- ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

[Senate Hearing 112-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

----------

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:10 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Johnson (SD), Landrieu, Reed,
Lautenberg, Harkin, Tester, Alexander, Cochran, Collins,
Murkowski, and Graham.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers--Civil

STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

opening statement of senator dianne feinstein

Senator Feinstein. The hearing will come to order.
I would like to apologize for being late. I thought I would
tune in to the President's address, that there would be some
specifics and after a while I thought uh-oh, I better go to the
hearing. So here I am, and I want to thank everybody here for
being patient.
I want to welcome our witnesses. I happen to be a big fan
of the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and particularly all the
dredging, the levee protection, the river protection,
everything that you do in California to enable us to exist is
critical.
Mike Connor, who is the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) has done excellent work. I am a big fan in
what is a tough area in California. No adage has ever been
truer than ``whiskey is for drinking and water is for
fighting'', and California puts that into action every year. So
I thank you for being a problem-solver rather than a problem-
maker.
We all recognize, I think, the difficult fiscal environment
we are in. However, we also realize that our economy is
fragile, still recovering, and could turn the wrong way, so we
want to do our very best to see that those agencies that
stimulate economic and job growth and protect the safety of our
communities are themselves protected.
COE and BOR are the agencies we depend on to build the
water infrastructure that moves our Nation's cargo, protects
our cities from flooding, provides irrigation water and
hydropower, and facilitates much needed environmental
restoration. Not only does the work of these agencies provide
jobs now, the infrastructure that is constructed continues to
benefit the economy for decades. It is amazing.
Unfortunately, the budget request reflects the consistent
underfunding that we have seen in prior years, and I must say I
am very disappointed in our part of the continuing resolution
which takes another whack at COE.
The President's fiscal year 2012 budget for COE is $4.6
billion. That is 15 percent below the 2010 enacted amount. Two
major project accounts for the Department of the Interior under
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee are proposed at $1.05
billion, which is 7 percent below the fiscal year 2010 enacted
amount. That is a lot. So this is a tough budget for both
agencies.
For COE, the top six construction projects account for $737
million of the $1.48 billion requested for construction work.
That is 51.8 percent of the total. The other 79 construction
projects--79--compete for the remaining 48 percent of funds.
In the general investigation account, 75 percent of the
funding is directed to national programs and two individual
studies. The other 63 studies proposed will have to compete for
25 percent of the funds.
In BOR's budget, I am pleased to see the administration
propose a new account for the San Joaquin River restoration.
The $9 million in discretionary funding, along with the
mandatory funding under the joint settlement agreement between
the Federal Government, the State, and the water contractors
will assure that water impacts are reduced or avoided while
maintaining the San Joaquin River ecosystem.
Rural water projects are funded in both the water and
related resources account and the proposed new Indian water
rights account for fiscal year 2012. There are seven ongoing
rural water projects proposed at $35.5 million from the water
and related resources account for 2012. All of these benefit
various tribes. The new Indian water rights account proposes
$51.5 million for four similar new projects. One has to wonder
whether these funds can be effectively used for these new rural
water systems in fiscal year 2012. That will be something for
us to look into.
So I want to welcome Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Lieutenant General Robert
L. Van Antwerp, the Chief of Engineers for the United States
Corps of Engineers. And from the Department of the Interior, we
will hear from Anne Castle, the Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science, and the wonderful Mike Connor, Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation.
Now before formally introducing you, I would like to
indicate my great pleasure in introducing my ranking member for
this. We worked together on the Interior Committee and it was
very easy to do. We were able to work out any issue, and you
are really a gentleman, Lamar, and in this arena that is doubly
appreciated. You get double points. So I thank you for being
you, and I am delighted to recognize you for your remarks.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is a treat
to work with you. Thank you for the compliment. What I
especially like about Senator Feinstein is she was a mayor. She
can make decisions and she speaks with precision. So it is easy
to work with her. And we have many of the same values and
judgments about the future of our country.
Senator Feinstein said that whiskey is for drinking and
water is for fighting in the West, and all across our country,
I think all of us are here today because we know that inland
waterways and locks are for creating private sector jobs. And
that is really the number one goal we have got in this country
no matter where we are from.
I want to thank the chair for holding this hearing and
thank all the distinguished leaders of the Departments for
coming. COE has been around since the Revolutionary War. It
touches the lives of every American, keeps our inland waterways
open and running, manages our drinking water, provides
emission-free electricity, looks after recreational waters, and
as Tennesseans found out last year during our flood, helps us
manage river levels during serious flooding. It does many
things well, but we want to be in a position to help COE do
things even better and jobs are a good place to start.
The Nation's inland waterways do not get on the front pages
as much, but they keep trucks off our highways. They result in
lower fuel costs at a time when fuel is going up. They reduce
the cost of repairing roads. Barges can carry a ton of freight
576 miles on a gallon of fuel compared to the 150 miles per
gallon a truck can carry a ton of freight. And one barge of dry
cargo can displace as many as 70 trucks, putting that freight
on our waterway and taking it off our crowded interstate.
We think of the Chickamauga Lock in the Chattanooga area of
Tennessee. If it were to close, which it has a real risk of
doing if it is not replaced, it would put 100,000 big trucks on
I-75. If COE is committed to mothball projects, it would expand
the amount of freight on our waterways. In fact, the only
inland waterways project COE has prioritized is years past its
planned completion date, hundreds of millions of dollars over
budget, with still no end in sight. We have to find a solution
that expands our current locks and gets new ones built.
One of the things that I want to talk about today when my
question time comes is that industry, commercial users, came to
COE in good faith in 2008, attempted to find a solution to put
more money in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, only to have COE
appear to walk away from the documented help draft and condemn
the report's findings. I would like to have some answers about
why that happened. What could have been a great example about
how industry and Government could work together turned out to
be a cautionary tale about a fickle Government dealing with an
industry.
So the questions, Madam Chair, that I will be asking are
how do we fix the trust fund and make sure that projects like
Chickamauga Lock get built. Are we doing all we can to utilize
our ports and harbors? We need to examine how we are managing
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The President said his goal
in the State of the Union Address was to double exports. It is
going to be hard to do unless we provide adequate funding for
dredging our ports and harbors. And then what are the specific
factors driving decisionmaking on COE projects? We need to ask
for detailed examinations and explanations of how decisions are
made and the process by which certain projects are deemed
priorities.
This is an important hearing. I am glad to be a part of it.
And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. And I thank you, Senator.
From the Department of the Interior, we will hear from Anne
Castle, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
General Antwerp, it is my understanding that this is going
to be your last appearance before the subcommittee as you will
be retiring next month. So you can give us the true,
unvarnished truth, as you see it.
We will expect nothing less. I want to thank you for your
many years of service to our Nation. I look forward to working
with your successor, General Bostick, once he is confirmed.
I want to remind the witnesses that your full statements
will be in the record, and I hope you will just provide a brief
summary of what you are saying. And then we will go the early
bird rule, and I will alternate sides in recognizing Senators.
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, could I ask unanimous
consent that a statement appear at this point in the record?
Senator Feinstein. You certainly may, and all statements
will be put in the record.
[The statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran

Madam Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing to review the
administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to join you in
welcoming the panel for attending today's hearing.
My State is fortunate to border such prominent bodies of water as
the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico, which are both vital to
our domestic economy for shipping and travel. Our relationship with the
Corps of Engineers has enabled Mississippi and its neighboring States
to benefit from access to these waters while also benefiting from COE-
built levees, dams, and locks which safeguard against floods. COE has
also been very helpful over the years in helping Mississippi address
many of its aging wastewater infrastructure issues throughout our
State. Flood control, port dredging, and environmental infrastructure
projects are very important to our State, and we appreciate your
responding to these needs.
The fiscal year 2012 proposal for the Mississippi River and its
tributaries has caused concern among commodity exporters who worry
about COE's ability to maintain the Mississippi River channel at
authorized depths. The Mississippi River System enables more than $100
billion in exports to traverse its waters annually. Thousands of jobs
rely on a fully functioning river system, and I hope COE will continue
to respond to these national and local interests.
I look forward to your testimony, and to working with you during
the coming year.

Senator Feinstein. Secretary Darcy, would you begin please?

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF JO-ELLEN DARCY

Ms. Darcy. Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget for the civil works program
of COE.
The budget requires new appropriations of $4.631 billion.
In keeping with the administration's program to put the Nation
on a sustainable fiscal path, this is $836 million, or about 15
percent, below the 2010 enacted amount of $5.445 billion. It is
about a 6 percent reduction from the 2011 budget for the civil
works program.
The budget concentrates funding primarily in the three
civil works program areas: commercial navigation, flood and
coastal storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration.
The 2012 budget continues the Army's commitment to a
performance-based approach to budgeting in order to provide the
best overall return from available funds in achieving economic,
environmental, and public safety objectives.
The budget provides $50 million for a comprehensive levee
safety initiative to help ensure that Federal levees are safe
and to assist non-Federal entities as they address safety
issues with their own levees.
The operation and maintenance program also includes a new
environmental and energy sustainability program to reduce
energy consumption at COE projects and buildings.
The 2012 budget places priority on collaboration with other
Federal agencies in the development of funding allocations for
aquatic ecosystem restoration. For 2012, this collaboration is
reflected in five major ecosystems:
--the California Bay-Delta;
--Chesapeake Bay;
--the Everglades;
--the Great Lakes; and
--the gulf coast.
The budget provides for use of $758 million from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain coastal commercial
navigation channels and harbors.
The administration plans to develop legislation to expand
the authorized uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund so
that its receipts are available to finance the Federal share of
other efforts in support of commercial navigation through our
Nation's ports. No decisions have been made yet on what
additional costs would be proposed to be paid from this Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund.
Inland waterways capital investments are funded in the
budget at $166 million, of which $77 million is financed from
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. This is the total amount that
is affordable in 2012 with the current level of revenue coming
into the trust fund. The administration will work with the
Congress and stakeholders to authorize a new mechanism to
increase the revenue paid by commercial navigation users of the
inland waterways.
The administration also plans to work with the Congress and
stakeholders to explore ways to support broader
recapitalization of COE's aging infrastructure, modification of
its operations, or deauthorization as appropriate, consistent
with our modern day water resources principles and priorities.
Last year, President Obama established the America's Great
Outdoors initiative to promote innovative community-level
efforts to conserve outdoor spaces and to reconnect Americans
to the outdoors. The Civil Works recreation program is closely
aligned with the goals of the America's Great Outdoors
initiative and includes a variety of activities to reconnect
Americans, especially our young people, with the Nation's
outdoor resources.
We continue to strengthen COE's planning expertise,
including through greater support for our planning centers of
expertise and continued support for the development of revised
water project planning principles and guidelines.
A number of lower-priority programs and activities receive
reduced or no funding in our 2012 budget. For example, funding
for maintenance of navigation harbors and waterway segments
that support little or no commercial use is reduced by about
one-half. Also, no funding is provided for small projects in
several of the continuing authorities programs. The budget
proposes to reprogram $25 million of prior year funds from
these lower-priority programs to finance ongoing phases of
projects in higher-priority continuing authorities programs.
In summary, the President's budget for 2012 for the Army
Civil Works program is a performance-based budget. It supports
water resources investments that will yield long-term returns
for the Nation.
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I look
forward to working with you in support of the President's
budget.

PREPARED STATEMENT

And if you would indulge me for about 30 seconds, I would
like to personally thank General Van Antwerp for his years of
service. I came into this job a year and a half ago and I could
not have asked for a better partner and a better leader for
COE, and he will be sorely missed. So thank you.
[The statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jo-Ellen Darcy

Madam 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 (COE) for fiscal year
2012.

COE DEG.OVERVIEW

The fiscal year 2012 budget for the Civil Works program reflects
the administration's priorities through targeted investments in the
Nation's infrastructure that help restore the environment and
revitalize the economy, while also reflecting the need to put the
country on a fiscally sustainable path. With those tenets in mind, the
primary objectives of the budget are as follows:
--Focus funding on water resources infrastructure projects that
produce high economic and environmental returns to the Nation
and those that address public safety needs.
--Restore high-priority ecosystems such as the California Bay-Delta,
Chesapeake Bay, the Everglades, the Great Lakes, and the gulf
coast.
--Support a comprehensive levee safety initiative to help ensure that
Federal levees are safe and to enhance efforts to assist non-
Federal parties to address safety issues with their levee
systems.
--Provide priority funding to the maintenance of high-performing
projects.
--Propose changes in the way Federal activities in support of
commercial navigation through the Nation's ports are funded,
and support increases in inland waterways receipts.
--Improve the way in which COE addresses the Nation's most pressing
water resources challenges.
--Increase the organizational efficiency and improve the management,
oversight, and performance of ongoing programs.
The budget concentrates funding for development and restoration of
the Nation's water and related resources within the three main Civil
Works program areas:
--commercial navigation;
--flood and coastal storm damage reduction; and
--aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Additionally, the budget supports hydropower, recreation,
environmental stewardship, and water supply services at existing water
resources projects owned or operated by COE. Finally, the budget
provides for protection of the Nation's regulated waters and wetlands;
cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of the Nation's early efforts
to develop atomic weapons; and emergency preparedness. The budget does
not fund work that should be the responsibility of non-Federal
interests or other Federal agencies, such as water and wastewater
treatment projects.

COE DEG.FISCAL YEAR 2012 DISCRETIONARY FUNDING LEVEL

The budget provides gross new discretionary funding of $4.631
billion, which 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 $57
million in unobligated funding previously provided in the Mississippi
River and Tributaries account for construction of the Yazoo Backwater
Pumps, Mississippi project. This cancellation would achieve $57 million
in real savings for the American taxpayer. Of the amount proposed to be
cancelled, $22 million is an offset to fiscal year 2012 gross
appropriations, for a net request of $4.609 million. (The Congress
appropriated the remaining $35 million to ``restore'' funds that COE
had ``borrowed'' under the Stafford Act while responding to a natural
disaster at another project. Because the Congress restored these funds
in an emergency supplemental appropriation, their cancellation does not
``score'' as an offset to our discretionary funding request.)
In keeping with the administration's program to put the Nation on a
sustainable fiscal path, the funding for Civil Works in the 2012 budget
is $836 million, or about 15 percent, below the enacted amount of
$5.445 billion in fiscal year 2010. It is about 6 percent below the
fiscal year 2011 budget level. The fiscal year 2012 funding level
reflects a considered, practical, effective, and sound use of available
resources, focusing on those investments that are in the best interest
of the Nation.
Within the $4.631 billion recommended gross appropriations, $1.48
billion is for projects in the Construction account, and $2.314 billion
is for activities funded in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
account. The budget also includes $104 million for Investigations; $210
million for Mississippi River and Tributaries; $27 million for Flood
Control and Coastal Emergencies; $196 million for the Regulatory
Program; $109 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 of the Army (Civil Works). Attachment
1 shows this funding by account and by program area.

ATTACHMENT 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET--BUSINESS LINE/ACCOUNT CROSS-WALK
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Categories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR&T
Business Lines ------------------------------------ OASA
I C O&M TOTAL FUSRAP FCCE REG E (CW) TOTAL
I C O&M MRT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood and Coastal Storm Damage 48 721 523 1 63 91 155 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,447
Reduction.........................
Coastal........................ 7 23 8 ....... ....... 3 3 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 41
Inland......................... 41 698 515 1 63 88 152 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,406
Hydropower......................... ....... 6 176 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 182
Navigation......................... 18 283 1,237 ....... 13 24 37 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,575
Coastal........................ 7 117 706 ....... ....... 2 2 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 832
Inland......................... 11 166 531 ....... 13 22 35 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 743
Environment:
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.. 38 470 23 ....... 2 ....... 2 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 533
Stewardship.................... ....... ....... 96 ....... ....... 4 4 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 100
FUSRAP......................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 109 ....... ....... ....... ....... 109
Regulatory......................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 196 ....... ....... 196
Recreation......................... ....... ....... 247 ....... ....... 12 12 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 259
Emergency Management (incl. NEPP).. ....... ....... 7 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 27 ....... ....... ....... 34
Water Supply....................... ....... ....... 5 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 5
Expenses........................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 185 ....... 185
OASA(CW)........................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 6 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................ 104 1,480 2,314 1 78 131 210 109 27 196 185 6 4,631
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I=Investigations; C=Construction; O&M=Operation and Maintenance; MR&T=Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries; FUSRAP=Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program; FCCE=Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies; REG=Regulatory Program; NEPP=National Emergency Preparedness Program; E=Expenses;
OASA (CW)=Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).

The fiscal year 2012 budget continues the Army's commitment to a
performance-based approach to budgeting to provide the best overall
return from available funds from a national perspective in achieving
economic, environmental, and public safety objectives. Competing
investment opportunities for studies, design, construction, and
operation and maintenance were evaluated using multiple metrics, and
objective performance criteria guided the allocation of funds.
The fiscal year 2012 budget supports investments in flood and storm
damage reduction, commercial navigation, environmental restoration, and
other programs. The distribution of funding among these programs is
similar to the distribution in the fiscal year 2011 budget, except that
environmental restoration received a slightly lower proportion of
overall funding. Of the total in the fiscal year 2012 budget, 31
percent is allocated to flood and storm damage reduction; 34 percent is
allocated to commercial navigation; 18 percent is allocated to
environmental restoration and protection; and 17 percent is allocated
among other program areas.

COE DEG.NEW INVESTMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2012

The Civil Works budget includes funding for two construction new
starts and several other new initiatives, as described below.
In the Construction account, the budget includes $8 million for a
new start for the Hamilton City project in California, which provides
environmental restoration and flood damage reduction benefits. The
budget also includes $3 million to initiate a storm damage reduction
project along the New Jersey coast between Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook
Bay in the Port Monmouth area.
There are four new study starts in the Investigations account: Fish
Passage at Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams on the Yuba River in
California for $100,000; environmental restoration and flood damage
reduction at Cano Martin Pena in Puerto Rico for $100,000; the
Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan for $250,000; and the Louisiana
Coastal Area Comprehensive Plan for $100,000.
The O&M program includes $12.3 million for a new environmental and
energy sustainability program. This will involve developing tools to
enable COE to meet Federal sustainability goals and implementing
energy-saving measures at COE projects and buildings. The 38 Civil
Works COE districts will compete for these funds by proposing specific
measures to conserve energy. Lessons learned from this competition will
inform future investments to increase environmental and energy
sustainability of the Civil Works program.
The budget provides $50 million for a comprehensive levee safety
initiative. This initiative includes $46 million in the O&M account to
continue and expand activities to help ensure that Federal levees are
safe and to assist non-Federal entities to address safety issues with
their levees. The levee safety initiative also includes $4 million in
the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account. These funds will be
used for COE participation in the expansion of interagency teams, known
as Silver Jackets, to include every State, and to provide unified
Federal assistance in implementing flood risk management solutions.

COE DEG.AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

The fiscal year 2012 budget places priority on collaboration with
other Federal agencies in the development of funding allocations for
aquatic ecosystem restoration. Attachment 2 provides a list of the
ecosystems and funding amounts budgeted on this basis.

FISCAL YEAR 2012 PRIORITY ECOSYSTEMS FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecosystem
account Projects and studies Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Bay Delta:
I \1\ Yuba River Fish Passage (new recon) 0.10
I San Pablo Bay Watershed Study 0.50
C \2\ Hamilton City (new start) 8.00
I/C/O&M Additional studies and projects in 49.00
Navigation and Flood Damage Reduction
Pro- grams
-----------------
Total, California Bay Delta 58.00
=================
Chesapeake Bay:
I Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Study (new 0.25
recon)
C Poplar Island 12.00
C Chesapeake Bay Oysters 5.00
-----------------
Total, Chesapeake Bay 17.00
=================
Everglades:
C Continuing projects and activities 163.00
O&M \3\ Continuing projects and activities 5.00
-----------------
Total, Everglades 168.00
=================
Great Lakes:
I Interbasin control--(Great Lakes-Ms R 3.00
Nuisance Species)
C Chicago sanitary and ship canal 13.50
O&M Chicago sanitary and ship canal 10.50
-----------------
Total, Great Lakes 27.00
=================
Gulf coast:
GI Louisiana coast comprehensive study 0.10
(new recon)
GI LCA studies 16.00
CG LCA projects 10.60
-----------------
Total, Gulf coast 27.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ I=Investigation
\2\ C=Construction
\3\ O&M=Operation and Maintenance.

In connection with this effort, the budget provides $168 million
for COE for the ongoing South Florida Everglades Restoration Program,
consisting of $163 million for Construction and $5 million for O&M. The
budget supports the continued construction of five ongoing aquatic
ecosystem restoration projects in south Florida:
--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 $58 million for studies and projects in the
California Bay-Delta, including an important new reconnaissance study
for fish passage at Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams on the Yuba
River; an ongoing feasibility study for the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta Islands and Levees; an ongoing comprehensive feasibility study
for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins; and a new construction
project at Hamilton City for ecosystem restoration and flood damage
reduction.
The budget includes $128 million for the Columbia River Fish
Mitigation program, an ongoing effort to reduce the adverse impacts of
a series of COE dams on migrating salmon. Funds will be used to
construct juvenile fish bypass facilities, improve adult fish ladders
and conduct other activities that support salmon habitat. The budget
also provides $73 million for ongoing work under the Missouri River
fish and wildlife recovery program to construct shallow water habitat
and undertake other activities to recover and protect federally listed
species, such as the pallid sturgeon.

COE DEG.INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

The administration plans to work with the Congress and stakeholders
to explore ways to support recapitalization of aging COE
infrastructure, modification of its operations, or de-authorization,
consistent with modern-day water resources principles and today's and
tomorrow's water resources priorities. Under these principles, direct
beneficiaries would be asked to pay a significant share of the costs to
rehabilitate, expand or replace projects, as they would for a new
project, commensurate with the benefits they receive. Options such as
direct financing will be considered as part of this effort, where
appropriate.
The aging of infrastructure affects all of our activities. For
example, with regard to the production of hydropower, the fiscal year
2012 budget provides $176 million to operate and maintain COE
hydropower facilities. In order to decide how best to use the available
funding, COE has been working under its Hydropower Modernization
Initiative (HMI) to develop a long-term capital investment strategy.
One significant feature of the HMI is the Asset Investment Planning
Tool, which was designed to:
--analyze the condition of critical components and the consequences
of failure;
--determine the value of additional hydropower and its cost; I14 --
quantify risk exposure for capital investments; and
--create 20-year funding scenarios to allow for timely and cost-
effective rehabilitation or replacement of hydropower
facilities and their components.
To assist the Federal Government in rehabilitating aging equipment,
COE also is pursuing increased use of non-Federal funds.

COE DEG.HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

The budget provides for use of $758 million from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain coastal channels and harbors.
Despite an overall Civil Works reduction of 15 percent below the
enacted fiscal year 2010 level, the amount recommended in the fiscal
year 2012 budget for harbor maintenance and related work is essentially
unchanged from the 2 prior years. The administration also plans to
develop legislation to expand the authorized uses of the Trust Fund, so
that its receipts are available to finance the Federal share of other
efforts in support of commercial navigation through the Nation's ports.
No decisions have been made yet on what additional costs would be
proposed to be paid from receipts into the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. Development of proposed legislation will proceed in the coming
months.

COE DEG.INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND

Inland waterways capital investments are funded in the budget at
$166 million, of which $77 million is financed from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. This is the total amount that is affordable in
fiscal year 2012 with the current level of revenue coming into the
Trust Fund. The administration will work with the Congress and
stakeholders to revise the laws that govern the Trust Fund, to include
increasing the revenue paid by commercial navigation users of the
inland waterways to meet their share of the costs of activities
financed from this trust fund.

COE DEG.AMERICA'S GREAT OUTDOORS INITIATIVE AND CIVIL WORKS
RECREATION

On April 16, 2010 President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum
establishing the America's Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative to promote
and support innovative community-level efforts to conserve outdoor
spaces and to reconnect Americans to the outdoors. This initiative was
celebrated at several events around the country, including a public
``listening'' event the Secretary of the Interior and I held in August
2010 at a Civil Works project near St. Louis, Missouri.
COE has been actively involved with the AGO initiative, working in
concert with its partners to leverage financial and human resources so
the public can continue to enjoy water-based recreation opportunities
at COE lakes. The Civil Works recreation program and activities are
closely aligned with the goals of the initiative and include a variety
of measures to reconnect Americans, especially young people, with the
Nation's outdoor resources.
COE manages 12 million acres of lands and waters supporting water-
based recreation and environmental stewardship. The Civil Works program
is particularly well-suited to support the AGO initiative, given that
90 percent of COE projects are within 50 miles of metropolitan areas.
Camping, hiking, swimming, boating, and other water-oriented recreation
opportunities attract 370 million visits a year to 422 COE projects. In
addition, COE has active programs to conserve and protect lands and
waters for wildlife, fisheries, endangered species and open space.

COE DEG.PLANNING IMPROVEMENTS

Working through the Chief of Engineers, the Army continues to
strengthen and improve the planning expertise of COE, including greater
support for planning Centers of Expertise, better integration of
project purposes, greater reliability of cost estimates and schedules
in planning and programming, and continued support for the development
of revised water project planning Principles and Guidelines. Also, the
Army has initiated a pilot program to identify means of enabling
studies to reach decisions more efficiently.

COE DEG.VETERANS CURATION PROJECT

The fiscal year 2012 budget includes $2 million to continue the
Veterans Curation Project, which provides vocational rehabilitation and
innovative training for wounded and disabled veterans, while achieving
historical preservation responsibilities for archaeological collections
administered by COE. The project supports work by veterans at curation
laboratories located in Augusta, Georgia; St. Louis, Missouri; and
Washington, DC.

COE DEG.LOWER-PRIORITY PROGRAMS

Funding of $76 million is provided in the fiscal year 2012 budget
for maintenance of navigation harbors and waterway segments that
support low commercial use. This is a reduction of $64 million from the
fiscal year 2011 budget. The Estuary Restoration Program is funded at
$2 million, compared to $5 million in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
No funding is provided for small projects in 4 of the 9 Continuing
Authorities Programs (CAPs):
--section 14 (emergency streambank and shoreline protection);
--section 103 (shore protection);
--section 107 (navigation); and
--section 208 (snagging and clearing).
The budget proposes to reprogram $23 million of CAP funds carried
over from prior years from these four CAPs to finance ongoing phases of
projects in 4 of the remaining 5 CAPs:
--section 111 (mitigation of shoreline damages caused by navigation
projects);
--section 204 (beneficial use of dredged material);
--section 206 (aquatic ecosystem restoration); and
--section 1135 (modification of completed projects for the benefit of
the environment).
Section 205 (flood damage reduction) also is supported, and has
sufficient carryover within it to finance the fiscal year 2012 program
without a reprogramming.
No funding is provided for the Aquatic Plant Control program, nor
is specific line item funding provided for coordination activities
associated with the National Estuary Program and the North American
Waterfowl Management Program. Coordination activities will take place,
as appropriate, in connection with separately funded programs and
projects.
Funding under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP) is reduced by $21 million, from $130 million in the fiscal
year 2011 budget to $109 million in the fiscal year 2012 budget.

