
royalties for changes to the capital gains rules.
NMA does not support the administration's proposal to eliminate the
domestic manufacturing deduction. Under current law, a deduction is
allowed with respect to income attributable to domestic production
activities (the manufacturing deduction). The fiscal year 2011 budget
proposes to repeal the manufacturing deduction for gross receipts
derived from the sale, exchange or other disposition of coal, other
hard mineral fossil fuels, or a primary product thereof. Present law
should be retained as Congress enacted an across-the-board domestic
manufacturing deduction in order to reduce the effective corporate
income tax rate on domestic manufacturing activities and preserve U.S.
manufacturing jobs.
NMA does not support the administration's proposal to eliminate the
present law tax-expensing of coal exploration costs. Under current law,
taxpayers may elect to expense (i.e., deduct in the year the costs are
incurred) mining exploration and development costs with respect to
domestic ore and mineral deposits. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes
to repeal expensing and 60-month amortization of exploration and
development costs relating to coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels.
The expensing of coal mining exploration costs is part of the current
calculation for appropriately measuring taxable income from coal and
other mining operations. That appropriate measurement of taxable income
under present law should not be changed as a way of increasing taxes on
the coal industry.
NMA does not support the administration's proposal to eliminate the
percentage depletion tax-deduction for mining activities. Under current
law, the capital costs of mines are recovered through the depletion tax
deduction. Under the percentage depletion method, the amount of the
deduction is a statutory percentage of the gross income from the mining
property. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes to repeal percentage
depletion with respect to coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels. The
percentage depletion deduction is part of the current calculation for
appropriately measuring taxable income from coal and other mining
operations. Coal mining requires significant financial commitments to
long-term projects to deliver a reasonably priced product. Enormous
amounts of capital must be expended at the front end of coal mining
projects to realize future returns. With such sizable capital costs,
cost recovery through percentage depletion has a significant effect on
the margins and prices at which coal can be profitably sold.
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 supports the inclusion of language
directing the Corps to dedicate sufficient personnel and financial
resources needed to support an efficient permit review process. We
remain concerned about the backlog of surface coal mining permits and
encourage the Corps to utilize this increased funding expeditiously to
address this issue as outlined in their statutory authority.
Regulatory Program
NMA supports increased funding for administering the Corps' Clean
Water Act (CWA) section 404 permit program. We encourage the Corps to
utilize this funding to address the backlog of surface coal mining
permits and to devise a more efficient permitting program.
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.
______

Prepared Statement of Avalence, LLC
Dear Senator Dorgan and Senator Bennett: I am writing to request
that you fund DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cell program at the level of
support being requested by the National Hydrogen Association and the
U.S. Fuel Cell Council:

INDUSTRY PROPOSED DOE HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EERE Programs........................................... 220.0
Fossil Energy Programs.................................. 118.8
Nuclear Energy Programs................................. 8.5
Science Programs........................................ 38.0
---------------
Total............................................. 390.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Avalence is a producer of high-pressure hydrogen generators that
use solar, wind and other renewable energy to make local, sustainable,
and emissions-free hydrogen fuel for fuel cell and other hydrogen
vehicles. Avalence is manufacturing hydrogen fueling stations, many of
which are powered by renewable energy to create completely local, zero
emissions fuel.
The hydrogen economy is starting to happen. At a recent U.S. Senate
briefing, representatives from major automotive companies like GM and
Daimler reaffirmed their companies' commitment to producing commercial
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2015. Several countries such as Germany
and Japan have hydrogen infrastructure plans in place. DOE development
and commercialization funding for hydrogen and fuel cells leverages the
billions of dollars already invested in FCVs by the global automotive
industry--at the very moment in time that they are deploying the first
fleets of vehicles and are seeking the hydrogen infrastructure needed
to bring their vehicles to market.
New hydrogen production technologies are a critical part of the
portfolio of clean energy solutions that are emerging to address the
decline in global oil reserves. Development of advanced hydrogen
production technologies is being spearheaded throughout the Nation by
many pioneering small businesses such as Avalence, LLC--small, high
tech firms with exciting clean energy solutions. Our national energy
security and the strength of our economy in the new energy age will
benefit most from a robust national portfolio of hydrogen generating
technologies that includes not only hydrogen production from fossil
fuels, but also distributed generation of hydrogen from grid
electricity and green hydrogen from solar, wind and other renewable
energy sources.
______

Prepared Statement of Cynthia Ramseur, Member, Gulf Coast Conservation
Coalition and Gulf Restoration Network
Summary of My Testimony.--As I understand it, the Senate
subcommittee is receiving comments through April 1 regarding the energy
budget. I was pleased to learn that the President's proposed budget
does not include funds for studies, investigations or land acquisitions
for the DOE's proposed Richton Salt Dome Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I
am writing to ask that you uphold the President's budget request
regarding the Richton proposal. I sincerely ask that you disallow any
last-minute requests to add a budget line item for further expenditures
regarding the proposed Richton SPR. If I understand correctly, over $80
million have already been spent to date on investigations and studies
regarding the project: I do not want the Federal Government to continue
``throwing good money after bad money''.
Full Testimony.--I am one of 400 plus people who stood up in a
public hearing on April 10, 2008 in Pascagoula, Mississippi and opposed
the development of a strategic petroleum reserve at Richton,
Mississippi. Since that time, the coalition of individuals and
organizations opposing the project has grown--yet we can not get
consistent information about the DOE's continued interest in the
proposed Richton SPR or information about the status of the NEPA
process.
richton project timeline
At the April 2008 public hearing DOE announced plans for the
Richton Strategic Petroleum Reserve 3 days after Hurricane Katrina (Aug
2005).
DOE held public hearings for the project in Jackson during the 3-
month period after Katrina.
DOE presented the plan to Congress in June 2007.
DOE released EIS in fall of 2007 with construction to begin in
January 2008.
At the urging of local concerned citizens, Congressman Gene Taylor
obtained a pause and public hearings were held in April 2008.
Supplemental EIS was to be released in June 2008 but was delayed
until August 2008.
Supplemental EIS scheduled for release in August was delayed again
without notice of reschedule.
Current status?
I am pleased to learn that funding for the Richton SPR is not
included in the President's proposed budget; however, I am writing to
ask that you continue to withhold funding for the proposed SPR at
Richton disallowing any requests to add in a line item at the last
minute. If I understand correctly over $80 million have been spent to
date on investigations and studies regarding the DOE's proposal. I do
not want the Federal Government to continue ``throwing good money after
bad money.'' The major problems identified in the initial Environmental
Impact Statement remain: DOE failed to adequately examine the economic
and environmental effects of the proposed project. If I understand
correctly over $80 million have been spent to date on investigations
and studies regarding the DOE's proposal.
The proposed SPR expansion at Richton, Mississippi was ill-
conceived, ill-advised and technically flawed. The NEPA process was a
waste of taxpayer money. Note: The facts and figures presented here
were collected by a coalition of citizens and organizations led by Gulf
Coast Conservation Coalition and Gulf Restoration Network; the
information comes directly from the Department of Energy SPR Web site
at www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/.
the richton spr expansion site--an environmental disaster
This proposed project is seriously flawed on many levels and DOE
has refused to honestly evaluate and disclose the dangers. Their
publications and public statements have misrepresented the facts.
DOE plans to draw 50 million gallons of fresh water per day from
the Pascagoula River Merrill, Mississippi every day for 5 to 6 years
and pipe it to Richton to dissolve underground salt deposits. The loss
of that water would be harm the fish, animals, and humans that depend
on the river's abundant flow. The entire Pascagoula River basin would
suffer as water levels drop and salt water from the Mississippi Sound
moves further up the river.
The toxic salty waste would then be pumped 100 miles across 56
bodies of fresh water to the Gulf of Mexico and dumped near the barrier
islands. To understand the threat, dissolve 11 pounds of salt in a 5-
gallon bucket of fresh water. Keep stirring until you can dissolve no
more salt. Now, dump that bucket of salt water onto your garden. Of
course you wouldn't do this, but that is exactly what DOE wants to do
to our coastal waters--10 million 5-gallon buckets every day.
Communities on the coast depend on wells for their drinking water
supplies. The underground aquifer that feeds our wells is replenished
by surface water between the coast and Hattiesburg. How would the
aquifer be affected by removing 50 million gallons of water from the
Pascagoula River each day?
DOE predicts a minimum of 56 brine spills from a 100-mile Richton
brine disposal pipeline. At the existing SPR sites DOE records list 227
spills in a 20 year period that released 64,014,000 gallons of toxic
waste. The average spill was 282,000 gallons. Yet, DOE says that salt
waste spills would not cause damage to the Pascagoula River and the
adjoining woods and farmland.
In order to remove oxygen from the brine waste to protect the
pipelines from rust, DOE would add 360 gallons of ammonium bisulfite
each day. Ammonium bisulfite is listed as a hazardous chemical by the
U.S. Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration. The U.S. Coast
Guard classifies it as a marine pollutant. DOE plans to dump this toxic
chemical into our coastal waters with the brine waste.
Currents, tides and ship traffic would allow brine waste into the
Mississippi Sound, the largest estuary on our coast. Remarkably, DOE
did not consider tides or winds in the initial Environmental Impact
Statement and we have yet to get information on the Supplemental EIS.
Our barrier island passes are key corridors for the larvae and post
larvae of economically important fish and shellfish to move between the
gulf and Mississippi Sound. These fragile young organisms may not
survive the ``brine barrier'' created by the salt waste. Local experts
in marine life and the seafood industry are deeply alarmed. But DOE has
not considered the problem. They have not contacted the Gulf Coast
Research Laboratory (GCRL) or other local experts who volunteered their
expertise when these and other problems were brought to DOE's attention
during the public meetings in April 2008.
The Pascagoula River was listed this year as America's ninth most
endangered river. The proposed water withdrawal would take place in
critical habitat for endangered and threatened species.
To recap the environmental concerns, approximately 80 billion
gallons of low oxygen, toxic, salt brine waste (roughly 10 times the
average salinity of the gulf waters) would be dumped into the gulf,
only 4 miles south of Horn Island Pass and directly in line with the
Pascagoula Ship Channel. The loss of fresh river water would threaten
our drinking water supplies and harm the river system. The pipeline
would leak brine into the Pascagoula River and the woods and farmland.
The salt waste would create a dead zone in our coastal waters and
degrade fisheries, destroy critical habitat, and pollute important
waters necessary for the growth of juvenile fish and shellfish.
the richton salt dome spr--an economic boondoggle
Currently, the existing SPR sites are 92 percent full. Oil from the
SPR has been used only twice during its 20-year history:
--After Hurricane Katrina shut down 25 percent of the domestic supply
of petroleum, the United States used only 1.5 percent of the
SPR.
--During the first gulf war only 2 percent of the SPR was used.
DOE says that the project would create only 10 to 20 permanent jobs
on the coast and only 100 in Richton after construction is completed.
Degrading our river and gulf ecosystems for such a small number of
permanent jobs is a catastrophe and a disgrace. Worse, DOE failed to
consider the loss of existing jobs. Apparently, DOE does not value our
local industrial workers and fishermen. And what about the coast's
growing tourism industry?
DOE says that the proposed tank farm site and deep water dock
required by the project would create only 10 to 20 new jobs while
consuming up to 49 acres of prime industrial land in the Pascagoula
Port. Current industrial uses of land in the port provide far more jobs
per acre. A 49-acre site should produce more than 500 jobs. Do we want
to lose 450 future jobs on the coast?
Private landowners who sell their property for the storage site in
Richton and pipeline rights-of-way are the big beneficiaries of this
expensive publicly funded project. There is very little public benefit.
Even DOE acknowledges that their contractors would use ``in-migrating''
workers for this work instead of local Mississippi residents.
Based on the cost of oil at about $70/bbl, the Richton project
would cost approximately $11 billion for just 18 days worth of oil.
There are far better ways for America to spend $11 billion. Instead of
buying a hole in the ground, America should invest in increased
efficiency and renewable energy systems that would give our children
cleaner water, better jobs, and a more secure nation.
The withdrawal of 50 million gallons of water per day for 5 to 6
years from the Pascagoula River could jeopardize Jackson County's
ability to supply cooling water to existing and future industries. As a
recent example, look at the building moratoriums and economic
disruptions in Georgia as a result of overuse of the Chattahoochee
River.
the richton spr expansion site--another example of fat cats and
washington dumping on mississippi
DOE announced the Richton SPR project 3 days after Katrina struck.
Within 4 months after Katrina public hearings were completed in
Jackson. No meetings were held on the coast. Virtually no one from the
coast knew of the plan; most coast citizens were still concerned with
immediate recovery needs.
DOE dodged and ignored public input. Rather than rely on the local
experts at the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, they hired a Washington
contractor to conduct the entire evaluation of the project's effects on
the coast. None of the project team has ever been on the Pascagoula
River, the Mississippi or the Gulf of Mexico in Mississippi.
A citizen outcry in 2008 prompted public meetings finally won coast
residents an opportunity to participate. More than 400 people attended,
including businessmen, scientists, and fishermen. They detailed the
proposed project's many problems, they offered a wealth of information,
and volunteered their help. Now, a year later, DOE has released the
supplemental study and still have not bothered to talk to GCRL and
other local experts who know the river and the coastal waters.
Again, I urge the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee
on Energy and Water Development to keep funding for the proposed
Richton Salt Dome SPR out of the Federal budget. These are tough
economic times for everyone and we do not need our Government to spend
any more resources on DOE's proposed project. Thank you for your
consideration.
______

Prepared Statement of Julia O'Neal
u.s. department of energy strategic petroleum reserves richton salt
dome project
I strongly support the cancellation of all previous funding for the
Richton project in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for
the Department of Energy (DOE) and urge the Senate Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and its
members to support this portion of the proposed budget.
Along with many others, particularly the Gulf Conservation
Coalition and the Gulf Restoration Network, I herewith voice my
objections to the DOE's choosing the most expensive site for the
expansion of the SPR (the next most expensive, Big Hill, Texas, was
less about 15 percent of the cost of Richton, largely because of the
330 miles of pipeline required in Mississippi); the fact that the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has not been finalized per NEPA
requirements; and the extensive water pollution and environmental
destruction the Richton Salt Dome Project would create.
Others have done an excellent job on the cost and detailed comments
on the EIS. I would like to highlight the politics of this project. Our
family farm is about 30 miles north of Biloxi. Katrina was a big
setback for this area, which has always been poor anyway. The coming of
the casinos to the Mississippi gulf coast made a big economic change
there, but the isolated, uneducated culture persists only a few miles
inland. Because developers never were interested in South Mississippi,
much of it remains in its natural state--natural, that is, post the
massive harvest of the longleaf pine at the turn of the last century.
Most people have no idea what a gem we have in, for instance, the
largest unregulated river system in the lower 48, the Pascagoula River.
People are just beginning to tap the potential for ecotourism in an
area that hosts an annual abundance of neotropical migrating birds,
clear sandy streams and creeks, and lots of native flora and fauna.
Mississippi's Governor at the time of Katrina, Haley Barbour, was a
significant actor in Cheney's Energy Task Force--known to have
recommended (on behalf of his lobbying client, the Southern Company)
that George W. Bush renege on his campaign promise to cut emissions
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haley_Barbour). Just weeks
before Katrina, the Sierra Club released a film connecting the Energy
Task Force to Barbour's attempt to open up the inner Mississippi gulf
coast at the barrier islands to oil and gas drilling (http://
www.sierraclub.org/tv/episode-storm.asp, see Episode 6, ``Storm in the
Gulf ''). Katrina taught us, again, how much we need those undisturbed
barrier islands.
Barbour had more Energy Task Force business to conduct. Some
little-noticed Federal legislation sponsored by then-Representative
Chip Pickering only allowed DOE to look at previously considered sites,
or those nominated by a Governor, for expanding the SPR (the Pickering
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Amendment to the Energy Policy Act of
2005). Then, on October 18, 2005, just weeks after Katrina, public
scoping meetings for expansion of the SPR were held in Jackson. Jackson
oilman Julius Ridgeway, who had contributed $70,000 to the Republican
Party, testified that his family owned 75 percent of the salt and
storage rights under the dome (http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/
reserves/spr/jackson_meeting_transcript.pdf). Ridgeway announced his
``cooperation and support'' and Pickering called it ``the largest
Federal construction project in Mississippi history.'' In 2006, Barbour
contacted Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Deputy Secretary Clay Ball
offering two sites for the SPR (U.S. Department of Energy Executive
Secretariat Correspondence Control). In the same year, Bodman's former
chief of staff, Eric Burgeson, joined Barbour's lobbying firm (http://
www.muckety.com/Eric-Robert-Burgeson/11067.muckety). On February 14,
2007, Bodman announced Richton would be the site of the new SPR
facility.
None of this is illegal of course. But such conflict of interest
does not serve the American taxpayers' best interests.
The part of the State that would be most affected by this project
was otherwise engaged on October 18, 2005. We were looking for water,
gas, food and shelter, and trying to get out from under massive fallen
trees. (See the second paragraph of Ronnie Blackwell's 2007 column for
our confusion about the local SPR site-choice process: http://
ronnieblackwell.com/Wordpress/?p=71).
The EIS, which cost the DOE $3.7 million, was conducted by ICF
International, the firm that incompetently conducted the ``Road Home''
program in Louisiana after Katrina. I have seen (and can produce on
request) an e-mail to David Johnson at the DOE from Ian Frost, a
consultant for ICFI, dated June 6, 2007, that discusses a U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service request for an additional U.S. Geological Survey study
relative to water flow. The e-mail suggests that the consultants are
more interested in helping DOE get the project built than doing a
thorough EIS.
The Richton Salt Dome project aims to pump 50 million gallons of
water per day out of the Pascagoula and Leaf Rivers. The water will be
pumped (using lots and lots of fossil fuel) into a land formation
called the Richton Salt Dome. Instead of mining the salt and selling it
to the people up north who say they need it for de-icing roads, the
salt will be mixed with perfectly clean, even potable, water, and
pumped through the salt dome. Then the highly salted water (``brine'')
will be pumped into the Gulf of Mexico (using lots more fossil fuel for
that pump job), where the excess salt in the water will do in marine
life, including the endangered Gulf Sturgeon. The brine should pretty
much end oysters, shrimp and fishing in the Mississippi Sound. Any
aquatic species, plant or fish or mammal, which depends on the brackish
combination of fresh and salt water will be destroyed. The Salt Dome
project will deliberately turn pristine water into brine and create a
Dead Zone in the gulf where it is dumped.
Meanwhile, about 2 years ago, not-so-far-away Tampa completed a
$150 million desalination plant. They need fresh water; we apparently
don't.
Three years after the rushed meeting in Jackson, about which we
knew little, the DOE had a final EIS. We on the coast were dumbstruck,
and our Representative, Gene Taylor, insisted that public hearings be
conducted in the area that would be affected, which had never taken
place previously (http://www.gulfcoastnews.com/
GCNnewsRichtonSaltDomeHearingsTaylor012408.htm). So the DOE
condescendingly scheduled three ``open meetings'' (http://
gulfconservationcoalition.com/docs/USDOE.SUP.EIS.Meeting.Notice.PDF).
And what do we U.S. citizens get for our $3.5-$4 billion? We will
have 160 million gallons of unrefined oil, supposedly enough to run the
United States for 2 weeks. Here's what has to be built just to deliver
the crude to the Chevron refinery: http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/
reserves/spr/Richton_WebSite_Fact_Sheet.pdf. You can almost hear the
simple slide presentation, but behind it lie a lot of dead birds and
fish. And note that one-half the oil goes to a Naval Station, not to
civilians or businesses.
What about the environmental consequences? Well, the DOE has
studied them carefully: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/
publications/Pubs-SPR/2006_SPR_EIS.html.
Click on chapter 3, section 3.6, ``Water Resources.'' Richton
surface water analysis begins on p. 3-130. There are four pages of
tables describing the impact on creeks and streams--generally the same
phrase ``Impaired use for aquatic life support.'' Originally, I thought
``N/A'' in the tables must mean ``not affected.'' Nope: ``not
available.'' They didn't bother. For most of the surface water in the
vicinity of Richton, the impact of the salt dome project is
``impaired'' or ``not available.'' It is hard for me to believe that
the impairment extends so far upstream into tributaries . . . even to
Black Creek, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated ``Wild and
Scenic River.''
After 2 weeks, then what? No water, no fish, no birds, and,
presumably, the emergency oil supply is gone. Why not just spend the
$3.5 billion this project will cost on solar panels for American homes?
At least they would last longer than 2 weeks--and a little fan, a
little light, a few communication devices like TV or radio or Internet,
all that means a lot in an emergency. We know. We lived through
Katrina, and everything was not OK after 2 weeks.
Despite promises, we never saw any revisions to the EIS based on
our many comments in 2008. To our knowledge, no scientists we
recommended were consulted. The hearings were meant to placate the
public, not to listen.
At a time when no one seriously questions that burning fossil fuels
is changing our climate far more rapidly than we can control, our
Government can't seem to get off the teat. First we dig up the oil,
then we dig another hole and put it back in the ground. It's stupid,
dirty, and dangerous to the water we need.
______

Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to
provide this testimony to the Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development regarding fiscal year 2011
appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The CONEG
Governors request funding for the following Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Programs: $300 million for the Weatherization
Assistance Program and $30 million for the Innovation in Weatherization
Program, at least $75 million in the base appropriations for the State
Energy Program, and $230 million for the Building Technologies Program.
In addition, the Governors request at least $129 million for the Energy
Information Administration, and sufficient funding for maintenance and
operation of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. The Governors
support the President's request for increased funding of solar energy,
wind energy and electricity reliability programs; and also urge the
committee to ensure that, through the U.S. Department of Energy, $7.5
million is provided to maintain the critical networks and market
development work of the National Biomass Partnership (previously known
as the Regional Biomass Energy Program).
The Governors recognize the daunting fiscal challenges facing the
subcommittee this year, and thank you for your past support for these
vital programs. Continued investment in these very successful energy
programs is a crucial step toward achieving the Nation's energy
security, economic and environmental goals.
weatherization assistance and state energy programs
The Nation's current economic situation has placed a new emphasis
on the benefits of the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and the
State Energy Program (SEP). Working with all 50 States, the District of
Columbia and U.S. Territories, these successful programs allow States
to quickly and efficiently implement energy saving technologies and
practices, creating green jobs and achieving real savings for families
struggling with unaffordable home energy costs. The Governors thank the
subcommittee for providing substantial funding for these crucial
programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). While
there have been some challenges at the State and Federal level in
ramping-up these programs and meeting new ARRA program requirements,
States and the Federal Government have worked together to find
effective solutions. More than one-half of the SEP funds (over $1.8
billion) are committed, and spending of WAP funds is accelerating
rapidly and on target to reach the goal of weatherizing 600,000 homes
by March 2012. Continued base funding is needed in fiscal year 2011 to
help sustain valuable green jobs and to realize and effectively assess
the continuing energy and environmental benefits of these programs.
Weatherization Assistance Program.--The CONEG Governors request
$300 million in fiscal year 2011 for the WAP, plus $30 million for
continuation of the Innovation in Weatherization program.
Weatherization is an immediate and effective tool to manage the energy
use of low-income households. The need continues to be great. Forty-
nine percent of these households are occupied by the elderly or
disabled; and these households can spend as much as 20 percent of their
annual income on home energy bills compared to just 3 percent by other
households. Since its inception in 1976, WAP has weatherized more than
6.25 million low-income residences across the county. In addition to
the stimulus funds, the program uses nearly $1 billion in Federal,
State, local, utility, and private funds to reach more than 150,000
homes each year.
Through a State-managed network of more than 900 local
weatherization providers, WAP increases residential energy efficiency.
The program, which provides specialized training and career
development, creates a workforce trained in the most advanced
assessment and installation techniques. Weatherization service
providers perform comprehensive computerized energy audits of each
home, and provide a package of efficiency measures tailored to the
individual needs of each household.
Many of these weatherization measures include inexpensive, yet
effective upgrades such as installing insulation; sealing ducts; and
tuning and repairing heating and cooling systems. In addition, the
program uses a ``whole house'' approach, incorporating advanced
technologies to address comprehensive energy usage in low-income homes,
as well as related health and safety improvements. DOE estimates that
the program returns $1.67 in energy-related benefits for every $1
invested.
This successful public-private partnership creates considerable
investments in local economies across the country; provides continued
professional development for workers; and contributes to increased home
values, and the health and safety of the Nation's most vulnerable
citizens. The program yields benefits that are far-reaching and long-
lasting.
The goal of the complementary Innovation in Weatherization program
is to demonstrate new ways to weatherize low-income homes while
lowering the Federal cost for residential energy retrofits. Through
partnerships with organizations such as non-profits, labor unions, and
private contractors, the program strives to obtain $3 in non-Federal
contributions for every $1 invested by DOE.
State Energy Program.--The CONEG Governors request at least $75
million in the base appropriations for the SEP in fiscal year 2011.
Ensuring this base funding level is critical for the SEP to continue as
the nationwide cornerstone of the State-Federal-private partnership for
many energy efficiency and conservation programs. Especially for the
smaller States, the base SEP program allows them to dramatically expand
program delivery and leverage non-Federal resources with Federal funds.
SEP is vital to achieving energy efficiency and conservation in energy
end-use sectors such as buildings, industrial, agriculture,
transportation, and power generation. The program, which has a proven
track record of effectiveness, assists States' initiatives that help
realize national goals of greater energy efficiency; reduced energy
costs; development of alternative and renewable energy resources; and
reduced reliance on imported sources of energy. The SEP also helps
States in their critical emergency preparedness activities, improving
the security and reliability of energy infrastructure, and preparing
for natural disasters.
SEP funding provides States with the flexibility to tailor their
renewable energy and energy efficiency programs to maximize the
effectiveness of the program's resources. The Northeast States have
used SEP funds to support projects to update emergency plans to
anticipate and respond to potential shortages of electric power,
natural gas and deliverable fuels. SEP funds have also been used by
State agencies to assist in reducing energy use in commercial and
institutional buildings, fleets, and equipment; perform small business
energy audits; and provide public information and education to local
residents, small businesses, farmers, and others to make them aware of
opportunities to reduce energy consumption and energy bills.
The modest (non-ARRA) Federal funds provided to the SEP are an
efficient and effective Federal investment, yielding substantial and
extensive energy and economic benefits. States can ensure that the
energy improvements are delivered, since most SEP work is undertaken
through leveraged agreements and reimbursable contracts. According to
the most recent Oak Ridge National Laboratory study, $1 in SEP funding
yields: $7.22 in annual energy cost savings; $10.71 in leveraged
funding; annual energy savings of 47,593,409 million source BTUs; and
annual cost savings of more than $333 million. The environmental
benefits are equally as impressive resulting in an annual reduction of
carbon emissions of 826 million metric tons--the same amount produced
by 582,000 automobiles in a single year.
building technologies
The CONEG Governors request $230 million in fiscal year 2011 for
the Building Technologies Program (BTP). The program has created unique
and effective partnerships with States, industry, national
laboratories, universities and manufacturers to improve the energy
efficiency of new and existing buildings, and the equipment and systems
within them.
According to the Department of Energy, buildings account for more
than 70 percent of the electric energy consumed in the United States
and are responsible for 38 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide
emissions. With roughly 15 million new buildings projected to be built
by 2015, a tremendous opportunity exists for the development and
deployment of energy efficient technologies and building practices. The
potential environmental benefits and energy and cost savings are
significant.
BTP develops and promotes deployment of technologies to make new
and existing homes and buildings less energy intensive. One of the
strategic goals of BTP is to create net zero energy buildings that,
through a combination of on-site renewable energy and increased
efficiency, can generate an equal or greater amount of energy than they
consume from the grid. The program pursues this goal through
complementary activities that include R&D; development and improvement
of equipment standards and analysis; and introduction of new advanced
technologies and the widespread use of highly efficient technologies
already in the market.
BTP also collaborates with other DOE programs as well as partners
of the highly successful ENERGY STAR program to increase awareness,
availability and purchase of energy efficient appliances, lighting and
windows. According to DOE, in 2006, ENERGY STAR saved 170 billion
kilowatt hours--or almost 5 percent of the total 2006 electricity
demand--and helped avoid greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those
from 25 million automobiles.
energy information administration
The Governors support fiscal year 2011 funding for the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) at least at the level of $129 million.
EIA is the Nation's foremost source of reliable independent
information, analyses and forecasts on the energy produced, imported
and consumed in the United States. As Congress and the administration
continue to develop and debate critical energy and environmental
strategies, EIA is increasingly and consistently called upon to provide
unbiased, timely and reliable information. In addition, States rely on
EIA data as the core of their information for energy emergency
planning. New requirements included in the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, as well as the evaluation of an increasingly more
complex and interdependent energy industry has created a vastly
increased workload for EIA and the need for more rigorous data
collection and analysis.
A modest increase in funding in fiscal year 2011 will help ensure
that EIA can continue to provide the most accurate and reliable
information on the energy markets and industry.
northeast home heating oil reserve
The CONEG Governors request sufficient fiscal year 2011 funding for
maintenance and operation of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
The Nation's heightened emphasis on energy reliability and security
places renewed importance on the Reserve.
Almost 70 percent of the 7.7 million households heating primarily
with home heating oil are in the Northeast, making the region
particularly vulnerable to the effects of supply disruptions and price
volatility. The Northeast region is literally at the end of the energy
product pipeline. Any disruption along the delivery infrastructure
anywhere in the country negatively impacts the Northeast. The Reserve
is strategically placed in ports along the northeast coast to respond
rapidly and efficiently to any emergency supply interruption. The
Reserve is designed to provide an emergency supplemental supply over a
10 day delivery period--the time required for ships to carry heating
oil from the Gulf of Mexico to New York Harbor--in the event of a
supply disruption or shortage in the Northeast. Adequate funding will
ensure the Reserve is maintained in a high state of readiness and
capable of completing an immediate drawdown if needed.
renewable and reliable energy
Renewable, reliable energy contributes to the achievement of
multiple regional and national goals, including lowering greenhouse gas
emissions, increasing and diversifying domestic energy supply, creating
new jobs, and enhancing the Nation's energy security. A strong Federal
partner and consistent and sustained funding for solar energy, wind
energy and electricity reliability programs are essential. Therefore,
the Governors support the President's request for increased funding for
these important programs.
The Governors also request that the subcommittee ensure that,
through the U.S. Department of Energy, $7.5 million is provided to
maintain the critical networks and market development work of the
National Biomass Partnership (previously known as the Regional Biomass
Energy Program). The Partnership, a collaboration of five regional
biomass energy programs created by Congress, is a critical link in the
chain of research, resource production and technology commercialization
that is essential to bringing bioenergy technologies successfully into
the marketplace.
The States contribute significant resources to support the
development of biomass fuels, technology, and infrastructure. The
Partnership has demonstrated its ability to expedite deployment of the
biomass fuels, technology, and infrastructure that is necessary to
reach common goals of States and the Federal Government. In the
Northeast alone, the Northeast Regional Biomass Program (NRBP) directly
influenced $24 million in biomass investments--69 percent of the
overall biomass investment made in the region in 2003. Working with
State, Federal and private sector officials, the NRBP has provided
bioenergy education and training to nearly 3,000 people in the region
and contributed to State-developed bioenergy policies and programs.
However, the absence of a strong Federal partner threatens this State-
private sector effort to better coordinate the institutional and
physical infrastructure for deployment of sustainable biomass fuels and
bioenergy technologies.
In conclusion, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG)
request that you provide $300 million for the Weatherization Assistance
Program and $30 million for the Innovation in Weatherization Program,
at least $75 million in the base appropriations for the State Energy
Program, $230 million for the Building Technologies Program, at least
$129 million for the Energy Information Administration, and $7.5
million for the work of the National Biomass Partnership. In addition,
the Governors support the President's request for increased funding of
solar energy, wind energy and electricity reliability programs, and
sufficient funding for maintenance and operation of the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve.
______