COE DEG.AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA)

COE continues the work funded in 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 Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program. The ARRA funds were allocated to more
than 800 projects in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico, and 400 of those projects have been completed.
Nearly all of the $4.6 billion of these funds have been obligated,
leaving only a small amount, as authorized, for contract supervision
and administration, as well as known contract claims and modifications.
As of last month, more than $3.1 billion of the total had been
expended, primarily payments to contractors for work already completed.
Of the more than 2,100 recipients of the COE ARRA funds, 99.8 percent
submitted a report last quarter as required under the act and
provisions of ARRA contracts.
The projects funded by ARRA provide important support to the
Nation's small businesses in their economic recovery. Of the total ARRA
funds, small business awards account for about 51 percent of the ARRA
funds obligated and about 72 percent of the total contract actions.
COE achievements to date with ARRA funds include improvement of 28
important commercial navigation harbors and channels; repair or
improvement of dozens of hydropower projects; accelerated completion of
site cleanup at 9 FUSRAP sites; completion of 822 periodic inspections
of federally constructed levee systems, including both systems
maintained by COE and those maintained by local sponsors; and
completion of important work to restore 57 aquatic ecosystems.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget for the Army
Civil Works program is a performance-based budget that supports water
resources investments that will yield long-term returns for the Nation.
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I look forward to
working with this subcommittee in support of the President's budget.
Thank you.

Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much for those words.
General Van Antwerp, would you like to make some comments?

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP,
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
General Van Antwerp. Madam Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, the budget this year funds 92
construction projects, 55 in the flood-storm-damage reduction.
Three are budgeted for completion. We have 16 commercial
navigation projects in this budget and 19 aquatic ecosystem
projects. Two of these are scheduled as new starts.
The budget supports our continued stewardship of water-
related infrastructure. The operation and maintenance program
for the fiscal year 2012 budget includes $2.314 billion and an
additional $131 million under the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program.
COE teammates continue to respond wherever and whenever
needed to help during major floods and other national
emergencies. As you can imagine, we are gearing up right now.
The budget provides $27 million for the preparation for floods,
hurricanes, and other natural disasters, to include $4 million
to support the levee safety initiatives in States known as
``silver jackets.''
I would like to just provide a quick update on preparations
as we look forward--not really look forward to, but as we
anticipate potential spring flood events. We are working with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National
Weather Service to monitor the high probability of spring
flooding in the north central United States, a lot of which is
already happening out there, specifically the Red River and the
upper Mississippi River and the Minnesota River. Based on our
projections, our Commanders have requested the advance planning
and advance measures funding needed to flood fight. We are out
there on the ground right now. And I guess in three words I
would say we are ready.
On the international front, although not covered
specifically by this subcommittee, I am proud to tell you a
little bit about our work in Iraq and Afghanistan, if you will
indulge me that. We have 1,168 COE members, largely civilians,
right now deployed overseas. Every day they put on their battle
armor and they work on the projects that we have asked them to
do. They have completed more than 6,000 infrastructure and
water-related projects. We have a lot of our Civil Works
members that work in COE over there deployed on this military
mission.
Last month, Ms. Darcy and I traveled to Afghanistan with my
counterparts from the other services and witnessed this amazing
work and had a chance to praise them for their efforts and
thank them.
On the 21st and 22d of March, we traveled down to New
Orleans. We wanted to visit all the major projects in our
Hurricane Storm Damage Risk Reduction System and make sure that
the system was ready to defend against the 100-year event by
June 1 and I am proud to say and happy to say that we are
ready. It has just been amazing what work has been done down
there.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Finally, I would like to just say that we are committed to
staying on the leading edge of service to our Nation in these
water-related issues, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp

Chairman Feinstein and distinguished members of the subcommittee: I
am honored to be testifying before your subcommittee today, along with
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Honorable Jo-
Ellen Darcy, on the President's fiscal year 2012 budget for the Civil
Works Program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
My statement covers the following 12 topics:
--Summary of fiscal year 2012 program budget;
--Direct program;
--Investigations program;
--Construction program;
--Operation and maintenance program;
--Reimbursable program;
--Proposed legislation;
--Planning program modernization;
--Efficiency and effectiveness of COE operations;
--Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's economy and
defense;
--Research and development; and
--National defense;

COE DEG.SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2012 PROGRAM BUDGET

COE is fully committed to supporting the President's priorities to
reduce the deficit, revitalize the economy and restore and protect the
environment. The fiscal year 2012 Civil Works budget is a performance-
based budget that 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 risks 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 Backwater Pumps, Mississippi
project. The reimbursable Interagency and International Services
Program is projected to involve an additional $1.6 billion.

COE DEG.DIRECT PROGRAM

The budget includes $4.6 billion, including funding for the
operation and maintenance of more than 600 flood and storm damage
reduction projects, 143 commercial coastal navigation projects, and 51
commercial navigation projects on the inland waterways. It also funds
continuing construction of 90 construction projects and 2 new
construction starts. The budget includes funds for 58 studies already
underway and 4 new study starts. It will enable COE to process
approximately 70,000 permit requests and to operate 75 hydropower
plants with 350 generating units that produce about 24,000 megawatts
per year. The budget will enable about 370 million outdoor recreational
visits to COE projects and will provide water supply storage for about
14 percent of the Nation's municipal water needs. The budget will
sustain COE's preparedness to respond to natural disasters that we may
experience. Finally, the budget also proposes to reduce Federal costs
through a reduction in funding in lower-priority programs.

COE DEG.INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM

The budget for the Investigations program will enable COE to
evaluate and design future projects that are most likely to be
highperforming within COE 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 $1 million in the Mississippi River
and Tributaries account. It funds 58 continuing studies (1
reconnaissance and 57 feasibility) and 4 new studies:
--Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River) Fish Passage,
California;
--Cano Martin Pena, Puerto Rico;
--the Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan; and
--the Louisiana Coastal Area Comprehensive Study.
Funding is also included for the Water Resources Priorities Study,
a high-priority evaluation of the Nation's vulnerability to inland and
coastal flooding, as well as the effectiveness, efficiency, and
accountability of existing water resource programs and strategies.

COE DEG.CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

The goal of the construction program is to deliver as high a value
as possible to the Nation from the overall available funding through
the construction of new water resources projects and the replacement,
rehabilitation, and expansion of existing water resources projects in
the three main Civil Works missions (flood and storm damage reduction,
aquatic ecosystem restoration, and commercial navigation) and related
projects (principally hydropower). The fiscal year 2012 budget includes
$1.48 billion in the Construction account and $78 million in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account to further this objective.
Consistent with this goal, the budget also gives priority to projects
that address a significant risk to human safety.
The budget funds 92 construction projects, including:
--55 Flood and Storm Damage Reduction projects (3 budgeted for
completion);
--16 Commercial Navigation projects (including 5 continuing
mitigation items and 4 dredged material placement areas);
--19 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration projects (including 3 projects to
meet Biological Opinions); and
--mitigation associated with 2 Hydropower projects.
Two of these construction projects are new starts. In the
construction program, the aquatic ecosystem restoration mission also
includes significant environmental mitigation work in the Columbia
River Basin and the Missouri River Basin needed to support the
continued operation of COE multi-purpose projects, which improves
habitat and migration pathways for endangered and threatened species.
Performance measures, which COE uses to establish priorities among
projects, include the benefit-to-cost ratios for projects with economic
outputs and the most cost-effective restorations of significant aquatic
ecosystems. The selection process also gives priority to dam safety
assurance, seepage control, static instability correction work, and to
projects that address a significant risk to human safety. These
performance measures maximize benefits to the Nation from the Civil
Works construction program by focusing on the projects that will
provide the best net returns for each dollar invested.

COE DEG.OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

The facilities owned and operated by, or on behalf of, COE 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 at many of our projects as infrastructure ages.
The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program for the fiscal year
2012 budget includes $2.314 billion and an additional $131 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 O&M
program supports completed works owned or operated by the Corps of
Engineers, including administrative buildings and laboratories. Work to
be accomplished includes:
--operation of the locks and dams of the inland waterways;
--dredging of inland and coastal Federal commercial navigation
channels;
--operating multiple purpose dams and reservoirs for flood damage
reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, hydropower,
recreation, and other related purposes;
--maintenance and repair of these facilities;
--monitoring of completed storm damage reduction projects along our
coasts; and
--general management of facilities and the lands associated with
these purposes.

COE DEG.REIMBURSABLE 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
design and construction of projects, these agencies can turn to COE ,
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 serve. We only accept
agency requests that we can execute without impacting our Civil Works
or Military Programs missions, are consistent with our core technical
expertise, and are in the national interest.
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 2012 is projected to be $1.6
billion, reflecting completion of most ARRA work and a general
reduction in budget capability for most of our other agency customers.
The exact amount will depend on requests from the agencies.

COE DEG.PROPOSED LEGISLATION

The budget includes several legislative proposals that will improve
operations or enable execution of important national programs. The
budget proposes to extend the authority to implement measures to
prevent the migration of invasive aquatic species into the Great Lakes,
to transfer funds between accounts to enable completion of the New
Orleans perimeter protection by June 2017, to purchase the property
that houses the Cold Regions Research Engineering Laboratory in
Hanover, New Hampshire, and to make a minor modification to existing
law that will enable us to serve in an official capacity in meetings of
the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses. As
included in the testimony of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) Jo-Ellen Darcy, the budget also discusses two other important
legislative initiatives, concerning the way in which Federal navigation
activities are funded.

COE DEG.PLANNING PROGRAM MODERNIZATION

COE will continue to implement actions to improve its Civil Works
Planning Program performance through a planning modernization effort.
This effort focuses on how best to organize, manage, operate, and
oversee the planning program to more effectively address 21st century
water resources challenges, including:
--improved project delivery that yields smarter outcomes;
--improved technical capability of our planners;
--enhanced collaboration with Federal, State, local, and
nongovernmental partners;
--evaluating and enhancing Corps Planning Centers of Expertise
production capability and staffing; and
--strengthening the objectivity and accountability of our planning
efforts.
Our improved planning performance will include:
--updated planning guidance and policy;
--streamlined, adaptable planning processes to improve effectiveness,
efficiency, accuracy, and responsiveness; and
--enhanced technical capabilities.
In fiscal year 2011, COE launched a 2-year National Planning Pilot
Program to test the concepts of this approach within our current policy
and to develop and refine methodologies and processes for planning
studies across all business lines in a manner that is sustainable and
replicable and that will inform future Civil Works guidance. We expect
to conduct approximately 7 to 9 pilot studies over the course of the
National Planning Pilot Program.

COE DEG.EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF COE OPERATIONS

COE always strives to continually improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of its investigations, construction, and operation and
maintenance programs. In fiscal year 2012, COE will further expand the
implementation of a modern asset management program; increase its focus
on the most important maintenance work; implement an energy
sustainability program; pursue major efficiencies in the acquisition
and operations of its information technology assets; and complete the
ongoing reorganization of its acquisition workforce.

COE DEG.EMERGENCY RESPONSE

From across the Nation, the people who work for COE continue to
respond whenever needed to the call to help during major floods and
other national emergencies. The critical work they are doing reduces
the risk of damage to people and communities. The budget provides $27
million for preparedness for floods, hurricanes, and other natural
disasters, including $4 million in support of the levee safety
initiative for COE participation in the expansion of interagency teams
known as Silver Jackets, to include every State, and provide unified
Federal assistance in implementing flood and storm damage reduction
solutions.

COE DEG.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 by providing
more cost-effective ways to operate and maintain infrastructure, Civil
Works program research and development contributes to the national
economy.

COE DEG.NATIONAL DEFENSE

Internationally, COE continues to support the mission to help Iraq
and Afghanistan build foundations for democracy, freedom, and
prosperity.
We are proud to serve this great Nation and our fellow citizens,
and we are proud of the work COE does to support America's foreign
policy, particularly with our ongoing missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Men and women from across the COE--all volunteers and many of whom have
served on multiple deployments--continue to provide critical support to
our military missions there and humanitarian support to the citizens of
those nations. Currently, 1,168 COE employees (civilian and military)
are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have completed a total
of more than 6,000 infrastructure and water resources projects.
Ms. Darcy and I traveled to Afghanistan last month. As with every
opportunity that I've had to travel to that theater, I continue to be
amazed--but not surprised--by the progress being made. It was truly a
privilege to visit with the outstanding COE men and women who are
making this happen, and to see their dedication and commitment.
In Afghanistan, the COE is spearheading a comprehensive
infrastructure program for the Afghan national army, and is also aiding
in critical public infrastructure projects.

CONCLUSION

COE 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, Chairman Feinstein and members of the subcommittee. This
concludes my statement.

Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, General.
Secretary Castle, would you like to begin?

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

STATEMENT OF HON. ANNE CASTLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE
ACCOMPANIED BY REED MURRAY, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
COMPLETION ACT OFFICE

Ms. Castle. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Alexander,
and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here
to discuss the President's 2012 budget request with you today.
You have noted Commissioner Connor's presence. With me also is
Reed Murray who is the Director of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act (CUPCA) should you have any specific questions
about that program.
Interior's mission is essential to our American way of
life. We protect our natural resources and our cultural
heritage. We honor our Nation's trust responsibilities to
American Indians and Alaska Natives. We supply water to lands
and people throughout the West. We provide energy to power our
future. Our Interior Department people and programs touch
virtually every single American.
The Interior 2012 budget funds our primary mission areas,
and we have done that by eliminating and reducing lower-
priority programs, by streamlining and gaining efficiencies,
and by deferring some projects.
The 2012 combined budget request for BOR and the CUPCA
program is $1.1 billion. As you said, Madam Chair, that is a
$78.3 million reduction, 7 percent, from the 2010 enacted
level.
One of the highest priorities that we have in the
Department of the Interior is to address water challenges by
providing Federal leadership on the path to a sustainable water
future. We are doing that through our WaterSMART initiative,
and we are trying to address the 21st century pressures on our
Nation's water supplies. The 2012 budget request by Interior
for the WaterSMART initiative is $70 million. That is
distributed between BOR and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Of that request, $59 million is for BOR programs. That
includes three ongoing BOR programs, the title 16 Water
Recycling and Reuse Grant Program, the Basin Studies Program,
and the WaterSMART cost share grant funding.
Two additional programs are being added to the WaterSMART
initiative this year. One already existed within BOR. That is
the Water Conservation Field Services program. The other is the
Cooperative Watershed Management program which is a new program
authorized under the Secure Water Act, and we have seed money
in the BOR budget for that in 2012.
USGS has requested funding to undertake a multiyear
nationwide water availability and use assessment that was also
authorized by the Secure Water Act, and that is what its
funding is in the WaterSMART program.
I want to briefly highlight just a few of BOR's other
significant efforts. BOR just released its hydropower resource
assessment that takes a look at the potential to add hydropower
capacity to existing BOR facilities. The next phase of that
assessment will look at adding hydropower capacity to canals
and conduits. So we are trying to assess the potential for
additional renewable energy at existing facilities.
We are currently in a dialogue with Mexico on the
management of the Colorado River, and we have ongoing efforts
to improve our water operations on the Colorado River--from
looking at renewable energy projects in the headwaters all the
way down to desalination efforts near the Mexican border.
We are actively pursuing solutions to the ongoing water
challenges in the California Bay-Delta. Our efforts there are
focused on co-leading with the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) an interagency effort to implement the December 2009
Interim Federal Action Plan.
Our 2012 budget includes funding for the initial
implementation of four Indian water rights settlements that
were authorized in the Claims Resolution Act at the end of last
year. And in addition to those four settlements, BOR's budget
includes funding for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, an
ongoing project.
With respect to CUPCA, the 2012 budget request is for $33
million. That includes $28.5 million to design, construct and
provide land acquisition for the Utah lake system, which is the
last remaining component of the Central Utah Project. That
amount includes full funding for the construction of the Provo
River Canal Enclosure Project, which will provide 8,000 acre-
feet of saved water to benefit endangered species and 30,000
acre-feet, when completed, to municipalities in Salt Lake and
Utah Counties in Utah.
This budget was constructed, as has been said, in the
context of very difficult economic times. We took a hard look
at our existing programs. We made some very, very tough calls,
and we made some reductions in order to shoulder our share of
responsibility to reduce the deficit. We think we have done
that in a way that adequately protects water and power
deliveries, protects the ecosystems that are affected by those
delivery systems so that we can ensure reliability of supplies
in the future, and makes appropriate investments in our
infrastructure.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I look forward to your questions. I appreciate and thank
you for your support, and this subcommittee's support of the
missions within the Department of the Interior. I look forward
to discussing this budget with you.
[The statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Anne Castle

Madam Chair, Senator Alexander, and members of this subcommittee, I
am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2012 budget for the Department of the Interior. I would also like
to thank the members of this subcommittee for your ongoing support for
our initiatives over the last 2 years.
The 2012 budget builds on that strong foundation with $12.2 billion
requested for the Department of the Interior. The budget demonstrates
that we can responsibly cut the deficit, while investing to win the
future and sustain the national recovery. Our budget promotes the
actions and programs that America told us are important in 50 listening
sessions across the country. In response, we developed a new 21st
century conservation vision--America's Great Outdoors. The budget
continues to advance efforts that you have facilitated in renewable
energy and sustainable water conservation, cooperative landscape
conservation, youth in the outdoors, and reforms in our conventional
energy programs.
I will also discuss the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request
for implementation of the Central Utah Project Completion Act, and I
thank the subcommittee for your continued support of the Central Utah
Project Completion Act Program as well.

INTRODUCTION

Interior's mission--to protect America's natural resources and
cultural heritage and honor the Nation's trust responsibilities to
American Indians and Alaska Natives--is profound. Interior's people and
programs impact all Americans.
The Department is the steward of 20 percent of the Nation's lands
including national parks, national wildlife refuges, and the public
lands. Interior manages public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf,
providing access for renewable and conventional energy development and
overseeing the protection and restoration of surface-mined lands.
Through the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Interior is the largest
supplier and manager of water in the 17 Western States and provides
hydropower resources used to power much of the country. The Department
supports cutting edge research in the earth sciences--geology,
hydrology, and biology--to inform resource management decisions at
Interior and improve scientific understanding worldwide. The Department
of the Interior also fulfills the Nation's unique trust
responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives, and provides
financial and technical assistance for the insular areas.
The Department of the Interior makes significant contributions to
the Nation's economy. It supports more than 1.3 million jobs and more
than $370 billion in economic activity each year. Parks, refuges, and
monuments generate more than $24 billion in economic activity from
recreation and tourism. Conventional and renewable energy produced on
Interior lands and waters results in about $295 billion in economic
benefits and the water managed by Interior supports more than $25
billion in agriculture. The American outdoor industry estimates 6.5
million jobs are created every year from outdoor activities.

BOR DEG.2010 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

At the start of the administration, Interior set on a course to
create a comprehensive strategy to advance a new energy frontier;
tackle the impacts of a changing landscape; improve the sustainable use
of water; engage youth in the outdoors; and improve the safety of
Indian communities. These priority goals integrate the strengths of the
Department's diverse bureaus and offices to address key challenges of
importance to the American public. Interior has been making progress in
these areas, including:
Approving 12 renewable energy projects on public lands that when
built, will produce almost 4,000 megawatts of energy, enough energy to
power close to 1 million American homes, and create thousands of
construction and operational jobs.
Designating more than 5,000 miles of transmission corridors on
public lands to facilitate siting and permitting of transmission lines
and processing more than 30 applications for major transmission
corridor rights-of-way.
Establishing 3 of 8 planned regional Climate Science Centers and 9
of 21 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.
Issuing grants to water districts and other water delivery
authorities resulting in the conservation of 150,000 acre-feet of
water.
Increasing the number of youth employed in conservation through
Interior or its partners by 45 percent more than 2009 levels.
Reducing overall crime in four Indian communities as a result of a
concerted effort to increase law enforcement officers, conduct training
in community policing techniques, and engage the communities in law
enforcement efforts.
The Department advanced key priorities and strategic goals that
will improve the conservation and management of natural and cultural
resources into the future.
Interior, along with the Department of Agriculture, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Council on Environmental
Quality, participated in the White House Conference on America's Great
Outdoors and held 50 public listening sessions across the Country that
have helped shape a conservation vision and strategy for the 21st
century. We have released a report, America's Great Outdoors: A Promise
to Future Generations that lays out a partnership agenda for 21st
century conservation and recreation.
In the spirit of America's Great Outdoors, we welcomed new national
wildlife refuges in Kansas and Colorado and proposed a new conservation
area in Florida at the headwaters to the Everglades. These refuges mark
a new era of conservation for the Department, one that is community-
driven, science-based, and takes into account entire ecosystems and
working landscapes.
The Department worked with others to develop an action plan to help
address water supply and environmental challenges in the California
Bay-Delta area, invested more than $500 million in major water projects
over the past 2 years, and moved forward on long-standing water
availability issues in the Colorado River Basin.
In December, the Secretary issued a recommendation to the Congress
to undertake an additional 5.5 miles of bridging on the Tamiami Trail
in the Everglades above and beyond the 1-mile bridge now under
construction. When combined with other planned work in the Everglades
Agricultural Area and water conservation areas, this project should
restore 100 percent of historic water quantity and flow to Everglades
National Park.
With the help of the Congress, we brought about resolution of the
Cobell v. Salazar settlement and resolved four Indian water rights
issues through enactment of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. We also
completed negotiation of a new Compact of Free Association with the
island of Palau which awaits congressional approval.
In December of last year, the President hosted the second White
House Tribal Nations Conference bringing together tribal leaders from
across the United States; we are improving the Nation-to-nation
relationship with 565 tribes.

BOR DEG.FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Interior's 2012 budget must be viewed in the context of the
difficult fiscal times facing the Nation and the President's freeze on
discretionary funding. The 2012 budget reflects many difficult budget
choices, cutting worthy programs and advancing efforts to shrink
Federal spending. The budget contains reductions totaling $1.1 billion
or 8.9 percent of the 2010 enacted level. Staffing reductions are
anticipated in some program areas, which will be achieved through
attrition, outplacement, and buy-outs to minimize the need to conduct
reductions in force to the greatest extent possible. These reductions
are a necessary component of maintaining overall fiscal restraint while
allowing us to invest additional resources in core agency priorities.
This budget is responsible. Interior's $12.2 billion budget funds
important investments by eliminating and reducing lower-priority
programs, deferring projects, reducing redundancy, streamlining
management, and capturing administrative and efficiency savings. It
maintains funding levels for core functions that are vital to uphold
stewardship responsibilities and sustain key initiatives. The 2012
request includes $11.2 billion for programs funded by the Interior,
environment, and related agencies appropriation. The 2012 request for
BOR and the Central Utah Project Completion Act, funded in the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act, is $1.1 billion in current
appropriations, $78.3 million or 7 percent below the 2010 enacted
level.

BOR DEG.INVESTING IN THE FUTURE

America's Great Outdoors.--Last year, the administration initiated
a national dialogue at the White House Conference on America's Great
Outdoors. In 50 listening sessions held across the Country, the public
communicated their conservation and recreation priorities, and the
result is a report to the President, ``America's Great Outdoors: A
Promise to Future Generations''. The report outlines how the Federal
Government can support a renewed and refreshed conservation vision by
working in collaboration with communities, farmers and ranchers,
businesses, conservationists, youth, and others who are working to
protect the places that matter to them and by engaging people across
the country in conservation and recreation.
The 2012 America's Great Outdoors initiative focuses on investments
that will lead to healthy lands, waters and resources while stimulating
the economy--goals that are complementary. Through strategic
partnerships, Interior will support and protect historic uses of lands,
restore lands and resources, protect and interpret historic and
cultural resources, and expand outdoor recreation opportunities. All of
these activities have significant economic benefits in rural and urban
communities.
Youth.--Furthering the youth and conservation goals of the
America's Great Outdoors initiative, the 2012 budget proposes to
continue engaging youth by employing and educating young people from
all backgrounds.
Interior is uniquely qualified to engage and educate young people
in the outdoors and has programs that establish connections for youth
ages 18 to 25 with natural and cultural resource conservation. These
programs help address unemployment in young adults and address health
issues by encouraging exercise and outdoor activities. For example,
Interior is taking part in the First Lady's Let's Move initiative to
combat the problem of childhood obesity. Interior has long-standing
partnerships with organizations such as the 4-H, the Boy Scouts, the
Girl Scouts, the Youth Conservation Corps, and the Student Conservation
Association. These programs leverage Federal investments to put young
people to work and build a conservation ethic.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation.--Interior's 2012 budget
realigns programs and funding to better equip land and resource
managers with the tools they need to effectively conserve resources in
a rapidly changing environment. Significant changes in water
availability, longer and more intense fire seasons, invasive species
and disease outbreaks are creating challenges for resource managers and
impacting the sustainability of resources on public lands. These
changes result in bark beetle infestations, deteriorated range
conditions, and water shortages that negatively impact grazing,
forestry, farming, as well as the status of wildlife and the condition
of their habitats. Many of these problems are caused by or exacerbated
by climate change.
Interior's 2012 budget includes $175.0 million for cooperative
landscape conservation, an increase of $43.8 million. The budget funds
the completion of the Climate Science Centers and Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives, the organizing framework for the
Department's efforts to work collaboratively with others to understand
and manage these changes. These efforts will allow the Department to
meet its priority goal to identify resources vulnerable to climate
change and implement coordinated adaptation response actions for 50
percent of the Nation by the end of 2012.
Water Challenges.--Interior is working to address the 21st century
pressures on the Nation's water supplies. Population growth, aging
water infrastructure, changing climate, rising energy demands, impaired
water quality and environmental needs are among the challenges. Water
shortage and water use conflicts have become more commonplace in many
areas of the United States, even in normal water years. As competition
for water resources grows, the need for information and tools to aid
water resource managers also grows. Water issues and challenges are
increasing across the Nation, but particularly in the West and
Southeast due to more prolonged droughts than we have experienced
historically. Traditional water management approaches no longer meet
today's needs.
BOR proposes to fund the rebased WaterSMART at $58.9 million, $11
million below 2011 levels. The three ongoing WaterSMART programs
include:
--the WaterSMART Grant program funded at $18.5 million;
--Basin Studies funded at $6 million; and
--the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program funded at $29
million.
The rebasing adds the existing Water Conservation Field Services
program, funded at $5.1 million, and participation by BOR in the
Cooperative Watershed Management program, funded at $250,000.
WaterSMART is a joint effort with USGS. USGS will use $10.9 million, an
increase of $9 million, for a multi-year, nationwide water availability
and use assessment program.
Other significant programs and highlights specific to BORinclude:
In 2010, the Secretary issued a Secretarial Order establishing the
WaterSMART program which embodies a new water sustainability strategy.
WaterSMART coordinates Interior's water sustainability efforts, creates
a clearinghouse for water conservation best practices and implements a
department-wide water footprint reduction program to reduce consumption
of potable water by 26 percent by 2020.
We are in dialogue with Mexico on the management of the Colorado
River. We have ongoing efforts to improve our management of resources
on the Colorado River, from renewable hydropower development near the
headwaters to a pilot program of desalination near the Mexican border.
We are actively pursuing workable solutions to regional issues such
as in the California Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta is a source of drinking
water for 25 million Californians and sustains about $400 billion in
annual economic activity, including a $28 billion agricultural industry
and up until recently supported a thriving commercial and recreational
fishing industry. Our efforts in the Bay-Delta are focused on co-
leading an inter-agency effort with the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) to implement the December 2009 Interim Federal Action
Plan for the California Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. In coordination
with five other Federal agencies, we are leveraging our activities to
address California water issues, promote water efficiency and
conservation, expand voluntary water transfers in the Central Valley,
fund drought relief projects, and make investments in water
infrastructure. Over the past 2 years, we have invested more than $500
million in water projects in California. We have also, in close
coordination with NOAA and the State of California, worked on the
California Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, a long-term plan aimed at
restoring both reliable water supplies and a healthy Bay-Delta
ecosystem.
On March 22 we announced an update to the Water Supply Allocation
for Central Valley Project (CVP) water users for 2011. This updated
allocation reflects improved precipitation and snowpack in the Sierra
Nevada Mountains in the last month. We are pleased to report that the
current allocation for most CVP contractors is 100 percent of their
contract supply. Agricultural water service contractors South-of-Delta
allocations have been increased from 50 percent to 65 percent and
municipal and industrial contracts from 75 percent to 90 percent. These
allocations represent good news given recent years, but many challenges
remain. We will continue to work with our Federal, State, and local
partners to improve water supply reliability while addressing
significant ecological issues. BOR is continuing to update the forecast
to provide the most current information to its stakeholders.