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 2011 appropriation for the
Department of Energy (DOE) science programs. The ASM is the largest
single life science organization in the world with more than 40,000
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 ASM supports the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget of
$5.1 billion for the DOE Office of Science, a 4.4 percent increase from
fiscal year 2010. The ASM endorses the administration's pledge to
double funding for the DOE Office of Science by fiscal year 2017. The
Office of Science funds intramural and extramural research that might
not be undertaken otherwise due to its complexity or cutting edge and
theoretical nature. However, such research leads to the technological
innovations needed to enhance our economy, our workforce, and our
environment.
The DOE's Office of Science is the largest sponsor of basic
research for the physical sciences in the United States, and also
supports substantial life sciences research. It supports more than
7,000 individual research projects at more than 300 academic
institutions, and 10 DOE national laboratories. It also provides access
to leading edge research facilities for extramural investigators,
including an estimated 26,000 that will use these facilities in fiscal
year 2011.
biological and environmental research (ber)
The Office of Biological and Environmental Research, within the DOE
Office of Science, oversees research and facilities that support DOE's
energy, environment, and basic research missions. BER sponsored
research provides the foundational science underpinning DOE's goals for
development of clean bioenergy sources, remediation and long term
stewardship of legacy environmental contamination and understanding the
impacts of climate change on Earth's ecosystems.
BER programs enable solutions for some of the Nation's most
difficult energy related and environmental challenges by advancing our
basic understanding of climate change, biofuels, carbon sequestration,
remediation of subsurface contaminants, and interactions of biological
and physical systems. Wide ranging studies of microbes are central to
all of these efforts and include pioneering studies of the genetic
potential of individual organisms and microbial communities in complex
environments, as well development of new bioinformatics tools for
effectively managing and utilizing large datasets to advance genome
enabled scientific research.
genomic science
The BER Genomic Science program (formerly Genomics: GTL)
accelerates the development of practical solutions to energy and
environmental problems by understanding the integrated biological
systems of microbes and plants that govern their structure and
function. This program uses high throughput genome sequencing and
cutting-edge systems biology research techniques to understand key
biological processes, ranging from molecular-scale networks of single
cells to community scale interactions of ecosystems. In addition to
directly supporting DOE mission driven research efforts at academic
institutions and DOE national laboratories, publicly accessible genomic
and metagenomic sequence data produced by DOE facilities encourage and
support innovation while helping to solve environmental problems and
energize commercial biotechnology in the United States. Addressing
complex environmental and energy problems requires innovative, cross
cutting research. The Genomic Science program supports a wide range of
interdisciplinary research efforts with a strong microbiological
component. For example, a recent program, ``Biological Systems Research
on the Role of Microbial Communities in Carbon Cycling'' seeks to
develop new integrated research efforts in genome enabled systems
biology, environmental microbiology, and modeling of biogeochemical
processes aimed at understanding how shifts in environmental variables
impact microbially mediated carbon cycling. Gaining better quantitative
knowledge of these processes is critical for predicting the storage or
release of carbon from ecosystems and potential levels of
CO2, methane, and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.
joint genome institute (jgi)
BER funding supports the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI), which
has sequenced over 450 microbial genomes, more than 200 ``metagenomes''
of microbial communities, and 25 plant genomes with energy and
environmental significance. The JGI provides access for external
researchers to its state of the art sequencing and bioinformatic
capabilities. Current sequencing capacity (about four tera-base pairs
per year) is continually expanding with advances in sequencing
technology and computing. JGI researchers generate results that push
the boundaries of genomics, sequencing organisms that degrade
cellulose, capture carbon, and transform environmental contaminants.
Their discoveries help stakeholders make decisions about the selection
of new bioenergy crops and cost effective bioenergy production.
bioenergy research centers
BER supports three DOE Bioenergy Research Centers (BRCs,
established in 2007) tasked with developing innovative strategies for
biofuels production. When created, the multidisciplinary Centers
brought together teams of researchers from 18 of the Nation's leading
universities, 7 DOE national laboratories, 1 nonprofit organization,
and a range of private companies. Their mission is to perform
fundamental research addressing barriers to economic production of
energy from cellulosic biomass, and drastically to reduce the Nation's
consumption of fossil fuels. Goals include identification of next
generation bioenergy crops, discovery of enzymes and microbes that
degrade biomass, and creation of microbe-mediated models of fuel
production of bioethanol and other biofuels. Each center applies
cutting edge technologies and research methods for a wide range of
biomass sources while managing massive data sets in the search for
tomorrow's clean energy.
Headquartered at DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, and DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, the three BRCs are investigating microbial processes that
can convert diverse crops, such as switchgrass and poplar, into usable
fuels. Specific examples include the BioEnergy Science Center's
approaches for screening samples from natural thermal springs to
identify enzymes and microbes that effectively transform biomass at
high temperatures, and to genetically engineer a lignocellulose
degrading microbe for ethanol production. Researchers at the Great
Lakes Bioenergy Research Center are developing more refined metabolic
models of in microbes to enable design of metabolic engineering
strategies for enhanced biofuel production. The Joint BioEnergy
Institute is pursuing synthetic biology research on microbial synthesis
of a variety of hydrocarbon compounds with higher energy content than
ethanol and better compatibility with existing fuel distribution
infrastructure.
basic energy sciences (bes)
The Office of BES, administered within the Office of Science,
supports fundamental research to understand, predict, and control
matter and energy at electronic, atomic, and molecular levels, thus
providing the foundations for new energy technologies and supporting
DOE missions in energy, environment, and national security. The
portfolio supports work in the natural sciences, emphasizing
fundamental research in materials sciences, chemistry, geosciences, and
aspects of biosciences. BES also operates sophisticated state of the
art equipment and facilities open to investigators from private
institutions, universities, and national laboratories. Research
highlights include determination of the structure and organization of
the highly efficient light harvesting complex in green sulfur bacteria,
elucidation of protein synthesis mechanisms by methane producing
bacteria, characterization of critical components of algal light
harvesting complexes, and determination of the biosynthetic pathway for
methane production from CO2 and hydrogen.
In 2009, BES Energy Biosciences evolved into two complementary and
synergistic programs, Photosynthetic Systems and Physical Biosciences.
Both programs support unique areas of fundamental research on plant and
non-medical microbial systems.
photosynthetic systems
The BES Photosynthetic Systems program supports fundamental
research on the biological conversion of solar energy to chemically
stored forms of energy, bringing together biology, biochemistry,
chemistry, and biophysics approaches to study natural photosynthesis
and related processes. Advances in genomics technologies such as
metabolomics along with increased availability of plant genomic
sequences are also providing new opportunities to leverage the
strengths of the Photosynthetic Systems program in molecular biology
and biochemistry with powerful capabilities in imaging and computation.
Example topics include light harvesting, exciton transfer, charge
separation, transfer of reductant to carbon dioxide, and the
biochemistry of carbon fixation and carbon storage. Emphasized areas
are those involving strong intersections between biological sciences
and energy-relevant chemical sciences and physics, such as in self
assembly of nanoscale components, efficient photon capture and charge
separation, predictive design of catalysts, and self-regulating/
repairing systems. The program aims to provide a critical scientific
knowledge base that can inspire the roadmap for artificial
photosynthesis and enable new strategies and technologies for more
efficient generation of biomass as a renewal energy source.
physical biosciences
The BES Physical Biosciences program combines experimental and
computational tools from the physical sciences with biochemistry and
molecular biology. The goal is increased fundamental understanding of
the complex processes that convert and store energy in plants and non
medical microbes, including archaea. Examples of research supported by
this program include studies that investigate the mechanisms by which
energy transduction systems are assembled and maintained, the processes
that regulate energy relevant chemical reactions within the cell, the
underlying biochemical and biophysical principles determining the
architecture of biopolymers and the plant cell wall, and active site
protein chemistry that provides a basis for highly selective and
efficient bioinspired catalysts. Combined with efforts in molecular
biology and biochemistry, increased use of physical science and
computational tools (ultrafast laser spectroscopy, current and future
x-ray light sources, quantum chemistry) to probe spatial and temporal
properties will give us an unprecedented architectural and mechanistic
understanding of biological systems and allow the incorporation of
identified principles into the design of bio-inspired synthetic or
semi-synthetic energy systems.
epscor
The BES administered Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR) also supports a significant sector of the Nation's
energy research, distributing university grants in a number of States
across the country. EPSCoR's interdisciplinary program areas include,
among many others: biological and environmental science, advanced
computer science, renewable energy science, climate change, genomics,
and science education. EPSCoR has traditionally provided academic
incubators for innovation and economic recovery.
research infrastructure and the nation's workforce
More than 30,000 scientists and engineers work at DOE laboratories
and technology centers, but many more are supported through grants and
fellowships, or the use of cutting edge facilities and equipment that
often are one of a kind. An example was last September's announcement
of up to $12.5 million in Recovery Act funding for at least 80 graduate
fellowships to U.S. students pursuing advanced STEM-related degrees,
through the Office of Science's new Graduate Fellowship program.
DOE's Office of Science has also initiated an Early Career Research
Program, designed to bolster the Nation's scientific workforce by
providing support to exceptional researchers during the crucial early
career years when many scientists do their most formative work.
Another Office of Science program, Workforce Development for
Teachers and Scientists, specifically targets workforce shortages and
provides college undergraduates and K-12 teachers with DOE laboratory
experiences, designed to attract more young Americans into the STEM
workforce.
The Office oversees 10 world class facilities: the Ames, Argonne,
Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, and
Princeton Plasma Physics national laboratories, plus the Fermi, Thomas
Jefferson, and SLAC accelerator facilities. These institutions
encourage use by outside researchers and students, typically without
cost, if results are posted for public knowledge. Each SC facility is
an invaluable resource of unique research tools for scientific
specialists. The Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory at the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has hosted more than 10,000
scientists from all 50 States and more than 60 countries since its
opening in 1997. This year, the DOE will permit extramural use of
roughly 1.3 billion supercomputer processor hours at its Argonne and
Oak Ridge facilities, awarded to researchers whose projects would be
impossible without petascale (quadrillion calculations per second)
computing.
conclusion
The ASM supports increased funding for the DOE Office of Science in
fiscal year 2011 and urges Congress to fund the Office of Science with
at least $5.1 billion. The diverse Office of Science programs and their
successes advance the DOE's strategic mission to sustain the pace of
scientific discovery and to educate and train a vital scientific
workforce. Global climate change, clean energy, and pristine
environments are challenges that demand sustained responses from the
United States' science and technology sectors. DOE funded science and
engineering are integral to our Nation's search for solutions. The
Office of Science leads this effort with notable basic and applied
energy research, which often is unique in its complexity, technical
requirements, or high risk, high impact design.
The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
and would be pleased to assist the subcommittee as it considers the
fiscal year 2011 appropriation for the DOE.
______

Prepared Statement of the Electric Drive Transportation Association
The Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA) is the cross-
industry trade association promoting the advancement of electric drive
technology and electrified transportation and we are writing regarding
the fiscal year 2011 request for the Department of Energy's Vehicle
Technologies and other electric drive programs.
Our members include vehicle manufacturers, battery and component
manufacturers, utilities and energy companies, and smart grid and
charging infrastructure developers. We are committed to realizing the
economic, security, and environmental benefits of displacing oil with
battery electric, hybrid, plug-in hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.
The Nation is moving toward an electrified fleet and the electric
drive industry is advancing into the marketplace as rapidly as
possible. Electric drive is already in use in passenger cars,
commercial trucks, neighborhood electric vehicles, public transport
buses, tractors and ground support equipment. As the industry invests
in research and development, advanced manufacturing and coordinated
deployment initiatives, the Department of Energy's continued commitment
to fast-tracking electrified transportation is critical to our success.
We support the fiscal year 2011 budget's focus on advancing
electric drive vehicle technologies that will reduce petroleum
consumption and air pollutants while increasing energy security and
global competitiveness. Like the electric drive industry itself, the
Department of Energy is undertaking crosscutting efforts to move
electric drive vehicles and infrastructure forward.
In particular, we believe that the requested increases for
batteries and electric drive research and development (in a separate
Vehicle Technologies program in the fiscal year 2011 request) can
accelerate critical cost reduction and performance advancements. The
additional efforts funded in the Technology Integration account's Clean
Cities program will support the industry's own efforts to expand
deployment of electric drive vehicles and recharging infrastructure.
Establishment of a batteries and energy storage ``innovation hub'' in
the Office of Science ensure that we continue pushing for the next
breakthroughs even as we are moving electric drive vehicles into the
market and the mainstream.
In addition to these essential investments, we also see areas in
which the budget request misses key opportunities to advance a diverse
portfolio of electric drive vehicles. Specifically, the Department of
Energy has established a program and a pathway for building U.S.
manufacturing capacity for advanced vehicles in the Advanced Technology
Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) program. Although the program had more
applicants establish electric drive manufacturing in the United States
than funds, the fiscal year 2011 budget does not request any additional
new award resources for the program. Additional funds for the ATVM
program will promote industry investment in U.S. manufacturing, speed
the vehicles to market and help build the foundation of the green jobs
economy.
Another area in which the request is missing an opportunity is in
the hydrogen and fuel cell programs, specifically as it relates to
development of fuel cell electric vehicles and hydrogen refueling
infrastructure. Fuel cell electric vehicles are important electric
vehicle options because of their performance in diverse vehicle
applications. The industry, working with the Department, has met
critical program milestones in reducing cost, enhancing performance and
deploying fuel cell electric vehicles for real world use. Looking
beyond today's fleet, the National Academy of Science has also
emphasized that achieving U.S. energy security and environmental goals
will require a portfolio of advanced technology vehicles, which needs
to include zero-emission fuel cell options.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request maintains the Department's
commitment to hydrogen and fuel cell research, which we appreciate and
support. However, at $37 million below last year's funded level--a 21
percent cut in funding--the commitment is a tepid one. The request
would eliminate all fuel cell electric vehicle deployment activities in
Technology Validation and ``defer'' funding for early market
development. This short-sighted approach undercuts the industry's own
investments, slows momentum to commercialization and will hurt consumer
confidence in emerging markets.
We urge you to extend the Technology Validation demonstration for
an additional year to provide technology insertion and to ensure that
funding for vehicle and infrastructure deployment, market
transformation, as well as education and other enabling activities, is
sufficient to enable the industry to build on technology and market
achievements.
As a partner in the effort to establish a secure and sustainable
transportation sector, the Department of Energy is accelerating
technology breakthroughs, promoting investment in manufacturing
capacity and speeding deployment of vehicles and infrastructure. We are
pleased that Department's fiscal year 2011 budget builds on its
commitment to transportation electrification with increases for
vehicles and recharging infrastructure development and deployment. We
also respectfully ask that you improve on that effort by supporting
advances in the full electric drive portfolio: battery electric, hybrid
and fuel cell electric vehicles.
We thank you for your consideration.
______

Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute
The Nuclear Energy Institute \1\ (NEI) supports fiscal year 2011
funding for the following Department of Energy programs and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Nuclear Energy Institute is the industry's policy
organization, whose broad mission is to foster the beneficial uses of
nuclear technology in its many commercial forms. Its membership, more
than 350 corporate members in 17 countries, includes every U.S. utility
that operates a nuclear power plant as well as international utilities,
plant designers, architect and engineering firms, uranium mining and
milling companies, nuclear service providers, universities,
manufacturers of radiopharmaceuticals, universities, labor unions and
law firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program Office--$38 million
for administrative expenses and $36 billion in new loan
guarantee authority for nuclear power projects
--Fuel Cycle Research and Development--$201 million
--Reactor Concepts Research, Development and Demonstration--$195
million
--Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies--$99.3 million
--Integrated University Program--$45 million
--Advanced Test Reactor User Facility--$20 million
--Idaho Facilities Management--$177.5 million
--Radiological Facilities Management--$66.8 million
--Environmental cleanup at DOE sites--$6 billion
--Nuclear Regulatory Commission budget--$1 billion
America's nuclear energy facilities in 2009 continued a decade of
exemplary performance. Nuclear energy continues to surpass all other
electricity sources with an industry average capacity factor of 90.5
percent. This reliability enabled the Nation's 104 reactors to produce
approximately 800 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity--enough for
about 80 million homes--at production costs lower than coal and natural
gas-fired power plants. Nuclear power plants in 31 States generate more
than 70 percent of the U.S. electricity that comes from carbon-free
sources. NEI believes the budget proposed for DOE's Office of Nuclear
Energy is indicative of the administration's belief that nuclear energy
is essential to America's future electricity supply, energy security
and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.
uranium enrichment d&d fund tax undue burden on utility ratepayers
NEI opposes the proposed $200 million annual tax on utilities to
pay yet again for the decommissioning and decontamination fund at DOE
uranium enrichment facilities.
The Obama administration is seeking reinstatement of the uranium
enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, with a proposed
tax on electric utilities of $200 million a year through 2026. Electric
utilities have already paid twice for decommissioning and
decontamination at uranium enrichment plants that originally were
operated by DOE--first as part of the price for uranium enrichment
services from the facilities and again under provisions of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992. Under the 1992 law, the tax on utilities generated
$2.25 billion, adjusted for inflation. The President's fiscal year 2011
budget would impose the tax yet a third time for cleanup at these
sites, representing a new tax on all Americans. This proposal is
unnecessary given the Federal fund for this cleanup program has a
balance of $4.6 billion. A proposal to reinstate the fund in the fiscal
year 2010 budget was defeated by Congress.
industry supports $36 billion for innovative technologies loan
guarantee program
The nuclear industry appreciates the support provided by the
subcommittee for the DOE loan guarantee program for nuclear energy
plants and uranium fuel cycle facilities. NEI urges the subcommittee to
approve the administration's proposal to add $36 billion in loan volume
for nuclear energy plants. The industry has demonstrated the need for
this new authority: 10 nuclear power projects reportedly submitted Part
II loan guarantee applications representing $93.2 billion in loan
volume. Two uranium enrichment projects submitted applications seeking
$4.8 billion, more than double the available amount.
The loan guarantee program for nuclear energy is self-financing,
with project sponsors responsible for underwriting the cost of
providing the credit support to the Federal Government. Properly
implemented, there will be no cost to the taxpayer. In addition,
reducing the cost of capital will reduce project costs and lower
electricity prices for all consumers. Southern Co. projects that its
$3.4 billion share of the $8.3 billion loan guarantee for two reactors
at the Vogtle plant in Georgia is expected to save consumers $15
million to $20 million in interest costs annually over the life of the
loan. The nuclear industry is confident that new nuclear generating
capacity will be competitive and is not aware of any credible
mainstream analysis that shows otherwise. In last year's National
Academies' report, America's Energy Future, new nuclear capacity
competes well against all other baseload options in a carbon-
constrained world.
NEI believes the loan guarantee program's credibility and integrity
rest on demonstrable proof that the lender's interest is well-
protected. NEI supports rigorous due diligence being conducted by the
DOE loan guarantee program office. In addition to legal, financial and
market analysis of proposed projects, DOE will use an independent
engineer to monitor construction progress and certify that construction
is proceeding according to plan before authorizing each month's draw
against the guaranteed loan. DOE's due diligence process, together with
the fact that new nuclear power plants will be competitive, should
ensure that the probability of default--and thus risk to the taxpayer--
is extremely low. NEI urges Congress to support DOE's request to fully
cover the program's administrative costs in fiscal year 2011, which
will result in a net zero appropriation given offsetting collections
from loan applicants for nuclear energy projects.
ensuring adequate funding for the nuclear regulatory commission
The industry supports fiscal year 2011 funding at the NRC's
requested level. However, the industry recommends that NRC
appropriately, and more expeditiously, resolve long-standing regulatory
issues. The industry applauds the continued oversight of the NRC by
Congress to prioritize agency actions. The agency should be more
transparent in its budgeting to reveal planned staffing and resource
needs by individual divisions. This would demonstrate to Congress, the
public and the industry, which pays 90 percent of the NRC's budget,
that the budget fairly reflects those activities that should be
allocated toward licensee-specific charges rather than general license
fees. NEI supports continuation of the Integrated University Program,
which includes support for universities and community colleges.
integrated used fuel management program
The administration's decision to withdraw the construction license
application for a Federal repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada is not a
repudiation of the Government's obligation under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act to dispose of used nuclear fuel from commercial reactors and
defense applications. NEI does not support the termination of the Yucca
Mountain repository project. Any effort to shut down the site and
remediate it is premature. Numerous State and local governments and the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners are seeking
admission to the NRC licensing proceeding to oppose DOE's withdrawal of
the application. Several opponents also have brought suit to stop this
action. The project should proceed and be funded so that the technical
review of the license application is completed. If the NRC licensing
proceeding for the project is terminated, it should be done in a manner
that would permit it to be restarted. Project records, tests, samples,
etc. should be preserved so that they can be used should the project be
resumed.
If the Yucca Mountain project is terminated, consumer payments into
the Federal Nuclear Waste Fund should be suspended for the period of
time for which there is no waste management program against which to
assess costs. Termination of the Yucca Mountain project does not affect
the NRC's pending revision to its ``waste confidence'' findings nor
affect the standard contract for used reactor fuel management between
DOE and utilities.
NEI supports the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's
Nuclear Future, but recommends that the NRC continue technical review
of the Yucca Mountain license application to completion (with the
adjudicatory proceeding held in abeyance) to inform the deliberations
of the commission. The industry supports a three-part integrated used
fuel management strategy that includes: (1) On-site storage at reactor
sites and development of centralized storage at volunteer locations;
(2) Research, development and demonstration of advanced fuel cycle
technologies; and (3) Development of a permanent repository.
The nuclear industry consistently has supported research and
development of the advanced fuel cycle technologies proposed in the
Fuel Cycle Research and Development program ($201 million). DOE's plans
should be brought into compliance with any recommendations of the blue
ribbon commission that Congress ultimately accepts.
development of advanced reactor technologies
The administration has proposed several new initiatives for the
Office of Nuclear Energy for fiscal year 2011. NEI is encouraged by
DOE's development of a road map on milestones and annual funding so
that Congress and the public will support these new program
initiatives. NEI supports $195 million in funding for the Reactor
Concepts Research, Development and Deployment program in fiscal year
2011. Within this program, $103 million in funding would be allocated
for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program. Westinghouse
Electric Co. and General Atomics will begin work on next generation
reactor designs after being awarded $40 million last month by the
Department of Energy. Advanced reactor technology can displace the use
of fuels such as natural gas for producing process heat, thus enhancing
U.S. energy security, stabilizing energy prices and improving the use
of finite natural resources.
NEI also recommends $25.7 million in fiscal year 2011 for the Light
Water Reactor Sustainability program, focusing on materials science and
materials performance in reactor operations; $38.8 million for the
Small Modular Reactors program with the possibility of additional funds
if justified; and $21.8 million for the continuation of the Generation
IV program on advanced reactor concepts. NEI supports $99.3 million for
the new Nuclear Enabling Technologies program, including the Modeling
and Simulation Hub as suggested by the administration but recommends
DOE seek industry input for program plans as the hub focuses on
materials science and improving reactor component manufacturing.
maintain funding for workforce and infrastructure
Congress in the last 2 years has approved $45 million for an
Integrated University Program. NEI requests the committee maintain DOE
and NRC funding for this program to effectively educate technicians and
professionals for careers in all sectors of nuclear science and
technology. Additionally, NEI recommends that the subcommittee support
$5 million for the DOE Research Reactor Infrastructure program for new
fuel and shipping containers, reactor instrumentation and upgrades, and
used fuel services. Industry also supports $20 million for the Advanced
Test Reactor (ATR) National Scientific User Facility at Idaho National
Lab as part of the lab's $177.5 million facilities management budget in
fiscal year 2011. This funding supports a vital facility needed to
evaluate and improve nuclear fuel and materials behavior and
performance for DOE, university and industry projects.
environmental clean up
NEI supports the budget request of $6 billion for DOE's
Environmental Management Office.
______

Prepared Statement of the Energy Sciences Coalition
The Energy Sciences Coalition (ESC) strongly supports the
administration's goal to double funding for the Department of Energy's
(DOE) Office of Science between fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2017, a
goal that is consistent with the bipartisan American COMPETES Act and
the recommendations in the National Academies' 2005 report ``Rising
Above the Gathering Storm.'' To that end, the ESC supports funding of
at least $5.121 billion for the Office of Science in fiscal year 2011--
an amount equal to the level requested by the administration for fiscal
year 2011 and a 4.4 percent increase over fiscal year 2010.
The ESC is aware of the significant fiscal constraints facing the
administration and Congress this year. Weighing the economic
competitiveness and national security value of investments in Office of
Science programs and facilities, however, we believe that funding for
the Office of Science of at least the amount included in the budget
request can easily be justified. The Office of Science is the Nation's
primary sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences, and the
facilities and research it supports are vital to ensuring our energy
security and national competitiveness, meeting our environmental
challenges, and producing new jobs and innovative technological
breakthroughs that will fuel our economy.
Specifically, this funding will:
--Allow the Office of Science to maintain and strengthen DOE's core
research programs at both the DOE national laboratories and at
universities;
--Support investigators at more than 300 academic institutions and
from all DOE national laboratories;
--Enable support for 27,000 PhDs, postdoctoral associates, and
graduate students in fiscal year 2011--approximately 2,000 more
than were supported in fiscal year 2010;
--Ensure maximum utilization of DOE research facilities by 26,000
researchers from universities, national laboratories, industry,
and international partners; and
--Allow the Office of Science to develop and construct the next-
generation facilities necessary to maintain U.S. preeminence in
research and development in the physical and biological
sciences, computing, and many other critical scientific fields.
The ESC therefore urges Congress to support the administration's
fiscal year 2011 budget request and invest at least $5.121 billion in
the DOE Office of Science.
endorsing organizations
American Chemical Society
American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering
American Institute of Physics
American Mathematical Society
American Physical Society
American Society for Engineering Education
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Plant Biologists
Arizona State University
ASME
Association of American Universities
Association of Public and Land-grant
Universities--APLU
ASTRA, The Alliance for Science &
Technology Research in America
Battelle
Biophysical Society
California Institute of Technology
Council of Energy Research and Education
Leaders
Duke University
Florida International University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Harvard University
Indiana University
Jefferson Science Associates, LLC
Krell Institute
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Materials Research Society
Michigan State University
North Carolina State University
The Ohio State University
The Optical Society
Oregon State University
Princeton University
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Semiconductor Industry Association
Semiconductor Research Corporation
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Southeastern Universities Research Association
Stanford University
Stony Brook University
Texas A&M University
Tulane University
The University of California
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Davis
University of California, Irvine
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, Merced
University of California, Riverside
University of California, San Diego
University of California, San Francisco
University of California, Santa Barbara
University of California, Santa Cruz
University of Central Florida
University of Chicago
University of Hawaii System
University of Illinois
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of New Mexico
University of Pittsburgh
University of Southern California
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Vanderbilt University
Washington State University
Washington University in St. Louis
______

Prepared Statement of 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 2011 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.
executive summary
Residential Buildings currently account for over 20 percent of the
primary energy consumed by the United States. Since 2000, over 12
million new homes have been constructed, and each year over a million
homes 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 to develop solutions 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 building and renovating 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 the DOE 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.
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, and they are now focused on the
more difficult task of meeting DOE's goals to create strategies to
achieve 50 percent whole house savings by 2015, and ultimately Zero
Energy Homes (ZEH)--homes that produce as much energy as they use on an
annual basis--broad spread in the market by 2025.
a new frontier in research--zero energy homes
The research needed to develop systems and strategies to achieve
DOE's short and longer term goals is not simply applying lessons
learned; rather, fundamental research is still required. This R&D,
performed by the Building America Teams, is truly high-need, high-risk,
high-payoff research.
The research required to meet the goals of 50 percent savings and
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 will never 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
significantly lower than average financial commitment to
investing in research.
--Builders need successful business models to apply related to
effectively and profitably integrating new technologies and
strategies.
The research required to meet the goals of 50 percent savings and
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, and can identify code barriers that might prevent
energy efficiency and market adoption.
building america competitive teams: successes in the real world
The work of the Teams allows industry leadership to drive cost
effective solutions that move us toward Zero Energy Homes. Building
America Builder partners have shown that homes with energy savings up
to 40 percent can be cost competitive and valued by consumers in
today's marketplace. These homes have lower energy bills and operating
costs, and increased building durability as well as occupant safety,
health, and comfort. The teams have been instrumental developing cost
effective solutions at the 30 percent and 40 percent energy saving
levels currently used by regional builders and divisions of national
builders such as Pulte Homes, David Weekly Homes, K Hovnanian Homes,
Beazer Homes, Centex Homes, Imagine Homes, Ideal Homes, Veridian Homes,
Tommy Williams, to name a few. 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'
builders are provided by DOE's private sector partners.
In addition to performing the fundamental research needed to
advance the energy efficiency of our Nation's housing stock, the
Building America Teams also 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.
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 broad spread in the market 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 production builders, who produce
approximately 50 percent of the Nation's new housing stock. More than
30,000 homes have been constructed in 34 States with energy savings up
to 40 percent. While potentially up to 30 percent of the Nation's
builders could reasonably achieve a 30 percent energy saving target, it
is estimated that less than 1 percent of the builders can achieve 50
percent. To develop solution sets to help builders move forward to the
50 percent level, all areas of energy use in the house must be
addressed. This means increased complexity on the part of the builder
and all associated trade partners, suppliers, and manufacturers, which
translates to significantly more effort on the part of each Building
America Team lead. Increased funding is needed to address DOE's energy
efficiency goals, and provide the increased need for technical support
to lead builders, contractors, and suppliers for effective research and
participation in the program. The Building America research to date has
shown that to achieve the 50 percent and ZEH goals, every energy
related system in the house must be analyzed and strategies for energy
savings developed. This level of effort is significantly greater than
for the 30 percent or 40 percent goals, where only major energy end
uses in the house needed to be addressed. On a forward moving basis,
the stated DOE goals of the program are unreachable without significant
Team funding.
Recommendation for Fiscal Year 2011 Funding:
Provide $46 million, for the Building America Program at the DOE's
Office of Building Technologies in fiscal year 2011 appropriations
(under the Office of Building Technologies, Residential Building
Integration). This does not include new funding to initiate a retrofit
research and development program. 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 the National Hydropower Association
The National Hydropower Association (NHA) \1\ appreciates the
opportunity to submit this statement regarding hydropower Research and
Development funding priorities for the fiscal year 2011 appropriations
budget cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHA is a non-profit, national trade association dedicated to
promoting the Nation's largest renewable resource and advancing the
interests of the hydropower and new ocean, tidal, conduit and instream
hydrokinetic industries and the consumers they serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHA requests a minimum of $100 million in fiscal year 2011 Energy
and Water Appropriations for the Department of Energy's Waterpower
Program to support initiatives across all hydropower technology
sectors. The types of technologies covered are conventional hydropower
including pumped storage and emerging technologies that access the
energy in ocean waves, and the flowing water in rivers, man-made
channels and those caused by tides.
A $100 million funding level will go far to support a national goal
to double U.S. capacity of renewable hydropower, the research needed to
increase production and create 700,000 new industry sector jobs across
every State of the country.
Investment in hydropower R&D will drive innovation across the
economy and maintain American competitiveness and create jobs. In
addition, the Nation's largest and most reliable renewable electricity
resource will be positioned to address the multiple challenges of
global climate change, increasing demand for clean energy, U.S. energy
security and national economic recovery.
hydropower's current and potential contribution
The goal of the National Hydropower Association and its members is
to provide clean, climate-friendly, reliable baseload electricity today
and in the future through the responsible development and expanded use
of conventional hydropower, pumped storage and new technologies, such
as ocean and tidal energy and small irrigation power.
As the largest source of renewable electricity in the United
States, currently providing 7 percent of U.S. generation and avoiding
225 million metric tons of carbon emissions a year, hydropower is
poised to do more. Recent studies demonstrate that the Nation's
hydropower capacity could double by 2025 mostly by maximizing existing
infrastructure and without the need to build new impoundments.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In fact, of the approximately 80,000 dams in the U.S. only
about 3 percent have hydropower facilities associated with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence supporting these projections is credible, current and
prolific. For example, more than 50,000 MW of new hydropower capacity
is in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pipeline awaiting
review and approval for development, with additional projects on the
drawing board for consideration.
Second, applications for DOE Waterpower program funding
opportunities last year far outnumbered available funds--both for new
and conventional technologies. For example, in the most recent funding
announcement on November 4, 2009, the Department of Energy awarded $32
million to 7 projects to pursue upgrades to existing hydropower
facilities, although dozens more projects submitted applications.
Finally, new studies project the doubling (or even tripling) of
hydropower's capacity by 2025. According to an October 2009 report
conducted by Navigant Consulting, approximately 60,000 MW of new
hydropower is possible by 2025. This represents enough electricity to
power every household in Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. In addition
to providing affordable and clean power, the report found that 60,000
MW of new hydropower capacity also will result in 700,000 cumulative
direct and indirect American jobs, with an additional 700,000 induced
jobs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://hydro.org/Jobs%20Study/
NHA_JobsStudy_Final%20Report_Final_Sept%2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, development of some of this capacity requires necessary
and needed R&D investment (both short and long term) in order to
advance the state of the technology, study potential impacts,
understand the extent of the developable resource, and more. In
particular, Government funding is needed at the front end when private
investments would not recoup the full value of the resulting social
good. This is especially true in the case of basic research and
development investments, where the private sector tends to under-
invest.
hydropower's r&d needs span all industry sectors--conventional, new
hydrokinetic technologies and pumped storage
Although conventional hydropower is one of America's longest
serving electric generation resources, the industry is on the vanguard
of new technology development and project expansion.
Technology advancements in the industry will allow facilities to
add capacity and increase generation reduce impacts on environmental
resources, and maximize water use efficiency in a time of increasing
and competing needs for water from both power and non-power users.
Maximizing the existing hydropower system, as well as building on
existing non-powered dams, are some of the lowest cost options per
kilowatt hour for increasing renewable energy generation. However,
these projects are also larger, more capital intensive up-front,
experience longer development timelines due to licensing, manufacturing
and construction, and require Government R&D support to prove out
technology advancements to Federal and State resource managers as well
as other stakeholders.
For the ocean and tidal energy and instream hydrokinetic
industries, the potential resources are tremendous with marine projects
that could be sited close to load centers in the Northwest, California,
Florida, and the Northeast as well as inland waterway projects that
could be sited throughout the country. In addition, hydrokinetics may
serve pressing power needs in remote communities as a distributed power
resource, such as in Alaska.
The wave, tidal, and instream hydrokinetic industry is making great
strides toward commercialization, but still requires significant R&D
support to move beyond pilot projects to larger scale deployment,
refine the technologies, answer potential environmental impact
questions, and reduce higher project costs.
Research and development is also needed to maximize the full
potential of hydropower pumped storage projects for use as transmission
system tools to provide energy storage, grid reliability and other
ancillary services. Pumped storage has the proven ability to provide
the firming benefits needed to support the growth of other variable
renewable technologies, such as wind and solar.
Federal research, development and deployment programs are critical
to bringing these technologies and new projects to fruition and to
build the human and technological capital needed to perform
breakthrough research and transfer those innovations to the market. As
we have testified in the past, NHA analyzed the 2007 EPRI report \4\
and has concluded that it provided a useful model and roadmap from
which to guide activities under the DOE Waterpower R&D program. As
such, this statement recommends, and incorporates by reference, the
suite of initiatives identified in NHA's fiscal year 2010 statement to
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. These directives are
intended to address the needs left unfunded by the previous DOE R&D
program for hydropower and would expand the Department's efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Assessment of Waterpower Potential and Development Needs,
Number 1014762, EPRI, March 2007, http://my.epri.com/portal/
server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001014762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHA also encourages Congress and the Department to pursue new
horizon initiatives, like climate forecasting and modeling and
additional energy/water nexus issues that may affect energy production
in the coming years.
Congress has recognized the need for research, development and
deployment of new advanced technologies, both for conventional
hydropower and the ocean, tidal and instream hydrokinetic industries.
NHA directs attention to title IX, section 931 in the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 as well as the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
the importance of the doe waterpower program
The Obama administration and the Congress are setting ambitious and
aggressive goals for renewable energy development in the United States.
Such aggressive goals require aggressive funding for research into
renewable energy technology development and assistance in technology
deployment.
The Department of Energy is the Government agency charged with
meeting these goals and ensuring that cost-effective technologies are
brought to market and add to a diversified energy portfolio and NHA
strongly supports their work particularly that of the Waterpower
program.
At this critical time when we are relying on our innovate
industries to deliver power from renewable resources in an efficient
and economical way, we cannot allow initiatives to fall victim to
funding setbacks. Throughout the years, the hydropower R&D program has
been severely underfunded. This was felt most acutely during the middle
of the last decade when the program was zeroed out--the only renewable
resource to receive such treatment.
Looking forward, we see the mission of the Waterpower program as
one that conducts R&D to improve the technical, societal, and
environmental benefits of hydropower and hydrokinetic resources, and
that also coordinates with other Federal agencies and industry,
including both private and public entities involved with development,
is also critical.
One example of the important areas of growth for the hydropower
industry is increasing capacity at existing projects operated by the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Project developers are reporting a need for better coordination,
more resources and process improvements for working with the Federal
system. Toward that end, DOE's ability to facilitate communication
across the various Government agencies--from the Federal hydropower
operators to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the resource
protection agencies--is crucial and funding should be directed to
support its work in providing information and technical support to
assist project development.
conclusion
While funding levels for DOE's Waterpower research and development
program have increased from zero funding in fiscal year 2006 to $50
million in fiscal year 2010, more is required to fully support this
important resource.
Under a comprehensive R&D program funded at $100 million for fiscal
year 2011, hydropower will be positioned to offer economic,
environmental, and energy benefits simultaneously through
comprehensive, well-designed initiatives. Funds are needed to support
all technologies through important on-going and new work on resource
assessments, advanced hydropower turbine designs, technology testing
for new ocean, tidal, and instream hydrokinetic applications,
environmental impact studies, climate and hydrology modeling, grid
integration and the role of hydro in firming variable energy resources.
By accelerating the funding for the DOE Waterpower R&D program, the
United States could soon realize the tremendous energy and
environmental benefits of maximizing our existing hydropower projects
and infrastructure as well as the suite of emerging wave, tidal, and
hydrokinetic technologies.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Wind Energy Association
introduction
America's wind energy industry experienced a record year of growth
in 2009. Industry deployed more than 10,000 megawatts (MW) nationwide,
amounting to approximately 40 percent of the country's new electrical
capacity and enough to power 2.4 million homes. Although wind systems
are commercially deployable today, keeping America's domestic wind
industry competitive with other generation sources requires increased
research, development, and deployment (RD&D) funding to reduce costs
and improve reliability.
Therefore, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) requests a
funding level of $186.5 million for fiscal year 2011, which is an
increase of $63.5 million above the President's Congressional budget
request for the Department of Energy (DOE) Wind Energy Program. Of this
amount, AWEA requests that $16 million be designated for power system
integration and transmission development for ``variable generation''
sources like wind and solar energy. The $16 million could be
appropriated to either the Wind Energy Program within the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) or to the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE).
DOE provides important technical support, guidance, information,
and limited cost-shared funding for efforts to explore and develop wind
energy resources. AWEA commends the DOE Wind Energy Program for
successfully developing programs that are consistent with the wind
industry's long-term needs. Regardless of whether OE or EERE receives
grid integration and transmission development funds, it is crucial that
both entities work together and with experts at DOE national
laboratories--particularly the National Renewable Energy Laboratory--to
help utilities resolve variability-related issues related to grid
integration.
AWEA's funding request of $63.5 million above the President's
Congressional budget request of $123 million is a significant increase,
but was carefully determined via a months-long process involving more
than 80 wind industry stakeholders through the AWEA Research and
Development Committee. Expert stakeholders identified the funds needed
to overcome constraints to meeting the DOE's scenario of wind energy
providing 20 percent of our Nation's electricity by 2030 (20 percent
Wind Energy by 2030. July 2008).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Energy, ``20 percent Wind Energy by 2030''
(July 2008), http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
overview
For years, the DOE Wind Energy Program has provided essential help
to the wind industry by supporting technology advancements and
identifying and addressing other hurdles to wind energy development.
However, more work is necessary. Wind power is still constrained by
difficulties in market acceptance and the need for improvements in
cost, performance, and reliability. The DOE's 20 percent Wind Energy by
2030 report assumes that capital costs must be reduced by 10 percent
and that turbine efficiency must increase by 15 percent to reach the
goal of providing 20 percent of our Nation's electricity from wind by
2030. The DOE report clearly identifies a need for continued Federal
investment in wind RD&D by stating, ``In a functional sense, wind
turbines now stand roughly where the U.S. automotive fleet stood in
1940. \2\ '' As our Nation turns to wind power to meet more of its
energy needs, it is crucial for DOE to increase funding to improve wind
turbine reliability and reduce costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achieving 20 percent of U.S. electric power from wind, with the
critical help of RD&D, would:
--Create 500,000 jobs, generating over $1 trillion in economic impact
by 2030;
--Reduce natural gas demand by approximately 7 billion cubic feet/
day--nearly one-half of the current consumption in the electric
sector;
--Decrease natural gas prices by approximately 12 percent, saving
consumers approximately $128 billion;
--Avoid 825 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the electric
sector in 2030, equivalent to 25 percent of expected electric
sector emissions; and
--Reduce cumulative water consumption in the electric sector by 17
percent in 2030 (one-third of which would come from the arid
West).
The DOE Wind Energy Program currently receives approximately $84
million annually. In comparison, the RD&D budgets for many other
traditional and emerging energy sources are much higher. For fiscal
year 2010, non-defense nuclear RD&D energy programs will receive at
least $787 million, coal programs will receive $404 million, and solar
and biomass energy will receive $247 million and $220 million,
respectively. A higher Federal funding level for wind energy RD&D will
help ensure that wind energy remains competitive with other forms of
energy.
importance of doe's wind energy program
The DOE Wind Energy Program has a strong history of success, and
the cost-shared industry/Government research and development activities
at DOE and NREL have played an important role in keeping the cost of
wind energy competitive with other energy sources. AWEA strongly
believes that a funding amount of $186.5 million, provided by the
subcommittee, would reflect the importance and impact of the Wind
Program's work. OE and EERE should work closely with other national
laboratories and organizations, such as NREL and the Utility Wind
Integration Group (UWIG), to resolve grid integration challenges
associated with wind energy development.
specific wind industry priorities
A team of more than 80 members of AWEA and advisors from industry
and academic institutions identified a $63.5 million deficit in annual
DOE funding necessary to support the RD&D and related programs needed
to realize the vision of providing 20 percent of America's electricity
from wind by 2030. We respectfully urge that Federal funding be
provided for four specific areas as follows:
--Systems Integration and Transmission Expansion ($16 million)
--Wind Turbine Technology and Reliability ($38 million)
--Small Wind Turbines--100kW and Smaller ($5.5 million)
--Community Wind ($4 million)
Systems Integration and Transmission Expansion
The systems integration program area focuses on the power system
operations issues of integrating variable, non-dispatchable power
sources, like wind energy, into the power system. Wind generators in
some regions, especially those with small control areas located outside
Regional Transmission Organizations, are already being denied
interconnection because operational limits for the integration of
variable generation have been reached. Yet, numerous studies from the
United States and Europe (with significant involvement from DOE-funded
experts) have shown that even minor changes to operations can
accommodate much greater amounts of wind. Areas of special focus
include 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 is a key area 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
areas with rich wind resources. Emphasis should also be placed on
making the grid more robust, efficient, and reliable. This will help
power to flow across regions, which will be critical to integrating
large amounts of wind energy into the system.
Wind Turbine Technology and Reliability
Aiding improvements in wind system technology and reliability is a
key component of the AWEA R&D Committee Action Plan. This area focuses
on the development of turbine components to reduce capital costs,
improve performance, and enhance equipment reliability to achieve the
20 percent vision by 2030. This includes developing lower-cost towers,
more reliable gearboxes and generators, advanced blade sensors and
controls, and streamlined manufacturing processes. AWEA also recognizes
the need to reduce the cost of offshore wind energy technology in order
for offshore sources to provide the estimated 54 gigawatts (GW) of the
300 GW needed to meet the 20 percent goal by 2030.
Small Wind Turbines (100 kilowatts and Smaller)
Greater Federal funding for small wind systems, those with
capacities of 100 kilowatts (kW) or less, would help the small wind
industry provide homes, farms, and small businesses with their own
domestic, on-site wind generators. Increased funding for the small wind
industry should be used to establish market deployment programs,
streamline installation techniques, advance technological components,
and improve tools to assess wind resources.
Community Wind
Community-scale wind projects, generally those whose economic
benefits flow directly into the communities that host them, face
greater commercialization challenges than do traditional wind power
projects. Currently, very few Federal programs support community wind
development. Many developers lack technical or financial resources, and
the limited size of community wind projects often make them less
attractive to experienced developers. Funding is needed to create and
support a two-part Department of Energy Community Wind Initiative. The
first part would create a technical assistance center to provide
developers with wind resource data; technical, economic, and financial
modeling of potential projects; permitting and brokerage assistance;
outreach support, and other essential resources. The second part would
fund multi-million dollar competitive DOE grants, over several years,
to qualified community wind organizations to support permitting
applications, interconnection and transmission agreements,
environmental studies, view-shed acceptance, equipment procurement, and
other essential aspects of development.
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 demand. 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 rural economic development, spurs new
high-tech jobs, and protects the environment.
While the wind industry continues adding new generation capacity,
challenges still exist. Continued support for DOE's Wind Energy Program
is vital to helping wind become a more prominent energy source, which
will benefit the economy and environment. To ensure that funding levels
are commensurate with the President's call for more renewable energy,
AWEA urges the subcommittee to provide $186.5 million for the Wind
Energy Program and OE in fiscal year 2011. Along with other key Federal
policies, both new and sustained, greater RD&D funding through DOE will
help transform the 20 percent wind vision into reality.
AWEA appreciates this opportunity to provide testimony on DOE's
fiscal year 2011 Wind Energy Program budget before the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. We thank
the subcommittee for its time and attention to our request.
______

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 appropriation of $5.24
billion for the Department of Energy, Office of Science in fiscal year
2011. This figure is in keeping with President Obama's vision for
doubling the DOE SC budget. Further, it will enable the Office of
Science to continue supporting essential research programs that enhance
human health and quality of life, invigorate the economy, bring the
Nation closer to energy independence, and drive scientific innovation.
FASEB is composed of 23 societies representing more than 90,000
members, making it the largest coalition of biomedical research
associations in the United States. Our mission is to improve human
health and welfare by promoting progress and education in biological
and biomedical sciences.
The Office of Science is dedicated to investing in ``the most
exciting and daring research that human kind has ever conceived.'' The
programs and facilities of the DOE SC enable important discoveries in
computational sciences, environmental and biological sciences, and
energy sciences. For example, DOE scientists are developing tools such
as hollow glass microspheres, tiny glass capsules that are one-half the
width of a human hair, which have applications ranging from targeted
drug delivery to hydrogen storage for batteries. Additionally, work at
the DOE national laboratories is increasing the capabilities of
supercomputers, allowing for more efficient access to data and faster
processing speeds. This and other research funded by the DOE SC drives
cutting-edge science and technological innovations that ensure our
Nation's safety, bolster our Nation's economy, and improve the day-to-
day lives of the American people.
More than 25,000 researchers from various Government agencies,
academic institutions, and private industry use the DOE SC's state-of-
the-art laboratories and research facilities every year. The national
laboratory system is the most advanced of its kind and permits the
agency to support vital research in a variety of fields, as well as
interdisciplinary research that extends the basic research of many
other Federal agencies. In fact, much of the research funded by non-DOE
science agencies would not be possible without the DOE's dedicated
research infrastructure. At the Brookhaven National Laboratory the
synchrotron particle accelerator, with its ability to produce intense
light at a variety of wavelengths, is being used by medical scientists
from the National Institutes of Health. In research funded by the
National Institute of General Medical Sciences, X-rays from the
synchrotron are being used to study the structure of proteins involved
in Alzheimer's disease. The Office of Science also provides support to
many graduate students and early-career postdoctoral researchers.
Almost one-half of the DOE SC's research funding supports projects at
over 300 academic institutions nationwide.
discoveries that improve health and well-being
DOE-supported scientists are making remarkable contributions to
human health.
--Restoring Sight to Patients With Vision Loss.--In conjunction with
the National Science Foundation and the National Eye Institute,
the DOE Office of Science helped to fund a team of
ophthalmologists, engineers, and neuroscientists to create the
first ever artificial retina. The groundwork for this
development was laid by more than a century's worth of basic
research into the structure and function of the eye. By drawing
on the work of anatomists, biochemists, electrophysiologists
and others, scientists were able to create a device delicate
enough not to damage the eye yet complex enough to provide
visual input to the human brain. The resulting artificial
retina has been shown to restore some level of sight to those
who have lost vision due to retinal disease. By 2011, the
research team expects to start clinical testing on a version
that will allow reading and facial recognition. These studies
are bringing new hope to patients who have gone decades without
sight.
--Improving Bone Regeneration.--Following a fracture, the process of
bone proliferation and healing takes several weeks, even
months. A research team funded by the DOE SC is currently
developing safe, effective, and inexpensive implant materials
to improve this process and shorten healing time. They have
identified a growth factor known as lysophosphatidic acid (LPA)
that promotes bone regeneration with no detectable toxicity.
What's more, LPA can be manufactured at the fraction of the
cost of the other bone healing stimulators that are currently
available. The next step is for researchers to combine LPA with
a hydrogel that, when injected around a damaged bone, will
release the growth factor in a controlled manner. This research
has the potential to significantly reduce recovery time for the
8 million Americans who suffer bone fractures every year.
--Mitigating the Impact of Low Dose Radiation.--The DOE Low Dose
Radiation Research Program funds basic research to determine
the effects of exposure to low doses of radiation. Researchers
long ago established that ionizing radiation, which is present
in a wide range of occupational settings, can lead to breast
cancer by causing genetic mutations. Recent research DOE has
funded, however, has revealed that exposure to ionizing
radiation also acts as a carcinogen by affecting the cell
proteins responsible for cell-to-cell communication and
cellular structure. Thus exposure may result in breast or other
types of cancer, even where genetic mutations are not
detectible, and the damage can amplify by translating to
subsequent generations of cells. Understanding the fundamental
cell biology of radiation exposure paves the way for the
development of treatments for and protections against low-dose
radiation.
cleaner and more secure energy future
Discoveries in fundamental energy sciences funded by DOE SC are
already changing the way we use energy and paving the way for the next
generation of environmentally-friendly, sustainable energy sources.
Specifically, the Department's newly-formed Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is working on technologies to meet our most
pressing energy needs.
--Hydrogen Technologies.--Hydrogen is one of the most abundant
elements on the planet, making it an appealing clean energy
alternative. However, almost all hydrogen is locked up in water
and other compounds. Researchers at the Savannah River National
Laboratory are working to advance the most promising method of
extracting hydrogen from water--the Hybrid Sulfur Process. This
two-step reaction is driven by electricity and heat, both of
which can be generated by a nuclear reactor. This simple,
efficient process is slated to be used in conjunction with
next-generation nuclear plants and has the potential to produce
enough hydrogen to power more than 1 million fuel cell cars.
--Carbon Capture Technologies.--Natural systems use an enzyme known
as carbonic anhydrase (CA) to convert carbon dioxide to
bicarbonate, which can then be transported out of tissue. A
program funded through ARPA-E is working to apply this process
to make the use of fossil fuels less environmentally damaging.
The program will develop membrane technology for separating
carbon dioxide from flue gas streams, using synthetic forms of
CA. The synthetic analogue was created to be more robust than
naturally-occurring CA, and thus able to function in harsh
environments. This membrane technology developed by the DOE SC
is one of many ways currently being explored to increase the
efficiency of and reduce the cost involved in carbon capture.
recognizing the importance of doe research
In 2007, the passage of the America COMPETES Act demonstrated
Congress' commitment to U.S. science and technology. Now, Congress has
the opportunity to reassert this commitment by both reauthorizing
America COMPETES and supporting the goal of doubling the budgets of DOE
SC, NSF and NIST. Funding DOE SC based on the plan outlined in the
President's budget will allow DOE to greatly enhance its groundbreaking
research portfolio and permit it to confront current and future energy
and health challenges. In keeping with this vision for doubling DOE SC
budget, FASEB recommends an appropriation of $5.24 billion for the
Department of Energy, Office of Science in fiscal year 2011.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Carbon Capture Center
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Southern Company
operates the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Carbon
Capture Center (NCCC) (http://nationalcarboncapturecenter.com) at the
Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF) in Wilsonville, AL 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
and has fulfilled this expectation. NETL responded to the need for
cost-effective carbon dioxide (CO2) capture technologies by
establishing the NCCC with a focus on conducting R&D to advance
emerging CO2 control technologies to commercial scale for
effective integration into either combustion or Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) processes. The NCCC will accomplish this goal by
providing a test-bed for Government, industrial, and university
projects to conduct meaningful tests in an industrial setting. I would
like to thank the Senate for its past support of the NCCC and request
the subcommittee's continued support as the NCCC responds to the need
for developing cost-effective CO2 capture technology for
coal-fueled power generation. This statement supports the
administration's budget request for DOE coal R&D which includes about
$39.6 million for work at the NCCC. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current NCCC participants include Southern Company, the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), American Electric Power,
Luminant, NRG, Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Inc., and Rio Tinto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key feature of the NCCC 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 NCCC 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 NCCC 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 NCCC 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 NCCC. The DOE program for CO2
capture in coal-fueled power plants is divided into three areas: post-
combustion capture for conventional pulverized coal plants, pre-
combustion capture for coal gasification power plants, and oxy-
combustion processes which produce a more CO2-rich flue gas
than conventional combustion for easier CO2 capture. The
NCCC'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, the critically important
R&D program 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
NCCC. The fiscal year 2011 funding for the NCCC needs to be about $39.6
million to complete the construction and begin operation 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 NCCC to date and the future test
program planned by DOE and the NCCC's industrial participants are
summarized below.
nccc (formerly the psdf) accomplishments
The NCCC 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 NCCC has
developed testing and technology transfer relationships with over 50
vendors to ensure that test results and improvements developed at the
NCCC 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 NCCC 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 NCCC 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
flexibility in testing numerous syngas contaminant removal technologies
to improve emissions 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 NCCC 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. Also, a NETL-erected
SOFC multi-cell array test skid was successfully tested at NCCC
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.
nccc future test program
Developing technology options that will reduce CO2
emissions is a primary goal for future work at NCCC. These technologies
will be screened in close collaboration with NETL for selection for
testing at the NCCC. 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 NCCC will concentrate on
developing cost-effective, commercially viable carbon capture
technology for coal-fueled power plants 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 power plants, 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 power plant downstream of the pulverized
coal boiler. Many post-combustion capture technologies need to be
proven and integrated in an industrial power plant setting. Activities
at the NCCC 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 NCCC. The test
modules' flexible design will allow the testing of a wide range of
technologies on actual flue gas.
Technology Screening.--Available solvents developed by NETL, third
party developers and the NCCC 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, currently being investigated by DOE-NETL and
private companies, will be assessed and installed. NCCC will provide
such technologies a scaled-up testing platform as development progress
warrants.
In pre-combustion capture, CO2 is separated from the
syngas in a coal gasification power plant upstream of combustion in the
gas turbine. Research and development activities at NCCC 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 assessed on air-blown and oxygen-blown
syngas. New CO2 separation technologies (sorbents or
membranes) will be scaled-up and tested based on fundamental R&D
progress by third party developers.
Water Gas Shift Enhancements.--New water gas shift reactor
configurations and sizes are planned for testing at the NCCC. The
operation of shift catalysts when exposed to syngas at the NCCC 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.
Regarding oxy-combustion, system studies will be used to evaluate
the commercial feasibility of operating the Transport Reactor in oxy-
combustion mode. Based on study results, oxy-combustion test priority
will be determined in collaboration with NETL.
In developing a cost-effective advanced coal power plant with
CO2 capture, all process blocks within the power plant must
be optimized in addition to the capture block. Including CO2
capture in an advanced coal power plant will increase the plant cost of
electricity, so opportunities to reduce cost in every part of the
process will be explored. With highest priority being given to low-cost
CO2 capture process development, projects that reduce
overall capital and operating costs will also be included in the NCCC
test plan to partially offset incremental cost increases from
CO2 capture addition. These cost reduction projects include
technology development for syngas cleanup, particulate control, fuel
cells, sensors and controls, materials, and feeders.
______