BOR DEG.HYDROPOWER

Hydropower is a very clean and efficient way to produce energy and
is a renewable resource. Each kilowatt-hour of hydroelectricity is
produced at an efficiency of more than twice that of any other energy
source. Further, hydropower is very flexible and reliable when compared
to other forms of generation. BOR has nearly 500 dams and 10,000 miles
of canals and owns 58 hydropower plants, 53 of which are operated and
maintained by BOR. On an annual basis, these plants produce an average
of 40 million megawatt (MW) hours of electricity, enough to meet the
entire electricity needs of more than 9 million people on average.
BOR and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have an
existing MOU, signed in 1992, that addresses the establishment of
processes for early resolution of issues related to the timely
development of non-Federal hydroelectric power at BOR facilities. BOR
and FERC recently met to discuss how to improve the timeliness of the
processes developed in that MOU and resolution of authority issues.
BOR is assessing the potential for developing low-head
hydroelectric generating capacity on federally owned canals and
conduits.
Overall, the Department shares the subcommittee's view that
interagency coordination can leverage Federal and private sector
investment in additional hydropower development. This consideration was
foremost in the Department's signing a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Department of Energy and COE on March 24, 2010 to increase
communication between Federal agencies and strengthen the long-term
relationship among them to prioritize the generation and development of
sustainable hydropower. This administration is committed to increasing
the generation of environmentally sustainable, affordable hydropower
for our national electricity supplies in as efficient a manner as
possible.
Indian Land and Water Settlements.--Interior's 2012 budget includes
$84.3 million in BOR and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to implement
land and water settlements.
BOR's budget includes $51.5 million for the initial implementation
of four settlements authorized in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010.
The legislation included water settlements for the Taos Pueblo of New
Mexico and Pueblos of New Mexico named in the Aamodt case, the Crow
Tribe of Montana, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona. BOR's
contribution to the Navajo-San Juan settlement is also included in the
account.
The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 establishes trust funds for
tribes to manage water systems and settlement funds to develop
infrastructure. The primary responsibility for constructing these water
systems was given to BOR, while BIA is responsible for the majority of
the trust funds, which includes $207.2 million in mandatory funding in
2011.
These settlements will deliver clean water to the Taos Pueblo and
the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque in New
Mexico, the Crow Tribe of Montana, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe
of Arizona. In addition to funding for the initial implementation of
these four settlements, BOR's budget includes $24.8 million for the
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project. In the 2012 budget, BORis
establishing an Indian Water Rights Settlements account to assure
continuity in the construction of the authorized projects and to
highlight and enhance transparency. Both BOR and BIA are working
cooperatively to implement the settlements.

BOR DEG.CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT (CUPCA)

I am pleased to provide the following information about the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for implementation of
CUPCA.
CUPCA, titles II-VI of Public Law 102-575, provides for completion
of the Central Utah Project (CUP) by the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District. The act also authorizes funding for fish, wildlife, and
recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in the
Treasury for deposit of these funds and other contributions;
establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission
to coordinate mitigation and conservation activities; and provides for
the Ute Indian Rights Settlement.
The 2012 request for the Central Utah Project Completion Account
provides $33 million for use by the District, the Mitigation
Commission, and the Department to implement titles II-IV of the act,
which is $9 million less than the 2010 enacted level. The decrease in
funding for the 2012 budget is due in part to accelerated funding
provided in 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and
in part to the administration's effort to reduce the deficit.
The request for the District includes $28.5 million to fund the
designs, specifications, land acquisition, and construction of the Utah
Lake System ($18.5 million). This includes full funding ($10 million)
for construction of the Provo River Canal Enclosure Project, which when
completed will provide 8,000 acre-feet of conserved water for
endangered fish and convey 30,000 acre-feet of CUP water.
The request includes $2 million for the Mitigation Commission to
implement the fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and
conservation projects authorized in title III ($1.8 million) and to
complete mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992 BOR planning
documents ($200,000), all of which are necessary to allow CUP
operations.
Finally, the request includes $2.5 million for the program office
for endangered species recovery and operation and maintenance costs
associated with instream flows and fish hatchery facilities ($954,000)
and for program administration ($1.6 million).

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Department of the
Interior. I want to reiterate my appreciation for the long-standing
support of this subcommittee. This budget has fiscal discipline and
restraint, but it also includes forward looking investments. We have a
tremendous opportunity to improve the future for all generations with
wise investments in healthy lands, clean waters and expanded energy
options.
I look forward to working with you to implement this budget. This
concludes my overview of the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the
Department of the Interior. I am happy to answer any questions that you
may have.

Senator Feinstein. Thank you very, very much.
General, I would like to begin with the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund if I might. It is my understanding that this fund
has a significant surplus and that the budget request states
that the administration will be making a proposal concerning
the fund. As I understand it, this proposal will allow other
agencies that are conducting port-related activities to charge
those activities to the trust fund. Is that correct? Could you
explain this proposal?
General Van Antwerp. Senator, I will take a stab at that
and then turn to my policy partner here to address the other
part.
First of all, you are absolutely correct that there is a
large amount in the fund, probably estimated at around $6
billion.
Senator Feinstein. Excuse me.
General Van Antwerp. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. I left out Commissioner Connor, and it
was truly an oversight. Why do you not finish with that, if it
is agreeable? Then, Commissioner Connor, I really apologize.
General Van Antwerp. We were smiling at each other. I
thought you let him off the hook. We want to hear from him. I
will just conclude this one part about the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund.
Generally in a given year, we get about $1.4 billion in
receipts, and we have budgeted this year along the lines of
$750 million from the trust fund.
And I will let Ms. Darcy take the policy part of this, if
that is okay.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, fine.
Ms. Darcy. Would you like me to finish now, Senator?
Senator Feinstein. Well, where I am going is whether or not
this rapidly depletes the trust fund.
Ms. Darcy. Well, the trust fund, as the General said, gets
about $1.4 billion annually; those funds currently are in the
Treasury even though all of the funds that come in must be
appropriated. And for COE, we get about $783 million
appropriated from that annual revenue stream in our annual
appropriations. So the balance is in the Treasury and the rest
of its use is determined by the administration and by the
Congress.
Senator Feinstein. It is my understanding that the budget
proposal does not provide for full authorized widths and depths
to be maintained at any harbor handled by COE. Maybe you would
like to come back to this, but my concern is that you will eat
up the trust fund with other activities. The dredging gets done
partially and we have some real impediment to trade and
commerce in our country. So we will come back to that.
Commissioner Connor.

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Madam Chair. I took no offense. If I
have learned nothing else in this job, it is sometimes the less
said the better.
So I thank you for your kind words and I thank you and the
members of the subcommittee for your support of BOR, and I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the President's 2012
request.
Overall, BOR's budget reflects a comprehensive set of
actions and initiatives that support BOR's mission. The budget
continues to emphasize working smarter to address the water
needs of a growing population. Certainty and sustainability are
primary goals with respect to the use of water resources that
require BOR to take action on many fronts, and our budget
proposal was developed with that principle in mind.
I should note that our efforts to work smarter include an
array of partnerships with COE, from the Joint Dam Safety and
Flood Protection Project at Folsom Dam to our sustainable
hydropower initiative. In these tight budget times, combining
our resources with those of COE will help bring value to the
American taxpayer.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for BOR focuses on six
priorities which I want to touch briefly on in my remaining
time, and I will avoid those areas already discussed.
Number 1, infrastructure. Overall, our budget continues to
support the need to maintain infrastructure in a safe operating
condition while addressing the myriad of challenges facing
water users in the West. Approximately 51 percent of our water
and related resources budget, or $407 million, is dedicated to
operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation activity. These
activities include the dam safety program, site security
program, and RAX, which is shorthand for replacements,
additions, and extraordinary maintenance.
As already noted, a second priority is the WaterSMART
program. A specific aspect that I want to highlight is that we
have established a priority goal for approving and funding
actions to increase the available water supply for
agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in
the Western United States by 490,000 acre-feet by the end of
2012. WaterSMART concentrates on expanding and stretching
limited water supplies in the West to reduce conflict,
facilitate solutions to complex water issues, and meet the
needs of expanding municipalities, the environment, and
agriculture. Conservation and efficient management are central
to the creative solutions needed in the arid West.
Ecosystem restoration is the third priority area. In order
to meet BOR's mission goals of sustainably producing power and
delivering water, we must continue to focus on the protection
and restoration of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems affected
by our operations. Ecosystem restoration involves a large
number of activities, including our Endangered Species Recovery
programs.
Twenty to 25 percent of BOR's 2012 budget is allocated to
activities in support of ecosystem restoration. This amount
includes the request for operating, managing, and improving
California's Central Valley Project, or CVP. CVP-related
funding will support completion of the Red Bluff pumping plant
and fish screen project on the Sacramento River, the Trinity
River, and the San Joaquin River restoration programs, and
other actions to protect and enhance California's Bay-Delta
region.
Our budget request also supports ongoing implementation of
the Lower Colorado River Multi-species Program, the Platte
River Endangered Species Recovery Program, the Upper Colorado
and San Juan River Endangered Fish Programs.
In addition, funding requested for the Columbia and Snake
River Salmon Recovery Program will implement required
biological opinion actions associated with the Federal Columbia
River power system.
Finally, funding is also sought for the Klamath, Middle Rio
Grande, and Yakima projects to support extensive initiatives to
address the competing demands in those basins.
Cooperative landscape conservation and renewable energy
production, a fourth area of focus, are departmental
initiatives in which BORis actively engaged. As a threshold
matter, we are developing and implementing approaches to
understand and effectively adapt to the risks and impacts of
climate change on western water. As you know, Madam Chair,
better than anybody, the future protections of decreasing flows
in the Colorado River and reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevada
Mountains have already caused Californians to actively begin
implementing local and regional solutions to the threats to
their water supplies and the environment. Other areas of the
country are starting to follow suit.
Through our Basin Studies program and implementation of the
Secure Water Act, BOR is aggressively trying to assist in
acquiring the data and improving the science related to future
projections of water supplies so that effective adaptation
strategies can be developed and implemented. In 2012, the Basin
Studies program will continue west-wide risk assessments
focusing on the threats to water supplies from climate change
and other sources and will coordinate responsive actions with
the Department's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.
BOR's science and technology program will also continue
research that targets improved capability for managing water
resources in the face of climate change, invasive species
issues, as well as integrating renewable energy and energy-
efficiency activities into our water operations.
A fifth initiative is very important to the administration
and that is our longstanding commitment to the Secretary's goal
to strengthen tribal nations. Assistant Secretary Castle has
already mentioned our support for the Indian water rights
programs. BOR is going to begin a number of implementation
activities this year in support of the recently enacted four
settlements, as well as continuing activities with respect to
other Indian water rights settlements.
I should note that we have requested $36 million for rural
water projects which also support a number of tribal nations.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Madam Chair, in conclusion, we appreciate again your
support for BOR and the support of the subcommittee, and I will
answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Michael L. Connor

Thank you Madam Chair, Senator Alexander, and members of this
subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss with you the President's
fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
With me today is Bob Wolf, Director of Program and Budget.
I appreciate the time and consideration this subcommittee gives to
reviewing and understanding BOR's budget and its support for the
program. BOR works hard to prioritize and define our program in a
manner that serves the best interest of the public.
Our fiscal year 2012 request continues support for activities that,
both now and in the future, will deliver water and generate hydropower,
consistent with applicable State and Federal law, in an environmentally
responsible and cost-effective manner. Overall, our goal is to promote
certainty, sustainability, and resiliency for those who use and rely on
water resources in the West. Success in this approach will help ensure
that BOR is doing its part to support the basic needs of communities,
as well as providing for economic growth in the agricultural,
industrial, and recreational sectors of the economy. In keeping with
the President's pledge to freeze spending and focus on deficit
reduction, this budget reflects reductions and savings where possible.
Although the 2012 budget request allows BOR to fulfill its core
mission, essential functions have been trimmed and economized wherever
possible.
The budget continues to emphasize working smarter to address the
water needs of a growing population and assisting States, tribes, and
local entities in solving contemporary water resource challenges. It
also emphasizes the operation and maintenance of BOR facilities in a
safe, efficient, economic, and reliable manner; assuring systems and
safety measures are in place to protect the public and BOR facilities.
Funding for each program area down to the individual projects within
BOR's request is based upon adherence to administration, departmental,
and BOR priorities. BOR is responsible for the oversight, operation,
and maintenance of major Federal infrastructure that is valued at $87.7
billion in current dollars. Key areas of focus for fiscal year 2012
include Water Conservation, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and
Renewable Energy, Ecosystem Restoration, Youth Employment, supporting
tribal nations and maintaining infrastructure. Recognizing the budget
challenges facing the Federal Government as a whole, BOR will continue
its efforts to partner with other Federal agencies such as the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Department of Energy (DOE), and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, to maximize the efficiency by
which we implement our programs.
BOR's 2012 budget request is $1 billion, which includes $53.1
million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF). This
request is offset by discretionary receipts in the CVPRF, estimated to
be $52.8 million. The request for permanent appropriations in 2012
totals $194.5 million. Overall, BOR's 2012 budget is a responsible one
and consistent with the administration's goal of fiscal sustainability.
BOR will still be making strategic investments that provide a strong
foundation to meet water resources challenges across the West.

BOR DEG.WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

The 2012 budget request for Water and Related Resources, BOR's
principal operating account, is $805.2 million, a decrease of $108.4
million from the 2011 request.
The request includes a total of $398.5 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 BOR lands
including recreation, and actions to address the impacts of BOR
projects on fish and wildlife.
The request also provides a total of $406.7 million for water and
power facility operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation activities.
BOR emphasizes safe, efficient, economic and reliable operation of
facilities, ensuring systems and safety measures are in place to
protect the facilities and the public. Providing the funding needed to
achieve these objectives continues to be one of BOR's highest
priorities.

BOR DEG.HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 REQUEST FOR WATER
AND RELATED RESOURCES

I would like to share with the subcommittee several highlights of
the BOR budget including an update on the WaterSMART (Sustain and
Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow) Program and Interior's
establishment of a Priority Goal target to enable capability to
increase available water supply for agricultural, municipal,
industrial, and environmental uses in the Western United States by
490,000 acre-feet by the end of 2012.
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.
BOR proposes to fund the rebased WaterSMART program at $58.9
million, $11 million below 2011 levels. The three ongoing WaterSMART
programs include:
--the WaterSMART Grant program funded at $18.5 million;
--Basin Studies funded at $6 million; and
--the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program funded at $29
million.
The rebased program adds the existing Water Conservation Field
Services program, funded at $5.1 million, and participation by BOR in
the Cooperative Watershed Management program, funded at $250,000. This
is a joint effort with the USGS.
Other significant programs and highlights include:
Ecosystem Restoration.--In order to meet BOR's mission goals of
securing America's energy resources and managing water in a
sustainable manner for the 21st century, a part of its programs
must focus on the protection and restoration of the aquatic and
riparian environments affected by its operations. Ecosystem
restoration involves a large number of activities, including
BOR's Endangered Species Act recovery programs, which are
required in order to continue project operations and directly
address the environmental aspects of the BOR mission.
The 2012 request provides $154.6 million for operating, managing
and improving California's Central Valley Project (CVP). This amount
supports Ecosystem Restoration including $34.8 million for the Red
Bluff Pumping Plant and Fish Screen within the CVP, Sacramento River
Division, which will be constructed to facilitate passage for
threatened fish species, as well as providing water deliveries. The
funding for the CVP also includes $10.5 million for the Trinity River
Restoration program and $3 million from the CVP Restoration Fund which
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.
The request includes $26 million for Lower Colorado River
Operations to fulfill the role of the Secretary as water master for the
Lower Colorado River and implementation of the Lower Colorado River
Multi-Species Conservation (MSCP) program which provides long-term
Endangered Species Act compliance for the operations. Of this amount,
$18.3 million for the MSCP program will provide quality habitat to
conserve populations of 26 species.
The budget requests $20 million for other Endangered Species Act
Recovery Implementation programs, including $11 million in the Great
Plains Region to implement the Platte River Endangered Species Recovery
Implementation program. It also includes $6.2 million for the Upper
Colorado and San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery programs. This
funding will continue construction of a system that automates canal
operations to conserve water by matching river diversions with actual
consumptive use demands and redirecting the conserved water to improve
instream flows. Additionally, the Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery
program funding of $17.8 million will be used for implementation of
required Biological Opinion actions including extensive hydro actions,
plus tributary habitat and hatchery initiatives.
The 2012 budget includes $18.6 million for the Klamath project,
which supports studies and initiatives to improve water supplies to
meet the competing demands of agricultural, tribal, wildlife refuge,
and environmental needs in the Klamath River Basin.
No funding is requested for the Klamath Dam Removal and
Sedimentation Studies. These studies are being completed with funds
previously appropriated and will be used to inform a Secretarial
Determination in 2012 as to whether removing PacifiCorp's four dams on
the Lower Klamath River is in the public interest and advances
restoration of the Klamath River fisheries. The studies and Secretarial
Determination are being carried out pursuant to an agreement with
PacifiCorp and the States of California and Oregon.
The 2012 budget includes $23.6 million for the Middle Rio Grande
project. Funds support the acquisition of supplemental non-Federal
water for Endangered Species Act efforts and low flow conveyance
channel pumping into the Rio Grande during the irrigation season.
Further, funding is used for recurring life cycle river maintenance
necessary to ensure uninterrupted, efficient water delivery to Elephant
Butte Reservoir, reduced risk of flooding, as well as delivery
obligations to Mexico.
The Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project request is $8.9
million, which will continue funding grants to the 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.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Renewable Energy.--BOR is
actively engaged in developing and implementing approaches to
understand, and effectively adapt to, the risks and impacts of climate
change on western water management. The Basin Studies Program is part
of Interior's integrated strategy to respond to climate change impacts
on the resources managed by the Department, and is a key component of
the WaterSMART Program. In 2012, the Basin Studies Program will
continue West-wide risk assessments focusing on the threats to water
supplies from climate change and other factors and will be coordinated
through the Department's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs).
BOR will take the lead responsibility for establishing and coordinating
work at the Desert and Southern Rockies LCCs. Included within BOR's
Science and Technology program is water resources research targeting
improved capability for managing water resources under multiple drivers
affecting water availability, including climate change. This research
agenda will be collaborated and leveraged with capabilities of the
Interior Climate Science Centers.
BOR is also working in partnership with DOE and COE in identifying
opportunities to address the President's clean-energy goals through the
development of new sustainable hydropower capacity as well as
integrating renewable energy in our operations. The partnership with
DOE and its Power Marketing Administrations will also assess climate
change impacts on hydropower generation.
Supporting Tribal Nations.--BOR has a long-standing commitment to
realizing the Secretary's goal to strengthen tribal nations. Fiscal
year 2012 continues support through a number of BOR projects ranging
from endangered species restoration to rural water and implementation
of water rights settlement actions.
The request includes $12.8 million for the Animas-La Plata project
to continue constructing components of the Navajo Nation Municipal
Pipeline and filling Lake Nighthorse as the project nears completion.
The 2012 BOR budget requests $35.5 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. One other rural water project that
does not directly affect tribes is the Lewis and Clark Project. Funding
for the Perkins County Project is complete. The first priority for
funding rural water projects is the required O&M component, which is
$15.3 million for fiscal year 2012. For the construction component, BOR
allocated funding based on objective criteria that gave priority to
projects nearest to completion and projects that serve on-reservation
needs.
The request includes $7 million for the Native American Affairs
program to provide technical support for Indian water rights
settlements and to assist tribal governments to develop, manage and
protect their water and related resources. The Columbia/Snake River
Salmon Recovery, Klamath, Central Valley Project Trinity River
Restoration, Yakima and Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Projects
mentioned above under Ecosystem Restoration benefit tribal nations.
Also, the newly established Indian Water Rights Settlement Account
discussed below supports tribal nations.
Youth Employment.--To meet the Secretary's challenge to achieve the
Priority Goal for youth employment, BOR is working hard to engage,
educate, and employ our Nation's youth in order to help develop the
future stewards of our lands. Secretary Salazar challenged the Interior
Bureaus to increase employment of youth between the ages of 15 and 25
in natural and cultural resource positions. Last year, BOR began
working with youth conservation corps to hire youth and expose them to
the great work that it does. We continue to use all hiring authorities
available to bring young people in through internships, crew work, and
full time positions.
Aging Infrastructure.--Through BOR's continued emphasis on
preventive maintenance and regular condition assessments (field
inspections and reviews), the service life of many BOR assets and
facilities have been extended, thereby delaying the need for
significant replacements and rehabilitation efforts, including the
related funding needs. Although BOR and its project beneficiaries have
benefited greatly from this preventive maintenance, we recognize that
as assets and facilities age, they require an increased amount of
maintenance. Sometimes this requires more frequent preventive
maintenance, and, in other situations, significant extraordinary
maintenance, rehabilitations, or replacements may be required.
It is important to note that much of the Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) funding responsibilities of BOR's assets lies with our project
beneficiaries and those operating entities that operate and maintain
federally owned transferred works. For some operating entities and
project beneficiaries, rehabilitation and replacement needs may exceed
available resources. In particular, many smaller irrigation or water
conservancy districts are unable to fund these needs in the year
incurred absent long-term financing assistance. To address this issue,
the administration is currently exploring strategies for helping these
entities to rehabilitate these facilities. We are also exploring
potential utilization of the authority provided under Public Law 111-11
that would allow extended repayment of extraordinary (nonroutine)
maintenance costs on project facilities. Water users are currently
required by Federal reclamation law to pay these costs, which are often
substantial, in advance.
BOR's fiscal year 2012 proposed budget is $40.8 million in
appropriations for various projects for Replacements, Additions, and
Extraordinary Maintenance (RAX) activities where BOR is directly
responsible for daily O&M. This request is central to mission
objectives of operating and maintaining projects to ensure delivery of
water and power benefits. BOR's RAX request is part of its overall
Asset Management Strategy that relies on condition assessments,
condition/performance metrics, technological research and deployment,
and strategic collaboration to continue to improve the management of
its assets and deal with its aging infrastructure challenges. This
amount represents only the fiscal year 2012 request for discretionary
appropriations. Additional RAX items are directly funded by revenues,
customers, or other Federal agencies.
The Bonneville Power Administration will continue to provide up-
front financing of power operation and maintenance and for major
replacements and additions for the power plants at the Boise, Columbia
Basin, Hungry Horse, Minidoka, Rogue River, and Yakima projects. In the
Great Plains (GP) Region, BOR, Western Area Power Administration, and
COE have entered into an agreement which enables the customers to
voluntarily direct fund power RAX items. A long-term funding agreement
with the customers for the Parker-Davis Project on the Colorado River
was executed in fiscal year 1999. Fiscal year 2012 costs of operation,
maintenance and replacement for this project will be 100 percent up-
front funded by the customers. To date, the Central Valley Project
power O&M program is funded 100 percent by the customers, in addition
to funding selected RAX items. BOR will continue to explore ways to
reduce the Federal cost of its projects and programs.
A total of $83.7 million is requested for BOR's Safety of Dams
program, which includes $63.6 million directed to dam safety corrective
actions; of that, $27.5 million is for work at Folsom Dam. Funding also
includes $18.5 million for safety evaluations of existing dams and $1.6
million to oversee the Interior Department's Safety of Dams program.
BOR's request for Site Security is $25.9 million to ensure the
safety and security of the public, BOR's employees, and key facilities.
This funding includes $6.9 million for physical security upgrades at
high-risk critical assets and $19.1 million to continue all aspects of
bureauwide security efforts including law enforcement, risk and threat
analysis, personnel security, information security, risk assessments
and security-related studies, and guards and patrols.
BOR continues efforts to reach agreements with non-Federal and
Federal partners to share in the cost of water resource management and
development. Cost-sharing of 50 percent for construction and
rehabilitation of recreation facilities at various BOR reservoirs will
continue. Additionally, BOR's current planning program seeks 50 percent
cost-sharing on most studies. This reflects BOR's emphasis on
partnerships for water management initiatives.

BOR DEG.INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

On December 8, 2010 the President signed the Claims Resolution Act
of 2010 that included four water settlements. These settlements resolve
longstanding and disruptive water disputes, provide for the
quantification and protection of tribal rights, and will deliver clean
water to the Pueblos of Taos, Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and
Tesuque in New Mexico, the Crow Tribe of Montana, and the White
Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona. In order to accomplish this, the act
provides various mechanisms and funding structures designed for both
construction and for the tribes to use to manage water systems
following construction. The primary responsibility for developing water
infrastructure under these settlements was given to BOR. Mandatory
funding was provided to both BIA and BOR in 2011 for a portion of the
funds established under the act. We anticipate that BOR will begin
expending some of this mandatory funding to work with all parties to
begin implementing these settlements.
The four Indian water rights settlements will provide water
supplies and offer economic security for the tribes and pueblos
described above. The agreements will build and improve reservation
water systems, rehabilitate irrigation projects, construct a regional
multi-pueblo water system, and codify water-sharing arrangements
between Indian and neighboring communities. Construction will take
place over time and annual funding requirements will vary from year to
year. Notwithstanding the availability of some level of mandatory
funding, discretionary appropriations will still be necessary. BOR is
requesting $26.7 million in 2012 for the initial implementation of
these four settlements.
BOR is establishing the Indian Water Rights Settlements account to
assure continuity in the construction of the authorized projects and to
highlight and enhance transparency in handling these funds. In
establishing this account, BOR will also request $24.8 million for the
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project (title X of Public Law 111-11) in
order to have major current funding for BOR's Indian Water Rights
Settlements treated in the Claims Resolution Act in a single account.
The Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project will provide reliable and
sustainable municipal, industrial, and domestic water supplies from the
San Juan River to the Navajo Nation including:
--the Window Rock, Arizona area;
--the city of Gallup, New Mexico; the Navajo Agricultural Products
Industry; and
--the southwest portion of the Jicarilla Apache Nation Reservation.
The total request for BOR for Indian Water Rights Settlements in
2012 is $51.5 million in discretionary funding and $60 million in
permanent funds.

BOR DEG.POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

The 2012 budget request for the Policy and Administration
appropriation account, the account that finances BOR's central
management functions, is $60 million or 6 percent of the total request,
a reduction of $1.2 million from the 2011 request. This reduction
reflects the impact of the pay freeze and the Administrative Cost
Savings discussed below.

BOR DEG.ADMINISTRATIVE COST SAVINGS AND MANAGEMENT
EFFICIENCIES

The 2012 budget request includes reductions that reflect the
Accountable Government Initiative to curb nonessential administrative
spending in support of the President's commitment on fiscal discipline
and spending restraint. In accordance with this initiative, BOR's
budget includes $5.8 million in savings in 2012 against actual 2010
expenditures in the following activities: travel and transportation of
persons, transportation of things, printing and reproduction, and
supplies and materials. Actions to address the Accountable Government
Initiative and reduce these expenses build upon management efficiency
efforts proposed in 2011 totaling $3.9 million in travel and
relocation, Information Technology, and strategic sourcing and bureau-
specific efficiencies totaling $1.3 million.

BOR DEG.CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

The 2012 budget includes a request of $53.1 million for the CVPRF.
This budget request is offset by collections estimated at $52.8 million
from mitigation and restoration charges authorized by the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act. The request considers the effects of
the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11,
March 30, 2009) which (beginning in 2010) redirects certain fees,
estimated at $5.6 million in fiscal year 2012, collected from the
Friant Division water users to the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.