Prepared Statement of the Gulf Restoration Network
I am writing on behalf of Gulf Restoration Network (GRN), a network
of over 50 local, regional and national environmental, environmental
justice, social justice, and public interest groups dedicated to
uniting and empowering people to protect and restore the natural
resources of the Gulf of Mexico region. The President's fiscal year
2011 budget request for the Department of Energy proposes the
cancellation of $71 million in balances from prior year appropriations
for an expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) at a site
near Richton, Mississippi and assumes the use of these balances to
partially fund the regular operations and management activities of the
SPR.\1\ The SPR program is part of the Office of Petroleum Reserves,
which in turn is part of the Office of Fossil Energy in the Department
of Energy. GRN commends this decision, and strongly urges the Senate
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development to support this portion of the budget request. The
cancellation of this funding for the proposed expansion of the SPR near
Richton (hereinafter referred to as the Richton project) is a good
fiscal, environmental and policy decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Appendix, President's Budget of the United States
Government,'' (fiscal year 2011):430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Richton project is a poor choice for a number of
reasons: (1) it is estimated to cost at least $16.8 billion,\2\ a price
tag that will likely only continue to grow; (2) the Richton site would
require at least 330 miles of pipeline, increasing the likelihood of
oil or brine spills into the environment; \3\ and (3) this project
would be the first time that DOE has ever relied upon an inland
freshwater source to mine the salt, an experimental proposal that
worries many scientists familiar with the variable water flows of the
Pascagoula River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Construction cost estimates from ''Strategic Petroleum
Reserve's New Richton Mississippi Site,'' United States Department of
Energy: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/
Richton_Fact_Sheet-Rev2_12-7-07.pdf. Petroleum price estimates based on
``Short-Term Energy Outlook,'' United States Energy Information
Administration (March 2010): http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/
mar10.pdf.
\3\ ``Strategic Petroleum Reserve's New Richton Mississippi Site,''
United States Department of Energy: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/
programs/reserves/spr/Richton_Fact_Sheet-Rev2_12-7-07.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
costs and funding
The Richton project should not be receiving large Federal
investments because the Department of Energy has not completed the
Federal mandated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and
released its Record of Decision (ROD). As this Federal mandated process
could ultimately lead to a decision to not move forward with the
Richton project, any large-scale Federal funding should wait for the
completion of the NEPA process. Also, a recent public statement
indicates that ``DOE believes funds for expansion could better be
utilized to ensure ongoing operational readiness of the existing SPR.''
\4\ The Senate should respect the DOE's priorities and cancel past
funding for this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Kirgan, Harlan. ``Salt Dome put on hold,'' Mississippi Press,
March 24, 2010: http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/2010/
03/richton_salt_dome_expansion_project_funds_redirected.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the construction costs for the Richton project are
estimated to be $4 billion, and while estimates for the cost of filling
the storage area depend on variations in oil prices, the initial fill
of the site, based on projected 2010 crude prices, could range between
$12.8-$13.6 billion.\5\ Using a conservative estimate, this represents
an expense of $16.8 billion or well over one-half of the DOE's proposed
budget for this year. Although this expense would likely be spread out
over multiple years, it still would involve a significant outlay of
Federal funds for questionable benefits to taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Construction cost estimates from ''Strategic Petroleum
Reserve's New Richton Mississippi Site,'' United States Department of
Energy: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/
Richton_Fact_Sheet-Rev2_12-7-07.pdf. Petroleum price estimates based on
predicated crude prices in 2011 ``Short-Term Energy Outlook,'' United
States Energy Information Administration (March 2010): http://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/mar10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Energy considered several different sites as
potential locations for an expansion of the SPR, and the Richton site
was the most expensive project, and arguably the most environmentally
harmful. Halting this destructive and costly project is a great way to
begin shifting away from yesterday's problems and start addressing the
daunting issues of tomorrow.
environmental and economic impacts
Coastal Mississippi relies on its water resources and wetlands to
maintain a thriving commercial and recreational fishing industry,
promote tourism, and provide industry with their freshwater and
transportation needs. Nationally significant water resources like the
Pascagoula River, the Mississippi Sound, and the Gulf of Mexico are
integral to the coastal economy and environment. Unfortunately, the
plan for the Richton project could threaten these same resources. In
fact, this plan to hollow out a series of underground salt caverns
requires the withdrawal of 50 million gallons of water per day from the
Pascagoula River for 5-6 years.\6\ This water would be used to dissolve
underground salt, and then the polluted and extremely salty byproduct
would be pumped off the coast of one of Mississippi's barrier islands.
These actions could have significant impacts on the area's environment,
including reduction in water flows in the Pascagoula River that could
impact coastal estuaries, and a large, salty Dead Zone where the
polluted water is released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Final Environmental Impact Statement for Site Selection for
the Expansion of the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve,'' United
States Department of Energy (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, according to Department of Energy estimates, the 330
miles of pipelines necessary to complete this project will harm or
destroy over 1,500 acres of wetlands and lead to at least 56 brine
spills and 19 oil spills during the construction and initial fill of
the site.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Final Environmental Impact Statement for Site Selection for
the Expansion of the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve,'' United
Department of Energy (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
The Richton project is bad policy for the Nation, and bad policy
for the people of coastal Mississippi. For years, citizens in
Mississippi and throughout the country have been working to stop this
expensive and destructive project from moving forward. In fact,
thousands of people have contacted Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, as
well as their congressional representatives, over the last year to
voice their opposition to this boondoggle. Congressman Gene Taylor, who
represents Mississippi's 4th, the district that will be most impacted,
and Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi have also expressed significant
reservations with the project as currently conceived. It is heartening
to see that this proposed budget takes into account the public's input.
GRN strongly supports the cancellation of all previous funding for
the Richton project in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request
for the Department of Energy and we urge the Senate Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and its
members to support this portion of the proposed budget.
______

Prepared Statement of the US Fuel Cell Council and the National
Hydrogen Association
On behalf of the members of the fuel cell and hydrogen industries,
we thank you for consistently funding the Department of Energy's (DOE)
hydrogen and fuel cell technology programs. Fuel cell and hydrogen
technologies are a crucial part of the portfolio of advanced energy
technologies that will help achieve the Nation's oil and greenhouse gas
reduction goals. DOE and other supporting estimates show that domestic
hydrogen fuel cells in light duty vehicles, for instance, could reduce
oil imports by as much as 3.5 billion barrels per year within 40 years,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.1 billion tons per year, and save
consumers $25 trillion over the succeeding 50 years. These are key
public investments, and DOE's programs continue to advance the pace of
technology and bring down costs.
As the subcommittee develops the fiscal year 2011 Energy and Water
Appropriations recommendations, we urge you to provide $390 million for
the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies Programs managed by the Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Science, Fossil Energy (FE) and
Nuclear Energy (NE) organizations at the Department of Energy--a 23
percent increase vs. $316 million appropriated for 2010. This amount
would fully fund the critical research, development, demonstration and
deployment (RDD&D) of these advanced technologies in order to make them
competitive with the conventional ones they need to replace in cost,
reliability and performance, and respond to our industry's main
priority: deployment of early commercial systems and an advanced fuel
cell vehicle demonstration. A detailed list of our program priorities
and funding requirements are included in this testimony.
The fiscal year 2011 DOE request for EERE is $137 million, down $43
million (-24 percent) from the current 2010 Appropriation of $180.1
million (including last year's funded earmarks). These cuts propose
eliminating funding for market transformation for fuel cells in early
markets; education activities; and Federal purchase initiatives, while
curtailing all new vehicle deployments under the Technology Validation
program. DOE also chose to reduce the Fossil Energy coal to hydrogen
program by $5.8 million. Similarly, at a time when funding for the
Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) program should be
increased to support the megawatt-class demonstration effort, the DOE
request is flat. This budget sends a damaging message to our industry,
our Nation and the world, threatens to weaken U.S. leadership and
unbalances the Nation's energy portfolio.
More importantly, by making cuts to fuel cell and hydrogen
technology programs, especially early market deployment, hydrogen
infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles, and FE fuel cell research and
development, DOE is sending negative signals to investors,
manufacturers, auto makers, hydrogen gas suppliers, supply chain
partners, potential customers, and other Federal agencies, local, State
and foreign governments. The lead U.S. energy agency should fully
embrace fuel cells and hydrogen infrastructure as an integral component
of a comprehensive clean energy package to meet our national greenhouse
gas reduction targets. Even worse, hydrogen and fuel cell industries
could move offshore and the United States could lose as many as an
estimated 675,000 potential net, new jobs.
A robust public-private partnership, exemplified by DOE Technology
Validation programs focused on cost reduction and early deployment,
will accelerate commercialization and the benefits that accrue with
marketplace success.
strengthening federal hydrogen and fuel cell programs
Proposal.--Fund DOE Fuel Cell and Hydrogen programs at enhanced
historical levels; revise to reflect program success and current
priorities. Restore reductions proposed by the Obama administration for
fiscal year 2011.
EERE Programs--$220 Million
The hydrogen and fuel cell programs in the Department of Energy's
Hydrogen, Fuel Cell and Infrastructure Technologies Program support the
development of fuel cells, their fuels and supporting infrastructure.
The program has made exceptional progress in a few short years, helping
dramatically reduce the volume production cost of fuel cells and the
consumer cost of hydrogen fuel, testing and evaluating more than 125
fuel cell vehicles in real world operation (U.S.-wide, over 300
vehicles have driven 3 million miles), and helping deploy more than a
thousand fuel cell systems to Federal agencies and early private sector
adopters to improve energy efficiency and security of supply with low
or zero emissions.
Hydrogen and fuel cells have been a largely domestic suite of
technologies, and, over the past two decades, the United States has
continued to be the recognized leader in their development.
Indifference to encouraging commercialization allows other nations,
particularly Germany, South Korea, Japan, and China, to capture the
lead in establishing and commercializing these technologies, reaping
the economic benefits of associated job growth and export revenue. DOE
analysis projects that transitioning to a hydrogen economy would yield
a net increase in U.S. employment of 58,010 to 182,840 by 2020 and
184,560 to 677,070 by 2035.
Fuel cell technologies are a crucial part of the portfolio of
advanced energy technologies that will achieve the Nation's energy
policy and greenhouse gas reduction goals. DOE and other supporting
estimates show that domestic hydrogen fuel cells in light duty
vehicles, for instance, could reduce oil imports by as much as 3.5
billion barrels per year within 40 years, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 1.1 billion tons per year, and save consumers $25 trillion
over the succeeding 50 years.
Robust public-private partnerships focused on cost reduction and
early deployment will accelerate commercialization and the benefits
that accrue with marketplace success.
Vehicle and Infrastructure Market Deployment: $45 Million.--Support
for initial sales, backed by a real-world vehicle and fuel testing and
evaluation program, is essential to accelerating the transition to
commercial market. DOE should extend the Technology Validation program
for an additional year with technology insertion ($15 million), and
initiate a Vehicle and Infrastructure Market Deployment program. As
their Technology Validation program is winding down, DOE now needs to
evolve to support early market volumes of FCVs and related
infrastructure consistent with a commercial transition. DOE Proposal:
$11.0 million
Market Transformation: $45 Million.--The Market Transformation
Program provides technical and financial support for purchase or lease
of fuel cell systems entering the marketplace. The program creates U.S.
jobs, improves security of air travel and communications, and enables a
commercial transition in early markets. DOE supports the program but
has deferred funding--and thus deferred job creation--to 2012. DOE
should continue Market Transformation activities in all market sectors.
Congress should expand the program to include State agencies and
private sector customers and clarify that all fuel cell technologies
are eligible. DOE Proposal: $0.0
Fuel Cell R&D: $67 Million.--DOE's robust program of cost reduction
via research into materials, catalysts and components should continue.
Distributed fuel cells systems provide energy efficiency and security
benefits; DOE's program should continue. DOE Proposal: $67.0 million
Hydrogen Fuels R&D: $40 Million.--Hydrogen is one of a portfolio of
fuels that together will achieve U.S. energy security while meeting
greenhouse gas reduction goals. Improved hydrogen storage will reduce
vehicle cost and improve capability, and will enable efficient use of
hydrogen as a storage strategy for intermittent renewable resources,
such as wind and solar power. Hydrogen from biomass uses a renewable
domestic energy source and provides greater greenhouse gas reductions
than biofuel combustion. DOE Proposal: $40.0 million
Enabling Activities: $18 Million.--These programs prepare local
communities for fuel cell installations, fueling stations and fuel cell
vehicles, and help DOE evaluate program options.
--Systems Analysis gives DOE tools to evaluate the program and
calculate public benefits. ($5 million)
--Safety, Codes and Standards development sets safety rules and
product standardization guidelines, and trains local
enforcement officials and first responders. ($9 million)
--Education informs the public and potential customers about these
technologies to break down awareness barriers. ($2 million) DOE
Proposal: $14.0 million.
Manufacturing Research: $10 Million.--Improvements in manufacturing
are a critical component in cost reduction; DOE's program should
continue and expand. DOE Proposal: $5.0 million
--Paying for These Enhancements Within the EERE Program.--Program
Direction (+43 percent) and Program Support (+94 percent) enjoy
large gains that go far beyond any associated subprogram level
of effort increases--totaling +55 percent over fiscal year
2010, at $287.3 million (vs +5 percent for EERE generally).
These funds are generally rather loosely programmed, leaving
generous margins for unnamed discretionary spending. They have
not been as carefully explained as other program elements. Some
of their expected functions might be more explicitly included
within definite program areas--for example, technology
advancement, commercialization and market development. We also
believe that the next stage of the H-Prize should see modest
funding from these allocations.
Fossil Energy Programs: $118.8 Million
SECA Program: $70 Million.--The Solid State Energy Conversion
Alliance (SECA) is a cost shared public-private partnership developing
high temperature Solid Oxide fuel cells for power generation. SECA's
development targets to date have been met ahead of schedule, but
continued support is needed to move to the megawatt scale demonstration
phase. Commercial Solid Oxide fuel cells will make possible a 60
percent efficient coal fired power plant and kilowatt-scale solid oxide
fuel cell modules for grid-independent distributed generation.
Additionally, it will make it easier and cheaper to sequester
CO2 from coal. Fully funding the SECA program at $70 million
would assure continued progress and save jobs threatened by the
administration's proposal. DOE Proposal: $50.0 million
Fuels--Hydrogen from Coal Research: $17.8 Million.--The Fuels
activity helps reduce technological market barriers for the reliable,
efficient and environmentally friendly conversion of coal to hydrogen.
This specifically focuses on developing technologies that reduce costs
and facilitate the production of ultra high-purity hydrogen from coal.
Research for both stationary and transportation applications should
continue. DOE Proposal: $12.0 million
Hydrogen Turbines: $31.0 Million.--Hydrogen turbine development
efforts implement projects that will enable efficient, clean, and cost
effective hydrogen fueled turbines for coal-based integrated
gasification combined cycle power systems that capture and store
CO2. DOE program should continue. DOE Proposal: $31.0
million
Nuclear Energy Programs: $8.5 Million
Advanced Reactor Concepts: $8.5 Million.--The Advanced Reactor
Concepts program, an expanded version of the Generation IV research and
development (R&D) program, sponsors research and development for
further safety, technical, economical, and environmental advancements
of innovative nuclear energy technologies. Specific guidance
encouraging DOE to continue R&D on High Temperature Electrolysis and
thermochemical cycles from the former Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative
should be included. DOE Proposal: $0.0
Science Programs: $38 Million
The Office of Science includes funding for a variety of important
materials activities with applications for hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies, and which is spread between a number of Science program
areas. DOE Proposal: $38 million

Total fiscal year 2011 Proposed: $390 million
Total fiscal year 2011 DOE Request: $268 million
Total fiscal year 2010 appropriation: $316 million

Further Background.--The national German industry agreements across
manufacturers, energy suppliers and utilities have set the stage for
wide public-private cooperation that could be readily adopted by the
United States, and clearly illustrates the pace of how fuel cell
vehicle and fueling infrastructure rollout can be solved. Similar
efforts are underway in Japan and Korea, and will soon evolve in China.
Moreover, the South Korean Government, through the adoption of targeted
sliding subsidies, has jumped to the lead in the deployment of
stationary CHP and residential fuel cells, which will decrease costs
while drastically increasing fuel efficiency and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. A link to a government and industry webinar from
February 17, 2010 is http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/webinar/
17feb10.asp
A Senate briefing from March 5, 2010 also included a review from
GM, Daimler and Linde, all participants in the German agreements.
Presentations can be found at http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/
policy/briefing_5mar10.asp.
______

Prepared Statement of NuScale Power, Inc.
Dear Mr. Chairman and ranking member: On behalf of NuScale Power of
Corvallis, Oregon we request that the subcommittee approve the
President's budget request of $38.8 million for small, modular reactors
within the Office of Advanced Reactor Research Development and
Demonstration. Our request is directed at both the research portion for
advanced SMR's and especially the commercialization cost-share portion
for up to two light water reactor SMR's designs.
It is also our request that language be included to clarify that
Government-industry cost-sharing include but not be limited to NRC fees
and other related work activities leading to the submission of a Design
Certification Document to the NRC. This later clarification is
consistent with other previous Government-industry cost shared
programs. We would be happy to discuss ways to control the taxpayer's
long-term financial commitment to such a program for SMR's.
The President has recognized the need for nuclear power as part of
a comprehensive energy, environment and employment strategy for this
country, including new financial incentives. The specific request for
funding of small, modular reactors reflects the opportunity these new,
innovative plant designs offer to strengthen our ability to achieve
those goals. Small, modular reactor technologies build on a rich
history of American innovation and world class nuclear design and
operations. In particular, they will expand the potential market for
new nuclear plants by reaching smaller markets, and they would do so
while minimizing the magnitude of the financial challenge posed by
larger nuclear plant designs.
The NuScale design was originally developed by Oregon State
University, working with Idaho National Laboratory and Nexant-Bechtel,
as part of a Department of Energy funded research program and validates
the effectiveness of such programs in bringing new technologies to the
market. In addition to developing the design, this program funded the
development of a one-third scale ``test facility'' at Oregon State
University, uniquely positioning the NuScale technology for licensing.
NuScale Power is a privately funded company which was formed in 2007
for the sole purpose of commercializing this design under a Technology
Transfer Agreement with Oregon State University.
Much has been accomplished already in this ambitious undertaking:
--Some 30 highly-skilled engineers and contractors now work for
NuScale and as many more work for the company under contract
with U.S. companies. We expect to triple that number in the
next 12-18 months.
--Two separate panels of independent experts have evaluated the
safety of the NuScale plant and their conclusions have been
confirmed by a Level 1 Probabilistic Risk Assessment. These
results were presented to the NRC in September 2009 and showed
NuScale has achieved a safety margin that is exponentially
greater than the already large margins of existing nuclear
power plants.
--In 2008, NuScale organized a Customer Advisory Board with senior
executives representing five major utilities in the United
States. In February 2009, one of those companies, Energy
Northwest, entered a Memorandum of Understanding with NuScale
to explore the siting of a NuScale plant in their system.
--In a report prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute,
NuScale was identified as the first small, modular reactor
vendor to fully vet a Customer Requirements Document with its
potential customers. In NRC parlance this means NuScale is
already working with customers to make its plant ``market
ready.''
All these efforts to date have been funded by private investments.
Notwithstanding these encouraging developments, significant financial
barriers remain before this technology can reach the market. The costs
to prepare and submit an application for design certification and the
subsequent costs for NRC review can be daunting and pose financial
challenges that are increasingly difficult in the current economic
climate. Customers too are concerned about the incremental costs of
first of a kind investment. We are encouraged that the independent
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff--with the support of all three
newly appointed Commissioners--is preparing for the submission of new
SMR designs in the coming years in order to conduct the proper public
safety evaluation, design and operating licensing certification. But if
America is to maintain its place in the global market, and if the full
potential of this new technology is to impact the domestic market in
support of the President's energy goals, the cost-sharing proposal in
the current budget request would make a vital difference.
Yes, much has been accomplished. And yes, there is much work yet to
be done. We ask for your support in these efforts.
______

Prepared Statement of the Coalition for the Commercial Application of
Superconductors (CCAS)
CCAS respectfully requests that $45 million be included as a line
item for High Temperature Superconductivity R&D in the fiscal year 2011
budget for the Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability.
The President's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget for the DOE Office
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OEDER) contains a
greatly reduced budget for High Temperature Superconductivity (HTS) of
$4,860,000 under the label Advanced Cables and Conductors. Further, the
intent is to eliminate all spending on HTS R&D and demonstrations in
fiscal year 2012.
Since its inception in 1988, the HTS program has enjoyed the
strong, bipartisan support of Congress. Substantial progress toward
commercialization has been achieved. Over this period, American
taxpayers have made a major investment, alongside private capital, to
ensure that the dramatic HTS materials discoveries made in the United
States in the late 1980s are translated into beneficial products for
United States consumers. We have also supported this investment to
ensure a strong U.S. position in an emerging, very large, globally
competitive field involving multiple applications and the concomitant
high quality research and manufacturing jobs that will be realized.
HTS is a game changing development for energy generation,
transmission and distribution for the 21st century and many thousands
of high quality research and manufacturing jobs hang in the balance.
While the United States still leads the world in HTS R&D and pre-
commercial demonstrations, the leadership position in this critical
technology has eroded substantially over the past 5 years as many
foreign governments, particularly Korea, China, Japan, and Europe are
increasing their support for HTS R&D as they realize the large number
of jobs and the export value of the high tech products that potential
leadership will bring.
HTS R&D has brought the technology from a laboratory materials
discovery in Houston in 1987 to pre-commercial demonstration insertions
in the U.S. electric power grid. Benefits are a 60-70 percent reduction
in resistive power losses versus any other conductor; substantial
reduction in right-of-way requirements; extremely high power
transmission capability at reduced voltages; improved aesthetics and
security from underground cable location; and a major reduction in
carbon footprint from greatly improved power transmission and
distribution efficiency. HTS R&D is also bringing major size and weight
benefits to transformers and generators and creating unique
opportunities to limit the spread of fault currents and attendant grid
system blackouts thereby enabling a smarter transmission and
distribution grid. These developmental products are at the prototype
demonstration stage. The HTS R&D conducted in OEDER has also
underpinned advances in superconductor wire development that are being
used in other applications. Examples are a degaussing system for the
Navy, now being tested at sea as a means to reduce or eliminate the
magnetic signature of ships making them invisible to mines; and a full
size HTS electric ship drive motor also under evaluation by the Navy at
the Philadelphia shipyard. Both of these products effect a 50 percent
reduction in both size and weight versus conventional approaches, gains
typical of superconductor based products. In science, HTS is the only
way in which to achieve higher magnetic field strength essential to
advance today's accelerator and collider technology. This high magnetic
field capability is equally applicable to advances in NMR and MRI for
scientific and medical research. For more information: www.ccas-
web.org.
The United States is in an international race to commercialize HTS
wire and cable applications for the power grid. Now is not the time to
cut HTS R&D funding when the technology is just a few years from large
scale commercialization. The fledgling industry cannot afford to bear
the total cost of development at this time, which makes U.S. Government
support essential. The $45 million annually over the next few years is
needed to ensure an internationally competitive position for the United
States in a technology, invented and largely developed here, that will
be a major commercial jobs creator with attendant benefits for national
security. Funding of demonstration projects within DOE has typically
been allocated on a competitively bid, cost share basis.
CCAS is a U.S. non-profit organization and members are involved in
the end-use, manufacture, development and research of superconductor
based systems, products and related technologies. Members comprise
large and small corporations, research institutions, National
Laboratories and universities with operations in most States.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Giudice of
Massachusetts and chair of the National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO). NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of
funding for a variety of U.S. Department of Energy programs.
Specifically, we are testifying in support of no less than $125 million
for the State Energy Program (SEP), which is equal to the
authorization. SEP is the most successful program operated by DOE in
this area. This should be base program funding, with no competitive
portion. SEP is focused on direct energy project development, where
most of the resources are expended. SEP has set a standard for State-
Federal cooperation and matching funds to achieve critical Federal and
State energy goals. We also support $300 million for the Weatherization
Assistance Program (WAP). These programs are successful and have a
strong record of delivering savings to low-income Americans,
homeowners, businesses, and industry. We also support an increase in
the budget for the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to $145
million, including an increase for EIA's State Heating Oil and Propane
Program, in order to cover the added costs of increasing the frequency
of information collection, the addition of natural gas, and increasing
the number of State participants. EIA's state-by-state data is very
helpful. EIA funding is a critical piece of energy emergency
preparedness and response, and there are significant new EIA
responsibilities under the Energy Independence Security Act of 2007
(``EISA''). EIA conducted a study of their capabilities and resources
under section 805 of EISA, and this study supports increased funding.
NASEO continues to support funding for a variety of critical buildings
programs, including Building Codes Training and Assistance, Energy
Star, the commercial buildings initiative, residential energy
efficiency and Building America, at a level of $257 million in fiscal
year 2011. NASEO also supports base funding (in addition to any
congressionally-directed projects) for the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability (``OE''), at least at the fiscal year
2011 request of $186 million. Specific funding should be provided for
the Division of Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration of no
less than $18 million, which funds critical energy assurance
activities. We also strongly support the R&D function and Operations
and Analysis function within OE. The industries program should be
funded at a $150 million level to promote efficiency efforts and to
maintain U.S. manufacturing jobs, especially in light of the loss of
millions of these jobs in recent years. Additionally funding should be
provided to support sections 451 and 453 of EISA, relating to combined
heat and power and other waste heat recovery programs.
Formula SEP funding provides a basis for States to share best
practices among themselves. These best practices (even without stimulus
funds) allow States to get a great deal accomplished. These types of
activities include revolving loans, utility-based programs, energy
service performance contracts, etc.
In January 2003, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) completed a
study and concluded, ``The impressive savings and emissions reductions
numbers, ratios of savings to funding, and payback periods . . .
indicate that the State Energy Program is operating effectively and is
having a substantial positive impact on the Nation's energy
situation.'' ORNL updated that study and found that $1 in SEP funding
yields: (1) $7.22 in annual energy cost savings; (2) $10.71 in
leveraged funding from the States and private sector in 18 types of
project areas; (3) annual energy savings of 47,593,409 million source
BTUs; and (4) annual cost savings of $333,623,619. The annual cost-
effective emissions reductions associated with the energy savings are
equally significant: (1) Carbon--826,049 metric tons; (2) VOCs--135.8
metric tons; (3) NOX--6,211 metric tons; (4) fine
particulate matter (PM10)--160 metric tons; (5) SO2--8,491 metric tons;
and (6) CO--1,000 metric tons. The energy cost savings is much higher
today, in light of higher prices.
stimulus funding implementation
We want to thank the subcommittee for the tremendous support
provided in the stimulus package for a variety of State and local
funding initiatives, including $3.1 billion for the State Energy
Program, $5 billion for the Weatherization Program, $3.2 billion for
the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant and $300 million for
the Energy Star appliance rebate program, etc.
This is a major task. We are working closely with the Department of
Energy's, Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy Division (Cathy Zoi), the
Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs (Claire
Johnson), Matt Rogers in the DOE Secretary's office, NETL and Golden,
the DOE General Counsel (Scott Harris), to implement these programs as
quickly as possible. We have had regular calls with all the State
energy officials to address implementation questions. We have also had
a series of regional conference calls among the States, and we have
seven regional coordinators helping to share ``best practices'' among
the States. NASEO is cooperating with the other State and local
organizations to share best practices and provide information to
officials at all levels of government in order to more effectively
coordinate this effort. We are convinced that these funds are helping
to engineer major positive changes in the U.S. economy and as the
economy rebounds this will help create ``Green Jobs'' and major energy
improvements that will improve all sectors of the economy.
NASEO believes it is important to maintain base levels of
appropriations for critical programs, such as SEP and Weatherization,
in order to avoid a huge decrease in funding after a rapid stimulus
increase.
With respect to ARRA spending for SEP, of the $3.1 billion
appropriated, over $1 billion is now under contract and work is being
implemented. Another $1 billion has been committed to projects,
including awards. We expect the remainder to move quickly. We and DOE
are working through the barriers that slowed spending, including NEPA
compliance, Davis-Bacon wage rates, Buy-American clauses, historic
preservation, lead paint requirements and general procurement issues.
It is important to stress that the key figures are the ``commitment''
and ``contracted'' amounts, because that is when people get hired and
work commences. States generally do not pay until projects are actually
completed and milestones are met. We do not pay-up front in most cases.
In economics jargon, the Federal spending figure is actually a lagging
indicator.
Industrial Energy Program.--A funding increase to a level of $150
million for the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) is warranted.
This is a public-private partnership in which industry and the States
work with DOE to jointly fund cutting-edge research in the energy area.
The results have been reduced energy consumption, reduced environmental
impacts and increased competitive advantage of manufacturers (which is
more than one-third of U.S. energy use). The States play a major role
working with industry and DOE in the program to ensure economic
development in our States and to try to ensure that domestic jobs are
preserved. State energy offices are working effectively with DOE on the
``Save Energy Now'' campaign. Funding for distributed generation and
specific funding for sections 451 (including the Clean Energy
Applications Centers) and 453 of EISA is critical and should be
included above the $150 million proposal.
Examples of Successful State Energy Program Activities.--The States
have implemented thousands of projects. We have previously supplied to
subcommittee staff examples of programs implemented under ARRA. Here
are a few representative examples.
Alabama.--The State has dedicated $25 million for an energy
revolving loan fund for business and industry, and has dedicated $5
million for energy efficient school retrofit grants.
California.--The State has committed to a comprehensive residential
building retrofit program, retrofits for municipal and commercial
buildings, a finance program for municipalities, State building
retrofits through revolving loans ($25 million), clean energy business
financing, low-interest loans for local governments and ``Green Jobs''
workforce training ($20 million), etc.
Hawaii.--This State is focused on energy efficiency and renewable
energy projects intending to supplement existing efforts. For example,
promotion of Energy Star upgrades for hotels, technical assistance to
develop green buildings and other energy efficient buildings, have been
two major projects. Funds have supplemented the public benefits
program, the county energy efficiency efforts and alternative fuel
efforts.
Iowa.--This State has committed substantial funding to municipal
energy efficiency projects and green jobs initiatives. They have also
instituted an energy loan program. Funding has supplemented programs
and projects conducted under the $100 million Iowa Power Fund.
Kentucky.--$14 million has been dedicated to the Green Bank of
Kentucky for energy efficiency financing for public buildings by
utilizing revolving loans. In addition, funds were provided for an
advanced energy efficient battery initiative, commercial office
building energy efficiency retrofits, industrial facility energy
efficiency retrofits, Home Performance with Energy Star, utility smart
grid activities and $10 million for energy efficiency in K-12 schools.
Louisiana.--$25.7 million has been committed to energy efficiency
retrofits in higher education buildings, $15.7 million is dedicated to
retrofits of commercial buildings and energy efficiency for new and
existing homes, and $10 million has been committed to renewable energy
development.
Mississippi.--$17 million was dedicated for energy efficient public
buildings, including retrofits, performance contracting and building
energy codes and $10 million was allocated for renewable energy
projects, smart meters on public facilities and support for community
college workforce training. An additional $10 million was slated for
businesses to implement energy efficiency or renewable energy upgrades.
Missouri.--This State's extensive residential energy efficiency
program is providing loans, grants and rebates to homeowners to install
energy efficiency measures. Funding has also been provided to train
residential energy auditors. They have also initiated an industrial and
manufacturing energy efficiency initiative, as well as an agricultural
energy program.
Montana.--$22.3 million has been allocated to State universities,
community colleges and other State facilities for energy efficiency
projects; 87 projects are underway. A revolving loan program has been
set up for homeowners and small businesses to install alternative
energy systems. Additional funds have been dedicated to renewable
energy demonstration projects.
New Jersey.--$7 million has been committed to fund solar
installations on multi-family buildings, $4 million for residential
energy efficiency financing, $4 million for multi-family energy
efficiency loans, $17 million for municipal energy efficiency
incentives, $6 million for State building energy efficiency and an
additional $15 million for grants and loans for energy efficiency and
renewable energy applications.
North Dakota.--The State instituted a high efficiency furnace
rebate program to help victims of the 2009 spring floods. The State
also instituted a statewide energy efficiency and renewable energy
rebate program in partnership with rural electric cooperatives,
municipally-owned utilities and the investor-owned utilities. Projects
have included blender pumps for retailers (e.g. West Fargo, Minot,
Grand Forks, Edgeley, Wyndmere and Bowman) and flare gas electricity
generation (Williams County).
Ohio.--$42.6 million has been allocated for a variety of renewable
energy activities, including manufacturing, waste-to-energy and
biofuels, $8 million has been dedicated to energy efficiency and
geothermal for new and existing buildings, $30 million is capitalizing
a revolving loan program for all sectors, and $15 million is committed
to energy efficiency for industry.
Rhode Island.--Funds have been provided for a green building
initiative in State facilities, a commercial/industrial energy
efficiency initiative, building code upgrades and energy efficient
transportation, $8.4 million has been allocated for renewable energy
loans, $2.3 million has been allocated for a residential energy
efficiency initiative with approximately $7.5 million in leveraged
funds projected. Larger (utility scale) renewable projects received $5
million.
South Dakota.--$20.5 million has been dedicated to a State
revolving loan for public buildings, with $3 million for a limited
number of grants. Activities include energy efficiency retrofits, LEED
ratings, on site generation, etc.
Tennessee.--This State has committed its resources to three major
solar initiatives including a solar and economic development program,
creating a Tennessee Solar Institute at ORNL and creating a large solar
farm.
Texas.--$137.8 million has been allocated for public sector
building energy efficiency, including revolving loans for schools,
hospitals, municipalities, public colleges, etc. and $52 million has
been allocated for a competitive renewable energy grant program. Energy
sector training projects have been granted to junior colleges and
technical institutes. Transportation efficiency programs have also been
funded.
Utah.--Funds have been allocated for residential and commercial
energy training, advanced energy efficiency for buildings, whole home
audit programs, builder rebates for high performance home building,
direct installation for insulation, energy efficiency in State
buildings, grants for energy efficiency in public schools, revolving
loans for public schools and competitive grants for highly innovative
energy efficiency projects. Renewable energy projects for State-owned
buildings and public schools have also been funded. The $10 million in
loans for State agencies is projected to leverage $60 million in other
funds.
Washington.--Approximately $20 million was allocated for a energy
efficiency and renewable energy loan and grant program. Over 10 times
the amount of available funds was requested by potential recipients.
Additional funding of $5 million was provided for energy efficiency
credit enhancements (supporting $50 million in total project
expenditures). Funding was also allocated for energy efficiency in
agricultural uses and community wide residential and commercial energy
efficiency pilots received $14 million in grants.
West Virginia.--Almost $13 million has been dedicated to energy
efficiency projects in higher education buildings and K-12 schools.
State buildings also received funds for energy efficiency projects. A
green collar jobs training program was also initiated.
______

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 2011 budget request for research and development (R&D)
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, some of which have become de
facto global technical standards. The Energy Committee of ASME's
Technical Communities comprises 40 members from 17 Divisions of ASME,
representing approximately 40,000 of ASME's members.
ASME has long advocated a balanced mix of energy supplies to meet
the Nation's energy needs, including advanced clean coal, petroleum,
nuclear, natural gas, waste to energy, biomass, solar, wind and
hydroelectric power. ASME also supports energy efficient building and
transportation technologies, as well as transmission and distribution
infrastructure sufficient to satisfy demand under reasonably
foreseeable contingencies. Only such a portfolio will allow the United
States to maintain its quality of life while addressing future
environmental and security challenges. Sustained growth in the energy
systems on which the United States depends will also require stability
in licensing and permitting processes not only for power generating
stations but also for transmission and transportation systems.
A forward-looking energy policy will require enhanced and 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 2011 budget request, especially the
increases in funding for fundamental scientific research. The Energy
Committee also wishes to emphasize that a balanced approach to our
energy needs is critical and that we remain concerned about the
decrease in funding for fossil energy, which is essential to meeting
our national energy needs now and in the future.
critical issues
The Energy Committee would like to point out some critical energy
issues:
--Additional investment guarantees for construction of new electrical
capacity, especially nuclear facilities, must be enacted in
future legislation. These guarantees will enable lower
financing costs for a variety of energy technologies and fuel
sources that will be available 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. It is critical that
non-biased, critical analysis of known potential energy/
environmental/technical benefits and impacts drive allocation.
These must consider capacity value (reliable contribution to
load trends) of resources as well as capacity factor, and also
losses from proximity or remoteness from load. These additions
translate to much more efficient use of subsidy dollars.
--There is a critical shortage of trained personnel in the workforce
at all levels. This includes scientists and engineers who will
conduct research, those who will operate and maintain the
systems, as well as people in building trades that will be
essential for the construction of our energy systems and in
industry that will manufacture the components. ``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. We would like to see this program honored
in fiscal year 2011.
fossil energy
The fiscal year 2010 budget request of $760 million for fossil
energy represents a $190 million decrease over the fiscal year 2010
appropriation; a 20 percent decrease over the fiscal year 2010 budget
request. Fossil Energy Research and Development would be reduced by $85
million to $586 million; however, much of this is covered by stimulus
funding in the near term. Funding for Natural Gas Technologies and for
Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies would be eliminated. The
budget for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be suspended. The
Energy Committee encourages funding for coal research programs and
urges a restoration to at least the levels appropriated for fiscal year
2010 in future years when the stimulus funding has been expended. The
effective use of coal in today's environment demands an increase in
efficiency and a decrease in release of environmentally harmful waste
streams. Coal remains a critical resource for our Nation and its
economy; however, and we must continue to invest in technological
advancements that will reduce emissions for this energy. The use of
more efficient processes for coal combustion, such as advanced
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) 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 research projects agency-energy (arpa-e)
The Energy Committee supports the $300 million budget request for
the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). This is a
worthwhile endeavor for the DOE as we seek to accomplish technological
breakthroughs in energy technology.
nuclear energy
The Energy Committee is pleased to see an overall increase in the
DOE Nuclear Energy budget to $912 million in fiscal year 2011, a $42
million increase over the fiscal year 2010 appropriated amount.
However, the Energy Committee is discouraged at the discontinuation of
the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems program. The Energy Committee
is curious to see how the proposed Reactor Concepts RD&D program
distinguishes itself from the traditional R&D program under the Office
of Nuclear Energy. Nuclear energy, as a low-carbon, 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 reliable, low cost, low emissions electricity.
Before its cessation in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations
bill, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program was a vital
means to enhancing the future of safe, reliable, nuclear power 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 $201 million in funding in fiscal year 2011, a
$65 million increase. The ASME Energy Committee remains hopeful that
the administration, with the aid of Congress, will eventually
reconsider the discontinuation of GNEP, which continues to exist as an
international collaborative effort, but minus U.S. participation.
energy efficiency and renewable energy
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) manages
America's investment in research, development and deployment of DOE's
diverse energy efficiency and renewable energy applied science
portfolio. The fiscal year 2011 request of $2.35 billion, $112 million
above the fiscal year 2010 appropriated amount, provides a broad and
balanced set of approaches 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. The Energy Committee encourages Congress to include
waste-to-energy as an important component of the Country's Renewable
Energy portfolio to provide it with the same benefits as energy from
biomass.
The RE-ENERGYSE program is slated to receive $50 million as part of
the fiscal year 2011 request. Facing a deficit of engineers in the
United States, the Energy Committee believes that this could be an
effective step toward replenishing our Nation's workforce by
encouraging young people to pursue science and engineering. Therefore,
the Energy Committee strongly supports full funding for the RE-ENERGYSE
program, something that did not receive funding for the fiscal year
2010 appropriation.
The Energy Committee believes 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 2011 budget
for biomass and bio-refinery systems R&D is slated to receive no
increase at $220 million for fiscal year 2011, identical to the fiscal
year 2010 appropriated amount. It should be noted that this program did
receive $777 million as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (Public Law 111-5). Therefore, the Energy Committee supports the
current appropriation and encourages Congress to ensure that these
research programs continue to receive adequate funding. We are also
pleased to see the $325 million increase in the effort related to
vehicle technologies emphasizing plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
The integration of all cost effective electric generating
technologies into the operation of the electricity distribution system
is critical to economic operation of the national electric grid. The
Energy Committee believes that R&D related to the integration of the
electric grid and its control as a truly national system is imperative
for the growth of effective and economic energy generation 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 (Public Law 109-69). The fiscal
year 2011 budget proposal of $5.12 billion is an increase of $217
million over the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. OS programs in high
energy physics, fusion energy sciences, biological and environmental
research, basic energy sciences, and advanced scientific computing,
serve, in some small way, every student in the country. These funds
support not only research at the DOE Laboratories, but also the 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 and other next-
generation biofuels, advanced battery and energy storage systems, and
fusion. The Energy Committee strongly supports the budget request for
the Office of Science, as well as the proposed doubling track for the
office by fiscal year 2017.
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 research area. The Energy Committee
questions the advisability of flat funding for the Environmental
Management program. The Yucca Mountain Waste Repository is a critical
part of the environmental cleanup activity. Termination of this project
will only extend and increase the final cost of the environmental
management program. The energy committee does not support this backward
step. 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 funds 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
range 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 requests for additional information
or perspectives on other aspects of our Nation's energy programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
I am writing to you as a marine biologist with over 40 years of
experience in fisheries science. I would like to share my concerns with
you about the proposed plans to construct an expansion site for the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) at Richton in Perry County,
Mississippi.
The Richton Site differs from DOE's four existing Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR) sites located in other States and these
differences were not adequately addressed in the original Environmental
Impact statement. The Richton project is the first SPR to place the
brine diffuser in a marine environment near a barrier island pass and
the use of diffusion models designed for other locations to explain
circulation processes in Mississippi waters is totally inappropriate
and not based on ``sound science''. The physiography of the Mississippi
Bight and circulation patterns within this region are unique. There are
serious concerns that the Pascagoula River Basin will suffer as a
result of the project's withdrawal of 50 million gallons of water per
day for a period of 5 to 6 years concurrent with the daily diffusion of
42 million gallons of toxic salt brine (236 ppt) waste at a discharge
site south of Horn Island Pass. This site is directly in line with the
Pascagoula Ship Channel and may serve as a conduit for movement of
brine northward. Based on the best available oceanographic models for
the area, there is the probability that the brine will not diffuse as
it does in other areas, but will actually enter the Mississippi Sound
with a component of the discharge moving westward along the south side
of the barrier islands toward the Chandeleur Islands in Louisiana. This
would create a ``brine pool'' within the Sound and would establish a
``brine barrier'' across the island passes. Mississippi's barrier
island passes are key corridors for the transport of larvae and
postlarvae of economically important fish and shellfish to and from the
Mississippi Sound and the effect of a ``brine barrier'' on these
fragile life stages may be catastrophic.
The Pascagoula River is the largest unaltered, undammed river
system in the United States and is considered a ``Natural Treasure''.
There is concern that salt water intrusion resulting from the vast
discharge of brine south of Horn Island Pass coupled with decreased
freshwater flow may alter coastal ecosystems and impact rare,
threatened, and endangered species (14 listed by the Mississippi
Department of Marine Resources). Mississippi is dependent on its water
resources and wetlands to maintain commercial and recreational
fisheries and protection of these natural resources is a priority for
the people of Mississippi.
______

Prepared Statement of Energy Northwest
Energy Northwest is writing to express its support for the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget request of $38.9 million for the
Department of Energy's small, modular nuclear reactor (SMR) program.
This funding will help avoid delays in the Federal licensing by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for such projects.
The President's budget request would support public/private
partnerships to advance mature SMR designs, and research, development
and demonstration of innovative SMR technologies and concepts.
Energy Northwest is a joint operating agency headquartered in
Richland, Washington and comprised of 28 publicly owned utilities from
across Washington State. The agency owns and operates four electric
generating plants: Columbia Generating Station (nuclear power plant),
Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Nine Canyon Wind Project and White
Bluffs Solar Station. As part of Energy Northwest's evaluation of
options for meeting future wholesale power supply needs of its members,
the concept of building a small reactor that could be grouped with
other modules to meet future load group is currently being studied.
At a time when the United States is charting an energy course to
increase national energy security and promote greater development of
low- or no-carbon emission resources, SMRs hold great promise.
Potential benefits of SMRs include providing utilities greater
flexibility in terms of capital investment, financing, siting and
sizing.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these views.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
and other State and locally owned utilities throughout the United
States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver
electricity to 1 of every 7 electric consumers (approximately 45
million people). We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement
outlining our fiscal year 2011 funding priorities within the Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI).--APPA requests $5
million for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI). The
Department of Energy's REPI program was created in 1992's Energy Policy
Act (EPAct) as a counterpart to the renewable energy production tax
credits made available to for-profit utilities, and was reauthorized
through 2016 in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05). EPAct05
authorizes DOE to make direct payments to not-for-profit public power
systems and rural electric cooperatives at the rate of 1.5 cents per
kWh (1.9 cents when adjusted for inflation) from electricity generated
from a variety of renewable projects. While the program had been zeroed
out in recent years by the Bush and Obama administrations, Congress has
consistently restored funding at $5 million until last year. In fiscal
year 2010, the REPI program received no funding. As Congress works
toward adopting a Federal renewable portfolio standard and a climate
change mitigation program, REPI becomes increasingly more important to
not-for-profit utilities. Several non-profit utilities that have been
relying on the program to help fund renewable programs, have been
abandoned by the lack of funding. While the demand for the program is
truly $25 million, $5 million would restore funding.
power marketing administrations (pma's)
Power Marketing Administration Proposals.--In past years, various
measures have been proposed for all four PMAs that would have had the
effect of raising the rates for PMA customers. We appreciate that the
fiscal year 2011 request does not include these types of proposals.
Purchase Power and Wheeling.--We urge the subcommittee to authorize
appropriate levels for use of receipts so that the Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA), the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) and
the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) can continue to purchase
and wheel electric power to their municipal and rural electric
cooperative customers. Although appropriations are no longer needed to
initiate the purchase power and wheeling (PP&W) process, the
subcommittee continues to establish ceilings on the use of receipts for
this important function. The PP&W arrangement is effective, has no
impact on the Federal budget, and is supported by the PMA customers who
pay the costs. We support an increase over the funding levels of the
administration's budget for fiscal year 2011, which are as follows:
$553.6 million for Western Area Power Administration (WAPA); $88.6
million for Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA); and $49 million
for Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA).
Storage for High-level Nuclear Waste.--APPA is disappointed in the
administration's lack of support for the Department of Energy used
nuclear fuel management program. However, we support efforts by the
administration to study alternatives to Yucca Mountain and request a
funding level of $340 million for the Office of Radioactive Waste
Management at the Department of Energy.
Nuclear Loan Guarantees.--APPA is pleased with the administration's
request of $54.5 billion for DOE Loan Guarantees for Innovative Energy
Technology and encourages the subcommittee to maintain this level of
funding.
Department of Energy Waterpower Program.--APPA requests $100
million for fiscal year 2011 for the DOE's Waterpower Program. At a
time when utilities around our country must focus on finding carbon-
free sources of energy, the importance of hydropower research and
development is more important than ever before. Not only is hydropower
a renewable resource, but it can be used as baseload generation to back
up more intermittent renewables such as wind and solar power.
Energy Conservation.--APPA appreciates the funding increases for
energy efficiency programs provided in the President's budget. The
budget funding levels for fiscal year 2011 are as follows: Building
Technologies--$231 million; Industrial Technologies--$100 million;
Federal Energy Management Program--$42 million; and Vehicle
Technologies--$325 million. We urge the subcommittee to maintain these
funding levels. We however encourage the subcommittee to increase
funding for the EPA ENERGY STAR program over the requested amount of
$55.4 million.
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.--We are pleased
that the administration has requested $385 million for the
Weatherization program in fiscal year 2011, a 30 percent increase from
fiscal year 2010 and we encourage the subcommittee to maintain that
level of funding.
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) and FutureGen.--APPA is
disappointed that the budget did not include funding for large scale
commercial applications of carbon capture and sequestration technology.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) included $800 million
for the CCPI Round 3 program and we encourage the subcommittee to
include funding for a CCPI round 4 program. Funding for FutureGen was
made available in the ARRA. APPA strongly believes as concerns grow
over climate change and the effects of man-made emissions from
combustion of fossil fuels, the FutureGen project will be critical in
nearing us to the goal of the world's first near-zero-emissions coal
fired plant. We urge the subcommittee and the Congress to work with the
administration on finding an appropriate role and funding level for the
FutureGen project.
Fuel Cells.--APPA was disappointed with the funding request of $50
million for fiscal year 2011 for fuel cell related research and
development. This is a 7 percent decrease from fiscal year 2010 levels.
We urge the subcommittee to allocate additional funding for this
program for fiscal year 2011.
Fuels and Power Systems.--We recommend these funding levels for the
following programs: Innovations for Existing Plants--increase from $65
million to $84 million; Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle--increase from $55 million to $80 million; Turbines--increase
from $31 million to $45 million; Carbon Sequestration--increased from
$143 million to $150 million; Fuels--support the President's request;
Advanced Research--support President's request of $48 million.
Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program.--APPA supports full
funding for the Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program at its
full authorized funding level of $15 million. The purpose of the
program is to provide electric power to the estimated 18,000 occupied
structures in the Navajo Nation that lack electric power. This program
has been consistently underfunded.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).--The fiscal year 2011
budget requests $315 million for FERC, an increase over fiscal year
2010 levels. APPA supports this increase.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America and the Soil Science Society of America
The American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America,
and Soil Science Society of America (ASA-CSSA-SSSA) are pleased to
submit the following funding recommendations for the Department of
Energy for fiscal year 2011. For the Office of Science, ASA, CSSA, and
SSSA recommend a funding level of $4.9 billion, a 10 percent increase
over fiscal year 2010 ($4.47 billion). For the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, we recommend a funding level of $2.4
billion, a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2010. Specifics for each
of these and other budget areas follow below.
With more than 25,000 members and practicing professionals, ASA-
CSSA-SSSA are the largest life science professional societies in the
United States dedicated to the agronomic, crop and soil sciences. ASA-
CSSA-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
ASA-CSSA-SSSA understand the challenges the Senate Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee faces with the tight budget for fiscal year
2011. 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
2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill at $4.470 billion. For fiscal year
2011, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding level of $4.9 billion, a
10 percent increase over fiscal year 2010. Congress approved the
America COMPETES Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-69), recognizing that an
investment in basic (discovery) scientific research is essential to
providing America the brainpower necessary to maintain a competitive
advantage in the global economy and keep U.S. jobs from being shipped
overseas. Such an investment is needed to keep U.S. science and
engineering at the forefront of global research and development in the
biological sciences and geosciences, computing and many other critical
scientific fields. 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 one-half of 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 $4.9 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 $4.9 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 2011; 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 2011 funding level of $1.75 billion, a 7 percent
increase over fiscal year 2010, 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. For Chemical
Sciences, Geosciences, and Energy Biosciences subprogram ASA-CSSA-SSSA
recommend $341.5 million for fiscal year 2011, a 15 percent increase
over the fiscal year 2010 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, for more than five decades, has advanced
environmental and biological knowledge that supports national security
through improved energy production, development, and use; international
scientific leadership that underpins our Nation's technological
advances; and research that improves the quality of life for all
Americans. BER supports these vital national missions through
competitive and peer-reviewed research at national laboratories,
universities, and private institutions. In addition, BER develops and
delivers the knowledge needed to support the President's plan to make
America energy independent. ASA-CSSA-SSSA support a 10 percent increase
for BER which would bring the funding level to $664.6 million for
fiscal year 2011. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support a variety of programs
within BER including the Life Sciences subprogram which supports
Terrestrial Ecosystem Science (which we recommend funding for at $29.9
million for fiscal year 2011), Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration
Research (we recommend $5.1 million for this program) and the Genomes
to Life (GTL) program. Within Genomes to Life (GTL) 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. We recommend a 12 percent increase over fiscal year 2010
for the Subsurface Biogeochemical Research program, with suggested
funding for the program totaling $55.9 million in fiscal year 2011.
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 $305.7 million, a
7 percent increase over fiscal year 2010 for BER Climate and Earth
System Modeling. Within this subprogram the Climate Change Research
Division supports important areas of climate change research including
the Ameriflux and a network of research sites.
department of energy office of energy efficiency and renewable energy
Biomass is currently the only clean, renewable energy source that
can help to significantly diversify transportation fuels in the U.S.
DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Biomass Program is helping
transform the Nation's renewable and abundant biomass resources into
cost competitive, high performance biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) manages
America's investment in the research and development (R&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 $2.4 billion, a 7 percent increase over
fiscal year 2010. The fiscal year 2011 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-SSSA strongly oppose the use by the Department
of the term ``agricultural wastes''. Crop residues, e.g., corn stover,
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 Infastructure 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
2011 which would bring funding to $235 million. Activities included
within this program are resource assessment, education, sustainable
agronomic systems development, and biomass crop development. 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 $39.58 million in funding for the Feedstock
program (formerly 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: U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), DOE allocation
of $176.9 million. This program 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)
NETL's Carbon Sequestration Program is helping to develop
technologies to capture, purify, and store carbon dioxide
(CO2) in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without
adversely influencing energy use or hindering economic growth.
Terrestrial sequestration requires the development of technologies to
quantify with a high degree of precision and reliability the amount of
carbon stored in a given ecosystem. Program efforts in this area are
focused on increasing carbon uptake on mined lands and evaluation of
no-till agriculture, reforestation, rangeland improvement, wetlands
recovery, and riparian restoration. 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, which are collaborations between
Government, industry, universities, and international organizations
funded by DOE to determine the most suitable technologies, regulations,
and infrastructure needs for carbon capture and sequestration.
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. Clean, efficient, safe
production and use of energy have long been our goals in research and
development. At ORNL, unique facilities for energy-related R&D are used
both for technology development and for fundamental investigations in
the basic energy sciences that underpin the technology work.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our requests.
______