BOR DEG.SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION FUND

The 2012 budget also reflects the settlement of Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Rodgers. BOR proposes $9 million in discretionary
funds into this account, which was established by the San Joaquin River
Restoration Settlement Act. Under the Settlement, the legislation also
provides for approximately $2 million in annual appropriations for the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund for this purpose, as well as
mandatory funds. The Fund seeks to provide a variety of physical
improvements within and near the San Joaquin River within the service
area of the Friant Division long term contractors to achieve the
restoration and water management goals. These funds are important for
BOR to meet various terms of the settlement that brought water
contractors, fishery advocates, and other stakeholders together to
bring to an end 18 years of contentious litigation.

BOR DEG.CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION FUND

The 2012 budget requests $39.7 million for CALFED, pursuant to the
CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act. The request focuses on the Bay-
Delta Conservation Plan and interagency science efforts to address
short- and long-term water resource issues. Other activities include a
renewed Federal/State partnership, Smarter Water Supply and Use, and
addressing the degraded Bay-Delta Ecosystem actions which include
Federal participation in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and
interagency science efforts to address short- and long-term water
resource issues based on the Interim Federal Action Plan. The CALFED
Bay-Delta Program was established in May 1995 to develop a
comprehensive long-term plan to address the complex and interrelated
problems in the Delta region, tributary watersheds, and delivery areas.
The Program's focus is on conserving and restoring the health of the
ecosystem and improving water management, including Federal
participation in the Bay Delta conservation Plan.

BOR DEG.FISCAL YEAR 2012 PLANNED ACTIVITIES

BOR's fiscal year 2012 goals are directly related to fulfilling
contractual requests to deliver water and power. Our goals also address
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, enhancing management of our water
infrastructure while mitigating for any harmful environmental effects,
and understanding and responding to the changing nature of the West's
limited water resources. It should be emphasized that in order to meet
BOR's mission goals of securing America's energy resources and managing
water in a sustainable manner for the 21st century, a part of BOR's
programs must focus on the protection and restoration of freshwater
ecosystems.
By the end of fiscal year 2012, BOR will enable capability to
increase available water supply for agricultural, municipal,
industrial, and environmental uses in the Western United States by
490,000 acre feet through its conservation-related programs, such as
water reuse and recycling (title XVI), and WaterSMART grants. BOR will
maintain dams and associated facilities in good condition to ensure the
reliable delivery of water. It will maximize the percent of time that
its hydroelectric generating units are available to the inter-connected
western electrical system during daily peak demand periods.
Moreover, the fiscal year 2012 budget request demonstrates BOR's
commitment to meeting the water and power needs of the West in a
fiscally responsible manner. This budget continues BOR's emphasis on
managing those valuable public resources. BOR 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 2012 and
beyond.

CONCLUSION

Madam Chair, please allow me to express my sincere appreciation for
the continued support that this subcommittee has provided BOR. This
completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that
you may have at this time.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.

COE deg.HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

I want to go back to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
because it seems to me that there is a catch 22, and that is
that the trust fund is going to be used for other things and
that there are no authorized widths or depths for dredging.
Therefore, ports will be haphazardly dredged. I am sorry
Senator Graham is not here because he was interested in the
Port of Charleston. I do not know how you will select those
ports that get dredging versus those that do not because there
are no earmarks, and I think that is going to make it very
difficult in the COE budget to know what you do and what you do
not do. And so I am particularly disturbed by what I see coming
to really handcuff the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Could you respond to that?
General Van Antwerp. First of all, Senator, I would like to
say that the way that we prioritize our dredging is we look for
a number of factors. We put them through a sieve of
prioritization. What is the shoaling that happens in there?
What is the commercial nature of that port or harbor?
As kind of an overview, we have 59 ports and harbors that
carry about 90 percent of the waterborne cargo of this country.
It is about $1.4 trillion through our ports and harbors. So
there are some that are what we call very high-commercial-use
harbors.
We take the navigation or the dredging dollars and spread
them as well as possible over those with the highest traffic
that we can. It is not haphazard in the sense that it does not
have a prioritization scheme to it. It absolutely does. We do
high use, medium use, and low use.
Senator Feinstein. Right. You have 59 ports. You have a lot
of work to do. Why would you want to have other activities take
money from this trust fund, and what would those other
activities be?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, the proposal that is being developed
within the administration is looking at a number of things. It
has not been developed yet. Some examples of things that might
be looked at to receive some of this funding would be increased
security needs at ports. We are trying to look at the Nation's
ports as a whole system and what commercial navigation needs
there are and what can be provided through the Trust Fund.
Also, the Trust Fund balance--as you noted, about $1.4
billion comes in annually, and then that is appropriated. So if
you were concerned about the depletion of the balance that can
be managed by the appropriations process.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me just say I hope so. You
know, we have the largest port in the Nation. Forty-five
percent of the container traffic comes in and out of the Port
of LA--Long Beach. If you are not dredging that port to its
fullest, if you scrimp on that, the whole thing shuts down. And
so I do not understand using this money for security dollars.
It seems to me keeping these ports viable is really an
important mission, and it in itself absorbs all the money.
Ms. Darcy. When developing the proposal, all of those
things will be considered. As I said, the proposal is still
under development within the administration, and we will be
considering these and many other factors.
Also, whatever proposal we develop will have to be
developed with all of you because it would require legislative
changes. So the Finance Committee would have to be involved, as
well as the authorizing and appropriations committees.
Senator Feinstein. How much surplus is in the trust fund?
Ms. Darcy. I think the current estimate is about $5.8
billion.
Senator Feinstein. Five point eight billion dollars. And
how much will be used on port dredging this year?
Ms. Darcy. The President's request is for $758 million.
Senator Feinstein. That is all.
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. I am glad Senator Graham just came back
because what we just learned was that there are $7 billion in
the port trust fund for dredging, but only $700 million-plus is
being put forward by the administration for dredging.
I guess what I am telling you as chairman--I do not know if
others would agree with it--but that is not the right thing to
do. You have to keep these ports viable. So if you have a
response to that, I would appreciate it. If you do not, that is
okay too.
Ms. Darcy. The proposal that is being developed is looking
at the commercial ports from all of the needs, including
navigation and including keeping them dredged at a viable
depth.
Senator Graham. Madam Chairman, could I just----
Senator Feinstein. Yes, please. Go ahead, Senator.
Senator Graham. As I understand it, there is a difference
between maintaining a port, dredging, and actually a new start
where you would deepen the harbor. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. So I think I understand a little bit about
their dilemma. Once you get a harbor at a certain depth, there
is a trust fund to keep it dredged at that depth. What we are
talking about in Charleston and Savannah and other places is
actually going lower than the approved level, which would
probably be a different exercise financially, is that correct
General.
General Van Antwerp. That is correct.
Senator Graham. I have learned more about this than I ever
wanted to learn.
General Van Antwerp. You know a lot about this, Senator.
Senator Graham. Yes, the hard way. I just want 40,000
bucks, $40,000. I am really cheap.
General Van Antwerp. To go deeper in a port, it is largely
based on the benefit-cost ratio, its commercial use, and its
national economic benefit. This year, in new starts we are at
2.5 benefit-to-cost ratio for inclusion in the budget.
Senator Feinstein. Trust me. He will want more than
$40,000. The $40,000 is just a study.
All right, I think I have consumed enough time.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have actually learned a good bit about the Charleston
Port as well over the last few days. And I know you have. We
all feel very well educated about it. But it does not have a
finer advocate than Senator Graham anywhere in the United
States.

COE deg.CHICKAMAUGA LOCK

Secretary Darcy, have you ever visited the Chickamauga
Lock?
Ms. Darcy. I have not, Senator.
Senator Alexander. Are you aware of its current condition?
Ms. Darcy. I have been briefed about its current condition.
I know that the Chief and the Commanding General from the Great
Lakes and Ohio River Division have been there, however.
Senator Alexander. What are your projections about how long
it can be reliably operated and maintained?
Ms. Darcy. I am not sure that we have those. Do we,
General?
General Van Antwerp. Well, first of all, we think there is
a low probability of failure right now, but we are watching it
closely. We have gauges. We are watching that to give pre-
notification if there is going to be a failure. There is no
question we are watching the maintenance curve on this and it
grows and grows every year, and at some point it goes to the
point that you have got to make the improvements and you must
fix it.
Senator Alexander. Well, is it not true that it is in
danger of a catastrophic failure?
General Van Antwerp. We feel the probability right now is
low to moderate.
Senator Alexander. How much maintenance funding will be
needed to keep it open over the next 5 or 10 years?
General Van Antwerp. I would say about $2 million to $3
million every year. But I could see somewhere in the near term
that it's going to be about $15 million per year because there
are some things that are going to have to be done. That is if
we just stay on the maintenance track, but $2 million to $3
million probably for the next 5 years each year.
Senator Alexander. Have you considered asking the Tennessee
Valley Authority to contribute funds to the replacement of the
lock?
General Van Antwerp. Senator, I am not sure if we have had
the discussion on whether they would want to provide funds for
that.
Senator Alexander. Finally, when is work scheduled to
resume on the project?
General Van Antwerp. Well, right now we are in the process
of building the cofferdam. In the fiscal year 2012 budget there
is zero funding for it. At some point the project would cease
and we would button it up and then wait for future funding to
continue.

COE deg.INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND

Senator Alexander. Secretary Darcy, we talked a moment ago
about the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. It is in a little
different shape, is it not? It does not have much money in it.
Ms. Darcy. No, it does not.
Senator Alexander. What does it have?
Ms. Darcy. I think the current balance that we have in our
budget request for 2012 coming from the Trust Fund is $77
million.
Senator Alexander. Is it true that that is about enough for
one project this year?
Ms. Darcy. It is about enough for maybe three.
Senator Alexander. Maybe three.
There was a plan that the commercial users of the Inland
Waterway Trust Fund worked on and I believe worked on with the
administration in which they basically worked out a proposal to
increase the fuel tax on themselves on their own fuel in order
to put more money into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund so that
locks like the Chickamauga Dam and other needed projects could
be done. But it is my understanding that you wrote a letter to
Congressman Oberstar disagreeing with the plan last year.
Does the administration have its own plan to enhance the
revenues in the Inland Waterway Trust fund? And when will we
see the plan if there is such one planned?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we are working with the Inland Waterway
Users Board and the industry to develop a plan to increase the
funding in the trust fund, as well as looking at ways to
equitably charge the users in the future.
Senator Alexander. Well, what was wrong with the plan that
was rejected last year?
Ms. Darcy. There were many recommendations and some of them
shifted the cost share burden to the general Federal taxpayer
and took it away from the user. So that was one of the major
objections.
Senator Alexander. Excuse me. I was talking and I did not
hear your entire answer.
Ms. Darcy. There were cost share changes developed that
would shift a lot of the burden back to the general Federal
taxpayer as opposed to the direct user.
Senator Alexander. And when will your proposal be ready for
us to see?
Ms. Darcy. I do not know, Senator, hopefully soon.
Senator Alexander. Well, does ``soon'' mean a matter of a
few months or a few years or what?
Ms. Darcy. I think it is in between. It is less than a few
years and more than a few months.
Senator Alexander. Well, there is a certain urgency to this
when you have the users of the waterways, who are agreeable to
contributing extra dollars to create projects that all of us
believe are important for new jobs. I think the sooner, the
better. So I would like to urge you to make it a priority and
let us see it as soon as possible.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Senator.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
I will read the list. It is Johnson, Landrieu, Cochran,
Tester, Graham, Collins, Reed, Lautenberg and Murkowski, so
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Commissioner Connor, I am extraordinarily concerned about
inadequate funding request for ongoing congressionally
authorized rural water projects. Two of these projects, Mni
Wiconi and the Lewis and Clark regional water system, are vital
infrastructure projects in South Dakota. In your budget
request, the seven authorized drinking water projects would
receive a total of just $35 million, with $15 million of that
for operations and maintenance. That leaves about $20 million
for construction for the projects. My understanding is that
past BOR analysis shows that it would take $58 million per year
in construction dollars just to keep up with inflation. The
math here just does not work.
Especially for Lewis and Clark, the States of South Dakota,
Iowa, and Minnesota, as well as the 20 member-cities and rural
water systems, have prepaid $153.5 million which represents
99.7 percent of their cost share. They have prepaid their share
in some cases a decade or more before they will receive water.
The Federal Government has nearly one-half of its cost sharing
remaining. The proposed fiscal year 2012 budget only includes
$493,000 for Lewis and Clark which would not allow for any new
construction.
Can you assure these cities and rural water systems that
the Federal Government is, indeed, committed to finishing this
important water project in a reasonable time? What is the plan
for funding authorized water projects beyond this budget,
because this request takes us and the taxpayers backwards on
our investment, could you respond to that?
Mr. Connor. Yes, Sir, Senator Johnson.
Without a doubt, the rural water program is the program in
our budget that has taken the biggest decrease in funding this
year.
As to your specific question about whether the Federal
Government is committed to these projects, we are, but it is
going to be very tough in these tight fiscal times. I say we
are because we invested more than $950 million in Recovery Act
funds. We invested $200 million initially in these rural water
projects, and then recognizing that they were a good
investment, given ARRA parameters, we allocated another $32
million toward, I think, five of those projects near the end of
last year. So we were trying to use those resources as best as
possible to continue to move those projects out and serve
additional communities. But in the priority order that we look
at our budget and the resources we have available this year--
they are good programs and good projects, but are just running
short on the funds available.
We are going to go back and take a look pursuant to the
2006 Rural Water Act. We owe the Congress a report on the
status of these projects and how we can look forward toward
trying to complete them. We are going to get that done this
summer. We will look at some additional criteria that we may
want to add, and we will see what we can do as far as looking
at the resources to try and make more progress in addition to
the progress that we already made with ARRA funds.
Senator Johnson. Do you have any suggestions for what the
20 communities and rural water systems that exist and are using
99.7 percent of the cost share will do in the future?
Mr. Connor. Well, we will work with those communities and
see how in these tight budget times we can make strategic
investments and phase in incrementally those aspects of the
project and serve additional people. I recognize that the Lewis
and Clark project is having significant problems. Our primary
focus, beyond once we address the operation and maintenance
obligations that we have, is to try and complete projects, and
we did complete the Perkins County project in South Dakota and
we are trying to ensure we can complete the Mni Wiconi project
in 2013.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Commissioner, I too am eager to see
this important project completed, the Mni Wiconi project, and I
appreciate that BOR has placed a high priority on the project.
Unfortunately, construction funds are still falling short of
what is needed to keep the project on pace and overhead and
contract costs have hindered construction. It is my
understanding that reduced funding will have an impact on the
ability to complete this and other projects within their
statutory timeframes. Will you review the project authorization
and recent funding levels and work with the Congress to ensure
that this project is completed as envisioned?
Mr. Connor. We will certainly work with you. With respect,
the vast majority of our construction funds proposed for 2012
are for Mni Wiconi, but we still think that puts us in the area
of being able to complete our obligations by 2013. But we will
review that and we will definitely work with you, Sir.
Senator Johnson. My time has expired. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.
Let me begin, Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, to
tell you how much I look forward to working with you on this
subcommittee. It is a very important subcommittee for our
Nation and particularly for the State that I represent. In
Louisiana, we have the opposite challenges of some of the West
Coast States. We have too much water, not too little water, and
we are struggling to manage that.
Let me also add, General Van Antwerp, thank you for your
leadership and for your guidance as we have designed and built
some of the most sophisticated levee and flood control systems
ever constructed in this Nation in the aftermath of the
catastrophe, the biblical flood that we had when the Federal
levee system collapsed 5\1/2\ years ago in and around the city
of New Orleans, and we are on the back end of some of that.
And for the subcommittee, I want to thank all of you who
were on the subcommittee before and will continue to serve
because the $2 billion surge barrier, which is the largest
surge barrier ever constructed in this Nation's history, is now
up and operational. And I think we are going to be down there
celebrating this milestone sometime in June. And I am pleased
that we took several trips to the Netherlands to see the model
of some of this technology. And I am pleased to share with the
subcommittee, that having walked over the surge barrier and
seen the construction of it in a detailed brief, that you can
be very proud of the engineering that has gone in.
Having said all those good things, let me say that there
are still extraordinary challenges that are reflected in this
budget. And I know that you are dealing with very limited
resources. But I want to add my concern. And I have a question
about this interior waterway trust fund.
Senator Levin and Senator Hutchison and myself and a few
others have introduced a bill to attempt, Senator Feinstein and
others, Senator Alexander, to capture the money coming into
this trust fund so that it actually can be used for the
processes in which it was intended, which is dredging and
maintenance of these ports. I think the chairman is absolutely
correct that for trade and for jobs, it is just critical.
So, number one, are you aware of the legislation, Madam
Secretary? Number 2, is the administration going to support the
basically capturing of these revenues to maintain these very
important ports and channels?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, I am aware of the legislation to keep
what is coming into the Trust Fund for the navigation purposes
that it was intended. In our budget, the administration has
proposed using some of those funds, as you know, for the
continued maintenance of the navigation channels. However, we
are looking at using that funding for some other----
Senator Landrieu. Well, I just want to lay a warning that
there is a growing number of Senators on both sides of the
aisle that want the taxes paid by this industry to be used for
the purposes in which they thought they were being taxed, which
is the dredging and keeping open of these ports.

COE deg.ALLOCATIONS WITHOUT EARMARKS

I want to ask a question and also make a point that while
90 percent of the cargo--and the question following up the
chairman--how will you allocate now that there are no earmarks
or directives from this subcommittee allowed? And you said we
will go by a formula. The big cargo ports will get, you know,
based on how much cargo comes in and out. I just want to remind
everybody on the subcommittee for the record there are ports
that are important to the Nation that are not cargo ports. We
would call them ``energy ports.'' And if they do not stay open,
nobody gets electricity, oil, gas, natural gas that comes into
the ports along the gulf coast. The chairman might want to know
we are not even included in the formula to begin with because
unless you are a cargo port, you do not even get considered.
I tried to change that legislatively. You can imagine with
natural gas coming into the country that port cannot get
dredging because it is light. It is not heavy and it is not
cargo. It is gas. It is liquid gas that comes in.
So this is a very interesting subject, and I just want to
go on record. Senator Cochran knows some of this because, of
course, he represents the State of Mississippi which has very
similar concerns to the State of Louisiana. But that is one
question.
And on the second, when we have, General Van Antwerp--my
last question--a 100-year flood protection which we are trying
to achieve--the Netherlands protects their people 1 out of
every 10,000 years. We are protecting our people 1 out of every
100. So we on the international scale have a ways to go. And I
know you cannot compare apples to apples there.
But when we raise the levees to 100 years, my final
question is, do you have money budgeted to maintain them at
that, or what happens when there is settlement in those levees,
because this is going to happen not just in south Louisiana
along the gulf coast, but around the country. Is any of that
budgeted in this budget to maintain those levees at the 100-
year protection?
General Van Antwerp. Senator, for all the project features,
once the ribbon is cut, it goes to local responsibility for the
operation and maintenance of those levees and project features.
We are considering subsidence and sea level rise over time.
In fact, we know probably in the next 50 years, many of those
levees will have to be raised, some due to sea level rise, some
due to subsidence. So that is in the plan. Of course, that is
not budgeted 25 years out. For that, we will have to cross that
bridge when we come to it because of the way we do the
budgeting. But it is planned for.
And when we could, we purchased the real estate for, for
instance, a wider base so that you could add to the height of
that levee without having to get more real estate. If we could
do that under the current funding, we did that. We are as ready
as we can be, but we know we are going to have future
maintenance of those facilities.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Landrieu.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join you
in welcoming the panel to our hearing to review the President's
budget request for the subjects that we are discussing.
I cannot help but wonder about how we reconcile the
economic requirements of being a robust exporter of goods and
services and commodities in the international marketplace with
reducing the capacity to handle cargo on the Mississippi River
in its ports and in other transportation modes which would get
our goods and services to those who are buying what we are
selling and what we are growing in terms of agriculture
production in the lower Mississippi River Valley and way
beyond.
We have up-to-date information about the fact that $100
billion in exports is traversing the Mississippi River
annually. Industries in more than 30 States--we are not talking
about just Mississippi and Louisiana. We have great interest in
this subject. But industries in more than 30 States rely on COE
to help maintain the river at authorized levels and depths.
Insufficient dredging and an inadequacy of funding for these
activities would inevitably result in restrictions on ship
traffic and cargo travel. To put it in perspective, some
shippers estimate that a 1-foot reduction in depth means a ship
must reduce its cargo by 1,500 tons.

COE deg.MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES PROJECT

The objective of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
project was to uphold, maintain, and improve the Mississippi
River system and its levees that contain it. And in face of
those national interests, the President's budget request for
the Mississippi River and Tributaries project is $210 million.
That is $130 million below the fiscal year 2010 discretionary
budget authority.
How are you going to cope with that reality? May I ask the
panel if anybody has any suggestion about what you are going to
do?
General Van Antwerp. Well, first of all, Senator, your
observations are correct. We have 12,000 miles of inland
waterways that are maintained by COE and it touches really 41
States in our Union and is so incredibly important. We
understand that.
I think what you will see when we have to prioritize is we
try and keep the depth. What normally happens is that you
reduce the width first. It means that you cannot have ships
passing and you have to stage them.
The other part is to keep the locks open. We have 241 locks
on our waterways. They are 58.3 years old on average. So the
maintenance requirements are increasing. We prioritize those by
the greatest risk. We do treat our waterways as a system. We
have to keep the whole system open. If we have one lock go
down, it can impact the whole waterway.
Senator Cochran. May I also ask another question about the
Mississippi Yazoo back water project. This is an issue that has
been around since 1941. The Congress has authorized and funded
these activities that are connected to this project in the
lower Mississippi River delta. And we had a recent decision in
Federal court that canceled a project, in effect, or a decision
was made not to proceed with the project because of a decision
made by a Federal court judge in Mississippi.
This still remains a very troublesome issue to resolve, and
I bring it up simply because I hope COE and others who are
interested in this will work with the supporters of the project
to try to reconcile differences and to come up with an
alternative that would be satisfactory with COE . I do not have
any magic solution to suggest. We would be glad to work and
cooperate with the administration and with others in the
Congress who are interested in this, but I raise the question
so we have it as the beginning of another effort.
Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran.
Senator Tester, you are next.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I want to express my appreciation for you all
folks being here today. Water is our most valuable resource and
the management of it is critically important.
As the questions and the comments have been expressed here
today, I have got to tell you; you guys are in a tough
position. I mean, since this Congress started, we have been
talking about deficit and debt, and we are giving you hell
because you are not spending enough money. And I think that
there has to be an awakening here, if we are going to invest in
infrastructure, that investment means spending money. And I
will tell you that water, whether it is where it flows into the
ocean or whether it is at the headwaters in a State like mine,
is very, very important, and if we do not have the
infrastructure to manage it, we will not manage it and the
country will be poorer for it.
Secretary Darcy, we have visited in the past about the
great city of Great Falls in Cascade County and a couple levees
that they have there that were built in 1975. COE has certified
those levees up until 2009, and the Corps decided not to
certify any more levees.
When you were last before the Senate, you told my
colleague--the senior Senator from Montana--Max Baucus, that
you would immediately look into the policy whether it should be
changed, and that is whether FEMA either could certify or COE
could certify to FEMA standards, one or the other. What have
you found out?

COE deg.LEVEE CERTIFICATION

Ms. Darcy. You are correct, Senator. I did tell Senator
Baucus we would look into the policy and we have begun doing
that. In the past, as you said, we certified levees and used
Federal funds for that, and since 2008 we have not budgeted for
that certification. We are looking at whether that is a
possibility for us in the future.
Senator Tester. And I will tell you that FEMA gives out the
Provisionally Accredited Levee agreement. Okay, and they told
Great Falls here about a month--you either got to sign it or
forget it. COE has inspected in the past. Is there any
potential you could harmonize your criteria? Have you done any
work on that at all?
Ms. Darcy. We have done some work on it, but to be quite
honest, it is not harmonized at this point.
Senator Tester. I mean you fully understand the issue. You
fully understand that there is not an engineering firm around
that has an errors and omissions policy big enough that they
will certify it. I mean, that is really what they have found
out. And you know what? I think there are a lot of Great Falls,
Montana up and down the different drainages in this country.
And I will tell you that for that reason, Senator Baucus and I
are dropping in legislation that gives COE not only the
authority but the responsibility to certify those.
Once again, it may or may not cost money. You may be able
to do it within your budget. You may need additional funds, but
the fact is it has got to be done or folks are going to be put
in flood plains. Businesses are not going to be able to be
allowed to grow, some of the same things we heard earlier, only
it just applies to this levee thing.
The intake dam, for either one of you, General Van Antwerp
or Secretary Darcy, the work has begun rebuilding intake, and
it is a rock ramp. I do not know if you are familiar with it or
not. If you are familiar with it, I will not mess around
anymore. But since you were here last year, the cost estimate
jumped more than $100 million. The thing is never going to be
built if it is $100 million, I will just tell you. Something is
going to have to happen.
Can you give me your thoughts on why we had such a jump in
cost on a project like intake?

COE deg.YELLOWSTONE INTAKE DIVERSION DAM

General Van Antwerp. Well, I guess in a few words, it is
very complicated. I will give you a couple of those
complications, Senator.
First of all, the rock ramp at the depth and velocity that
the pallid sturgeon needed was not working as we thought it
would. We have had to make modifications. The modeling
indicated a need for a much flatter side slope than the
preliminary design. So that is, in a nutshell, the biggest
piece of this.
Senator Tester. The word I heard is they are bringing in
rock from somewhere else.
General Van Antwerp. Well, the contractor has to bring in
the rock to do it. Where he purchases it from is up to the
contractor.
Senator Tester. And so it is an open-ended contract. I
mean, if he wants to bring in rock from Maine, we pay for it?
General Van Antwerp. Well, he has to meet the design
criteria with the rock he brings in. He has to do it under the
bid that he proposed. I do not believe this is a cost-plus
contract.
Senator Tester. Okay, but what I am saying is we started
out this project was going to cost--and I cannot remember--$15
million and now it is up more than $100 million.
Senator Feinstein. Would you permit me?
Senator Tester. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Why can you not have Montana rock?
General Van Antwerp. You could if it meets the
specifications. I think our contractors certainly would go out
and get it at the best place they could get it for the right
price. They are on the clock also.
Senator Tester. I appreciate that, Madam Chairman, because
that is exactly the question. And I do not know if this is
factual or not. I am told by the locals that they are bringing
rock from outside the area when there is rock there that will
do the job.
My time has run out, and I am going to check it off to
people who have been here.
But the fact is that there has got to be oversight and
there also has to be some common sense put to the analysis.
Look, I am all about paddlefish. I love them, but are we saving
one paddlefish? Are we saving 50 percent of the paddlefish that
go up the river? What are we getting for that $80 million or
$90 million or more in additional spending? That is really kind
of important.
Before I go, thank you, General, for your service, I very
much appreciate it. We are going to miss you. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am very
pleased that I am next because I feel I need to clarify that
rock from Maine is not responsible for cost growth from $15
million to $100 million. We do have outstanding rock in Maine.
Senator Tester. I hear it is some of the best in the world.
Senator Collins. It is Great granite, which we would be
happy to share with your State. But I am positive that is not
the cause of the problem.
I do have two Maine-specific issues that I want to discuss
with our witnesses today.