Prepared Statement of the Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC)
introduction
This statement is submitted on behalf of the membership of the Coal
Utilization Research Council (CURC), an organization of coal-using
utilities, coal producers, equipment suppliers, universities and
institutions of higher learning, and several State government entities
interested and involved in the use of coal resources and the
development of coal-based technologies.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Several members of CURC are not-for-profit organizations
designated as such for Federal tax law purposes. Such organizations are
prohibited in whole or in part from undertaking advocacy activities
with respect to Federal Government appropriations. This written
statement could be construed as such an activity. Membership
contributions made to CURC by these organizations are not used for
these advocacy purposes; rather such contributions are utilized to
undertake analyses and other educational activities as provided by
CURC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the importance of the doe/fe rd&d program
CURC believes there is a serious disconnect in public policies
regarding CCS technology. On one hand, we observe general agreement
among policy makers that large reductions in GHG emissions in the 2030-
2050 timeframe are essential to meet climate goals under discussion;
that improved technologies are key to meeting those goals; that CCS is
a crucial technology; and that public sector-private sector
collaboration is necessary to launch CCS technology. On the other hand,
based on budgets requested and enacted for the past several years and
proposed for fiscal year 2011, we observe an unwillingness to provide
the public share of resources necessary to develop and enable
deployment of CCS within the timeframe set forth by those defining
emission reduction targets. Insufficient public resources means we are
falling farther and further behind and there is less expectation each
passing year that CCS will be ready for widespread commercial use by
2020.
With the advent of a greenhouse gas regulatory program in this
country, it is vitally important that affordable and reliable carbon
capture and storage (CCS) technologies be available to minimize the
economic impacts upon the American consumer while continuing to allow
the Nation to reap the economic and energy security benefits associated
with using our most abundant domestic fossil fuel resource. Recent
analyses by both the EPA and the DOE/EIA have concluded that successful
development and deployment of CCS technology can reduce the cost of
compliance with GHG legislation by one-half. Hence, an effective coal-
CCS RD&D program is essential for meeting environmental goals,
enhancing our country's energy security, insuring adequate supplies of
energy at affordable prices, as well as preserving American industrial
competitiveness and growing American jobs in domestic and global
markets.
specific recommendations
CURC offers the following recommendations for fiscal year 2011
funding for the Coal RD&D program.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--DOE did not request any funding in
fiscal year 2010 or fiscal year 2011 for large scale commercial
applications of CCS technology, noting that $800 million was provided
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for the CCPI Round
3 program. The number of CCS-related projects that are underway is
insufficient to meet the programmatic goal of establishing CCS
technologies ready for commercial deployment by 2020. CURC believes
that an expanded CCPI program is integral to the commercialization of
CCS technologies, and therefore, in the strongest terms possible, CURC
recommends that the fiscal year 2011 budget include funding to initiate
a CCPI Round 4 program. Congress is encouraged to appropriate at least
$50 million in fiscal year 2011 to be augmented in fiscal year 2012
with funds sufficient to then conduct a CCPI 4 solicitation.
FutureGen.--Funding for FutureGen has been made available through
the ARRA. CURC reiterates its support for this project as an important
and necessary step in the demonstration of an integrated CCS system.
This integration of electricity generation with CCS is fundamental to
the learning necessary to make CCS a commercial reality.
fuels & power systems
--Innovations for Existing Plants (and Advanced Combustion).--The
administration's request for fiscal year 2011 includes an
increase in this line item to $65 million, compared to $52
million enacted in fiscal year 2010. CURC recommends a budget
of $84 million that should be used to support technologies that
increase the efficiency of coal conversion to energy and that
contribute to reducing the costs of carbon capture from
combustion-based power generation--for both new and existing
steam power plants. To achieve these goals funds should be
allocated to address specific needs for advanced combustion,
including oxy-combustion and next generation oxy-combustion
process cycles, advanced solvents for post combustion capture,
the high temperature materials program for ultrasupercritical
cycles, as well as emphasis on other new power plant
efficiency-improving techniques which do not depend on steam
temperature and pressure leaving the boiler. Finally, the
implementation of post-combustion carbon capture will place
increased demands on what are already scarce supplies of
cooling water, and, as a result, research on water management
technologies for coal-fired power plants need to be an
important component of the IEP program; recommend $4 to $6
million for water management programs.
--Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle.\2\--Funding
provided for IGCC technology has consistently fallen short of
the amounts deemed necessary to launch the next generation of
this technology as defined in the CURC-EPRI Technology Roadmap.
The administration's request for fiscal year 2011 is a further
decrease from these already insufficient funding levels. CURC
recommends that the funding for this line item be increased
from the requested $55 million to at least $80 million. This
increased budget is important to achieve:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ It is also important to note that advances in this area not
only support advanced IGCC but support all gasification programs in
general, including industrial gasification, hydrogen and fertilizer
production, SNG, and coal-to-liquids programs and to these ends this
program should encompass the concept of advanced gasification
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Advances in coal feed systems;
--Low-cost oxygen production (such as ITM oxygen); \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This program should include sufficient funding to insure that
the 100-ton per day ITM Intermediate Scale Test Unit will be completed
and operations commenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Advanced gasifier designs (including the gasifier itself; its
major components such as feed injection/pumping and
refractory materials, as well as gasifier modifications to
achieve less costly air separation);
--Warm syngas cleanup for sulfur and other coal-based syngas
contaminants (such as mercury and arsenic);
--Hydrogen/CO2 separation and recovery (including
advanced membrane systems);
--CO2 capture at elevated pressure (to reduce
CO2 compression costs); and
--Studies and RD&D aimed at the integration of these advanced
gasification technologies to significantly reduce overall
gasification capital costs and improve overall
efficiencies.
--Turbines.--The latest generation of advanced gas turbines (the
``G'' and ``H'' class of turbines) is not ready to meet the
demands of IGCC plants with high levels of CO2
capture. Reduced funding in the last few years has delayed
progress and jeopardized DOE's 2012 goal of developing advanced
turbines capable of operating on 100 percent hydrogen. The
Turbines program needs an additional $14 million, for a total
of $45 million in fiscal year 2011. Technical focus areas for
this funding should include:
--Promising material systems (base alloys, bond coats and thermal
barrier coatings) for hot gas path parts including rotating
and stationary airfoils;
--Technology for enhanced cooling effectiveness of hot gas path
parts;
--Methods for containing by-pass flows in the combustor-expander
transition piece and the airfoil tip-casing interface; and
--Continuation of work with the NETL in-house research group, other
national laboratories and U.S. universities to assess
combustor designs and the fundamentals associated with
hydrogen combustion and turbine subsystems.
It is important to note that all carbon fuels, including natural
gas, will need to capture CO2 in order to achieve the levels
of reduced CO2 concentrations being proposed in various
climate change legislation now under consideration by Congress.
--Carbon Sequestration.--Funding under this program offers the
appearance of being slightly below the $160 million level
recommended by CURC. However, this DOE program includes
approximately $50 million for CO2 capture, whereas
the CURC roadmap places capture activity with the IGCC and IEP
programs. The result is that CURC believes the fiscal year 2011
Carbon Sequestration request falls significantly short of
needs, and this shortfall will result, for example, in the
slow-down of some of the Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnership projects. Ultimately, the vast majority of
CO2 sequestration will likely take place in saline
formations and even under the seabed. As a consequence the
majority of funding for this program should be focused on
sequestration into saline formations rather than for
CO2 hydrocarbon recovery or other CO2 re-
use projects. Moreover, some ongoing tests are with non-
anthropogenic CO2, or non-power system
CO2, whereas experience integrating commercial scale
capture at power systems with injection into saline formations
is the foundation for broad deployment of CCS. At a minimum the
funding level for this program should be increased to $150
million versus the $143 million requested.
--Fuels.--CURC supports the President's budget recommendation for
hydrogen from coal, research for hydrogen separation membranes
for power production, and developing components for process
intensification to reduce the capital cost of power systems.
CURC believes that coal-to-substitute natural gas (C-SNG)
systems are commercial and that these systems may provide a
relatively low cost mechanism to provide the large volume of
CO2 needed to simulate commercial power plant
CO2 injection processes. Also, gasification of coal
and biomass (zeroed out in the fiscal year 2011 Request)
combined with CCS may be a useful pathway to provide
transportation fuels with a lower CO2 footprint than
conventional sources of these fuels.
--Advanced Research.--The budget request for Advanced Research
focuses on sensors and controls, advanced materials, and new
computer simulation activities for capture and storage of
CO2. The new computer simulation activities would
boost overall Advanced Research funding by $20 million from $28
million (fiscal year 2010) to $48 million (fiscal year 2011).
CURC supports a balanced advanced research program at DOE or
through the newly created ARPA-E program where use of a portion
of the funds is tightly integrated with the overall coal R&D
program with clear deliverables which will address barriers or
any technology ``gaps'' to meeting DOE's objective of
commercial deployment of CCS by 2020. To achieve this end this
program directly supports externally funded applied research
programs carried out by university and industry-based
organizations that are seeking research results which are
responsive to the current marketplace. The AR program or an
ARPA-E program also should vigorously support new initiatives
that promise ways to cost-effectively prevent or capture
CO2 from the use of carbon-based fuels. This type of
basic research looks beyond today's technologies to the next
generation and private sector funds may not be readily
available. Again, we believe a strong relationship between
industry, academia and DOE is vital.
--University and Workforce Training and Education.--CURC additionally
recommends that the DOE budget be available to support academic
or university based programs to build up the expertise that is
declining in coal technology research and development
activities. A well funded advanced research program, as well as
university based programs, can help replenish the scientists
and engineers needed to create the coal utilization systems and
carbon management systems of the future. Also, appropriations
should be made to reinstate programs to train the skilled
trades workforce needed to construct and operate the energy
industry of tomorrow including the utilization of CCS
technologies.
--Fuel Cells.--The DOE Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA)
program is ready to move into MW-scale demonstrations. A
primary objective of the program is the development of high
temperature solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) for integration with
advanced coal gasification systems. Fuel cells offer the
promise of a step change in the way electricity is generated in
the future and, if successful, could provide highly efficient,
cost-competitive systems capable of capturing nearly all of the
CO2 from the conversion process, minimizing water
requirements for the system and greatly reducing emissions of
other criteria pollutants.
Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program
Consistent with the loan guarantee capacity already provided or
sought for other energy sources ($65.5 billion for renewables and
energy efficiency and $56.5 billion for nuclear power) and given the
potential impact of widely deployed CCS technology upon CO2
reductions globally, it is recommended that loan guarantee authority
for fossil energy and CCS projects be increased by $20 billion. There
appears to be very significant interest among CCS-related fossil fuel
projects for use of loan guarantees if made available.
summary and comments on significant issues related to the fiscal year
2011 budget request
The programs administered and supported through the Department's
Fossil Energy office have been distinguished by efforts to foster
collaboration with industry research, development and demonstration
efforts, as well as a broad spectrum of university research
organizations. These programs between industry, Government and the
academic community have enabled participants to actively engage in each
part of the technology development chain from basic research to applied
research and development and then demonstration and early commercial
deployment. Implementing a restructuring of the FE budget into four new
cross-cutting program areas could facilitate even greater partnering
opportunities, focus programs upon the critical issues surrounding CCS
development, quickly identify and address technology gaps, and create
greater transparency in defining and exhibiting program goals and
accomplishments. During this restructuring, the benefits of
collaboration should be an important consideration if it is
contemplated that there will be any new and significant involvement of
other Federal laboratories that have little or no historical ties to
the industries that rely upon coal and benefit from collaboration
through the FE program.
CURC supports the request to increase the Department's advanced
research budget so long as increases are inclusive and extend funding
support to research efforts at universities and industry participants
in all regions of the country wherever the competency and excellence
exists. CURC also supports the request to increase the computationally
based research (subject to the comments below) budget. The new emphasis
upon computational modeling is conceptually attractive as a means to
reduce the amount of time and funding required in fully developing,
demonstrating and deploying technology. This funding should be
implemented through existing structural models already established by
NETL for industry--university collaborative research--and we recommend
such an approach which will use structures in place and further support
already successful collaboration. Finally, if these new programs are to
be accepted by industry as a tool to create substitutes for ``steel in
the ground'' then it is essential that industry be involved in the
development of the computer models to insure that practical
considerations in the construction and operation of power plants or
industrial facilities are taken into account. Therefore, industry
should be consulted to determine if computer models are an appropriate
surrogate for actual plants being constructed and if yes, and funding
is to be provided, then direct industry input is recommended when
constructing the models themselves.
Beyond basic research CURC is expressly concerned that no funding
is requested to initiate a next CCPI solicitation for advanced coal and
CCS demonstrations. If we are to successfully develop a portfolio of
advanced technologies to utilize coal efficiently and with minimal
environmental impact then we must continue support for demonstration
projects.
______

Prepared Statement of the University of Chicago
My name is Donald Levy and I am Vice President for Research and
National Laboratories at the University of Chicago. The University of
Chicago manages, supports, and engages with two major Federal research
centers: Argonne National Laboratory and the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory (Fermilab). The University's management and operations
responsibility for Argonne dates back to its founding in 1946 as the
Nation's first national laboratory, and is a direct descendant of the
University of Chicago's Metallurgical Laboratory, part of the World War
II Manhattan Project. In partnership with Universities Research
Association, the University of Chicago was awarded the M&O contract by
the Department of Energy for Fermilab in 2007. Argonne and Fermilab are
leaders in ensuring U.S. competitiveness in the global economy, and
providing unmatched science talent and capacity for the Midwest and the
Nation. The fundamental science and applied research that takes place
in them, often in collaboration with the University of Chicago and
numerous other universities across the country, continues to push the
frontiers of scientific discovery, energy security, environmental
sustainability and national security. I am pleased to testify in strong
support for the administration's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget
request of $5.1 billion for the Office of Science.
the department of energy's office of science
The Department of Energy's Office of Science (SC) is the steward of
10 national laboratories--including the Argonne National Laboratory and
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. This system of national
laboratories provides direct and vital support for the mission of the
Department's science programs and represents the most comprehensive
research infrastructure system of its kind in the world. A high level
of collaboration among all of the national laboratories with the
university community and industry in the use of world-class scientific
equipment and supercomputers, facilities, and multidisciplinary teams
of scientists increases their collective contribution to DOE and the
Nation. The national laboratories sponsored by the SC enables the
United States to remain at the forefront of discovery science. They
ensure that facilities and projects of great scale are part of the
Nation's scientific infrastructure and provide the foundation for
translating the results of discovery science into technological
applications.
SC is also one of the Nation's largest supporters of peer-reviewed
basic research, providing 40 percent of Federal support in the physical
sciences while supporting approximately 25,000 Ph.D.s, graduate
students, undergraduates, engineers, and support staff at more than 300
universities and at all 17 DOE laboratories. In fiscal year 2010, the
Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists expects to
support over 1,100 undergraduates in research internships at the DOE
laboratories and nearly 300 K-16 educators. SC is proposing to increase
the Graduate Fellowship Program to support approximately 400 graduate
students in the out-years.
The subcommittee is faced with very tight fiscal constraints and a
difficult set of choices. Given that situation, the fiscal year 2011
DOE budget for SC deserves the subcommittee's strong support for the
following reasons: It invests in science for national needs in clean
energy, the environment and materials research; it provides vital
support for national scientific user facilities relied on by
universities and industry working on research that can't be performed
anywhere else in the United States; and it supports scientific and
technological education and related workforce development.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request makes much needed investments
to harness the power of American ingenuity. This request will help
create clean energy jobs, expand the frontiers of science, reduce
dependence on foreign oil, and help curb the carbon pollution that
threatens our planet. If one advance could transform America's
prospects, it would be having a range of clean, efficient and renewable
energy technologies, ready to power our cars, our buildings and our
industries, at scale, while creating jobs and protecting the planet. If
we want to own those future technologies, there is only one path:
sustained support for research.
We should not count on private industry alone to make the necessary
investments. Since 1980, research investment by U.S. energy companies
paralleled the drop in public research. By 2004, corporate energy R&D
stood at just $1.2 billion in today's dollars. This level might suit a
cost-efficient and technologically mature fossil-fuel-based energy
sector. However, it is very much out of step with any industry that
depends on innovation.
The lesson is that while industry must support development and
commercialization, only Government can prime the pump of research.
Congress funded the basic research that spawned the information
technology revolution and the biotechnology revolution. Today, to spark
an energy revolution, Congress--and this subcommittee in particular--
must lead again.
The potential, from the economy to global security to climate, is
boundless. Yet we are not the only ones who have noticed. If we fail to
make major strategic investments in energy research now, we will find
ourselves overtaken by our competitors, from China and India to Germany
and Japan. Other countries have the money and motivation, and they are
chasing the technology almost as fast as we are. We must make sure that
in the energy technology markets of the future, we have the power to
invent, produce and sell, not the obligation to buy.
The handwriting is clearly on the wall--the Great Wall.
argonne and fermi national laboratories
In the coming years, the Argonne National Laboratory will pursue
major initiatives that support the Department of Energy's research
goals to create innovative and transformational solutions to the
Nation's grand scientific challenges. These initiatives have
inspirational goals that will keep Argonne at the very forefront of
scientific discovery and engineering excellence. Three of the major
initiatives: Hard X-ray Sciences, Leadership Computing, and Materials
and Molecular Design and Discovery, emphasize the development of next
generation scientific tools and materials. Five other major
initiatives: Energy Storage, Alternative Energy and Efficiency, Nuclear
Energy, Biological and Environmental Systems, and National Security,
directly address practical energy, environment and security challenges.
A number of these initiatives, in areas such as computational sciences,
molecular design and biological and environmental systems are being
conducted in close collaboration with the University of Chicago's core
research capabilities.
Fermilab's world-class scientific research facility allows
qualified researchers from around the world to conduct fundamental
research at the frontiers of high-energy physics and related
disciplines. Thousands of scientists have used Fermilab's particle
accelerators and experiments to study the universe at the smallest and
largest scales. The extraordinary technology developed for particle
physics has often led to real-life applications--from accelerators for
cancer treatment to the World Wide Web. Fermilab's broad scientific
program pushes forward on the three interrelated frontiers of particle
physics. Each uses a unique approach to making discoveries, and all
three are essential to answering key questions about the laws of nature
and the cosmos.
Among the initiatives proposed by the Office of Science of
particular importance to the University of Chicago, Argonne and
Fermilab are:
--Basic Energy Sciences program support for upgrades to Argonne's
Advanced Photon Source (APS). The high-brilliance x-rays
produced at the APS--the brightest in the Western Hemisphere--
has been instrumental in developing new and improved energy
sources, bettering the environment, battling diseases,
improving technologies, unlocking the secrets of our planet and
universe, and furthering the education of today's and
tomorrow's scientists. We urge the subcommittee to provide
strong encouragement to DOE to support vital future performance
enhancements in the APS;
--Advanced Scientific Computing Research program support for
Argonne's Leadership Computing Facility. The application of
state-of-the-art supercomputers to modeling and simulation can
play breakthrough roles linked to our energy security, climate
change and sharpen America's competitive edge. The applications
also provide benefits to program offices and their external
users throughout the Department of Energy. We urge the
subcommittee to support the fiscal year 2011 budget request and
remain committed to a robust funding path in future years in
order to fully achieve the next level of computational power
needed to address the next series of important large-scale
challenges;
--The High Energy Physics Program, including continued support for
Tevatron Collider research, enhancements for the neutrino
physics program and complex wide infrastructure improvements;
--The newly proposed Energy Innovation Hub for Batteries and Energy
Storage--which will focus on integrating from fundamental
research through potential commercialization of electrical
energy storage relevant to transportation and the electric
grid; and
--Vital support for individual investigator, small group, and Energy
Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) in areas complementing the
initial suite of 46 EFRCs awarded in fiscal year 2009.
conclusion
As President Obama made clear in his remarks to the National
Academy of Sciences in April 2009, the public sector must invest in
research and innovation not only because the private sector is
sometimes reluctant to take large risks, but because the rewards will
be broadly shared across the economy. Leading requires assembling a
critical mass of the best scientists and engineers to engage in
mission-oriented, cross-disciplinary approaches to addressing current
and future energy challenges. To develop clean energy solutions and
maintain the U.S. leadership role in science and innovation, the
Department must cultivate the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics workforce of the next generation. The University of Chicago
strongly supports the administration's goal to double funding for the
DOE's Office of Science between fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2017, a
goal that is consistent with the recommendations in the National
Academies' 2005 report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. To that end,
the University of Chicago strongly supports funding of at least $5.1
billion for SC in fiscal year 2011--the amount requested by the
administration.
The subcommittee is faced with a difficult and probably thankless
job--the allocation of too few resources among a wide variety of worthy
and compelling public policy objectives. Some of these objectives are
near term and funding provided for them can lead to tangible benefits
such as the cleanup of nuclear waste sites or water and flood
protection projects funded through the Corps of Engineers. The benefits
of investing in research are less visible in the near term. However,
they are essential to the long term health and economic vitality of the
Nation. Appreciating the difficult budget environment the subcommittee
must confront, the University of Chicago respectfully requests the
maximum support possible for the important research programs of DOE in
the context of the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these views.
______

Prepared Statement of the Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics (SIAM)
Summary.--This written testimony is submitted on behalf of the
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) to ask you to
continue your support of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Science by providing $5.121 billion in fiscal year 2011. In particular,
we urge you to provide significant support for the Applied Mathematics
Program within the Office of Science. We also emphasize the importance
of support for graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and early
career researchers.
My name is Douglas Arnold and I am the President of the Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM). Today I am submitting this
written testimony for the record to the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S.
Senate.
SIAM has approximately 13,000 members, including applied and
computational mathematicians, computer scientists, numerical analysts,
engineers, statisticians, and mathematics educators. They work in
industrial and service organizations, universities, colleges, and
government agencies and laboratories all over the world. In addition,
SIAM has over 400 institutional members--colleges, universities,
corporations, and research organizations.
First, I would like to emphasize how much SIAM appreciates your
subcommittee's continued leadership on and recognition of the critical
role of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science and its
support for mathematics, science, and engineering in enabling a strong
U.S. economy, workforce, and society. In particular, we thank you and
your colleagues for the significant increases in funding provided for
the Office of Science's mathematical and computing programs in the
fiscal year 2010 Consolidated Appropriations bill.
Today, I submit this testimony to ask you to continue your support
of the DOE Office of Science in fiscal year 2011 and beyond. In
particular, we request that you provide the Office of Science with
$5.121 billion, the level requested by the President for this agency in
his fiscal year 2011 budget. This represents a 4.4 percent increase
over the Office's fiscal year 2010 appropriated level and would
continue the effort to double funding for the Office of Science, as
endorsed by Congress in the America COMPETES Act and by the President
in his fiscal year 2011 budget request.
The Nation faces critical challenges in energy, including in energy
efficiency, renewable energy, improved use of fossil fuels and nuclear
energy, future energy sources, and reduced environmental impacts of
energy production and use. As DOE and the research community design a
long-term strategy to tackle these issues, the tools of mathematics and
computational science (theory, modeling, and simulation) have emerged
as a central element in designing new materials, predicting the impact
of new systems and technologies, and better managing existing
resources. Already, mathematical and computing researchers in
universities, national laboratories, and industry are providing
insights that propel advances in such fields as climate modeling,
nanotechnology, biofuels, genomics, and materials fabrication.
the role of mathematics in meeting energy challenges
SIAM members come from many different disciplines, but have a
common interest in applying mathematics in partnership with
computational science toward solving real-world problems. DOE was one
of the first Federal agencies to champion computational science as one
of the three pillars of science, along with theory and experiment, and
SIAM deeply appreciates and values DOE activities.
In August 2007, an independent panel of mathematicians reviewed the
challenges and strategic plans of all units of DOE in order to better
define the goals for the DOE Applied Mathematics Program, which is
located within the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research
(ASCR) in the Office of Science.\1\ The panel considered a broad and
varied array of questions that the DOE must answer in the coming years.
A representative subset of such questions includes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applied Mathematics at the U.S. Department of Energy: Past,
Present and a View to the Future. A Report by an Independent Panel from
the Applied Mathematics Research Community, May 2008. Available on line
at http://brownreport.siam.org/Document%20Library/
Brown_Report_May_08.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Can we predict the operating characteristics of a clean coal power
plant?
--How stable is the plasma containment in a Tokamak?
--How quickly is climate change occurring and what are the
uncertainties in the predicted time scales?
--How quickly can an introduced bio-weapon contaminate the
agricultural environment in the United States?
--How do we modify models of the atmosphere and clouds to incorporate
newly collected data of possibly new types?
--How quickly can the United States recover if part of the power grid
became inoperable?
In these and many other cases, the answer is dependent on improved
understanding of complex systems. (These are systems that have high
levels of uncertainty, lack master plans, and are susceptible to
breakdowns that could have catastrophic consequences. Understanding
complex systems helps mitigate these risks and facilitate the
development of controls and strategies to make systems more efficient.)
In light of this broad need, the panel recommended that DOE focus on
three strategies for addressing the gaps in our understanding.
--Predictive modeling and simulation of complex systems.
--Mathematical analysis of the behavior of complex systems.
--Using models of complex systems to inform policy makers. (This
includes advancing the mathematics that supports risk analysis
techniques for policy-making involving complex systems that
include natural and engineered components, and economic,
security, and policy consequences.)
department of energy office of science
Activities within ASCR play a key role in supporting research that
begins to fulfill the needs described above. Particularly critical
programs include: the Applied Mathematics program, the Scientific
Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program, and programs to
maintain the pipeline of the mathematical workforce. SIAM supports the
$426 million requested for ASCR for fiscal year 2011, while urging that
the increase in funding be more balanced among ASCR programs and not
entirely directed to investments in computing hardware. Without
investments in algorithm research, software development, and
partnerships between mathematicians, disciplinary researchers, and
computer and computational scientists, we cannot realize the full
benefit of new high performance computers or effectively develop the
next generation of such computers.
The applied mathematics and computational science and engineering
work supported by the Applied Mathematics Program is a necessary
element for many of the flagship efforts of the Office of Science and
other units of DOE. Therefore, partnerships within the Department are
critical for applying mathematics to key challenges in effective
creation and use of a variety of energy sources. SIAM supports ASCR
plans to initiate new partnerships with other DOE offices such as the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, the Office of
Nuclear Energy, and the Office of Environmental Management. SIAM also
supports the proposed activity on uncertainty and climate change within
the Biological and Environmental Research Office, and the proposed
activity on Computational Design of Advanced Engines within the Basic
Energy Sciences Office.
supporting the pipeline of mathematicians and scientists
Investing in the education and development of young scientists and
engineers is a major step that the Federal Government can take to
ensure the future prosperity and welfare of the United States.
Currently, the economic situation is negatively affecting the job
opportunities for young mathematicians--at universities, companies, and
other research organizations. It is not only the young mathematicians
who are not being hired who will suffer from these cutbacks. The
research community at large will suffer from the loss of ideas and
energy that these graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and early
career researchers bring to the field, and the country will suffer from
the lost innovation.
Maintaining the pipeline of the mathematical workforce with
programs that fund research and students is especially important
because of the foundational and cross-cutting role that mathematics and
computational science play in sustaining the Nation's economic
competitiveness and national security, and in making substantial
advances on societal challenges such as energy and the environment. DOE
programs support the educational and professional development of the
researchers who will, at universities, companies, and the national
laboratories, tackle the research problems (such as the complex system
modeling described above) needed to change energy usage in this
country. These young mathematicians and computational scientists are
the drivers and employees of the clean energy economy.
Within the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, the
Computational Science Graduate Fellowship program is a highly
successful and model program that enables students to receive robust
training in mathematics and also learn to interface with a wide variety
of other fields. We request that strong support for this program
continue, as well as ongoing support for post-doctoral fellows at DOE
national laboratories and universities. In addition, we endorse DOE's
proposed continuation in fiscal year 2011 of the Office of Science
Early Career Research Awards and Graduate Fellowships programs begun
with funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
We are also supportive of the proposed DOE education initiative,
RE-ENERGYSE (REgaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge). We too
believe in the core goal of raising the number of students studying in
areas that contribute to the fundamental understanding of energy
science and engineering systems. In particular, we support graduate
research fellowships in relevant fields, such as applied mathematics,
and programs that encourage universities to establish multidisciplinary
research and education programs, such as in computational science,
which is a key element in projects studying and creating clean energy
capabilities.
conclusion
The programs in the Office of Science, particularly those discussed
above, are important elements of DOE's efforts to fulfill its mission.
They contribute to the goals of dramatically transforming our current
capabilities to develop new sources for renewable and low-carbon energy
supplies and improve energy efficiency, positioning the United States
to lead on climate change policy, technology, and science, and
facilitating DOE's effort to increase U.S. competitiveness by training
and attracting the best scientific talent into DOE headquarters and
laboratories, the American research enterprise, and the clean energy
economy.
SIAM is aware of the significant fiscal constraints facing the
administration and Congress this year, but we note that, in the face of
economic peril, Federal investments in mathematics, science, and
engineering create and preserve good jobs; stimulate economic activity;
and help to maintain U.S. pre-eminence in innovation, upon which our
economy depends.
I would like to conclude by thanking you again for your ongoing
support of the DOE Office of Science and the actions you have already
taken to enable DOE and the research and education communities it
supports, including thousands of SIAM members, to undertake the
activities that contribute to the health, security, and economic
strength of the United States. The DOE Office of Science needs
sustained annual funding increases to maintain our competitive edge in
science and technology, and therefore we respectfully ask that you
continue your robust support of these critical programs into the
future.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
subcommittee on behalf of SIAM and look forward to providing any
additional information or assistance you may ask of us during the
fiscal year 2011 appropriations process.
______

Prepared Statement of GE Energy
Overview.--The following testimony is submitted on behalf of GE
Energy (GE) for the consideration of the subcommittee during its
deliberations regarding the fiscal year 2011 budget requests for the
Department of Energy (DOE). In particular, GE recommends: (1) in the
Renewable Energy budget, support for the new Offshore Wind Technology
program; (2) in the Fossil Energy program, greater focus on carbon
capture technologies for new plants and increased investment in
integrated gasification combined cycle technology; (3) in Nuclear
Energy, support for additional nuclear loan guarantee authority; and
(4) funding in Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to
accelerate smart grid deployment.
Renewable Energy.--GE supports the request for $49 million in
funding for the new Offshore Wind Technology Program. Investment in
pilot projects will enhance learning, improve infrastructure, and pave
the way for commercial scale offshore wind to become a reality in the
United States.
For emerging offshore as well as maturing onshore applications,
blades and drive trains are the most critical wind turbine components.
Research and development into advanced materials, advanced
manufacturing, design for logistics, advanced power conversion, and
drive train systems can increase energy production, increase
reliability, reduce material cost, and lower the overall cost of
energy. New power generation technologies, such as higher torque
density generators, can be adapted to wind. As penetration of wind
energy increases, significant advances are needed to develop solutions
for grid integration of this variable resource. Government investment
in these areas, when combined with industry cost share, can
significantly accelerate technology advancements beyond what industry
can accomplish on its own.
Fossil Energy.--In Coal R&D, within the Fuels and Power Systems
line item, an $8 million reduction is being proposed for the Advanced
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program while funding for the
Innovations for Existing Plants program would be increased by $13
million. GE is concerned that these funding changes indicate a
fundamental and troubling shift in DOE's emphasis. The increased
funding for Existing Plants will be focused on small-scale pilots--
essentially returning to the bench. This is a flawed strategy. It
implies DOE's acceptance of the long time span--over a decade or more--
from bench to commercial deployment. Over this timeframe, while the
creation of jobs associated with commercializing CCS is delayed,
existing plants that would benefit will be moving closer to retirement,
and therefore unlikely to warrant investment in new technology to
extend their lives.
Rather than focusing taxpayer dollars in numerous small pilot scale
cleaner coal experiments, the time has come to invest in technology
enhancements applicable to new cleaner coal plants and proven
technologies for carbon capture such as gasification within integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC). In contrast to combustion
technology, gasification is well suited for carbon capture and proven
in commercial chemical applications. IGCC with carbon capture is
commercially available to the utility industry today. However the
higher initial capital cost of IGCC combined with the additional cost
and parasitic loads from carbon capture currently place it at a
disadvantage relative to power generation from natural gas. If coal
with its economic, jobs and infrastructure benefits is to continue in
our energy mix, improvements in IGCC cost and performance are needed to
reach cost-parity with natural gas. While we believe much of the cost
gap can be closed through deployment of IGCC with carbon capture,
further technology improvements in IGCC have the highest chance of
making their way to commercial deployment and reducing the ultimate
costs of CCS.
We therefore recommend that the fiscal year 2011 budget for IGCC be
increased by $25 million for total funding of $80 million, with the
increase focused on the development of key cost and performance
enhancements consisting of (1) IGCC construction optimization ($6
million); (2) syngas cooler fouling prevention ($4 million); (3)
fundamental gasification modeling ($4 million); (4) startup and
shutdown optimization ($2 million); (5) HAPS characterization ($2
million); (6) advanced instrumentation and controls ($4 million); and
(7) trace metals balance and detection ($3 million).
Water Management (Innovations for Existing Plants).--Large amounts
of water are needed to produce or extract energy, and large amounts of
energy are needed to treat or transport water. What is more,
CO2 capture increases raw water usage by up to 125 percent,
depending on the underlying technology. In order to achieve DOE's
aggressive goals of reducing freshwater withdrawals and consumption 50
percent by 2015 and 70 percent by 2020, water-related R&D funding is
needed. Yet DOE requested no new funding for the water management
subprogram under the Innovations for Existing Plants program in fiscal
year 2011. GE believes that funding for water R&D should be provided in
the amount of $40 million for innovative water reuse technologies and
demonstration projects including: cooling tower blowdown reuse, Flue
Gas Desulphurization (FGD) wastewater reuse and recovery, ash pond
solids reduction, and treatment and reuse of produced water from
unconventional oil and natural gas production to further reduce
environmental impacts and operational costs of upstream energy
processes. Support also is 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.
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).--The CCPI plays a vital role in
validating and testing advanced technology. The significant number of
applications in response to the CCPI-3 solicitation demonstrates
industry's interest in undertaking CCS-related coal projects. DOE
should move forward with a new CCPI-4 solicitation. Any future CCPI
solicitations must acknowledge current economic realities, including
constriction in the capital markets and the difficulty that utilities
have in justifying rate recovery for any non-compulsory additional
capital or operating cost. DOE should (1) increase emphasis and
evaluation weighting on the financial viability of projects; (2) tailor
technical requirements so that they do not compromise financial
viability; and (3) structure the program so that sufficient time and
funding are available to complete front-end engineering designs (FEEDs)
and sequestration site characterizations and access evaluations. The
latter will allow a utility to provide accurate cost data to its
regulators and demonstrate that it has a sequestration resource with
sufficient capacity for the life of its plant.
Advanced Turbines.--GE recommends funding of $45 million in fiscal
year 2011 to maintain needed progress in the Advanced Turbines program
for the development of enabling technologies for high efficiency
hydrogen turbines for advanced gasification systems with carbon
capture. The program is on target to enable future advanced coal-fueled
IGCC power plants to offset much of the performance penalties
associated with carbon capture while also achieving very low
NOX emissions.
In addition, in view of the significant role that natural gas fired
generation will play in a low carbon energy future, Congress should
support efforts to develop technologies to drive efficiency in new
turbines and the Nation's existing gas turbine fleet, as proposed in
H.R. 3029 and S. 2900. GE urges the subcommittee to consider an annual
investment of $85 million as envisioned in this legislation. Efficiency
improvements from implementing technology on new advanced turbines or
retrofitting existing gas turbines will result in reduced emissions and
reduced CO2 for the same power output.
Nuclear Energy: New Plant Activities and Loan Guarantees.--Although
there has been significant interest in new plant development, only a
fraction of the utilities that applied for Combined Operating Licenses
(COLs) in the United States are proceeding with new plant projects on
their original timelines. GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) commends DOE
for the highly successful NP2010 program to license and assist in the
development of standardized advanced plant designs, but more needs to
be done. In particular, GEH supports the President's call to
significantly grow the nuclear loan guarantee program, as it
underscores the benefits of nuclear power while addressing the capital-
intensive nature of nuclear plant deployment. Congress should provide
the requested $36 billion in loan guarantee authority for nuclear power
projects in fiscal year 2011, and should also recognize that providing
loan guarantees for other advanced nuclear technologies is critical to
ensuring a competitive landscape in the United States. GEH recommends
that the new Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET) program be
expanded to address near term challenges such as domestic nuclear
manufacturing capabilities, simulation and training programs to support
near term deployment of generation III+ reactor designs, and the
application of advanced modularization and construction techniques to
help reduce new plant capital costs. The Reactor Concepts RD&D and Fuel
Cycle R&D requests are both critical for the deployment of new
technologies such as PRISM and Global Laser Enrichment (GLE), and GEH
believes that the programs should be provided sufficient funding.
Non-proliferation and Spent Fuel Minimization.--GEH supports used
nuclear fuel recycling as a means to fully close the nuclear fuel
cycle, minimize nuclear proliferation risks and provide an alternative
to a large permanent repository. It is in the best interest of national
security that U.S. technology be used to close the fuel cycle in a
manner that does not result in separated plutonium. GEH looks forward
to working with the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future
and the Congress to discuss ways to address fuel cycle challenges and
to support the further development of advanced small modular reactors
like GEH's PRISM reactor.
International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.--As interest in civil
nuclear power grows around the world, it is critical that the United
States lead in efforts to insure that the industry grows in a
responsible manner. DOE must have resources to support President
Obama's call for a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation. GEH
supports the funding request to initiate this new program.
RE-ENERGYSE/Workforce Development.--GEH applauds the recognition
that the Government can be a partner in encouraging students to pursue
careers in clean energy. GEH is a strong supporter of the industry
program for a uniform nuclear curriculum and also has a Nuclear
Maintenance Technicians Program with the local community college. These
kinds of programs are critical to our continued development of the next
generation of nuclear workers.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability: Clean Energy
Transmission and Reliability.--GE strongly supports the inclusion of
funding for R&D on the dynamic analysis capability of a phasor
measurement unit (PMU)-based network in the Transmission Reliability
and Renewables Integration subprogram. When coupled with power
electronic devices, phasor data can provide grid operators with the
capability to rapidly respond to and correct power quality problems.
Government investment in PMU-based networks can significantly improve
the ability of grid operators to maintain reliability, particularly as
operators face the need to integrate increasing amounts of intermittent
generation.
GE commends DOE for establishing the new Advanced Modeling Grid
Research subprogram. Advanced modeling capabilities will serve as a
critical tool in the modernization of the electric grid by assisting
grid operators in identifying the technical limits of conventional grid
technologies, and facilitating development of new technologies and
solutions to respond to a changing energy mix and an increasingly
responsive consumer base. In addition, advanced modeling capabilities
can enable grid operators and power systems planners to aggregate,
analyze, and act upon the vast quantities of data collected by smart
grid technologies, thereby unlocking the full potential of the smart
grid. DOE should expand industry participation in this program to fully
leverage work already underway.
Smart Grid Research and Development.--The smart grid can
fundamentally change the way electricity is generated, transmitted, and
consumed, thereby delivering substantial improvements in the efficiency
and reliability of our Nation's electric grid. Additional research is
needed in areas such as the integration of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles and advanced management of distribution voltage. In addition,
GE views as essential DOE's continued support for ongoing efforts to
establish smart grid standards through the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
GE is concerned that the Power Electronics subprogram emphasizes
basic science over technology application. GE recommends that Congress
provide support for DOE to conduct research into applications of power
electronics to support smart grid technologies.
Energy Storage.--While GE supports further research into energy
storage technologies, we are concerned that this program places
disproportionate emphasis on lithium-ion battery technology. Industry
has conducted a great deal of research and development into a range of
advanced battery technologies, including sodium-metal-halide, zinc
bromide, and vanadium redox. To foster further innovation in this
promising field, GE recommends that the focus of the energy storage
program be broadened to encompass a range of battery storage
chemistries and technologies. The program should cover all potential
storage modalities, including flywheel technology.
Cyber Security for Energy Delivery Systems.--GE recommends that
Congress restore funding to the fiscal year 2010 level, and that DOE,
to support smart grid deployment, determine the most appropriate next-
generation communications and control system technologies, as well as
the cyber security requirements for each.
______

Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association
summary
This testimony pertains to fiscal year 2011 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 $360 million in fiscal year 2011 for Biomass and
Biorefinery Systems R&D. This is an increase of $140 million over the
U.S. Department of Energy request for fiscal year 2011 for this
programmatic area. Specific lines items are summarized below (also see
Table 1).
--$30 million for Feedstocks (regional partnerships, high yield
feedstocks, simpler/cheaper algae routes).
--$130 million for Conversion Technologies, distributed as follows:
--$50 million for Biochemical Conversion (emphasis on low cost
sugars, advanced fuels, traditional plus non-traditional
conversion routes, e.g., aqueous processing, chemical
catalysis).
--$80 million for Thermochemical Conversion (conversion to oils,
long chain hydrocarbons, or other fuels/intermediates via
pyrolysis, gasification, and non-traditional routes; low
cost reactive intermediates such as CO and hydrogen).
--$100 million for Integrated Biorefineries. (Systems integration,
risk reduction through technology demonstrations, sustained
support for first-of-a-kind projects).
--$20 million for Sustainability and Analysis to assess life cycle
impacts.
--$80 million for Biopower for pilot scale RD&D on decentralized
applications; studies to assess cost, environmental impacts,
and permitting issues; RD&D to address performance and other
issues for larger scale boiler repowering.
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 2011 BIOMASS & BIOREFINERY SYSTEMS R&D, ENERGY
SUPPLY & CONSERVATION, DOE/EERE BIOMASS PROGRAM
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Area Description of RD&D Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedstocks......................... Regional feedstock 30.0
partnerships.
Research to improve energy
crops, including super
high yields: achieve 10
to 25 dry tons/acre/year
via R&D compared with the
2 to 7 dry tons/acre/year
possible today.
Plants species amenable to
thermochemical (e.g.,
high lignin) and
biochemical (e.g., more
easily processed lignin)
processes.
Simpler, less expensive
algae production.
Conversion Technologies: Conversion to next 50.0
Biochemical. generation biofuels/
processes (broader range
of liquid fuels beyond
ethanol).
Reduction of sugar costs
through cheaper enzymes
and other routes.
Non-traditional
technologies such as
aqueous phase processing,
chemical catalysis.
Conversion Technologies: Next generation biofuels 80.0
Thermochemical. and processes that can
use a range of feedstocks
(pyrolysis, gasification,
other routes).
Low cost reactive
intermediates such as CO
and hydrogen.
Synthetic routes to expand
beyond Fischer-Tropsch
fuels.
Integrated Biorefineries........... Risk reduction through 100.0
demonstrations of
biochemical and
thermochemical conversion
technologies in
biorefineries, sustained
support for first-of-a-
kind projects, and
underwriting of loan
guarantees.
Analysis and Sustainability........ Life cycle analysis of new 20.0
technology pathways.
Land use issues.
Large Scale Biopower............... RD&D at pilot scale for 80.0
decentralized biopower
applications.
Studies to analyze cost,
permitting, and
environmental issues.
--------
TOTAL........................ .......................... 360.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 are many--economic growth, new
American jobs, enhanced environmental quality, and fewer contributions
to climate change. Economic growth is fueled and sustained in large
part by the availability of reliable, cost-effective energy supplies. 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:
--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.
--Biomass can be used directly or in combination with coal to
diversify our electricity supply.
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. Goals could be to reach at least the 10 percent to 15 percent
levels in both the electricity generation and motor vehicle
transportation sectors by the 2020 to 2030 decade, up from on the 1
percent to 25 percent levels today in these two sectors. Unlike solar
and perhaps wind, biomass will be constrained to far below 100 percent,
due to land use and water availability concerns. However, biomass can
be developed from a minor role to a major role in a diversified,
domestic and renewable energy supply for the United States, based on an
expansion of our Nation's agriculture and forest products industries.
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 mandates
increased use of alternative fuels, with a substantial portion to come
from cellulosic biomass. A Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
is now under consideration (many States have already passed such
legislation) which would increase the use of renewables for
electricity, including biopower. To meet the EISA goals and potentially
a Federal RPS will require aggressive support for RD&D to move
technology forward and reduce technical and economic risk.
overall bera recommendations for us doe/eere biomass rd&d
--Pursue a Balanced Approach to Biomass R&D [All R&D Areas].--It is
important for DOE to pursue a balanced approach to biomass R&D.
This means striking a balance between the involvement of
national labs, academia, and industry to take advantage of
their distinctive strengths, rather than relying heavily on
national laboratories, as in the past. The DOE should also
pursue a balance between understanding fundamentals, advancing
the technology, applying the technology, and integrating the
technology. There has been a particular neglect of
understanding fundamentals to provide a technology platform
that would catalyze development of better technologies and
enhance commercial success. Technology breakthroughs are needed
because the scale (large) and the costs (too high) are barriers
for the technology development pathways needed to meet today's
energy and climate challenges. Mechanisms are needed to ensure
that fundamental research and new processes and science get
into the hands of the companies most likely to deploy the
breakthroughs.
--Make Investments to Bring Down the Cost of Sugars From Biomass
[Biochemical and Thermochemical Conversion R&D].--One key to
competiveness is reducing the cost of producing reactive
intermediates from biomass. For biological systems, this means
getting low cost sugars, as expensive sugars result in
expensive products whether the product is ethanol or an
advanced, infrastructure-compatible (drop-in) fuel. Making a
drop-in fuel from expensive sugars is a pathway for failure.
Similarly, for thermochemical approaches, the key is getting
low cost reactive intermediates such as CO and hydrogen. The
balance advocated in Item 1 can help reduce the cost of making
such intermediates. 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.
--Provide Support for Both Traditional and Non-traditional Conversion
Routes [Conversion Technologies].--We recommend that while both
biological and thermochemical processes be funded, greater
emphasis should be given to thermochemical conversion for
transportation fuels and substitutes for other petroleum-
derived products to mitigate our dependency on imported oil.
Thermochemical technology has been historically under-funded
despite its potential to produce more infrastructure-compatible
fuels. Biofuels R&D should be expanded beyond just ethanol and
Fischer-Tropsch products. We advocate funding for chemical
catalysis (rather than just fermentation) to broaden the
spectrum for products from sugars; new catalysts and synthetic
routes are needed. In addition to the traditional focus of
biological and thermochemical routes, it is important to
support new emerging technologies such as aqueous phase
processing of biomass to diesel and jet fuel substitutes.
--Reduce the Risk of New Fuel Production Technology Via
Demonstrations, Loan Guarantees, and Sustained Support for
First-of-a-kind Projects [Integrated Biorefineries].--It is
important that DOE and the Congress understand the substantial
challenges of introducing new fuel production technology,
particularly in a market with large swings in prices. A fortune
can be made when oil prices are high--and twice as many
fortunes lost when they drop. A key approach is for DOE to
``buy down'' risk in a meaningful way to compensate for the
huge fluctuations, and enable a few first-of-a-kind projects to
succeed. DOE must also provide sustained support and avoid
dropping projects prematurely. Technology demonstrations reduce
technical and economic risk and accelerate the potential for
private investment. A high level of guarantee is vital--as
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.
--Pursue Simpler and Less Expensive Systems for Utilizing Algae
[Feedstocks].--Much simpler and less expensive systems are
needed, especially to harvest algae. This technology
advancement should be pursued before other any new large scale
projects are initiated.
--Increase Support for High Yield Feedstocks.--The cost efficient
production and handling of energy crops--which is necessary for
any significant impact on our national needs--continues to be a
major cost and issue. However, it historically has been given a
disproportionally small portion of funding.
--Conduct RD&D to Enable Greater Use of Decentralized Biopower.--A
substantial increase over the requested $50 million should be
made to support hands-on, applied RD&D to accelerate use of
biopower. The bulk of these funds should go to RD&D rather than
paper studies. Research activities of at least a pilot scale
are a priority. While expensive, these are where the real path
to commercialization happens. Biopower RD&D activities should
emphasize decentralized generation (5-50 MW), which plays to
biomass's strengths (flexibility in delivery, broad
applicability, localized/sustainable power) and environmental
benefits (less transmission lines, less fuel hauling, less
intrusiveness, more efficient/CHP). Biomass can also be pursued
for centralized generation (large power) as a strategy for
reducing greenhouse gases, and may be more attractive than
other renewables as it is readily available and can be
combusted much like coal. Large power uses may have a role for
building biomass fuel supply infrastructure via fuel supplies
developed locally with low capital cost because the coal plant
is already built. RD&D could potentially focus on performance
issues related to re-powering boilers with biomass.
--Conduct Studies Needed to Assess Cost, Permitting, and
Environmental Issues Related to Biopower.--Studies are needed
to inform industry, Congress, and the general public, but
should not be the primary focus of biopower efforts. The cost
and time for permitting of plants is already a significant
factor in biomass industrial use and is growing. Permitting
processes should be reviewed with a goal of facilitating
industry growth by making permitting as simple, quick, and
reasonable as possible. Regulators and companies need to be
confident that they can obtain permits for biomass power or
fuel plants. A scoping study of potential technologies meeting
near-term scale-up potential or useable in retrofitting
existing facilities could be useful, if it facilitates
permitting or building of plants or retrofits. Detailed cost
estimates for potential power generation and biomass conversion
facilities could stimulate serious consideration from the
business community raise awareness of successful DOE projects.
Assessment of potential GHG emission reductions is needed to
clarify the impacts on fossil energy and fossil CO2
that result from biomass crops, harvesting, energy from
forests, etc., and moving to power plants. The goal is a fair
net CO2 and net energy reduction value compared to
fossil alternatives.
--Leverage Results From Existing/Ongoing Work on Biomass to Support
Biopower Efforts.--Cost-benefit analysis on feedstock type and
delivery systems, for example, is not entirely unique to power
and similar studies conducted for biomass feedstocks and
biofuels can be leveraged to understand the biopower landscape.
______