COE deg.KENNEBEC RIVER

Secretary Darcy, as I am sure you recall, I wrote to you
last month about a problem with the Kennebec River. And this is
a very serious problem. I am hearing a lot of serious problems
today.
Earlier this year, COE conducted a sweep survey of the
Kennebec River that concluded that the controlling depth is now
an alarming 19.7 feet, significantly less than the authorized
27 feet.
Now, let me explain to my colleagues why this matters. Bath
Iron Works, which builds naval destroyers, uses the Kennebec
River as the avenue for getting the ships to sea. And in
October, the USS Spruance naval destroyer is scheduled to
depart Bath Iron Works for its home port in Virginia. The Navy
is very concerned that the insufficient depth of the Kennebec
River could cause that destroyer to run aground, and the Navy
has said that the condition of the river constitutes an
emergency and that it must be addressed in order to meet the
scheduled delivery of this military asset. So this is truly a
real challenge that is worrying to Bath Iron Works and to its
customer, the Navy.
I understand that the cost estimate to complete the
dredging is $1.6 million.
Complicating the issue, the timing of the dredging is very
important to the lobster and clamming industries in Maine whose
peak season is during the summer months, in the month of
August.
In fiscal year 2006, it is my understanding that $630,000
was allocated for dredging activities on the Kennebec, but that
that money, to my knowledge, has not yet been used for that
purpose. Obviously, the ability of ships to enter and depart
Bath Iron Works is of vital importance to our national
security.
So I have two questions for you. One, do you expect a
resolution of this issue in time for the scheduled departure of
the Navy destroyer that is slated to depart in October? And
second, is COE working with the local lobster men and clammers
to minimize the impact on their livelihoods?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, yesterday I spoke with the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy on this very issue, and we realize it is
of vital importance not only to the Navy, but to our national
security in order to have that ship delivered on time to
Norfolk. I believe its schedule is September 1 of this year. We
committed, along with the Assistant Secretary, to work together
to find the money to get the dredging completed.
That said, in order to meet the September 1 deadline, we
have a couple of challenges which you mentioned which include
the clamming and the lobstering which the peak season is
August, and it is in August when we would have to dredge. Our
normal dredging schedule up there is usually between November
and March. So we are sort of in a bind here.
We would have to get permits and work with the fishermen
and lobstermen in order to get a schedule that works for them.
Senator Collins. I hope that you will work very closely
with all of the parties, BIW, the Navy, the lobstermen, the
clammers. It is too bad this was not done this past winter when
there would not be the impact on the fishing industry and the
lobstermen and clammers. We also need to accommodate Bath Iron
Works.
I know my time has expired. Let me just very quickly say
that COE met in Maine yesterday concerning the jetty at Camp
Ellis in Saco, Maine. This is more than 100 years old. It was
built by COE before there was an understanding of the erosion
impact of having this jetty. That is another issue that has
been going on for a long time. Each year I visit and see more
and more danger to the homes along the shoreline, and I hope we
can continue to work on that as well. We provided funding and
there has been some progress, but we have got a long ways to
go.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Graham, you missed your time,
but I know you are lively and a little spirit every now and
then would not hurt.
Senator Collins. And I am boring.
Senator Graham. No, you are not boring. You are just from
Maine.
Senator Graham. You are polite and kind.
Senator Collins. I will leave it at that then.
Senator Graham. Yes.
I was over nominating a judge for the Fourth Circuit, and I
may be the only guy in the history of the Senate to nominate a
judge and put a hold on him all at the same time. So it has
been a strange weekend.
Secretary Darcy, the Panama Canal is going to be deepened
in 2014. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. That is the plan, yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. The plan is to deepen the Panama Canal so
that super cargo ships can pass through the canal. Is that
correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. These are ships a lot bigger than we have
today.
Ms. Darcy. Many of them will be, yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. It is going to change shipping as we know
it.
Ms. Darcy. I anticipate that.

COE deg.FUNDING HARBOR DEEPENING

Senator Graham. So there are certain ports that are in
existence today that are going to have to adjust their depth to
accept these ships. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. One of them is Charleston.
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. I think everybody realizes that. But it is
just not Charleston. And if shipping is going to change and we
are going to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports in
5 years, which is a great goal, we better have the
infrastructure to make that a reality.
So, Madam Chairman, you, your staff, Senator Alexander have
been absolutely terrific and helpful. We have got a dilemma. In
the 2011 budget, there was no money set aside by the
administration to conduct a study, and as I understand the way
you deepen a port, there are three phases: the study phase, the
design phase, and the construction phase. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. And the Congress has to authorize these
studies for you to move forward. You just cannot do this on
your own. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. So what we have tried to do is find a way
to allow the study in 2011 to go forward. And it is a 3-year
process where the study goes on for 3 years, and after the
study is done, the design phase kicks in. That is about $25
million to $30 million, and the construction to deepen the
harbor to 50 feet, what we anticipate would be the depth to
receive these ships, is several years, about $350 million. And
there is a cost-sharing agreement between ports and the Federal
Government. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. So my dilemma is that I have no vehicle to
allow the study in 2011 to go forward. It is a scoping study.
It is about $40,000 on the Federal side. The port in South
Carolina is willing to pay the Federal Government's share, but
we literally cannot. So everybody on this subcommittee has been
helping me, and I am talking to the administration about a way
forward.
But beyond Charleston, do we have a vision as a Nation as
to what ports should be deepened to accept these ships? And is
there a financing plan in place?
Ms. Darcy. No, Senator, we have not done a nationwide study
to evaluate which ports should be deeper.
Senator Graham. I would like to recommend to this
subcommittee this would be a good use of our time to look as a
Nation what does it mean for these ships to come through the
Panama Canal, what does it mean to traffic on the Mississippi
River, and try to make a good business decision.
I am willing, Madam Chairman, to allow COE to decide
whether or not to spend money on Charleston's deepening if it
makes sense from a national perspective. But since that system
is not in place, I have to protect Charleston. And as you
mentioned, there is a lot of money not being utilized. So we
need to look at that account.
But, Secretary Darcy, could you propose to this
subcommittee a plan, General, that would allow you to make an
assessment of what ports need to be deepened based on the
Panama Canal situation? Have you all done anything along those
lines? Would you be willing to submit a plan to us if I ask
you?
Ms. Darcy. We would have to be directed and funded to do
so, Senator.
Senator Graham. That funding problem.
I would just ask the subcommittee to look into this
situation because as a Nation we do not have the infrastructure
to basically accept ships that are going to be the standard for
the future, and if President Obama's goal of doubling export is
to be achieved, as Senator Alexander said, shipping is the key
way to get goods throughout the world.
In South Carolina, BMW makes cars. We call it ``Bubba Makes
Wheels.'' But there is a BMW plant in Greenville/Spartanburg,
South Carolina where we have shipped more than $4 billion worth
of cars made in South Carolina throughout the world. And the
port in Charleston is responsible for 1 in 5 jobs in South
Carolina. I bet you that is true in places in California. I
know it is true in Mississippi and Alabama.
So let us look at what we should be doing as a Nation,
General, and make a business decision. I am willing to let
merit take over if we are all in the same boat together. So I
will end this discussion with the idea of please, for God's
sakes, help me find a way to do the scoping study in 2011, and
we will look at a system-wide approach beyond that.
General, do you have anything to say?
General Van Antwerp. Yes, Sir, if I could just respond
quickly.
We have six ports that are moving to the 50-foot depth.
That is what you will need to come fully loaded through the new
Panama Canal. We also have seven studies of deep water ports,
which Charleston is if we get the feasibility dollars to do it,
that have potential. With Charleston being 45 feet now, what
would it take to go to 50? What is the benefit-cost ratio? We
do have a lot of knowledge of how the ports are intertwined
because you may not have to come in full from the Panama Canal
if you have already offloaded some to go to the next port, the
next port. So it is a system, and we can take that on if funded
to do so.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Let me say this because I spoke to Senator Alexander. We
will put report language in our bill to indicate very strongly
our view which is that we do not believe money should be taken
from this trust fund for other use. All anyone has to do is go
to the Port of Hong Kong, go to any other major port to see how
out-of-date our ports are. If we are going to compete
internationally, we have to have a modern infrastructure, and
the ports have to be consistently dredged.
So I think we will have some very strong language in our
bill, and I want to say to the administration I will do
everything I can to prevent that trust fund from being eroded
with other activities.
Next is Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I want to welcome all the witnesses. I particularly want to
welcome General Van Antwerp, Bob, thank you for your
extraordinary service--you and your family--to the Army and to
the Nation. Although the General looks much younger than I, we
were contemporaries at West Point. So it is good to see you.
Clearly his talent was recognized early on at West Point. I am
in another line of business and that speaks for itself.
Now, let me continue. I want to thank you, both Secretary
Darcy and General Van Antwerp, for the extraordinary response
of COE of Engineers to the floods last year in Rhode Island.
Your New England district personnel were incredibly active,
hands-on, great initiative. They were particularly helpful in
prioritizing dredging at the Patuxent Cove which would now
allow for freer access of water from our systems into
Narragansett Bay. And they have conducted reconnaissance
studies. They have taken really this issue on. So can you
accept my compliments and pass them on to those extraordinary
public servants? Thank you.

COE deg.CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM (CAP)

Let me focus on a series of issues, Secretary Darcy, the
continuing authorities programs. I found them to be very
useful, particularly the 205 CAP, one of the programs that deal
with flood control. And I have noticed that in the President's
budget, there is the proposed elimination of four existing
CAP's, and then the reliance on transferring funds to fulfill
the obligations of some other CAP's.
Can you comment on the CAP activities, the proposed
changes, and how would it affect flood control?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, you are correct. We did make a proposal
in this budget to use some of the existing funds in the
carryover programs from one CAP program to another. I think it
is $23 million. We are going to use that carryover money for
other programs. And in looking at tough budget decisions and
directions from the Office of Management and Budget, we had to
make some choices, and we looked at the CAP programs.
The 205 program is one that is going to continue to be
funded with carryover funds in this budget. CAP programs are
smaller projects that do not need individual authorization or
Chief's Reports, and there are certain thresholds as to how
much Federal funding can be spent on those. They have been very
effective especially in small States like Rhode Island. We will
continue to fund those in this President's budget, but some of
the others, like the small harbors money, are going to be cut.
We are going to continue to fund those programs and they are
prioritized within the region.
Senator Reed. Well, I appreciate that with respect to the
205 program.
One of the other programs is the 103 CAP which does a lot
with respect to coastal erosion, and we just had a recent
report that 68 percent of the beaches in New England and the
mid-Atlantic, basically the whole northeast coast, are eroding
on an average of 1.6 feet a year. And in towns in Rhode
Island--and this reminds me of a great story. Senator Theodore
Francis Green was asked the size of Rhode Island. He said it
depends, on what, and he responded, high tide or low tide.
So 1.6 feet a year is an important metric to us, and that
103 program I believe is one that is scheduled for elimination.
So it begs the question how do we deal with this multi-State
erosion problem along our beaches.
Ms. Darcy. I think it needs to be looked at as a system, as
you said, with each of the beaches. We have money in the budget
for beach renourishment projects. It is something that we are
carefully considering when we make the budget proposals.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Madam Chairman, thank you.
And once again, thank you for your great assistance in our
flooding. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Reed.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman.
I listened with interest to your response to questions. I
must say you are staying up-to-date and I wish that you had
more money to stay up-to-date more with. But the fact of the
matter is that we in New Jersey have lots of respect, but also
need, if I might say, from COE.

COE deg.PASSAIC RIVER BASIN

By the way, General Van Antwerp, I spent part of my
military career in Antwerp, Belgium during the war, and I
always had a good feeling about that city and we have about you
as well.
Last month, I toured the Passaic River basin in New Jersey
following a severe storm and saw the devastation firsthand.
There is a dispute here between the communities. Local
communities in that area believe that flood gates at the
Pompton Lakes Dam have led to increased flooding in downstream
communities. And an independent consultant has been brought in
and is investigating the matter. I was there during the heavy
stage of the flood, and the communities downstream were deeply
in trouble because of the flooding.
What has COE done to address this issue? Will it take in
local concerns as the study moves forward?
General Van Antwerp. Absolutely, Senator, we will take
those local concerns into account. We want total visibility on
this. We welcome the other review of this also.
Senator Lautenberg. I hope so because something does not
work, as is visible, when it is heavy weather.
Secretary Darcy, I am encouraged by the close cooperation
between COE and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection to try to work toward a comprehensive plan for the
Passaic River basin. However, the re-evaluation study is
expected to cost COE $7.5 million over the next 3 to 5 years.
Is COE committed to requesting funding for this project in the
future years?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we have not included money for it in
the fiscal year 2012 budget.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, we are going to need your support
in getting this study done. The Passaic River has been a place
with constant flooding and problems that result from that.
I was pleased to see that your budget request included
funding for the Port Monmouth beach project in New Jersey. In
the past, coastal projects have typically been added as
earmarks during the appropriations process rather than being in
the budget request. Well, with earmarks on their way--they are
at a moratorium now--how does COE plan to address the need for
coastal storm damage reduction projects as it writes a work
plan for the rest of this year and looks ahead to future
requests? How do we get it done?
Ms. Darcy. As far as the work plan that we will be required
to write for the rest of this year, we will look to fund
projects that are currently in the budget and then, with any
remaining funds, look to prioritize other ongoing work.
Senator Lautenberg. I have a couple of other questions that
I want to submit for the record.
But I want to ask you this. When I look at the budget that
is requested for 2011, I see that there has been less money
requested for fiscal year 2012 than we actually had with fiscal
year 2011. I do not want to put you on the spot, but I do not
think that is because there is less need. I do not know whether
you are at liberty to say whether or not more is needed than we
have presently allocated for the projects that you have
requested or are underway.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we are operating within the fiscal
climate that we are in, and this budget is what the President
believes will allow us to sustain our missions.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to those who are appearing before us today,
for your testimony, for your work. We appreciate it.

COE deg.FUNDING DECISIONS

Clearly a great deal of interest in this, Madam Chairman,
ranking member. I think it is not just because you are such
wonderful leaders here on this subcommittee, but I think it
speaks to the issue of what we are dealing with and the
significance of not only ports and harbors, but our reality
that in this new world of no earmarks, how we are able to help
advance those projects, whether it is as Senator Graham has
indicated, whether it is as Senator Lautenberg has indicated,
or whether it is as it relates to the small harbors issues, as
I will bring up. These are very critical issues for us, and I
think we recognize the investments to our communities that are
made when COE does the job that we ask them to do.
Secretary Darcy, the question that I have for you--a series
of questions here. We know that in recent years at least, we
have seen the Congress increase the amount of funding for the
construction of ports and harbors above the President's
request. That was true in fiscal year 2010. In total, the
Congress funded 350 studies and projects. The President had
budgeted for 153. Now in fiscal year 2012, COE is budgeted for
149 projects, and as I mentioned, we are operating under this
earmark moratoria.
The question that begs here is under this budget what
happens to the 350-some-odd projects that were earmarked by the
Congress in fiscal year 2010, and then going beyond there, what
are the consequences for the local sponsors who have provided
the matching funds from the municipal bonds or from the State
funds? Where are we at this point in time with these projects
that the Congress had said these are important, we need you to
advance? Where are we now?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, in making our budget priorities, we
look at the benefits to the Nation of all of these projects,
and that is how they compete and that is how we will budget for
them.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate benefits to the
Nation. We think that in Alaska we have a lot of benefits to
the Nation. I know that Senator Collins feels that her ports
and harbors have a lot of benefit to the Nation as well. But
you are going to have 26 States, including Alaska, that are
budgeted for O&M money, operation and maintenance money, in
fiscal year 2012, but who will receive no funding for general
construction because of these low cost-benefit ratios. And as
you go around the dais here and look to the States that we
represent--Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Hawaii, South Dakota,
Iowa, Montana, Kentucky, Maine, and South Carolina--would not
receive any construction funding.
So what do we say, that these 26 States are not significant
or important to the national interest? We have had
conversations about how the smaller harbors may be a lower
priority from a national perspective, but in terms of what they
contribute to a regional economy, they are extraordinarily
important. So we have got a system where we have a cost-benefit
ratio system that will never allow many of these States to ever
get into the funding stream when it comes to general
construction.
So if we do not have earmarks, what can the Congress do to
ensure that these States that are not budgeted for construction
can somehow or other continue to get funding? Because I will
not accept the conclusion that 26 States, including Alaska,
will just not see general construction money. That is not
right.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, we do not do our budgeting on a State-
by-State basis.
Senator Murkowski. I understand that.
Ms. Darcy. We do it on a project-by-project basis. That is
where the prioritization and the value come in.
As far as what can be done in the nonearmark era, there are
any number of ways to look at a budget, whether it is a
systems-based budget or a line item-based budget. That is
something that the Congress may need to look at.
Senator Murkowski. I think the Congress needs to look at
it. I think we need to work with COE because I think this has
led us to a result that whether you are from Alaska and trying
to get a small harbor going or Senator Graham from South
Carolina that is trying to get Charleston advancing--we have
got ourselves in a bit of a mess here. And I am looking for
your suggestions as to how we resolve it because just going to
old rhetoric, which we operate off of this cost-benefit ratio
and that is the standard and that is the way it is, is not
acceptable.
General, do you have comment you would like to make?
General Van Antwerp. Yes, Senator. First of all, we would
love to work with you on the priorities. I think if there are
no earmarks, then we go back to the priority scheme. So we
could work together on how the priorities are set, and maybe it
is different than we do right now. Right now it is very heavily
weighted to the National Economic Development benefits, and so
that is your benefit to cost ratio that you have been speaking
of. I think there are ways to look at the priorities of the
whole system where portions of it could be reallocated based on
a certain set of priorities that were set.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that. I think that is
something that we need to do and look forward to working with
you as well as those of us here in the Congress.
I do have a series of questions regarding CD-5 and the
failure by COE to be able to proceed with the bridge over the
Colville River. I recognize that I am over my limit, though,
but I would like to pose a series of questions to you for a
response.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very
much, Ranking Member Alexander.

COE deg.LEVEE CERTIFICATION

Secretary Darcy, across the country, a number of cities are
facing decertification of their levees as a result of higher
estimated water flows, one of those cities being the capital
city of Iowa, Des Moines. In the Des Moines case, the loss from
a 100-year flood is very likely to be well more than $1
billion. And that does not count the considerable loss of new
construction and economic development that will occur with
decertification. In other words, if they decertify the levees,
there are big areas that are now being opened up with new
expressways and areas for economic development. That will
probably come to a screeching, grinding halt if these levees
are decertified.
Now, the city of Des Moines and other cities I am aware of
across the country cannot afford to wait over a decade for
studies and remediation. In Des Moines' case, the possible
solutions are complex, including possible modification of COE
dams, the raising of bridges, the widening of streams, the
raising of levees. Each year of delay is a significant loss in
economic development and jobs, higher flood insurance costs and
again also possible flood damage. We really need COE to move
forward with these complicated studies in Des Moines which I am
told and understand is within your existing authorities.
COE has unique and needed capabilities. That should include
allowing the local sponsor, for example, to contribute funding
up front with the understanding that if a project develops,
those advances would be appropriately counted as a match.
Again, so we do not lose crucial time, we are trying to get up-
front money which the city of Des Moines is willing to do in
order to collapse that timeframe, but again those monies then
would count as part of their match so they do not lose this
whole timeframe.
So I hope that you will support having these studies move
forward as efficiently and quickly as possible and, as we wait
for regular funding, that you do all you can to approve the use
of city-advanced funds, which I was just talking about, with
the agreement that those local funds would count as a match
against approved activities that would come on later on.
Can you respond to that statement, because I have been
meeting with the people in Des Moines. They are at a critical
juncture right now. If we do not get something done within the
next about 18 months, we are facing some real economic problems
in the city of Des Moines. So, again, my question is, in your
jurisdiction could we get the city of Des Moines to advance
those funds, get those studies collapsed, do it in a hurry,
while we wait for regular funding?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, if we have a written agreement with the
local sponsor and COE, it is my understanding that we can
accept up-front money and provide further credit.
Senator Harkin. You could if there is an agreed plan.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, at the beginning.
Senator Harkin. With the city of Des Moines.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, with the local sponsor.
Senator Harkin. If the city of Des Moines comes up with
that, how long do you think it would take to get that approved?
I mean is this something we could look at in a very short
timeframe?
Ms. Darcy. I believe so, Senator.

COE deg.CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA

Senator Harkin. Okay, that is good. That is very good.
Well, okay, we have one other city in Iowa that is on a
river and it gets flooded. It is called Cedar Rapids. You know
that very well. And first of all, I commend COE for its rapid
movement of the Chief's report on Cedar Rapids. It has been
very good, General. But as you know, the findings propose a
project based on traditional criteria. I know you are probably
aware of this. It is one side of the river. General, you know
that very well. The other side of the river, more than 3,000
homes, and would you not know it, these are families with lower
incomes than those that are on the side to be protected. So it
is always those with lower incomes--they do not get any help.
I think the philosophy of the December 2009 proposed
national objectives, principles, and standards for related
resources should be followed in a case like this. The Cedar
Rapids waiver request will soon come to you to provide
protection on both sides of the river. I urge you to grant it.
That is the correct position on an equity and environmental
justice basis. Cedar Rapids is a major engine for the economy
of all of eastern Iowa, and it will be severely damaged with
the lack of investments without a project on both sides of the
river.
I also hope that you will support allowing Cedar Rapids to
count all of a sponsor's traditional costs that it incurred
since the date of the flood.
So that waiver request will be coming to you soon.

COE deg.UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NAVIGATION

Last, Madam Secretary and General, I want to talk a little
bit about the upper Mississippi navigation. We spent and I
spent 20 years working to get this final plan approved for the
upgrading of the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi. We
finally got it done. And now I am worried about the ability to
move ahead, both to maintain and move forward on the
improvements in that navigation system.
Of course, I was disappointed with the level of support in
the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal from the White House, and
I think it is clear that the budget agreement that we are
probably going to agree on is going to put some real strains on
the ability of COE to move forward. Madam Chair, I will be
submitting some questions for the record in this regard.
My point is this. I think that there is a need to increase
funding available the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. I was
pleased with the National User Board's proposal which
recognized that need but also called for both more efficient
processes regarding navigation construction and the reworking
of the definitions of what is considered navigation. I can tell
you that behind every dam--well, I cannot say ``every''. I have
not visited them all. Behind most of them are great
recreational areas, a lot of fishing. Even in some of the
places down the Mississippi, you would be amazed how many
people go out there just to bird watch and watch the bald
eagles.
Have you watched that Web site, the Decorah Eagles, by any
chance? No. There is a Web site. It is called Decorah, D-e-c-o-
r-a-h. You have been there a lot of times, but it is called
Decorah Eagles. What they did, Madam Chair, someone--not
someone--an entity, an environmental group, set up a web camera
in a tree focusing on an eagle's nest.
Senator Feinstein. I saw it. It was wonderful.
Senator Harkin. Is that not wonderful?
Senator Feinstein. Yes, and the baby.
Senator Harkin. And the little baby is being hatched and
all that and everything.
Senator Feinstein. It is great.
Senator Harkin. Hundreds of thousands of people around the
world watching it.
Well, along the Mississippi River, people are doing that.
They are going out watching birds. There is a lot of recreation
taking place.
It seems to me that it should not all be counted as
navigation. It should be counted both as recreation and as
navigation.
And we ought to allow for an increase in the taxes that
even the barge people say they want to do but they want to make
sure that it is used for navigation and to make sure that the
recreational uses behind those dams and stuff are funded as
recreational uses and not as navigational uses.
So I just wanted to say that. Like I said, rather than
getting into it here, I will submit for the record a number of
questions.
But I just want to thank you very much, Madam Secretary,
and General, thank you so much for all you have done. Cedar
Rapids--you have been great in response and helping us out
there. Believe me I know the constrictions on that other side
of the river. I understand that. I am just trying to see what
is equitable and what could possibly be done to help a
situation that cries out for some kind of justice here. So
however we can work that out, I would sure appreciate it. Thank
you both very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Harkin.
To our witnesses, you have had 10 percent of the Senate
here today, 10 people. That is very unusual for a subcommittee
meeting, and I hope you interpret it as compliment and I hope
you interpret it as the interest with which we hold your areas
of expertise.