Prepared Statement of The University of Texas at Austin
continue funding for u.s. department of energy (doe) oil and gas
research programs, including rpsea (epact section 999)
I appreciate your leadership efforts and support for oil and
natural gas research. I urge you to continue to support and grow
important fossil energy research and development (R&D) in the fiscal
year 2011 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request to Congress
recommends repeal of section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPACT), which funds RPSEA, the industry-led research consortium. The
President's budget also recommends elimination of the (already paltry)
DOE Office of Fossil Energy budget for oil and gas R&D.
Although I can, perhaps, understand the political underpinnings of
these administrative recommendations, I find the recommendations to be
short-sighted and hard to reconcile with the stated and real needs of
our Nation. These needs include, but are not limited to: (1) access to
vital energy as we try to recover from a recession and the largest
increase in deficit spending ever; (2) energy to get the U.S. economy
back on its feet; (3) access to increased domestic energy for national
security; (4) keeping and adding (non-government) American jobs, such
as those the domestic energy industry provides; and (5) science and
technology innovation in fossil energy in U.S. universities.
I have been engaged in energy production and research for nearly
three decades. In the past 2 years, I have visited many of the premier
energy locations and facilities:
--Hydro in Norway
--Wind in Denmark and West Texas
--Geothermal in Iceland
--Solar in Spain and California
--Biofuel in the United States
--Carbon sequestration in the United States
--Liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Qatar and shale gas in the United
States
--Oil in the Middle East and the United States
--Nuclear in France and the United States
During these visits I have met one-on-one with industry,
government, and academic leaders, including:
--CEO of BP, London
--CEO of Statoil, Norway
--CEO of Chesapeake, Oklahoma
--CEO of BP Capital, Dallas
--CEO of RasGas, Qatar
--CEO of Kuwait Energy
--CEO of Abengoa Solar, Spain
--CEO of Renewable Energy Corporation, California
--Deputy CEOs of Kuwait Oil and Bahrain Petroleum
--President of Denbury, Texas
--Vice President of Shell Offshore, Louisiana
--Director of MIT Energy Initiative and former U.S. Under Secretary
of Energy
--Director of U Texas Energy Institute and former U.S. Under
Secretary of Energy
--Director of Energy Institute at Stanford
--President of Iceland
--U.S. Under Secretary of Energy
--Minister of Oil, Bahrain
--Director of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris
--Deputy Director of the IEA, Paris
--Leading scientists and engineers across several energy sectors
Perhaps most important from these visits, I have learned that there
are no silver bullets in energy. We cannot turn off coal and switch on
solar. We cannot turn off natural gas and turn on wind. To imply
otherwise is disingenuous. Innovation in renewable energy is exciting
and as the decades unfold these sources of energy will improve, address
the intermittency, storage, cost, energy density, storage and
transmission challenges, and become more prevalent! Meanwhile, nations
have and will continue to use ``the energy they have, where they have
it,'' and thus the transition to a non-fossil-fuel future will take
many decades and will be unevenly distributed among developed,
developing, and undeveloped nations. It is not a matter of political
will but rather a matter of economics, scale, infrastructure, access,
thermodynamics, and kinetics.
Many large and developing nations continue to ramp up their
acquisition and use of fossil fuels. This is a reality. Philosophical
hope notwithstanding, the United States is getting its tail whipped as
the National Oil Companies (e.g., PetroChina, Petrobras, Petronas,
Total, Statoil, ARAMCO, and others) build on their own national
resource base and strong government support to become major
international players. At the same time, the few surviving
International Oil Companies (ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, and
ConocoPhillips) struggle to compete, as evidenced by layoffs in the
past year and continued mergers and acquisitions. Combined, the public
companies of the world control less than 10 percent of world oil
reserves. Read and digest that line again, and then think about U.S.
security and the health of the economy as we attempt to transition into
the future.
Energy research is vital to stay competitive and meet the energy
needs of our Nation. That includes research in fossil energy, which
together supply 85 percent of our energy demand. Research is needed in
areas such as unconventional oil, unconventional gas, carbon
sequestration, extreme environment (Arctic, deep water, subsalt,
subvolcanic, etc.) conventional oil and gas, and nanotechnology
applications in oil and gas, to name just a few.
Policy makers need to get past the notion that research support of
fossil energy should only be supported privately. That notion is
politically motivated, and to continue to promulgate it is hurting our
Nation. Federal-private partnerships are everywhere and just as
important in fossil energy as they are in renewable energy, biotech,
pharmaceuticals, agriculture, or high tech. U.S. universities are
woefully under funded with regard to Federal support for fossil energy.
We are naively and idealistically giving away the U.S. science and
engineering advantage in fossil energy research. To what end?
I strongly support increasing DOE oil and gas research funding.
This includes the RPSEA program, which has been instrumental in
providing Federal support of crucial research in unconventional onshore
natural gas and ultra-deepwater oil and gas, both of which are critical
to U.S. energy security (affordable, available, reliable, and clean).
RPSEA provides competitive grant monies to universities, which in turn
leverage those monies significantly by partnering with industry. DOE
fossil energy used to have a similar program--when they had a budget. I
cannot say it emphatically enough: A real budget needs to be
reinstated! Students and faculty benefit directly from research funding
and from the insight they each can gain from working on these research
projects. Unfortunately, this kind of research is not supported by NSF
or other blue-sky programs.
Both DOE fossil programs and RPSEA provide tremendous value to our
country, creating and supporting jobs and increasing technology
development for small and independent companies. Independent companies
are the drivers behind the dramatic increase in natural gas reserves
that the United States is enjoying today. Although they lack research
facilities and staff, they are voracious fast-adapters of useful
technology. Thus, the Federal investments we make in research funding
are paid back many times over.
A few final thoughts as you consider this important decision:
--Developing nations (China, India) are aggressively pursuing and
acquiring energy and other resources around the globe. Ignoring
our huge domestic fossil energy resource base is tantamount to
capitulation on an international scale.
--The United States should be conducting resource assessments of all
of its continental shelf areas, and we should encourage energy
companies to pursue these resources. Companies are willing to
make the huge capital outlays required to explore and develop
resources safely and cleanly, if they are allowed to do so. The
consumer and the Nation will reap the benefits, and the
environmental track record in the offshore is impressive and
well established.
--Hydraulic fracturing has been the key to the resurgence of gas
production and reserves in the United States in recent years.
This technology is not new--it has been in use for over 50
years in hundreds of thousands of wells--but it has recently
been refined for maximum impact in unconventional gas systems,
particularly in horizontal wellbores. Hydraulic fracturing has
a safe and environmentally clean track record. Claims to the
contrary are unsubstantiated or fabricated and should be
challenged at every opportunity.
I understand Congress' budget constraints, but it is essential to
maintain a robust fossil energy R&D program aimed at maximizing our
domestic fossil-energy resources. Natural gas development should be at
or near the top of the list of the Nation's priorities. New and
promising areas of natural gas development, such as the Barnett,
Bakken, Marcellus, Haynesville, and Fayetteville shale, have been made
possible through advances in technology, many of which were funded
through DOE's research efforts and are now augmented by Roseau's
efforts.
Your support of fossil energy oil and natural gas R&D programs, as
evidenced by continuing funding for RPSEA (EPACT section 999), provides
the resources to power America's economic recovery, the new workforce
to do it, and a solid energy foundation for the future.
______

Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research (UCAR)
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the larger university community involved in Earth sciences
research and education, I submit this written testimony for the record
of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development, and Related Agencies. DOE's programs and initiatives
in science and education directly support university and laboratory
communities. They are also key to building a broad-based national
resiliency to handle the great challenges of the future, including
climate change. DOE is on the frontlines building the capacity needed
to address these challenges, maintain a competitive advantage for the
United States internationally, and secure an economically and
environmentally sustainable future.
For these reasons, I urge the subcommittee to fund the President's
full fiscal year 2011 budget request for the DOE Office of Science at
$5.121 billion and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) at $2.355 billion. Furthermore, it is critical that the
subcommittee take every step to ensure that the DOE's Science budget
stays on track to double this decade, as authorized by the America
COMPETES Act of 2007.
UCAR is a consortium of 75 universities that manages and operates
the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on behalf of the
National Science Foundation and the university community. UCAR and NCAR
serve as national hubs for research and education for the atmospheric
and Earth system sciences community. UCAR also houses community
programs that bring geosciences communities together to address large-
scale, integrated research and education challenges. Our mission is to
better understand the behavior of the atmosphere and related global
systems and to help communities, States, and nations use this
information to sustain and improve life on Earth.
I applaud the DOE's ongoing leadership in the management of
programs to develop clean, alternative sources of energy, enhance
national security and independence from foreign oil, address climate
change, and educate the workforce for the emerging global clean energy
economy. With the following, I specifically want to highlight several
science research and education programs that represent the DOE's
critical investments toward a more resilient and adaptable society.
climate and earth system research
The Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) within
the DOE Office of Science makes fundamental contributions to the
Nation's premier climate and Earth system models. Such models provide
the scientific foundation for national and international decisionmaking
on climate change--how we should respond to climate change, whether we
should adapt or mitigate, etc.
In particular, BER provides indispensible support to the Community
Climate System Model (CCSM), which is being released this year in its
fourth major iteration for use in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, expected for release
in 2014. A comprehensive and sophisticated model for analyzing Earth's
past, present, and future, CCSM contributed the most simulated data of
any global model to the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. It is
providing decisionmakers around the world with a clearer picture of
what the impact of sustained climate change will be on a global scale.
CCSM is also laying the scientific foundation for higher-
resolution, downscaled models which will provide regional and local
predictions about the impacts of climate change. This regional,
downscaled approach is BER's stated focus for climate and Earth system
modeling research in fiscal year 2011. Regional and local predictions
will help States, communities, businesses, and individuals develop
effective long-term strategies to minimize damages of climate change
impacts, by either adapting or mitigating.
Thanks in part to BER support, the Nation's climate models are
becoming more realistic, incorporating more precise and complex natural
and now human processes that are shaping the global climate. While
uncertainties will always persist, these new capabilities will allow
the climate science community to address the new class of societally
relevant questions in a way that has never been done in the past. CCSM
4, for example, will for the first time feature fully interactive
carbon and sulfur cycles, as well as dynamic vegetation, aerosol
effects on clouds, carbon chemistry, natural carbon sequestration via
land surface and oceans, and interactions between the carbon cycle and
climate.
Frontiers for climate modeling in fiscal year 2011 include
understanding more fully how aerosols affect cloud formation, and in
turn radiative forcing, and how modes of natural climate variability
(e.g., the El Nino Southern Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation,
and Northern Annular Mode) will change as atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations continue to increase. Feedback cycles such as high
latitude ocean-ice interaction and methane release from Arctic
permafrost are also areas of study where scientists still have much to
learn and models still need improvement.
Understanding and responding to climate change extends far beyond
the capabilities of any one laboratory or agency. This is a broad,
interagency effort, in which DOE is a key partner. New contributions to
the design and scientific content of CCSM will not come from NCAR
alone. While CCSM is housed and managed at NCAR, it is an open source
climate model, which means that scientists across the Nation and the
world make contributions and improvements.
In order to develop more accurate, increasingly realistic, and
higher resolution climate models, with better predictive capabilities
for individuals, businesses, and communities, I urge you to fund the
Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) within the DOE
Office of Science at the President's full fiscal year 2011 budget
request of $627.0 million. BER support is critical to the university
community's most important and recognized climate modeling work.
advanced scientific computing research
Also within the DOE's Office of Science, Advanced Scientific
Computing Research (ASCR) delivers leading edge computational and
networking capabilities to scientists nationwide, enabling advances in
computer science and the development of specialized software tools
necessary to research the major scientific questions being addressed by
the Office of Science and the larger university community.
ASCR's continued progress is of particular importance to
atmospheric scientists involved with climate model development, because
an enormous amount of computing power is required to address the
interaction of the Earth's systems and global climate change. The
complex nature of the climate processes being simulated in climate
models requires very advanced software engineering to compute
efficiently at the petascale. For this reason, ASCR played a critical
role in developing the computing and networking resources for the U.S.
contributions to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, and ASCR is one of
the most important resources supporting the next generation of state-
of-the-science climate simulation tools for this country.
Because the complex and high-resolution climate scenarios produced
using the CCSM are too processor intensive to be run at NCAR alone,
they are outsourced to the DOE's Leadership Computing Facilities,
located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (OLCF), where a 2.33 petaflop
system is openly available to the scientific community, and also at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory/NERSC, Argonne National
Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Last year,
scientists at NCAR and the University of Wisconsin used Oak Ridge's
OLCF to simulate abrupt climate change and shed new light on an
enigmatic period of natural global warming in Earth's relatively recent
history. The work was featured in the July 17, 2009 issue of the
journal Science and provides valuable new data about the causes and
effects of global climate change. The scientists used nearly a million
processor hours in 2008 to run one-third of their simulation. With 4
million processor hours allocated for 2009-2011, they will complete the
simulation, capturing climate from 14,000 years ago to the present and
projecting it 200 years into the future.
The results of this research and other research like this are
brought to the broader scientific communities through another ASCR
program, the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC)
program. SciDAC facilitates the transfer of basic research efforts into
computational science applications through direct partnerships between
ASCR-supported applied mathematicians and computer scientists. In the
case of climate change, there is a growing demand for the development
of tools that will help inform decisionmakers about the options for
addressing and adapting to climate change. With computation and
simulation, scientists can model what is known about the Earth's
systems, identify uncertainties of the models, and determine the
observational data and experiments needed to further refine and improve
the models.
I urge you to fund the Advanced Scientific Computing Research
(ASCR) within the DOE Office of Science at the President's full fiscal
year 2011 budget request of $426.0 million. ASCR provides critical
processor capacity and computational tools like SciDAC that are
essential to predictive climate change research at high resolutions and
over large time scales.
workforce development for teachers and scientists
The DOE Office of Science's education programs, like the Workforce
Development for Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) Program, are also
essential to strengthening our Nation's resilience to modern challenges
like climate change. DOE is taking a leadership role in educating and
training the Nation's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) workforce and facilitating the development of the knowledge and
expertise that will prepare us to address energy and environmental
challenges.
WDTS aims to recruit and train a pipeline of highly skilled and
diverse STEM workers to meet our Nation's innovation and
competitiveness challenges. To this end, WDTS sponsors workforce
training and education programs, often based at DOE's national
laboratories, that motivate students and educators to pursue careers
that will contribute to both basic and applied science.
WDTS has also launched the DOE Office of Science Graduate
Fellowship Program to support U.S. graduate students pursuing degrees
in areas of basic science and engineering, for up to 3 years of study.
The goal of the Fellowship is to encourage talented students to pursue
research-focused graduate studies in physics, chemistry, biology,
mathematics, computer science, engineering, and environmental science.
Programs like WDTS have produced tens of thousands of leading
scientists, engineers, and technicians who have dedicated their careers
to working on the great challenges of the day, including climate
change, while pursuing answers to many of the most important scientific
questions in physics, chemistry, biology, environmental and atmospheric
science, and other areas of basic science. Their work will be critical
to our Nation's success in the 21st century.
I urge you to fund the Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists (WDTS) program within the DOE Office of Science at the
President's full fiscal year 2011 budget request of $35.6 million. We
must ensure that the next generation workforce is better prepared to
address growing energy and environmental challenges.
renewable energy r&d
Federal investment in the scientific research and technology
development involved with renewable energy is one of the most important
investments we can make in our Nation's future and our ability to build
resilience to economic and environmental challenges. Renewable energy
conveys numerous cross-cutting benefits to society, including reducing
our dependence on foreign oil, transforming the clean energy economy,
decentralizing the energy market, providing new high-tech jobs,
reducing the human toll on the environment, and mitigating global
climate change.
Our national research universities, along with DOE laboratories and
an emerging private sector, are driving the country's growth in
renewable energy and increasing the efficiency of new technologies. One
example of such collaboration includes an NCAR partnership with DOE's
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the regional utility
company, Xcel Energy, to develop sophisticated wind forecasts for
operational use. These provide critical information to select the most
productive locations for new wind turbine farms, better integrate wind-
generated electricity into the power grid, and make critical decisions
about powering down traditional coal- and natural gas-fired plants when
sufficient winds are predicted.
Given the critical importance to the Nation of developing
economically and environmentally sustainable technologies for producing
energy, I recommend that the subcommittee fully fund the President's
fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy at $2.355 billion.
re-energyse (regaining our energy science and engineering edge)
Within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE),
RE-ENERGYSE is a broad educational effort designed to inspire students
and workers to study and pursue careers in science, engineering, and
entrepreneurship related to clean energy. Today at U.S. universities,
opportunities to pursue clean energy education are far and few in
between. RE-ENERGYSE will help universities and community colleges
develop cutting edge programs, with redesigned and new curricula to
produce tens of thousands of highly skilled U.S. workers who can
sustain American excellence in clean energy in industry, trades,
academia, the Federal Government, and national laboratories.
RE-ENERGYSE will also benefit from plans to partner with the
National Science Foundation for program evaluation. This partnership
will build on the scientific and engineering expertise of both agencies
in the energy field and benefit from NSF's successful track record of
integrating research with education in programs it has developed and
administered over the past two decades.
I urge the subcommittee to fund RE-ENERGYSE at the President's
fiscal year 2011 request of $50.0 million.
I want to thank the members of the subcommittee for their continued
leadership in supporting basic and cutting-edge scientific research and
in promoting education and workforce development in the environmental
and other Earth sciences.

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

----------
Page

Allied Workers, Prepared Statement of............................ 301
American Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the..... 348
American Shore & Beach Preservation Association, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 240
American Society for Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the..... 314
American Society of Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the.......... 349
American Society of Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the.. 302
American Wind Energy Association, Prepared Statement of the...... 327
APS, Prepared Statement of....................................... 287
ASME, Prepared Statement of...................................... 344
Association of State Floodplain Managers, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 257
Aurora Water, Prepared Statement of.............................. 285
Avalence, LLC, Prepared Statement of............................. 306

Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah:
Opening Statements of....................................3, 85, 158
Questions Submitted by............................66, 145, 220, 233
Big Bear Municipal Water District, Prepared Statement of the..... 244
Biomass Energy Research Association, Prepared Statement of the... 363
Black, Steven, Chief Operating Officer, Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration,
Department of Energy........................................... 83
Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 243
Bond, Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri, Letter From.... 40
Brazos River Harbor Navigation District--Freeport, Texas,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 249
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
Questions Submitted by........................................56, 210

Castle, Anne, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Bureau
of Reclamation, Department of the Interior..................... 171
Prepared Statement of........................................ 172
Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 282
Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District, Texas, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 252
Chu, Hon. Steven, Secretary, Department of Energy................ 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 7
Statement of................................................. 6
City of Flagstaff, Arizona, Prepared Statement of the............ 247
City of Maricopa (Arizona), Prepared Statement of the............ 256
City of Santa Barbara, California, Prepared Statement of the..... 273
Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC), Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 352
Coalition for the Commercial Application of Superconductors
(CCAS), Prepared Statement of the.............................. 340
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, Prepared Statement of the... 311
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 77
Colorada River Commission of Nevada, Prepared Statement of the... 277
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 275
Colorado River Board of California, Prepared Statement of the.... 285
Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 283
Colorado River Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 293
Colorado Springs Utilities, Prepared Statement of................ 288
Colorado Water Congress, Prepared Statement of the............... 282
Connor, Hon. Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 175
Prepared Statement of........................................ 176
Questions Submitted to....................................... 226
Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the....... 349

D'Agostino, Hon. Thomas P., Administrator, National Nuclear
Security Administration, Department of Energy.................. 83
Prepared Statement of........................................ 90
Statement of................................................. 87
Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary, Corps of Engineers--
Civil, Department of the Army, Department of Defense--Civil.... 151
Prepared Statement of........................................ 163
Questions Submitted to.......................................
Statement of................................................. 161
Denver Water, Prepared Statement of.............................. 283
Dolores Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the.... 288
Donald, Admiral Kirkland H., Deputy Administrator of Nuclear
Reactors, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department
of Energy...................................................... 83
Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota:
Opening Statements of....................................1, 83, 151
Questions Submitted by.......................47, 134, 153, 202, 226

Electric Drive Transportation Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 318
Energy Northwest, Prepared Statement of.......................... 347
Energy Sciences Coalition, Prepared Statement of the............. 321

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 330
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S., Senator From California:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 86
Questions Submitted by................................140, 211, 229
Fifth Louisiana Levee District, Prepared Statement of the........ 243

GE Energy, Prepared Statement of................................. 361
Grand Valley Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of the.. 278
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Prepared Statement of the........ 347
Gulf Restoration Network, Prepared Statement of the.............. 334

Harencak, Brigadier General Garrett, Principal Assistant Deputy
Administrator for Military Applications, National Nuclear
Security Administration, Department of Energy.................. 83
Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa, Questions Submitted
by............................................................. 65

IBACOS, Inc., Prepared Statement of.............................. 322
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 301
Irrigation and Electrical Districts Association of Arizona,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 286

Little River Drainage District, Prepared Statement of the........ 245
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 265
Lower Brule Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of the........ 288

McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 224
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 294
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 268
Missouri River Association of States and Tribes, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 263
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 63

National Association of State Energy Officials, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 341
National Carbon Capture Center, Prepared Statement of the........ 331
National Hydrogen Association, Prepared Statement of the......... 336
National Hydropower Association, Prepared Statement of the....... 325
National Insulation Association, Prepared Statement of the....... 301
National Mining Association (NMA), Prepared Statement of the..... 304
New Mexico State Engineer, Prepared Statement of the............. 295
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 284
Nuclear Energy Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 319
NuScale Power, Inc., Prepared Statement of....................... 339

O'Neal, Julia, Prepared Statement of............................. 310
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, Prepared Statement of the 288
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, Prepares Statement of the...... 279

Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 274
PNM Resources, Inc., Prepared Statement of....................... 279
Port of Harlingen--Harlingen, Texas, Prepared Statement of the... 248
Precision Custom Components, LLC, Prepared Statement of.......... 300

Ramseur, Cynthia, Member, Gulf Coast Conservation Coalition and
Gulf Restoration Network, Prepared Statement of................ 307
Red River Valley Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 259
Rosebud Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of the............ 288

San Diego County Water Authority, Prepared Statement of the...... 293
San Juan Water Commission, Prepared Statement of the............. 281
San Mateo County Harbor District, Prepared Statement of the...... 239
Secretary, New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 295
Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 224
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 358
Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the....... 349
Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............. 282
State of Colorado, Prepared Statement of the..................... 280
State of New Mexico, Prepared Statement of the................... 281
State of New York, Empire State Development Corporation, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 253
State of Wyoming, Prepared Statement of the...................... 280
State Teachers' Retirement System, State of California, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 298
Stockton Port District, CA, Prepared Statement of the............ 258

Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana, Statement of..... 160
The Jicarilla Apache Nation, Prepared Statement of............... 283
The Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of..................269, 279
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; State of New
Jersey, Department of Transportation, Prepared Statement of.... 253
The Southwestern Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement
of............................................................. 284
The University of Texas at Austin, Prepared Statement of......... 367
Tri-County Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the. 278

Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 284
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 369
University of Chicago, Prepared Statement of the................. 355
US Fuel Cell Council, Prepared Statement of the.................. 336

Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert L., Chief of Engineers,
Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department
of Defense--Civil.............................................. 166
Prepared Statement of........................................ 167
Questions Submitted to....................................... 202
Ventura Port District of California, Prepared Statement of the... 272
Voinovich, Senator George V., U.S. Senator From Ohio:
Questions Submitted by......................................79, 225
Statement of................................................. 157

West River/Lyman Jones Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 288
Western Resources Advocates, Prepared Statement of............... 279
Wyoming State Engineer's Office, Prepared Statement of the....... 296
Wyoming Water Association, Prepared Statement of the............. 278

SUBJECT INDEX

----------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers--Civil

Page

Additional Committee Questions...................................
202............................................................
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act........................... 165
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.................................... 164
Construction Program............................................. 168
Fiscal Year 2011 Discretionary Funding Level..................... 163
Inland Waterways User Fee Proposal............................... 164
Investigations Program........................................... 168
New Investments in Fiscal Year 2011.............................. 164
Ongoing Priorities in the O&M Account............................ 165
Operation and Maintenance Program................................ 169
Overview......................................................... 163
Planning Improvements and Performance-based Budgeting............ 165
Summary of Fiscal Year 2011 Program Budget....................... 168
Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's Economy and
Defense........................................................ 169

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Additional Committee Questions................................... 47
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.......... 35
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act........................... 8
Biofuel Blends................................................... 23
Biomass and Biorefineries Research and Development............... 46
Carbon Capture................................................... 46
Contractor Pensions.............................................. 43
Cost of Green Jobs............................................... 38
Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2011 Program Office Highlights.. 14
Electric Vehicles................................................ 22
Energy........................................................... 8
Independence................................................. 30
Transmission Modernization................................... 45
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Supports Strategic Priorities............ 8
Foreign Production of Energy Generation Equipment................ 44
FutureGen........................................................ 21
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2011 Department of Energy Budget... 10
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.............................. 23
Hydropower....................................................... 29
Innovation....................................................... 8
International Wind Power Technology.............................. 28
Legacy Management................................................ 33
Loan Guarantees..................................................26, 37
Management....................................................... 9
Natural Gas...................................................... 34
Nuclear:
Power........................................................ 47
Waste........................................................ 37
Offshore Wind Power.............................................. 27
Project Application Process...................................... 43
Security......................................................... 9
Weatherization Grants............................................ 24
Yucca Mountain................................................... 30

National Nuclear Security Administration

Additional Committee Questions................................... 134
B61 Life Extension Program....................................... 135
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................................. 148
Ensuring Contract Competition.................................... 117
FIRP............................................................. 145
5 Year Budget Estimate Details................................... 115
Human Capital.................................................... 149
Independent Cost Estimates....................................... 119
Jason's Report................................................... 118
Lifetime Extension Program (LEP)--Executive Summary.............. 125
LLNL STUDY....................................................... 144
Managing Life Extension Programs...............................132, 135
National:
Ignition Facility.....................................128, 137, 143
Laboratory Personnel......................................... 127
Nuclear Security Administration:
Appropriation and Program Summary Tables--Out-year
Appropriation Summary Table--Fiscal year 2011 Budget
Tables................................................. 97
Budget Overview.......................................... 92
Program Summaries........................................ 93
Nonproliferation................................................. 137
Nuclear:
Nonproliferation...........................................124, 131
Efforts.................................................. 142
Surveillance................................................. 136
Weapons...................................................... 140
Design Changes........................................... 134
1 Executive Summary.............................................. 125
Physical Security Budget......................................... 146
Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility.......................... 121
Plutonium Sustainment............................................ 145
Proposed Budget Allocations...................................... 122
Second Line of Defense........................................... 138
Surveillance..................................................... 145
Tritium Readiness................................................ 146
U.S. and Russian Plutonium Disposition........................... 139
Weapons:
Activities................................................... 145
Dismantlement and Disposition................................ 137

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

Additional Committee Questions................................... 202
Aging Infrastructure............................................. 227
Allocations of Fiscal Year 2011--$15 Million..................... 206
ARRA............................................................. 203
Bayou Meto, AR&LA................................................ 209
Budget Policy of the Bureau of Reclamation....................... 191
CalFed........................................................... 229
California Bay-Delta Restoration Fund............................ 180
Cedar Rapids Flooding............................................ 181
Central Utah Project Completion Act............................185, 237
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.......................... 179
Certification Costs.............................................. 199
Climate Change Adaptation......................................174, 175
Colorado River Basin............................................. 186
Columbia River................................................... 198
Desalination Research and Development............................ 235
Devils Lake Levee Raise.......................................... 209
Drought.......................................................... 226
Effect of Proposed Budget on Authorized But Unfunded Projects.... 182
Expediting Projects for Job Creation............................. 189
Fargo-Moorhead................................................... 208
Fiscal Year 2011 Planned Activities.............................. 180
Fort Peck........................................................ 201
General Budget Questions.......................................202, 221
Grand Prairie, AR................................................ 209
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2011 Request for Water and Related
Re-
sources........................................................ 177
Howard Hanson Dam................................................ 197
Infrastructure Rehabilitation.................................... 183
Inland Waterway Management....................................... 193
Lake Powell...................................................... 186
Levee Certification.......................................188, 195, 222
Louisiana:
Coastal:
Area (LCA)............................................... 220
Restoration.............................................. 187
Hurricane Protection System.................................. 204
Miscellaneous.................................................... 236
National Levee Inventory......................................... 206
New Orleans Technical Report on Category 5 protection............ 204
North Dakota Floods.............................................. 207
Northern Plains Flooding......................................... 192
Odessa Subarea Special Study..................................... 199
Overview of the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget.......................... 173
Ozark-Jeta Taylor Project, AR.................................... 210
Policy and Administration........................................ 179
Quagga:
And Zebra Mussels Costs/Budgets.............................. 235
Mussel R&D Program........................................... 185
Mussels...................................................... 233
Red Bluff Diversion Dam.......................................... 229
Rural Water...................................................... 226
Authority.................................................... 237
Project Backlog.............................................. 200
Projects..................................................... 183
Sacramento....................................................... 216
San Joaquin River Restoration.................................... 229
Fund......................................................... 180
Specific California Projects..................................... 212
St. Mary's Rehabilitation Project................................ 200
Supporting Tribal Nations......................................174, 176
The First Year................................................... 173
Title XVI Recycled Water......................................... 227
Treasured Landscapes............................................. 174
And Restoring Rivers......................................... 176
2011 Drought Outlook............................................. 186
Water and Related Resources...................................... 177
WaterSMART....................................................... 174
Yazoo Backwater.................................................. 221