COE deg.DAM SAFETY

I have a couple more questions. One is on dam safety,
before I turn to BOR who has been sitting there so quietly, I
want to say a couple of things.
There is a 90 percent chance in California that within the
next 30 years, we have a major earthquake. It is not a chance.
It is a probability. We are in the Ring of Fire. We have seen
the Ring of Fire with huge earthquakes in South America, Banda
Aceh, Christ Church, New Zealand, and all the way up. So there
is a lot of reason to be concerned.
We have in California three dams--I do not know, but the
words I have been given are ``most at-risk'' category, whatever
that means. One, Lake Isabella, has been under study for 6
years.
Now, the first question is what qualifies a dam for the
``most at-risk'' category, General.
General Van Antwerp. Senator, we look at a number of
factors. Probably the most damaging factor would be whether
there is material coming through the foundation of that dam. We
call that piping in the engineer world. And most of the DSAC-1
dams, which is the category you were mentioning, where it is
urgent and compelling that we fix them now, have that problem.
They are bringing material through the foundation. So we know
there is erosion taking place. That is the most critical
factor.
We have a number of those under rehabilitation right now as
we speak.
Senator Feinstein. Well, how long do you have to study
them, 6 years for Lake Isabella?
General Van Antwerp. Lake Isabella--we have looked very
closely at that. As we look at it, we think we are going to be
fine with that if we stay on the schedule we are on.
Senator Feinstein. Which is what?
General Van Antwerp. The schedule right now is that we are
going to fund that at $7 million in fiscal year 2012, which is
the capability. We have a wedge of funding that is not totally
visible to you all for dam safety. We are funding that project
to continue on the schedule and we will make the repairs
necessary when they come. We have $7 million in fiscal year
2012 for that.
Senator Feinstein. How about the other two most at-risk
dams?
General Van Antwerp. The Success Dam is budgeted with $18
million in fiscal year 2012, so that one is also on schedule.
What we are going to do there is acquire properties and we are
on track with the $18 million. I think on both of those dams,
we definitely have our eye on them and we are aware of their
condition.
Senator Feinstein. And the third one?
General Van Antwerp. The third one. Which one is that?
Senator Feinstein. I am trying to remember which one it is
and I cannot remember.
General Van Antwerp. Martis Creek. We have our eyes on that
too. This is Mr. Steve Stockton who is our Director of Civil
Works. He knows these in and out.
Senator Feinstein. And so, on that one?
General Van Antwerp. I am not exactly sure. I do not have
the notes on where we are.
Senator Feinstein. Would you let me know, please, because,
obviously, I am vitally concerned.
General Van Antwerp. Right.
Senator Feinstein. Now, let me turn to BOR.
You have proposed a new account for Indian water rights
settlements. The question is how much mandatory funding
accompanies the $51.5 million discretionary funding you have
proposed for fiscal year 2012?
Mr. Connor. The $51.5 million was basically designed to
meet the capabilities that we have for 2012 with respect to the
four new settlements. And what we are trying to do there,
although there is a significant amount of mandatory funds being
made available for those four new settlements, they also
include a substantial amount of associated appropriations
needs. I think to the tune of about $700 million was provided
in mandatory funding, but with respect to BOR, we will still,
for these four new settlements, about $250 million in
discretionary appropriations is needed. So what we have tried
do is to try and get the appropriations process going to cover
that need.
With respect to the new account, we have also incorporated
the Navajo-Gallup pipeline project in New Mexico, the Navajo
settlement in the San Juan River basin. There are about $25
million in that account, I think we are going to ramp up to a
capability in 2012 on the Navajo project to something around
$70 million to $80 million. So there is a substantial ramp-up
that is going on in that project itself, and so it will be a
combination of those appropriated dollars, the $25 million, in
the new account, plus we have been provided mandatory funds of
$60 million in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010.
Senator Feinstein. Do these settlement agreements require
funding annually?
Mr. Connor. They do not necessarily require specific
funding annually. Some of them do. For instance, the Crow
settlement contemplates an immediate distribution of $4 million
I believe.
Senator Feinstein. Are they all water systems?
Mr. Connor. They are a combination of trust funds, which
will come out of BIA accounts and infrastructure which are
primarily designated for BOR. So we have municipal and
industrial (M&I) systems, drinking water systems, but we also
have some rehabilitation of existing irrigation systems that
are part of the projects.
Senator Feinstein. So you believe they can be funded
without taking the money from anywhere else.
Mr. Connor. Right now, through the new account, plus the
combination of mandatory funds that we have, for the next few
years we think we can manage that situation. But once again,
overall, we are still looking at $250 million plus another $500
million for Navajo. We are looking at, through appropriated
dollars over the next decade, about $750 million worth of
appropriated dollars that we have got to find somewhere.
Senator Feinstein. I want to thank you for your sensitivity
to the South-of-Delta water issues. I was very pleased to learn
that BOR has increased the allocation for farmers from 65
percent to 75 percent last week. I know these followed two
previous rounds of increases. However, as you know well, there
is still a lot of consternation in the central valley when most
other projects are receiving 100 percent, and we have got a
bumper crop of water and it is still the South-of-Delta that
does not have 100 percent.
In your judgment, how close to 100 percent can this region
get with all the water that is now available?
Mr. Connor. Well, there is still a chance to get up to that
100 percent level. I would like to provide some perspective,
though. Since 1990, we have only hit that 100 percent level
South-of-Delta three times. The average over that 20-year
period is 62 percent to South-of-Delta allocation for
agriculture.
Senator Feinstein. I actually got out the contracts and
read them, and it is interesting because they are contracts
with all kinds of hedges in them because generally when
somebody signs a contract, you expect to be bound by the terms
of the contract. In this case, the Government is not really
bound by 100 percent water allocation under the contract. I do
not know that people know that, and I think it is very hard.
And I think when farmers look around and they see other water
districts with 100 percent, it becomes even harder. And I
understand there are special exigencies for the South-of-Delta,
but try and sell that. It is unsalable, and I think you know
that.
Mr. Connor. Yes, absolutely. There are priorities. There
are water rights conditions and the new environmental
obligations that we have. All of those factors have affected
that South-of-Delta allocation. But you are right. The
expectations are there because of the contract quantities, and
notwithstanding the fact those 20 years of experience show us
that there is not enough water to consistently meet that 100
percent need, there is still an expectation out there,
particularly this year when the snowpack and precipitation is
160 percent of average statewide.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I know you are sensitive, and you
have been just great and it is very much appreciated. I know
how tough it is. Whatever we do, it is not enough, but at least
we are trying. So thank you.
Perhaps the biggest effort in California is the Bay-Delta
conservation plan and what might come from it in the 10- to 15-
year build period after. Can you provide an update on BOR's
efforts to develop a programmatic EIS for the Bay-Delta
conservation plan?
Mr. Connor. Yes, Senator. Over the last 4 or 5 months,
there has been a very concerted effort by BOR, in concert with
the other Federal regulatory agencies, Fish and Wildlife
Service and NOAA Fisheries, working with the California Fish
and Game and the Department of Water Resources. We are calling
it the ``five agency process''. And we have been led in that
effort by Deputy Secretary David Hayes. And I think we have
made a remarkable amount of progress in dealing with six major
issues that are key to working through so that the State of
California, which is going to be the permittee under the Bay-
Delta Conservation Plan process, can go in and submit their
plan with a reasonable expectation that we can work through
those issues and get to a final permit. It is not pre-
decisional. The regulatory agencies have made that very clear.
But we are trying to get enough in the area so that there is a
reasonable expectation of success.
We have resolved, I think, four of the six issues. We are
working very hard over the next couple of months to resolve the
last two, and hopefully beginning mid-summer, the State will be
in a position to submit its plan which will kick off the
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
process. A lot of the analysis is already being done waiting
for the final plan to come in. I think there is still hope that
within a year's time period, that there will be a draft on the
street.
Senator Feinstein. Another problem. Since 2007, quagga
mussels have been inundating the Colorado River system. They
were found within Lake Mead, and since then, everybody has been
working to prevent them. I met with the metropolitan water
district the other day. They were telling me how they had spent
millions of dollars and these things are just in gobs along
their lines. Each quagga reproduces a million mussels a year.
You cannot kill them with cold water. They have to go in and
scrape feet of quagga mussels piled up. And if it infiltrates
the water system, we have really got a problem.
How much activity within BOR is going on to really try to
combat this mussel issue, because it is a huge one? The Met
just e-mailed the staff. They spent $28 million total scraping
these things off the pipes.
Mr. Connor. Yes. It is quite a problem and unfortunately,
it is one that is spreading. And that is where our initial
actions are right now. Our initial actions are to work very
closely with the State agencies in trying to educate the public
about the potential for transferring quagga mussels between
bodies. Right now, we used, I think, around $5 million of our
Recovery Act money just to do a broad survey west-wide of our
various facilities to try and get a grasp on the scope of the
problem, trying to educate people so that the problem does not
increase.
With respect to actually dealing with them in the
facilities that they are in, most of our activity has been
related to research and development activity. We are trying to
kill them through various means. We are trying to develop
coatings that will maybe keep them off the infrastructure.
Senator Feinstein. You mean by getting them high, Codeine?
Mr. Connor. No, coating--C-O-A-T.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, I thought you said codeine.
Mr. Connor. It took me a second. I think that is good that
I did not immediately react, coating.
Senator Feinstein. Got it.
Mr. Connor. That will hopefully inform us about how we can
keep them off of some of the infrastructure. But they are
already there, and as Metropolitan Water District (of Southern
California) well knows, they are investing a lot of their
operation and maintenance funds right now just to try and
control the problem.
Senator Feinstein. Well, thanks to Senator Alexander and
our work on Interior, Lake Tahoe, which we are trying to do
some work on and save, which is one of two last remaining clear
water lakes, huge lakes, is beginning to be infiltrated. So
there is a boat boycott, and every boat prior to going into
Lake Tahoe has to be specially inspected and washed.
So I do not know if you can come up with any of the things
that can be done. They have to get in somewhere, and we have
got to prevent them from getting in. I mean, with a lake that
is relatively isolated, if these are carried like from Lake
Mead on the bottom of a boat to Lake Tahoe, you can clean the
boat. But we really need some help and Federal suggestions of
what can be done because they are really going to destroy not
only the Colorado water supply system, but also our Great
Lakes.
Mr. Connor. Right. I agree. I think the inspection
stations, the education process, everything we are
participating in with our State partners in that effort, but it
is a growing problem that we need to pay more attention to.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. No thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. No, thank you, you said, all right.
Well, let me thank everybody. Let me particularly thank our
witnesses. I think this was a very useful hearing. As Senator
Alexander whispered to me, I am glad I am up here, not down
there.
At this time I would like to ask the subcommittee members
to please submit any questions that they have for the record.

COE deg.BOR deg.ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]

Question Submitted to Jo-Ellen Darcy
Question Submitted by Senator Patty Murray

Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, I appreciate all you have done
in your time with the Corps of Engineers (COE) and the good work of the
districts that serve my home State of Washington. We are obviously
facing very difficult budget times and unfortunately, the President's
budget request reflects that for COE. Yet even as we face these hard
times, COE has ongoing General Investigations that are routinely not
included in the President's budget request, like the Elliott Bay
Seawall GI or the Skagit River GI. Can you tell me how you plan to
continue these important projects?
Answer. All projects and studies are evaluated and considered for
funding. However, only the highest-priority studies from a national
perspective are proposed for funding. The Army has undertaken a broad
effort to review the scope of active studies to ensure resources are
appropriately aligned to complete those studies most likely to result
in a high-performing project. For example, as part of this effort, the
Skagit River study will be reviewed this year.
The Army is working to finalize implementation guidance for section
4096 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, which includes the
determination of the feasibility of reducing future damage to the
Elliott Bay Seawall from seismic activity. A Feasibility Scoping
Meeting is scheduled for the project this fiscal year.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

COE DEG.COMPLETION OF THE LEVEE SYSTEM FOR THE GREATER NEW
ORLEANS AREA

Question. On June 1, the city of New Orleans and the State of
Louisiana will mark an historic and long-awaited milestone. The city
that has given so much to this Nation--that is strategically located at
the entrance to one of the world's largest river systems--will be
protected against the ravages of a 100-year storm and flood event. The
Corps of Engineers (COE) is to be commended for its work in completing
this herculean task, but there are many questions left unanswered.
Since the American people have invested nearly $15 billion in this
effort, we have a serious responsibility to make sure this money is not
wasted and that it will sustain a 100-year level of protection over the
long term. I have a couple of questions on this point:
Ms. Darcy, there is clear precedent in law and regulation for COE
to assume operation and maintenance of navigation structures in
federally navigable waterways. If COE does not have the legislative
authority to operate the newly constructed structures along the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, will the administration support legislation to
give COE this authority?
Answer. The hurricane risk reduction system in the Greater New
Orleans area includes numerous floodgates, many of which cross roads,
interstate highways, and navigation channels. The hurricane risk
reduction floodgates crossing navigation channels are designed to have
minimal interference upon navigation, unless there is a tropical event
which requires their operation. Under current law, the Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana (LA-CPRA) is
responsible for operating and maintaining all of the hurricane risk
reduction system, including the floodgates. Two of the largest
floodgates for the hurricane risk reduction system cross the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). Although these two surge gates are
located across a Federal navigation channel, their purpose is to reduce
the risk from storm surge and not for navigation. Requiring the State
to be responsible for the costs of operation and maintenance is in
keeping with requirements of Public Law 99-662, Public Law 109-234 and
Public Law 110-252, all as amended.
Furthermore, in keeping with the above legislative requirements,
LA-CPRA has entered into Project Partnership Agreements and has agreed
to be 100 percent responsible for the Operation and Maintenance of the
hurricane risk reduction system project features. This applies to all
features, including the pumping station and these two floodgates which
cross the GIWW.
Question. I understand from local levee officials that in order to
maintain the 100-year level of protection, future ``lifts'' to increase
the height of the levees will be needed in certain areas of the system.
This will be caused by the settling of the material used to construct
the levee and could be needed as early as next year. Will the
administration budget for these critical needs and if so, why not?
Answer. Public Law 109-234 and Public Law 110-252 authorized and
funded COE to raise levee heights where necessary and otherwise enhance
the existing Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project and the existing
West Bank and Vicinity project to provide the level of protection
necessary at the time of construction to achieve the certification
required for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). Additional authority and funding would be required for the
Federal Government to construct future levee lifts.
Question. What do you estimate these needs to be, and how will it
affect the certification of the overall levee system in New Orleans?
Answer. The Greater New Orleans--Hurricane Storm Damage and Risk
Reduction System will initially be accredited by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for a 10-year period. Current regulations
require that FEMA to be notified if any part of the system fails to
meet the certification requirements during the 10-year period.
Additional authority and funding would be required to pursue
construction of the future levee lifts and other additional measures on
the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project and the West Bank and
Vicinity project to sustain FEMA system accreditation and participation
in the NFIP in the future.
The estimated cost for future levee lifts and other measures to
sustain elevations necessary for system accreditation are not known at
this time.
Question. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is authorized under the
Harbor Maintenance Revenue Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662, title XIV),
as amended. Revenue is derived from a 0.125 percent ad valorem tax
imposed upon commercial users of specified U.S. ports and investment
interest. These funds are intended for the operation and maintenance of
our ports and harbors--critical dredging that keeps these centers of
navigation and commerce open for business. More than $1 billion is
collected each year, and the total estimated balance in the fund this
year is more than $7 billion. We have all of these funds, yet our ports
and harbors are in desperate need of dredging. Why does the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund carry billions in surplus when our critical
ports and harbors are in desperate need of dredging funds?
Answer. The balance in this trust fund, which has grown over a
period of many years, reflects multiple factors, principally the value
of goods subject to the harbor maintenance tax, the tax rate, the
enacted spending levels, and the limitation in current law on the
authorized uses of these receipts. In our view, the overall funding
level that the Federal Government provides for maintenance dredging and
related purposes should be determined independent of the level of the
Harbor Maintenance Tax receipts. More specifically, the allocation of
these funds should reflect consideration for the economic and safety
return, as well as a comparison with other potential uses of the
available funds.
Our investments in coastal port maintenance are directed primarily
at providing operational capabilities and efficiencies. To make the
best use of these funds, COE evaluates and establishes priorities using
objective criteria. These criteria include transportation cost-savings,
risk reduction, and improved reliability--all relative to the cost.
Consequently, maintenance work generally is focused more on the most
heavily used commercial channels, which together carry about 90 percent
of the total commercial cargo traveling through our coastal ports.
However, many ports will experience draft limitations on vessels due to
channel conditions, at least during parts of the year.
While COE could spend more on harbor maintenance and related work,
the amount proposed in the budget for this purpose, which is financed
from this trust fund, is an appropriate level, considering the other
responsibilities of COE for inland navigation, flood risk management,
aquatic environmental restoration, hydropower, and the other Civil
Works program areas. COE continues to develop analytical tools to help
determine whether additional spending from this trust fund is warranted
based on the economic and safety return, as well as a comparison with
other potential uses of the available funds. Dredging costs continue to
rise due to increases in fuel, steel, labor, and changes in methods of
dredged material placement. We recognize that this presents challenges
in maintaining commercial navigation projects.

COE DEG.COASTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION--LCA

Question. I am very encouraged that the President requested
construction funding for coastal restoration in Louisiana in his fiscal
year 2011 budget. After decades of study and planning, we will finally
be turning dirt to restore and protect our fragile coast. I understand
that this represents 1 of only 2 new starts recommended by the
President, but I want to emphasis how critical it is that we use these
funds wisely and efficiently. Ms. Darcy, I understand that this is a
programmatic funding request.
How does COE intend to capitalize on the fiscal year 2012 budget
request and ensure that multiple projects have received the appropriate
executive branch approval?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $10.6
million to begin construction under the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA)
ecosystem restoration program. The COE district office is working on
several reports, and my staff is working with them to expedite the
appropriate approval process.
Question. Also, which specific LCA projects will receive funding
this year and the coming fiscal years?
Answer. Fiscal year 2012 funds will be used to continue
construction of authorized restoration projects underway in fiscal year
2011 with reports that have favorably completed executive branch
review, to initiate one new construction phase, and to continue
monitoring and other restoration-related activities. Potential
construction in fiscal year 2013 could include project(s) from the LCA
6 portfolio, Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Program (BUDMAT), and
the Demonstration Program. The specific project(s) selected for fiscal
year 2013 construction will be based upon funding available, approval
of individual reports by the executive branch and execution of the
necessary agreements with the State of Louisiana.
In fiscal year 2014 and beyond, we foresee continuation of
construction for projects within the LCA 6, BUDMAT, and Demonstration
Program with the addition of projects from the LCA 4 and LCA 5
portfolios.

COE DEG.DREDGING NEEDS ON THE MISSISSIPPI

Question. I have heard from a number of very concerned ports,
businesses, and citizens about the navigability along the lower
Mississippi River due to high water. The Mississippi is the central
artery for navigation for nearly the entire Nation. As you know, 40
percent of the entire continent is drained by the Mississippi River
Delta. This drainage basin (approximately 1,234,700 square miles)
covers about 40 percent of the United States and ranks as the fifth
largest in the world. The inland waterways of the United States include
more than 25,000 miles (40,000 km) of navigable waters. Much of the
commercially important waterways of the United States consist of the
Mississippi River system--the Mississippi River and connecting
waterways.
Do you have the funds you need to ensure that the Mississippi River
remains open for business at the maximum authorized depths?
Answer. The Army is committed to maintaining coastal navigation
between the gulf and the ports of the New Orleans and Baton Rouge area.
Funds to do so are included in the budget. The dredging needs on this
part of the lower Mississippi River are difficult to predict, as they
depend on flow conditions, sediment loads, and a variety of other
factors, which vary each year as well as over the course of the year.
COE continually monitors conditions on the river to ensure the most
efficient use of available funds to minimize the need for any depth,
speed or night-time restrictions.
Question. How are you balancing this critical need with the needs
that other essential waterways are facing across the State of Louisiana
and the Nation?
Answer. COE has a large inventory of navigation projects to
maintain and seeks to provide levels of service that reliably and
safely support freight movements in a way that provides the most
overall value to the Nation from the available funds. Navigation
projects were categorized as high, moderate, and low commercial
navigation use based on tonnage. COE's approach involves a focus on the
high and moderate commercial use navigation projects, which together
move 99 percent of the Nation's waterborne commercial cargo. Generally,
before providing more funding to a project, we consider whether we
could achieve a greater return by applying those funds elsewhere. The
low-use projects funded in the fiscal year 2012 budget were selected
with the intent to optimize use of the available funding across a range
of uses, with emphasis on harbors of refuge, subsistence harbors,
projects with Coast Guard Search and Rescue stations, energy delivery
projects where marine transportation is the only means to make the
deliveries, and commercial navigation projects with less than 1 million
tons of commercial cargo.

COE DEG.INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND

Question. The Inland Waterways Trust Fund is used to pay one-half
of the costs associated with the construction, replacement,
rehabilitation, and expansion of Federal inland waterways projects.
There are dozens and dozens of critical locks and dams that are in a
dramatic state of disrepair--including 1 in New Orleans that has been
waiting for replacement for more than 50 years. I am strongly opposed
to the administration's proposal of a new funding mechanism, which
would replace the existing fuel tax.
However, I am most interested in knowing how COE plans to address
the massive backlog of projects on the inland waterway system. Ms.
Darcy, how is your agency addressing this critical need?
Answer. Neither the administration nor the inland navigation
community is content with current funding levels. In the short-term,
the administration has been budgeting for the capital costs of inland
waterways projects based on the level of anticipated revenues from the
current excise tax on inland waterways diesel fuel.
Question. Do you believe changing the funding mechanism is the best
way to address the problem in this economy?
Answer. The administration is open to discussions on revisions to
the existing funding mechanism as well as new funding mechanisms.
______

Question Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell

Question. What funding levels are needed for fiscal year 2012 and
fiscal year 2013 in order to maintain the Kentucky Lock project on its
critical construction path?
Answer. Two features of the Kentucky Lock and Dam project currently
are underway: the superstructure feature (highway/railroad), which we
expect to complete in December 2011, and the upstream lock monolith,
for which we allocated funding under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. However, the Corps of Engineers (COE) does
not plan to move forward with further work on Kentucky Lock and Dam
project at this time due to the low level of the receipts to the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund, as well as to the relative priority of these
projects among the potential inland waterways capital investments. For
example, the priorities of the Inland Waterways Users Board, which will
be given due consideration in the formulation of future budgets, placed
a higher priority for early construction on several other inland
waterways projects and deferred completion of Kentucky Lock and Dam, as
well as other projects. When the project is ready to resume, COE will
develop a proposed schedule, after assessing the critical path toward
completion at that time.
Question. The inland waterway system has a number of lock and dam
modernization projects whose construction completion dates have been
significantly delayed and whose project construction costs have risen
far beyond the levels originally authorized by the Congress for those
projects. What do you believe the consequences will be of failing to
adopt a workable, reasonable long-term capitalization plan to address
this situation? Specifically, please speak to the specific long-term
impacts to Olmsted Lock and Dam, Kentucky Lock, Wolf Creek Dam, and
Greenup Lock and Dam projects without a capitalization plan.
Answer. COE's program today is focused on the operation,
maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of major flood
control and commercial navigation infrastructure systems, and the
repair of aquatic ecosystems that COE projects have affected. The
overall budget for the program is primarily devoted to maintaining
these systems so that they can continue to provide economic,
environmental and social benefits to the Nation.
For example, an increasing proportion of our funding in recent
years has been devoted to the maintenance and rehabilitation of
existing infrastructure, primarily for flood risk management, but also
for inland navigation projects. Similarly, the budget for the
construction program gives priority to dam safety assurance, seepage
control, and static instability control work (about $450-$500 million
per year) to repair unsafe dam structures.
The administration will be considering options for a comprehensive
recapitalization policy for the Civil Works Program, but still is in
the early stages of this effort, which will include an examination of
current asset management tools and review of existing policies and
authorities. It is anticipated that new authorities will be needed to
ensure that the infrastructure continues to address the water resources
priorities of the Nation.
The projects you mention, and their costs, are not affected by the
absence of a capitalization plan. The Olmsted Locks and Dam and the
Wolf Creek Dam projects have received a priority for funding for many
years. Their schedules and costs have changed principally due to a
variety of other factors specific to those projects. For the Kentucky
Lock and Dam project, we expect to complete the superstructure feature
(highway/railroad) in December 2011. We also provided funding under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for work on the upstream
lock monolith. However, COE does not plan to move forward with further
work on Kentucky Lock and Dam project or on the Greenup Locks and Dam
project at this time due to the low level of the receipts to the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund, as well as to the relative priority of these
projects among the potential inland waterways capital investments.
Question. Please provide an updated (to fiscal year 2011)
``Benefits Foregone'' account of the economic cost to our Nation's
economy due to lock and dam modernization projects that were not built
using an efficient construction schedule (previous COE analysis
attached).
Answer. We no longer compile this information. It was inaccurate
and misleading, as well as based on an unrealistic premise. However, we
would be glad to provide it for any specific project, with appropriate
qualifications.
Question. What action is COE taking to be better stewards of
taxpayer dollars?
Answer. The budget focuses on the highest-performing projects and
programs within the three main water resources missions of COE:
--commercial navigation;
--flood and storm damage reduction; and
--aquatic ecosystem restoration.
For example, the budget includes $51.78 million, more than a $40
million increase, for a comprehensive levee safety initiative to help
ensure that Federal levees are safe and to assist non-Federal parties
to address safety issues with their levees. The budget also proposes to
create savings and efficiencies through elimination of duplicative and
lower-priority programs.
Question. What is the estimated level of benefits not recoverable
for the Olmsted project?
Answer. The budget continues to place a high priority on the
completion of this project. The primary benefits resulting from
construction of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project (which also includes
demolition of Locks and Dams 52 and 53) are vastly improved navigation
transit at a key point on the Ohio River; coupled with significant
decreases in current operation and maintenance costs due to the age and
advanced deteriorated condition of Locks and Dams 52 and 53.
COE, in its feasibility report, estimated that the construction of
Olmsted Locks and Dam would reduce vessel transit costs and net Federal
operation, maintenance, and repair costs by around $69 million per
year. Operation and maintenance costs at Locks and Dams 52 and 53
continue to increase. A failure event at either of these projects could
close a key transit point on the river to navigation, with broad
effects on commerce. This ongoing risk will increase until COE
completes Olmsted Dam and the new locks are operational.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski

Question. My understanding is the Pacific Division of the Corps of
Engineers (COE) found deficiencies on appeal with the Alaska District's
rejection of Conoco's section 404 application to construct a bridge to
access the National Petroleum Reserve. As you know, the Native Village
of Nuiqsut and really all of the local stakeholders supported the
collaborative process that led up to this modified proposal. On remand,
is COE looking closely at the record for what the local subsistence
community prefers?
Answer. The district considered local support for Conoco's
preferred alternative as part of its public interest review in the
original decision. All relevant public interest factors were carefully
evaluated and balanced. The decision whether to authorize a proposal,
and under what conditions, is determined by the outcome of this general
balancing process, subject to other legal requirements. The district
determined that the district's record of decision did not clearly
document their decisionmaking process with respect to the public
interest determination. Therefore, while Pacific Ocean division did not
remand to Alaska district for the single issue of local support, the
remand did instruct the district to clearly document the balancing
process.
Further, local support for a project does not obviate the section
404(b)(1) guidelines requirement that only the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) may be permitted, so long as
that alternative does not have other adverse environmental
consequences. Based on the information provided to the district,
Conoco's proposal was not determined to be the LEDPA.
Question. Prior to the COE's rejection of Conoco's permit on
February 5, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had
designated the Colville River Delta ``an aquatic resource of national
importance.''--an aquatic resource of national importance (ARNI). Ms.
Darcy, what is your definition of ``national importance?''
Answer. The term ``ARNI'' is used in the process established under
an ``inter-agency dispute resolution memorandum of agreement'' (MOA)
developed under section 404(q) of the Clean Water Act. The current
404(q) MOA was signed by the EPA, Department of the Interior (DOI),
Department of Commerce (DOC), and my office in 1992. The MOA provides
procedures and timeframes for resolving inter-agency disputes regarding
permit applications, in an effort to make timely permit decisions. An
ARNI is a resource-based threshold used to determine which individual
permit cases can be elevated under the 404(q) procedures. Factors used
in past elevations to identify an ARNI include diverse high-quality
ecosystems, rarity and uniqueness, and economic importance for fish and
wildlife species. In other words, the underlying concept is simply that
impacts to particularly important aquatic resources should be carefully
evaluated.
Question. Has the EPA ever designated an ARNI in consultation with
COE or any other agency, or the public? Is there any transparency to
the designation?
Answer. The term ARNI is only used on the context of a Clean Water
Act (CWA) section 404(q) elevation under the 1992 MOA between EPA, DOI,
and DOC, to identify those individual permit cases that may be elevated
to my office for review. EPA does not ``designate'' an aquatic resource
as an ARNI. Rather, it concludes that the aquatic resources and
proposed impacts are significant enough to request review by my office
as provided in the MOA.
Question. If COE disagrees with the EPA's designation of an ARNI,
does COE have any means of reversing or modifying the designation?
Answer. The conclusion that the aquatic resources and proposed
impacts are significant enough to request review by my office is not an
official designation or decision that requires reversal or
modification. The term ARNI refers to a criterion used by the resource
agencies (EPA, DOC, DOI) to determine if an individual permit may be
elevated under the CWA section 404(q) elevation procedures.
A District Commander may not reject a resource agency's substantive
conclusion regarding its determination that the aquatic resource
impacted by the proposed project is an ARNI and that the impact will
result in an unacceptable impact on ARNIs. The 404(q) MOA is intended
to allow agencies to elevate certain applications to my office, after
following the specified procedures and timeframes described in the MOA.
Once my office receives the request for review of the individual
permit application from a headquarters office of the agency (e.g., the
EPA Assistant Administrator for Water), the permit decision is held in
abeyance.
My office does have the ability and authority to agree or disagree
with the designation of an ARNI and with the determination that the
project will result in substantial and unacceptable impacts to ARNIs
after thorough review of the permit and the decision document, and in
many instances after an on-site meeting.
I understand that there are several examples where my office has in
fact disagreed with the resource agency designation and/or the
determination of substantial and unacceptable adverse effects to ARNIs.
If this occurs, my office will inform the headquarters office of the
agency that sought headquarters review of the permit application of my
decision. The permit is not finalized during a period of 10 days
following my decision so that EPA if it desires may initiate a review
under its 404(c) authority.
Question. If COE moves forward with granting section 404 clearance
to proceed with a fill project even after EPA has designated an area an
ARNI, would COE consider it likely that EPA would use its section 404
authority to veto the project?
Answer. Not necessarily. Since 1972, when the Congress enacted
section 404, the EPA has only prohibited a proposed action, as provided
in section 404(c), about 14 times. The decision to initiate a 404(c)
action rests solely with the EPA, and is not tied to the concept of an
ARNI.
Question. With CD-5, COE had worked with Conoco, the State of
Alaska, and the local community stakeholders since 2004 toward an
agreement on accessing CD-5, only to ultimately deny the permit in
2010. How can we in the Congress justify spending on such a process if
we ultimately don't have a project?
Answer. CWA requires the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters be restored and maintained. In
accordance with this statutory requirement, the regulatory program
decisionmaking process involves an evaluation conducted pursuant to the
CWA section 404(b)(1) guidelines and a public interest review. These
requirements are intended to ensure that proposed discharges into
waters of the United States are not contrary to the public interest and
do not result in unacceptable adverse impacts to the aquatic
environment. The regulatory process is informed by the applicant as
well as information provided by State and Federal regulatory and
resources agencies, the local community and other interested
stakeholders.
In the case of CD-5, COE worked with Conoco Phillips Alaska Inc.
(CPAI), the State of Alaska, and the local community stakeholders since
2004 toward identifying a proposal that could potentially be approved
for a permit. During those years, CPAI requested the application review
process be suspended on occasion, as they made changes to their
proposed project; and so they could continue to work with the local
community stakeholders to come to a local agreement about access to the
CD-5 area without impacts to subsistence use and local jobs, and to
provide mitigation/compensation for social impacts to those
communities, to name a few. COE worked diligently with CPAI to find a
way to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters. In
addition, COE made numerous requests for information that would allow
them to evaluate portions of the CD-5 project. It is the applicant's
responsibility to supply all required and necessary information and to
clearly demonstrate that their proposal is the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative. CPAI did not provide the information
required to rebut the presumption that another alternative with less
environmental impacts on aquatic resources did not exist.
It is the responsibility of the regulatory program to take an
unbiased look at each and every project, weigh the detriments and
benefits and make a decision based on the law and regulations, public
interest factors, and the purpose and need for a project. The
decisionmaking process ends in one of several ways:
--permit issuance;
--permit issuance with conditions;
--the applicants' withdrawal of their application; or
--permit denial.
COE works with applicants and the agencies to protect aquatic
resources by ensuring that project proposals avoid and minimize
unnecessary impacts and mitigate for unavoidable impacts. This process
enables the agency to make favorable decisions on 99 percent of the
applications received, and works as the Congress intended.
Question. Is it possible to build a bridge, perhaps one of higher
elevation or with better placed supports, through an area with an ARNI
designation?
Answer. ARNI designation does not prohibit an activity or a
discharge in these aquatic resources, including building a bridge
through an area identified as an ARNI. COE recognizes that if the
resource agencies identify an area as an ARNI, that this term implies
that the resource may be high quality, rare, unique, or have economic
importance for fish and wildlife species, and that proposed impacts to
these important aquatic resources should be carefully evaluated.
Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA requires that only the LEDPA may be
permitted, so long as that alternative does not have other adverse
environmental consequences. COE denied the permit because it determined
based on information provided by the applicant, input from the public
and Federal resource agencies that a roadless alternative with
horizontal directional drilling (HDD) would be the LEDPA.
______

Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

COE DEG.HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

Question. It is my understanding that the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund has a significant surplus. The budget request states the
administration will be making a proposal concerning the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to the Congress. As I understand it, this
proposal will allow other agencies that are conducting port related
activities to charge those activities to the Trust Fund.
Could you explain this proposal a little further?
Answer. Several Federal programs support commercial coastal
navigation (primarily Corps of Engineers [COE], Coast Guard, Federal
Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], Customs, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and Department of Transportation), in a
variety of ways. The fiscal year 2012 budget proposes to expand the
authorized uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (Trust Fund)
receipts, so that they are available both for harbor maintenance and to
finance the Federal share of other Federal activities that support
commercial navigation through our ports. Spending would continue to be
subject to annual appropriations decisions, just financed from the
Trust Fund instead of the General Fund. The proposal would not limit
the amount of annual spending for any specific purpose or program, such
as harbor maintenance.
Question. How does this proposal improve our Nation's harbors? It
sounds like the same things will be accomplished but accounting for the
costs will be different. Am I missing something?
Answer. The proposal would support investments that contribute to
the strength of the American economy. It would facilitate the
development of a comprehensive investment strategy, improve the
allocation of resources to and among multiple agencies, and provide
transparency on the extent of the Federal support.
Question. Won't this rapidly deplete the Trust Fund balance?
Answer. The proposal is still under development. We expect the
Trust Fund to retain a workable balance. We would work with the
Congress to decide which other Federal coastal navigation efforts are
covered. The extent of the long-term effect on the size of the Trust
Fund balance would depend upon which other Federal activities are
included.
Question. When the trust fund is depleted by these new activities,
how will we maintain the harbors and waterways that are currently
funded through the Trust Fund?
Answer. We expect the trust fund to retain a workable balance.
However, if it were to be depleted at some future date, the Congress
would then decide how to fund the Federal coastal navigation efforts,
including those of COE.
Question. Assuming these other activities will continue to be
funded from the Trust Fund, will maintenance of these waterways be
further restricted due to lack of funding in the Trust Fund?
Answer. That is not our intent or expectation. In fact, there could
be more dredging under the proposal. In our view, the overall funding
level that the Federal Government provides to COE for maintenance
dredging and related purposes should be determined independent of the
level of the Harbor Maintenance Tax receipts. More specifically, the
allocation of these funds should reflect consideration for the economic
and safety return, as well as a comparison with other potential uses of
the available funds.
Question. The budget request states a number of times that you are
addressing the highest-priority needs. It is also my understanding that
the budget proposal does not provide for full authorized widths and
depths to be maintained at any harbor maintained by COE. Has there been
any calculation of the economic impacts by not fully dredging all of
Nation's ports?
Answer. There has been no calculation of the economic impacts of
not fully dredging all of the Nation's ports. Maintenance of existing
navigation channels to fully authorized dimensions would reduce the
cost of some ship movements, but would not necessarily increase the
total throughput capacity of the ports. The fiscal year 2012 budget for
COE includes $758 million from the Trust Fund to support the
maintenance of coastal harbors and their channels and related work. To
make the best use of these funds, COE evaluates and establishes
priorities using objective criteria. These criteria include
transportation cost-savings, risk reduction, and improved reliability--
all relative to the cost. Our objective is to provide operational
capabilities and efficiencies, with a focus on the most heavily used
commercial channels (carrying more than 10 million tons of cargo/year),
which together carry about 90 percent of the total commercial cargo
traveling through our coastal ports.
Question. It would seem that if the administration goal is to
double exports, that fully dredging our ports and waterways would be an
essential step in making this goal a reality. Am I missing something?
Answer. Maintenance of existing navigation channels to fully
authorized dimensions would reduce the cost of some ship movements, but
would not necessarily increase the total throughput capacity of the
ports. The fiscal year 2012 budget for COE gives priority to the
maintenance of the Nation's large deep-draft harbors. The budget also
includes $65 million for the ongoing deepening of the port of New York/
New Jersey; $42 million for construction/expansion of dredged material
placement facilities at the ports of Norfolk, Virginia; Savannah,
Georgia; and Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida in order to continue
maintenance of the deep draft channels serving these ports; $600,000
for preconstruction engineering design of Savannah Harbor expansion,
Georgia; and $726,000 for a channel improvement study at Brazos Island
Harbor (Brownsville), Texas.

COE DEG.DAM SAFETY

Question. Dam safety is of critical importance to our Nation and
particularly California. Currently there are three dams in California
in the most at-risk category.
Could you explain COE's criteria on how projects are ranked related
to risk?
Answer. COE uses a dam safety portfolio management process that
continually monitors and assesses the condition and risk associated
with all COE dams and assigns a Dam Safety Action Classification
(DSAC). The priority for funding is focused on addressing the highest-
risk dams with the most cost-effective risk reduction alternatives for
all DSAC I, II, and III projects. DSAC I dams have been determined to
have a confirmed urgent and compelling issue that requires taking
immediate and expedited actions to reduce and manage the risk.
Therefore, DSAC I dams with life safety consequences are given first
priority. For prioritization within DSAC II and III projects,
significant weight is given to the quantitative tolerable risk
guidelines, but other nonquantitative considerations, including As Low
as Reasonably Practical (ALARP), are also used for a more complete
basis. The greater the estimated annual probability of failure and the
further the estimated life risk is above the tolerable risk limit, then
the greater the urgency to act. Further detail on ranking criteria is
available in Draft ER1110-2-1156, Chapter 6.3. Draft version of ER
1110-2-1156 has been released as interim guidance to the field. The
regulation is available for download at http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/
Documents/cecwe/er1100_2_1156_1nov10.pdf.
Question. Can you explain what risks these dams and the people
below them are facing and what actions are taken to reduce risks while
studies are undertaken and corrective plans formulated?
Answer. COE executes its project purposes guided by its commitment
and responsibility to public safety. It is after public safety
tolerable risk guidelines are met that other purposes and objectives
are considered. COE dams are geographically widely spread across the
Nation and exhibit varying degrees of deficiency and life-safety risk.
Interim Risk Reduction Measure Plans (IRRMP) are the key documents that
frame operational decisionmaking for high-risk dams (DSAC I, II, and
III). Structural and nonstructural alternatives for the interim risk
reduction measures are evaluated for effectiveness to reduce the
probability of failure and/or consequences associated with the failure
modes. Reservoir pool restrictions, modification of reservoir
regulation plan, and updating of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) are
always evaluated as options. The IRRMPs establish the specific
threshold events, decision points, and actions required. COE discusses
issues consistently and openly with affected stakeholders upstream and
downstream of our structures.
Question. These studies seem to take an inordinately long time,
particularly for high-risk dams. For instance, Lake Isabella in my home
State has been under study for the last 6 years. Isn't there a way to
accelerate these studies so the remediation work can get started?
Answer. The risk-informed approach that COE is implementing will
allow focus on our most critical deficiencies. This focus will provide
a more expedited repair to our worst issues. Given the multiple
purposes of most COE dams and the long-term benefits provided, the
projects will still require thorough analysis of any modification to
assure public safety by modification to the dam. Dam analysis and
designs are complex technical efforts. Risk assessments must be
performed to understand the extent of a problem and to evaluate options
to fix the dams. In many cases, COE dams have multiple deficiencies
which increase the complexity of repair.
Question. Your budget proposes $436.7 million for repairs to 10
projects and an additional $37.2 million to continues studies on other
dams that have various risk ratings. Repairs on some of these projects
are multi-year and, in many cases, extremely expensive--with the
repairs often costing more than the original dams. Does COE have
additional capability for dam safety work in fiscal year 2012?
Answer. All DSAC I projects that are ready for construction, and
some DSAC II projects, are funded at the maximum rate that COE can
efficiently and effectively use funds. Decisions on the funding for
other dam safety projects (other DSAC II projects and all DSAC III
projects) include consideration of budgetary and technical resources as
well as other factors.
Question. Your budget proposes $27.6 million for evaluation studies
and lists 100 different dams where these studies would be conducted.
That works out to about $275,000 per study. That seems very low. Can
you explain this better?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget will progress study efforts at
73 projects with levels of effort ranging from $50,000 to $800,000. The
prioritization and funding amount is re-evaluated quarterly to adjust
to incidents, study progress, successful performance during flood
events, and other relevant information.
Question. Is this a list of potential studies that will be
undertaken or will all 100 be underway in fiscal year 2012?
Is it also fair to assume that when these projects were formulated
prior to authorization and construction, that the 50-year maintenance
costs were factored into the benefit cost ratio that led to their
authorization and construction?
Answer. An estimate of the 50-year maintenance costs has been
factored into the benefit-cost ratios for projects proposed by COE
under the 1983 Principles and Guidelines and prior planning guidance.
Question. Further, the budget request proposed $9.5 million to
undertake post-evaluation work. However, there is no description of
what this post evaluation work is or which projects it would be
undertaken on. Can you provide some more information?
Answer. Dam Safety Modification reports for Addicks and Barker Dams
(DSAC Is) are scheduled to be approved in fiscal year 2012 and Pre-
Construction Engineering & Design (PED) for these dams will be
initiated in fiscal year 2012. COE is initiating PED and some limited
site preparation construction on Bolivar and East Branch Dams (DSAC
IIs) that have approved Dam Safety Modification reports, but that will
not be funded for construction until fiscal year 2013.
Question. With the number of dams that are considered high risk and
the decline of your budget request over the last 3 years, how are your
future budgets going to be able to accommodate these increasing costs?
Answer. The Army manages risks across a broad portfolio of
structures, with the objective of reducing the overall portfolio risk.
The decision on priorities in project queues is risk informed and
performed from a national perspective. Over much a longer period than
just the past 3 years, the budget has consistently funded all DSAC I
projects and some DSAC II projects at the maximum rate that COE can
efficiently and effectively use funds.
There are 10 continuing DSAC I and II dam safety projects funded in
the fiscal year 2012 budget for a total of $436.7 million. This funding
is allocated within the construction appropriation. As additional high-
risk dams are identified we will work to address them as well. We
expect to continue funding all DSAC I projects that are ready for
construction, and some DSAC II projects, at the maximum rate that COE
can efficiently and effectively use funds.

COE DEG.SMALL PORTS

Question. Your budget request cuts funding to many small ports and
harbors across the country. Can you tell us a little about the criteria
used to determine those cuts?
Answer. Navigation projects were categorized as high, moderate, and
low commercial navigation use based on commercial tonnage. Funding is
focused on high and moderate navigation projects (coastal projects
carrying at least 1 million tons of cargo and inland waterways with at
least 1 billion ton-miles of traffic), which move 99 percent of the
Nation's waterborne commercial cargo. The low-use projects funded in
the fiscal year 2012 budget were selected with the intent to optimize
use of the available funds for such projects across a range of uses
including critical harbors of refuge, subsistence harbors, projects
with Coast Guard Search and Rescue stations, energy-delivery projects
such as home heating oil where marine transportation is the only means
to make the deliveries and navigation projects with significant, albeit
less than 1 million tons of commercial cargo.
Question. Was the criteria that you used for determining your
budgetary priorities for fiscal year 2012 contemplated when these
projects were originally formulated, authorized and constructed?
Answer. No. The prioritization criteria for the Operation and
Maintenance program consider the current use of a project and a variety
of other factors, in order to assess how the return on a further
investment to the Nation in maintenance compares with other potential
uses of those funds.
Question. Was it safe to assume that if the project was
economically justified, that the administration would budget for
maintenance of the project as appropriate?
Answer. No. However, if the construction of the project was found
by the executive branch to be economically justified at that time, the
administration generally will consider the project for funding.
Question. Can we, for argument's sake, assume that nearly all the
projects that were not budgeted in fiscal year 2012 were economically
justified, when construction was completed?
Answer. No. Many projects were authorized without an approved COE
report. Others are not being funded due to policy concerns that arose
prior to their construction.
Question. This would mean that all of these unbudgeted projects
were determined to accrue benefits to the national, as well as, the
regional and local economies, am I correct?
Answer. Many, but not all, of the projects would have a COE report
that estimates that the project would accrue net benefits. However, key
assumptions in these reports may be open to question. For example,
benefit estimates for a proposed navigation project generally rely on a
speculative projection of future traffic levels.
Question. Was there any analysis to determine if the ports were
moving the tonnage projected in the documents that led to authorization
and construction of the projects?
Answer. COE has not conducted such an analysis as this would be a
large undertaking for an inventory of more than 1,000 navigation
projects.
Question. It would seem to me that if a port was meeting its
tonnage projections, that it would most likely be meeting the economic
projections from the original analysis conducted prior to
authorization. Is it safe to assume that some of these small ports
would have had small tonnage amounts projected, but yet were still
considered economically justified?
Answer. Some of these ports would have been justified based on
tonnage projections. However, even where the tonnage is on track with
projections, dredging costs have increased dramatically since many
projects were authorized. Also, the economic analysis in these reports
generally does not account for the effects of funding limitations.
Question. Then how can you not budget for a port that is meeting
tonnage projections?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget seeks to allocate the available
Federal funds to the activities that will have the highest return on
investment to the Nation.
Question. Was there any analysis of the impacts to the national,
regional, and local economies of not funding these ports and harbors in
your budget?
Answer. No, this would be a large undertaking with an inventory of
more than 1,000 projects.
Question. It appears that your criteria being based solely on
tonnage would put many ports at a disadvantage to even be considered
for funding. How do you justify this criteria?
Answer. While most economists agree tonnage is not a direct measure
of the economic benefit, it is a good first-order approximation and
there is little agreement on an alternative.
Question. Wouldn't some type of economic analysis be in order to
determine the value of these ports to the national, State, and local
economies rather than basing your decision solely on tonnage?
Answer. We are working to allocate the funds as best as possible.
There is also a cost associated with more analysis. However, COE
continues to develop analytical tools to help determine whether
additional spending for harbor maintenance and related activities is
warranted based on the economic and safety return, as well as a
comparison with other potential uses of the available funds.
Question. Wouldn't the economic value of these ports be a better
indicator of where maintenance funding should be concentrated?
Answer. We are open to considering other factors. However, in
allocating maintenance funds, we are mostly trying to find the best use
of an incremental investment above or below the amounts that we are, or
are not, already providing.

COE DEG.NEW STARTS

Question. For fiscal year 2011 you proposed two new construction
starts for a total of $29 million. These two starts, if they are
started, require outyear funding in excess of nearly $2 billion. For
fiscal year 2012, you have proposed two more new construction starts
that will require outyear funding in excess of $120 million. With the
declines in your budget requests that have been recommended in the last
3 years, how do you expect these projects to be funded in future years?
Answer. In the out-years, they would continue to compete for
funding, as they did successfully in the development of the fiscal year
2011 and fiscal year 2012 budgets. Also, the $2 billion total for the
two fiscal year 2011 new construction starts mostly reflects the cost
of authorized work under the Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem
restoration program to address the effects of large and continuing
wetland losses on the ecosystem. Each year of delay could complicate
the long-term restoration effort.
Question. How were the two ``new starts'' in the President's budget
selected? What criteria were used?
Answer. Raritan to Sandy Hook (Port Monmouth), New Jersey,
qualifies as a ``Risk to Life'' new start. This project addresses a
significant risk to human safety and damage to property resulting from
increased flood exposure, shoreline erosion, and increased exposure of
the shore and inland areas to tidal inundation and wave attack damages.
This increased exposure, combined with runoff from coastal creeks,
results in increased danger of high flood depths and water velocities
with little warning time.
Hamilton City, California qualifies as an ecosystem restoration new
start predominantly because it connects four other restored
environmental areas, thereby providing a larger continual habitat
corridor. This project will also provide ancillary flood risk
management benefits to Hamilton City and nearby agricultural lands.
Question. The new study starts that you have proposed are all
ecosystem restoration studies. Are there no new flood control or
navigation studies that warrant the administration's support?
Answer. While there are many potential flood control and navigation
new study starts, the four new study starts proposed for the budget
were considered to be a higher priority.
Question. What did the administration hope to demonstrate through
selection of these particular projects?
Answer. The four new studies (in addition to those proposed in
fiscal year 2011) include:
--Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River) Fish Passage,
California;
--Cano Martin Pena, Puerto Rico;
--the Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan; and
--the Louisiana Coastal Area Comprehensive Study.
Three of these studies were proposed as new starts because they
will examine ways to contribute to restoration and increased
sustainability of ecosystems that were part of last year's interagency
collaborative planning initiative. The study of Cano Martin Pena,
Puerto Rico will examine ways to provide critical estuarine habitat
restoration and move people out of a floodway.
Question. It is my understanding that more than half of the Chief
of Engineers reports expected to be submitted to the Congress this year
are ecosystem restoration studies. Doesn't this indicate an unbalanced
program if the majority of studies being produced are for ecosystem
restoration rather than the more traditional COE's missions of flood
control and navigation?
Answer. The distribution of Chief's reports among mission areas
will vary year to year. The number of reports in any one year is not an
appropriate indicator of the makeup of the construction program. Also,
the budget funds studies and preconstruction engineering and design
work for many proposed flood control and navigation projects.

COE DEG.LEVEE VEGETATION

Question. COE is developing new national policies for the allowance
and/or removal of trees and other vegetation from levee projects.
Meanwhile, COE 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 COE's past
involvement with the region's levees. What is the proposed timing on a
revised draft vegetation variance process and when does COE plan to
have a final policy?
Answer. COE's goal is to work with resource agencies, such as the
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Environmental Protection Agency, and levee owners to transition
noncompliant levees to COE standards, including vegetation standards.
Achieving this goal will allow us to jointly maintain public safety,
ensure eligibility under Public Law 84-99 for assistance in making
repairs after a flood, and comply with Federal environmental laws.
Noncompliant levee vegetation may affect the safety, structural
integrity and function of the levees, could obstruct visibility for
inspections, impede access for maintenance, and could block emergency
flood fighting operations. Clear vegetation policies, standards, and
practices are critical to an effective life-cycle flood risk management
program.
The vegetation variance policy referenced in the question was
originally issued in 1997 to implement section 202(g) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996. The policy recognizes that there may
be some instances where vegetation may preserve, protect or enhance
natural resources and/or protect the rights of Native Americans. This
variance process is designed to accommodate those special cases when it
is possible to do so while still maintaining the safety, structural
integrity and function of the levees, and allowing access for
inspection and flood fighting. In August 2009, COE began revising this
vegetation variance request process to reflect current organizational
changes and levee safety program principles such as utilizing agency
technical reviews, applying a systems approach, and ensuring COE levee
safety technical leads are part of the process.
Due to strong interest from sponsors in how changes to this
vegetation variance request process may impact them, COE solicited
comments on the proposed revisions through the Federal Register, with a
notice and comment period from February 9, 2010 to April 26, 2010. COE
received more than 500 comments from more than 100 separate
organizations and individuals. As a next step, COE is considering
whether to post, for the second time, a revised draft vegetation
variance request policy for public comment.
Question. Out of the hundreds or thousands of levee failures over
the years, how many (and what percent) were caused by vegetation on a
levee?
Answer. It is very difficult to determine after the fact whether
one factor, such as vegetation, can be attributed to the cause of a
levee breach, unless it was observed, documented, and studied during
the actual failure. Because direct impacts of vegetation on levees
cannot be quantified, potential impacts are based on field
observations. COE is aware of instances in which vegetation has been a
hindrance to inspections, monitoring, and flood fighting during a flood
event. Moreover, vegetation can obstruct the ability to detect
indicators for a potential levee breach, such as seepage.
Question. As part of the vegetation variance process, is COE
willing to consider regional variances which address vegetation
management within the context of unique geographic settings such as
exist in California?
Answer. COE recognizes that just as no two regions are the same
ecologically, no two levee systems are the same from an engineering
perspective. The current draft policies allow for the consideration of
the unique engineering and environmental context of particular levee
systems to develop vegetation management solutions that address both
levee safety and natural resource requirements. The ultimate goal is to
work with resource agencies and levee owners to transition noncompliant
levees to COE's standards, which may include obtaining vegetation
variances or identification of other solutions to fit the specific
regional conditions. For example, since 2008, COE and California have
been engaged in the California Levee Roundtable, a collaborative
partnership of Federal, State, and local organizations that facilitates
the consideration of the local environmental and engineering context to
develop systemwide levee solutions throughout the region. COE hopes to
be able to continue this collaborative process with willing State
participants.
Question. Is COE willing to consider regional variances which
prioritize vegetation management with respect to all risk factors,
without inhibiting or delaying the remediation of higher-priority risk
factors?
Answer. COE supports prioritizing how and when levee deficiencies
are addressed based on risk. This approach has been integrated into the
COE systemwide improvement framework policy. This policy provides an
opportunity for local levee authorities to use an interagency approach
to identify solutions that optimize resources, and to sequence
improvements and corrective actions based on risk. This approach is
available to the Central Valley levees through the California Levee
Roundtable.
Question. Is COE willing to consider regional variances which
provide clear guidance on the level of detail needed for a variance,
how that detail will be evaluated, and an appeal procedure should COE
and the local sponsor disagree on the outcome of the process?
Answer. The most recent revisions to the draft vegetation variance
process are designed as a collaborative approach through which there
will be early determination on the most viable approach to meeting COE
policies and standards while complying with applicable laws,
regulations, and treaties. The intent is that any conflicts or issues
should be raised and resolved during the collaborative process as
opposed to having a formal appeal process. As such, it is likely that a
decision to pursue a vegetation variance could be identified early in
the process, diminishing the need for extensive environmental and
engineering analysis. For situations in which the levee sponsor would
like to pursue a vegetation variance request, more detail has been
added to the technical requirements in the draft policy so the levee
sponsor can better estimate the cost requirements. Though the review
and approval process remains the same, COE believes these steps are
necessary to make a well-informed decision about a levee system that is
providing economic and safety benefits to the public living behind the
levee.
Question. How does COE intend to evaluate, disclose, and address
the impacts of this process on the environment and endangered species
impacts?
Answer. COE recognizes that in carrying out its responsibility to
promote safety and reduce the risk of damage to property through
structurally sound levees, the agency must address environmental and
natural resource needs through compliance with all applicable laws,
regulations, and treaties. COE will comply with all applicable
environmental requirements in implementing the policy for requesting a
variance from COE vegetation management standards for levees and
floodwalls.
COE believes that the best approach is to review the environmental
impacts of the application of specific standards as they are applied to
site-specific circumstances. With this approach, COE recognizes that
each levee is a unique flood risk reduction system that operates within
the broader and equally unique local ecosystem. This approach also
recognizes that the analysis of potential environmental impacts is
dependent upon future, undetermined actions and decisions of the levee
sponsors who operate and maintain the levee systems.
When environmental requirements are triggered as COE makes
decisions on the inspection standards applied to specific levee
systems, the COE will work closely with the levee sponsors, appropriate
resource agencies and tribes, as well as other interested parties to
complete the required environmental compliance.
Question. Many encroachments that do not comply to new policies,
including but not limited to trees, in California's levee systems were
either installed, permitted, or required by COE. In other cases the
encroachments existed at the time the completed Federal project was
turned over to non-Federal sponsors for operation and maintenance.
Under COE's new policies (or new implementation of old policies) how
will the COE's share responsibility for addressing the construction and
environmental costs of compliance?
Answer. ``Encroachments'' are features such as fences and utility
lines requested by the non-Federal sponsor to be added within the levee
system project real-estate easement after project completion.
Encroachments and vegetation are handled differently under COE
policies. COE has a well-defined encroachment permit process.
Unpermitted encroachments will be the responsibility of the non-Federal
sponsor to correct, including construction costs and environmental
compliance. For vegetation, related policies are still under review and
not yet final. However, in the final policy COE intends to clearly
identify responsibilities of the non-Federal sponsor and COE, including
situations when COE will be responsible for addressing the cost of the
vegetation (both corrective actions and environmental compliance).
Question. California's Department of Water Resources (DWR)
developed a rough cost estimate that compliance with COE's vegetation
guidance would cost about $7 billion for 1,600 miles of Federal levees
in the Central Valley. If that is correct, would you think that
compliance is a good investment?
Answer. The California DWR also has said that given the overall
condition of the levees in the Central Valley, higher-risk deficiencies
such as underseepage, structural instability, and erosion should be
addressed first. In general, COE agrees with this assessment. COE
supports DWR's goal to leverage resources by prioritizing levee
remediation in order to maximize improving safety. COE is currently
working with DWR to incorporate such prioritization as part of the
State's long-term strategy for levee improvements that will be outlined
in the California Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.
Question. Does COE have its own cost estimates for compliance with
its vegetation guidance?
Answer. No, meeting COE vegetation management standards is an
operation and maintenance responsibility typically implemented by a
local levee sponsor.
Question. Will section 104 credit and section 408 approval be
available for projects that do not meet the Levee Vegetation ETL, as
long as non-Federal partners are addressing higher-risk factors. How
will this be manifested in COE processes?
Answer. COE supports modifications that will improve the levee
system and recognizes it may not be possible for a local levee sponsor
to address all deficiencies at one time. The determination for credit
(now considered under section 2003 of WRDA 2007, not section 104) or
section 408 approval for levees that do not meet COE standards for
vegetation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Further, the
vegetation variance request process and the section 408 approval
process can be combined where appropriate.

COE DEG.LEVEE CERTIFICATION

Question. It is my understanding that you have or are planning to
implement an engineering circular entitled ``USACE Process for the
National Flood Insurance Program Levee System Evaluation''. This EC for
the first time establishes a 10-year time limit for levee
certification.
Can you tell us how you arrived at this 10-year limit, whether
stakeholders were involved in that process?
Answer. Currently there is no FEMA requirement for periodic review
of levee certifications. Until FEMA policy is established, it is
recommended that, for every certification issued by COE after 10 years,
the certification should be reviewed or verified. Flood risk and levee
conditions can change over time and it is important to ensure that a
levee still meets expected requirements. The 10 years is to serve as a
maximum timeframe between certification determinations. A certification
can be reviewed any time before the 10 years, if it is of professional
opinion there are indications that the project may no longer meet levee
certification requirements. Throughout development of this EC,
stakeholders were provided opportunities to provide input.
Question. What do you see as the process going forward for those
levees whose certification is older than 10 years, and can you give us
a sense of how this decertification effort will impact COE's civil
works budget?
Answer. It is a local community's responsibility to provide FEMA
documentation that a levee meets NFIP criteria for flood mapping
purposes. COE does not anticipate any impacts from this effort on the
Civil Works budget because we do not budget for levee certification.
coe deg.california-specific questions
Question. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has told my office that
there is a high probability that a moderate to severe earthquake could
lead to the failure of more than one-half of the levees in the
Sacramento Delta. According to the 2009 Delta Risk Management Strategy
developed by the California DWR using USGS data: ``an earthquake of
magnitude 6.7 or greater has a 62 percent probability of occurring in
the San Francisco Bay Area between 2003 and 2032. Such an earthquake is
capable of causing multiple levee failures in the Delta region which
could result in fatalities, extensive property damage and the
interruption of water exports from the Delta for an extended period of
time.''
What actions has COE taken to reduce the risk of major, multiple
levee failures in the Sacramento Delta?
Answer. COE is partnering with the State of California and the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) as described below on the following
initiatives related to improving the levee system in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Bay-Delta:
Geographic Information System (GIS) Contingency Mapping and
Emergency Response Planning.--A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
was signed between COE and the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR), allowing COE and DWR to initiate phase 1 of
GIS Flood Contingency Mapping and Emergency Response Planning
for the Delta region. The team met with Delta counties in
August 2010 to gather input on concepts for the GIS products,
response report, and related data. The second round of meetings
were held in November 2010 to present the 35 percent complete
product, validate data collected thus far, and gather
additional information from county and RD representatives.
During July 2011, the PDT met with State and local
representatives to review the 65 percent product. The 100
percent product is expected in fall 2011. This will constitute
the end of our phase I of GIS Flood Contingency Mapping and
Emergency Response Planning for the Delta region. The products
will be immediately useful for emergency response planning and
will include:
--Standardized GIS database of Emergency Management data;
--Flood Contingency Map Books and large-scale wall maps of the
Delta region; and
--An accompanying report documenting the existing framework,
existing data, and any potential data gaps.
In May 2011, COE, along with other State, Federal, and local
agencies, participated in the California Emergency Management
Agency-led 2011 Golden Guardian Exercise. This year included a
3-day Full Scale Exercise based on a major flood in
California's Inland Region (Delta).
Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility Study.--The Delta Islands
and Levees Feasibility Study (Delta Study) is a cost-shared
study to explore potential solutions to address ecosystem
restoration needs, flood risk management problems, and related
water resources issues in the Delta and Suisun Marsh area. The
President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $1.015 million for
this feasibility study. A Feasibility Cost Share Agreement
(FCSA) was executed in May 2006 with the California DWR, the
non-Federal sponsor. The COE-DWR study team meets regularly to
move the study forward and holds periodic Agency Coordination
Meetings with associated Federal, State and local agencies,
including BOR.
On August 11, 2011, COE will participate in an interagency
meeting to discuss preliminary Sacramento--San Joaquin Delta
Modeling. The objective of this modeling is ``to develop
representative hydrodynamic, sediment transport, water quality,
and ecosystem models that enable COE's Sacramento District to,
with solid scientific support, understand the system-wide
impact of natural and purposeful changes to the Delta and allow
it to proactively manage these vital water resources.'' We
expect the basic model to be completed by December 2011. This
will be a useful tool to aid project planning and emergency
response planning in the Delta.
The feasibility study will culminate in a feasibility report that
will make recommendations on possible solutions and next steps.
Interagency Federal Action Plan.--On a broader level, COE
supports the Interagency Interim Federal Action Plan for the
Bay-Delta (December 2009) and its Update (November 2010). The
Action Plan consists of studies, programs, and actions that
address essential Bay-Delta issues including helping to ensure
integrated flood risk management. The Bay Delta Conservation
Plan (BDCP) has been identified as a priority effort by the
State and in the Interim Federal Action Plan. COE's Regulatory,
Operations, and Planning Programs regularly participate in
coordination related to the BDCP. Regulatory and operations
have proactively engaged the State, BOR, and others to ensure
that they understand Clean Water Act section 404 and section 10
and section 14 of the River and Harbors Act permitting
requirements and processes that may be required for the BDCP.
COE also participates in interagency (State-Federal) groups
focused on advancing science to inform management decisions,
including those related to levees, in the Bay-Delta.
Question. How does COE prioritize which levees it repairs?
Answer. In coordination with local and State partners, mainly the
California DWR, COE prioritized levee improvements in the 2006 ``Report
to Congress'' based on risk associated with levee failure (protection
of life, property, infrastructure, etc.). Ongoing project
prioritization is based on how well each project met environmental,
economic, and other implementation criteria including availability of a
local cost-share partner. The Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility
Study will make recommendations to address flood risk management for
the Delta as a system.
Question. When prioritizing levee repairs, has COE taken into
account which levees are most likely to allow salt water to enter the
fresh water supply for 20 million Californians should the delta levees
fail?
Answer. System-wide assessments and recommendations, including
impact of delta levee failure on the freshwater supply, will be
evaluated under the Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility Study. The
2006 ``Report to Congress'' considered risk to water supply.
Question. Does COE have an estimate of the overall damage,
including loss of the fresh water supply, and cost to repair the levees
should a serious earthquake strike northern California?
Answer. COE does not have a current estimate of the overall damage,
including loss of the fresh water supply, and cost to repair the
levees. This will be evaluated under the Delta Islands and Levees
Feasibility Study. The California DWR published a report that does
provide an estimate. This effort is the State's in-kind cost-share for
the Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility Study.
Question. Does COE have an estimate of how much it would cost to
reduce the risk of massive levee failure from ``high'' to ``moderate''
or ``low''?
Answer. No. This will be evaluated under the Delta Islands and
Levees Feasibility Study.
Question. The maritime industry in California carries more than 40
percent of the Nation's waterborne international cargo. Recent studies
by COE show that there is more than $400 million worth of cargo
disrupted for every foot of reduced depth of channel. However, while
dredging costs on a per-yard basis have increased 160 percent
nationally over the past decade, ports across California and the Nation
have not been provided adequate funding to maintain their
congressionally authorized dredge depths. Why is it that numerous
Federal channels in California are not at their congressionally
authorized depth and width?
Answer. Navigation channels rarely have full depth and width
available. At present, only 2 of the top 10 navigation projects in COE
inventory have full depth and width available. These two projects (both
are in the State of California) are, in large part, naturally deep and
do not require significant maintenance dredging.
Question. How does the President's budget request for fiscal year
2012 achieve the goals of maintaining the channels in California to
their authorized depth and width as well as meeting the President's
National Export Initiative?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $8.75
million in the operation and maintenance account for the Oakland
Harbor, and $8.15 million for the Richmond Harbor; as well as $350,000
in the construction account to continue work associated with the
construction of the Oakland Harbor 50 feet deepening. These efforts
support commercial use of deep draft navigation projects (1million tons
of commercial cargo or more per year) as follows: the Oakland Harbor
has 17 million tons of commercial cargo per year and the Richmond
Harbor has 25 million tons of cargo per year.
In addition, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $65
million for the ongoing deepening of the port of New York/New Jersey;
$42 million for construction/expansion of dredged material placement
facilities at the ports of Norfolk, Virginia; Savannah, Georgia; and
Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida in order to continue maintenance of the
deep draft channels serving these ports; $600,000 for preconstruction
engineering design of Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia; and $726,000
for a channel improvement study at Brazos Island Harbor (Brownsville),
Texas. The budget also includes $580 million in the Operation and
Maintenance appropriation to maintain our high and moderate commercial
use deep draft navigation projects that support 1 million tons of
commercial cargo or more per year.
______

Question Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson

Question. The Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in my State faces
acute water needs. For years, the only intake for a land mass the size
of Connecticut was in the Cheyenne River. That location had many
problems, including the intake coming precariously close to taking in
air when the Corps of Engineers (COE) would draw down the Oahe
Reservoir. There were also silt problems exacerbated by drawn down and
heavy metals in the river. To its credit, COE took the lead in building
a new intake in the main stem of the Missouri in deeper water without
silt. A number of agencies also contributed to that project.
Unfortunately, the reservation still faces an extremely undersized
water treatment plant and pipelines. The present day needs on this
large reservation are about 8 million gallons a day and future needs
are estimated at 12 million gallons a day. Their present water
treatment plant and pipelines can only handle 1.2 million gallons a
day. As a result, there is a moratorium on the construction of any new
homes. This is a reservation where there are often two or three
families living under one roof. When they have a fire on the
reservation the water system is depleted immediately. In the short
term, we must rebuild the core of the system--an untreated water line,
a water treatment plant, and a treated water line. This is an important
issue for public health, safety, and the economic needs of the
reservation. There was an authorization in the last Water Resources
Development Act bill of $65 million under the COE's Environmental
Infrastructure program, but it has not been funded. Recently, USDA
Rural Development awarded a large grant/loan package to the tribe to
start this project, but Rural Development doesn't have enough money to
complete the entire project. In the same way that we had a multi-agency
approach with the intake, I want to ask if you will consider
participating on a multi-agency approach in the future. Rural
Development has taken the lead but I wish to see COE and other agencies
also play a role. Will you do so?
Answer. At my request, the Omaha District Tribal Liaison will
contact you to ensure that we remain current on the status of your
efforts to address these concerns. However, COE has three main
missions:
--flood and storm damage reduction;
--commercial navigation; and
--aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Because environmental infrastructure projects fall outside of these
missions, they do not compete well for COE funding given the many other
needs across the country that are within the COE's primary mission
areas.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

COE DEG.LEVEE CERTIFICATION

Question. There is no question that my State understands the
critical need for sound levees that are reliable and provide the best
protection possible for our community. In many ways, what we
experienced in Katrina and Rita was a preview for the rest of the
Nation of just how vulnerable we are. Approximately 700 counties across
the country are home to thousands of miles of levees. Most of these
levees were built a generation ago and were designed and engineered at
a time when the satellites and GPS were just a dream. After decades of
relying on older technology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have arrived in
communities--large and small--with new a standard for levee
certification. These communities are very concerned with the
significant consequences of having to meet the standards. For some
communities it presents a stark choice: find the money to repair and
update these levees or drive up the insurance rates to unsustainable
levels.
General Van Antwerp, what information and technology is COE using
to certify these levees?
Answer. Participation in the National Flood Insurance (NFIP) is a
decision of the local community. It is a local community's
responsibility to provide FEMA documentation that a levee meets NFIP
criteria for flood mapping purposes. There are three cases in which COE
may perform a NFIP levee system evaluation:
--If the levee is operated and maintained by COE;
--If it is part of an ongoing COE project; or
--If funding was provided by another Federal agency or by a local
sponsor and it has been demonstrated that COE is uniquely
equipped to perform the work and that such services are not
reasonably and quickly available through ordinary business
channels.
For situations in which COE is performing a NFIP levee system
evaluation, it will follow procedures in Engineer Circular (EC) 1110-2-
6067, ``USACE Process for NFIP Levee System Evaluation''. The processes
in this EC only apply to COE when performing levee evaluations for NFIP
purposes. Other entities may still follow the requirements in title 44
of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 65.10 (44 CFR 65.10),
Mapping Areas Protected by Levee Systems; however, the EC is consistent
with and founded on the principles of 44 CFR 65.10 while updating
methods and references to current COE practices and criteria.
Question. Does this take into account the assessments and
evaluation made by the local sponsors?
Answer. Yes, all best-available information will be considered
during the analysis.
Question. What resources, if any, are available to assist local
communities in meeting these standards?
Answer. COE and FEMA work closely together with the local
communities to ensure the most accurate and current levee information
is available to them and to identify how this information informs the
NFIP mapping process.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed

COE DEG.PANAMA CANAL

Question. As you know, the expansion of the Panama Canal expansion
is due to be completed in 2014. Several east coast ports are vying for
Federal funding to deepen their channels or make other improvements in
order to handle larger Post-Panamax vessels, which require 48 feet of
depth and higher air drafts.
What are the economic opportunities that will come from the
expansion of the Panama Canal?
Answer. It is difficult to say what overall effect this 2014 lock
opening will have on the U.S. economy, or what opportunities it may
provide.
Question. Do these opportunities warrant the deepening of all east
coast ports that currently serve Panamax vessels so that they can
accommodate Post-Panamax ships?
Answer. Probably not, at least not at this time. The ports make the
initial business decision to pursue large capital investments necessary
to take advantage of the post-Panamax shipping opportunities. The Corps
of Engineers (COE) evaluates requests to deepen, widen, or lengthen
channels to estimate the costs and benefits to the Nation of the
proposal.
Question. How is COE choosing to make its investments in port
projects related to the Panama Canal expansion?
Answer. Most of the funding in COE coastal navigation program is
not related to the opening of the Panama Canal lock. However, on the
Atlantic and gulf coasts, several ports are working with COE on
proposals to deepen and widen their channels to accommodate the largest
of the post-Panamax vessels, which will be able to reach them more
directly after the new locks on the Panama Canal open in 2014. On the
Atlantic coast, the United States now has two ports with channels deep
enough to receive these ships when they are fully loaded (Norfolk and
Baltimore) and will have a third (New York/New Jersey) by 2014 based on
the current COE construction schedule. The United States also has
several other ports with depths of 45 feet on the Atlantic and gulf
coasts, which these vessels can use when less than fully loaded.
The President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $65 million for
the ongoing deepening of the port of New York/New Jersey; $42 million
for construction/expansion of dredged material placement facilities at
the ports of Norfolk, Virginia; Savannah, Georgia; and both
Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida, in order to continue maintenance of
the deep draft channels serving these ports; $600,000 for
preconstruction engineering and design of Savannah's harbor expansion,
Georgia; and $726,000 for a channel improvement study at Brazos Island
Harbor (Brownsville), Texas.
Question. Is there any coordination with the Department of
Transportation (DOT), the Department of Commerce, and other Federal
agencies in selecting the ports that should be deepened or in making
related infrastructure investments (highways, rail, etc.) that support
deepening projects?
Answer. Yes. For example, COE is working with the DOT to improve
decisionmaking on Federal investment in coastal navigation
infrastructure through better coordination. DOT is providing
information on previous years' selected TIGER Grant recipients to COE,
which we will be considering as part of the Civil Works budget
preparation. Similarly, the DOT has invited COE technical experts to
advise it during the upcoming review process for next year's TIGER
Grant selections. Our staffs are also working on common metrics for
comparing potential investments that support coastal navigation, and
for evaluating the performance of those investments.
Question. If it is found that significant new private sector
revenue will be generated from the taxpayer investment in port
deepening projects related to the Panama Canal's expansion, would it
make sense, in these tight fiscal times, to finance these projects
through a Federal loan or loan guarantee program (perhaps through an
infrastructure bank)?
Answer. There may be advantages to such an approach, as an option
in lieu of the traditional cost-sharing. Many ports can borrow or raise
funds on their own. A Federal program like an infrastructure bank, in
which proposed investments, at ports and elsewhere, compete with each
other for support based on their return to the Nation, could be used
where needed to catalyze public and private sector investment.
______

Questions Submitted to Michael L. Connor
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

BOR DEG.INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT

Question. You have proposed a new account for these Indian Water
Rights Settlements. How much mandatory funding accompanies the $51.5
million in discretionary funding you have proposed for fiscal year
2012?
Answer. Title VII of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law
111-291) (CRA) provides $60 million in mandatory funding for each of
fiscal years 2012-2014 for the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund,
which was established in the Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-11). Mandatory funding for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply
Project in the amount of $60 million described above is included in the
Indian Water Rights Settlement Account in the President's fiscal year
2012 budget.
CRA also provided mandatory funding in fiscal year 2011 for four
other Indian water settlements. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is in
discussions with the tribes in the four new settlements to develop
contract and engineering plans for the use of the mandatory funds. Once
the contracts have been agreed to and engineering plans have been
developed, BOR will be able to develop a construction timetable and
thereby develop proposals for the use of the funds.
Question. Where is the funding coming from within your program for
the Indian Water Rights Settlements?
Answer. CRA provides $444.9 million in mandatory funding and
authorizes $244.4 million in discretionary funding to BOR in the four
Indian water rights settlements within CRA. As well, for each of the
fiscal years from 2012-2014 CRA also provides $180 million in mandatory
funding, or $60 million each year, for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply
Project to accompany the authorization of appropriations of $870
million in title X of Public Law 111-11.
Specifically, for BOR, title III--the White Mountain Apache Tribe
Water Rights Quantification appropriates $152.7 million in mandatory
funding and authorizes $11 million in discretionary funding; title IV--
Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement appropriates $219.8 million in
mandatory funding and authorizes $158.4 million in discretionary
funding; title V--Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights appropriates $16
million in mandatory funding and authorizes $20 million in
discretionary funding; and title VI--Aamodt Litigation Settlement
appropriates $56.4 million in mandatory funding and authorizes $55
million in discretionary funding.
Question. Do the Water Rights Settlements require specific funding
amounts annually?
Answer. There are no specific dollar amounts that are required for
each year in the legislation but there are timeframes which are
specified for settlement implementation. The amounts requested are
based on capability as determined by the scope of the work that is
expected to be performed within CRA.
Question. What is the nature of the projects that these funds will
be used for? Aren't they rural water systems?
Answer. Each of the four settlements in CRA authorizes the
construction of various projects, principally water construction
projects. CRA requires BOR to:
--Construct a Rural Water System for the White Mountain Apache Tribe;
--Rehabilitate the Crow Irrigation Project and to construct a
Municipal, Rural and Industrial Water System for the Crow Tribe
Water Rights Settlement;
--Provide financial assistance in the form of grants on a
nonreimbursable basis to eligible non-Pueblo entities for the
construction of Mutual Benefit projects, primarily groundwater
projects for the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement;
and
--Construct a Regional Water System for the Aamodt Litigation
Settlement.
Question. How do these projects differ from the seven on-going
rural water projects funded in the water and related resources account?
Answer. CRA authorized the Secretary to enter into Settlement
Agreements with specific tribes and to undertake the specific actions
included in those Settlements. One key difference is that the projects
authorized under CRA settle claims against the United States through
negotiated settlements. If project and financial timelines are not met,
the negotiated settlements may be terminated. Not only are the
significant investments of time and funding associated with negotiating
the settlements at risk, but underlying these settlements is the
quantification of tribal water rights. If the settlements fail, the
tribal water rights are not quantified and the communities affected
would revert to the prior state of uncertainty with respect to the
quantification and the effect of Federal tribal rights on State-based
rights. The rural water projects also address water supply needs and
provide regional drinking water systems. However, the United States
does not face the same legal burden in meeting those future needs as it
does with respect to meeting the obligations associated with the
settlements authorized under CRA.
Question. Can these new projects proposed for funding in fiscal
year 2012 utilize all of the discretionary funding recommended in
fiscal year 2012?
Answer. BOR expects to use all of the discretionary funds that are
being requested as well as some of the mandatory funding that is made
available within the CRA. In fiscal year 2012, BOR is requesting $51.5
million in discretionary funding in the Indian Water Rights Settlement
account, of which $24.8 million is directed to the Navajo-Gallup Water
Supply Project. The balance of the discretionary request, or $26.7
million, is for the remaining four new settlements.
Question. Why did the seven ongoing projects compete so poorly in
the fiscal year 2012 budget compared to these four new projects?
Answer. The seven ongoing rural water projects did not compete for
funding with the tribal settlements that are funded within the CRA.
These projects have separate authorizations and are at widely varying
points in their completion schedules. BOR prioritizes funding for its
ongoing (authorized) rural water projects based on established
criteria. The first priority for funding rural water projects is the
required operation and maintenance (O&M) component. For the
construction component, BOR gives priority to projects nearing
completion and projects that serve on-reservation needs. For BOR, CRA
authorized and appropriated $444.9 million in mandatory funding for
five specific tribal water settlements. The Congress also authorized
$249.3 million in discretionary funding within the CRA.
CRA settlements require numerous conditions that have to be
fulfilled by the Secretary within specified dates in order to satisfy
the terms of the agreements. If the conditions are not met, the
settlements may fail and the parties to the settlements will likely
return to the courts for the resolution of their grievances. The
funding BOR requested for CRA projects is required to fulfill the terms
of the CRA.

BOR DEG.RURAL WATER

Question. Four of these ongoing rural water projects received
roughly $500,000 each. Can anything constructive be done with $500,000
for these ongoing projects? What do you anticipate to be accomplished
with this small amount of funding?
Answer. Funding amounts for the four rural water projects only
reflect Federal funding and does take into account the contributed non-
Federal funding. Funds requested by BOR for fiscal year 2012 and the
planned use of the funds are shown below:
Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie Rural Water System (Montana).--
Funding in fiscal year 2012 will enable the tribes and the non-
Federal sponsor, Dry Prairie, to perform a minimal level of
administrative business for the project; no design or
construction would be performed.
Lewis & Clark Rural Water System (South Dakota, Minnesota,
Iowa).--Funding in fiscal year 2012 will enable the project
sponsor to perform a minimal level of administrative business
for the project; no design or construction would be performed.
Rocky Boys/North Central Montana Rural Water System (Montana).--
Funding in fiscal year 2012 will enable the tribe and the non-
Federal sponsor, North Central Authority, to perform a minimal
level of administrative business for the project; no design or
construction would be performed.
Jicarilla Apache Rural Water System (New Mexico).--Funding in
fiscal year 2012 continues design and construction of existing
water and wastewater facilities.
Non-Federal funding for Fort Peck and Rocky Boy's has not been
totally contributed. Non-Federal funding for Lewis & Clark will be
fully contributed in fiscal year 2011 and non-Federal funding for
Jicarilla has been totally contributed and exceeded.

BOR DEG.MNI WICONI

Question. The authorization for Mni Wiconi, one of the rural water
projects, sunsets in 2013. Will this project be completed by that date
based on the budget request, or will the project require an
authorization change?
Answer. It is anticipated that the Mni Wiconi Project will be
completed by the sunset date of 2013 if funding is provided at the
current budget request level.

BOR DEG.NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Question. Has BOR undertaken a needs assessment for the next 25
years?
Answer. BOR has multiple activities within the WaterSMART Basin
Studies Program that are in the process of assessing future needs for
water in the Western United States. The Basin Studies are 50/50 cost
shared activities with non-Federal entities to assess future water
supply and demand imbalances including the impacts of climate change.
As part of these activities future water demand will reflect changes to
water needs from population changes, irrigation, and changes to
evapotranspiration from climate change as well as any other stresses on
the system. If current or future imbalances between supply and demand
are identified, the Basin Studies will develop adaptation and
mitigation strategies including structural and non-structural
opportunities within the basin.
Through the Basin Studies Program beginning in fiscal year 2012,
BOR will offer the opportunity to conduct feasibility studies as
authorized by the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (Public Law 111-
11) of 2009 with respect to adaptation and mitigation strategies
identified through the Basin Studies or other similar appraisal level
studies including the impacts of climate change. Also within the Basin
Studies Program, BOR began the West Wide Climate Risk Assessments
(WWCRAs) in fiscal year 2010. Beginning in fiscal year 2011, BOR is
identifying changes to agricultural demands in a changing climate as
part of the WWCRAs. In future years, the WWCRAs will explore other
changes to water demands and needs by working with stakeholders within
the eight major BOR river basins identified within Public Law 111-11.
With respect to the needs of BOR's infrastructure, although a small
number of BOR offices assess and project their individual needs 10 or
more years into the future, there has been no comprehensive BOR-wide
assessment covering the next 25 years. Most of BOR's assets are not
considered ``replaceable units of property'' and, therefore, do not
have well-defined service lives, nor are there good predictive
estimates for such future needs. However, in September 2009, BOR
updated its Major Rehabilitation and Replacement (MR&R) needs for a
defined 5-year timeframe related to aging infrastructure. These needs
have been broadly characterized as potential costs associated with
BOR's ``aging infrastructure''.
BOR also has planning activities underway with its rural
communities who are pursuing rural water projects at specific locations
throughout the West. These activities are undertaken pursuant to
competitive criteria developed under Public Law 109-451.
Finally, in the area of dam safety, BOR maintains an active program
to monitor existing dams and initiate corrective actions where
appropriate. This program helps ensure the safety and reliability of
BOR dams to protect the downstream public and property.

BOR DEG.O&M

Question. How do you propose to address BOR's aging infrastructure
given the decreasing O&M budget?
Answer. To address the requirements of aging infrastructure on
projects where BOR is directly responsible for daily O&M, BOR continues
to assess the condition of its assets and prioritizes funding to
address requirements of greatest importance, given the current budget
environment. The prioritization of requirements is based largely on a
risk-based approach, evaluating not only the significance of the
deficiency involved, but also the potential consequences should the
activity not be undertaken.
Through BOR's continued support of a past and current philosophy
and emphasis on preventive maintenance and regular condition
assessments (field inspections and reviews), many of the service lives
on BOR assets and facilities have been extended, thereby delaying the
need for significant replacements and rehabilitation efforts (including
the related funding needs). Although BOR and its beneficiaries have
benefited greatly from this preventive maintenance philosophy, BOR
recognizes that as assets and facilities age, they require an increased
amount of maintenance. Sometimes this requires more frequent preventive
maintenance, and, in other situations, significant extraordinary
maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement may be required.
BOR's fiscal year 2012 proposed budget is $40.8 million for various
projects for Replacements, Additions, and Extraordinary Maintenance
(RAX) activities across BOR. This compares to the fiscal year 2011
enacted budget of $45.8 million. This request is central to mission
objectives for operating and maintaining projects ensuring delivery of
water and power benefits. BOR's RAX request is part of its overall
Asset Management Strategy that relies on condition assessments,
condition/performance metrics, technological research and deployment,
and strategic collaboration to continue to improve the management of
its assets and deal with its aging infrastructure challenges. This
amount represents only the fiscal year 2012 request for discretionary
appropriations. Additional RAX items are directly funded by revenues,
customers, or other Federal agencies.

BOR DEG.AGING INFRASTRUCTURE

Question. Public Law 111-11 provided you with authority to address
aging infrastructure. Do you plan to budget for these projects?
Answer. BOR is currently developing its policy to implement the
authority provided under Public Law 111-11 to allow extended repayment
of extraordinary (nonroutine) and emergency extraordinary maintenance
costs on project facilities. Water users are currently required by
Federal law to pay these costs, often substantial, in advance.
It is important to note that much of the operation and maintenance
(O&M) funding responsibilities for BOR's assets is the responsibility
of our project beneficiaries and those operating entities that operate
and maintain our transferred works facilities. For some operating
entities and project beneficiaries, rehabilitation and replacement
funding needs may exceed their available resources and ability to
provide the funds in advance. In particular, many smaller irrigation or
water conservancy districts are unable to fund these needs in the year
incurred absent financing assistance. BOR expects to consider funding
such projects in the future based on the policy and funding priorities
and water user financial capability, as appropriate.

BOR DEG.PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES

Question. Please explain how the revised Principles and Guidelines,
to be called the Principles and Requirements, will impact BOR's
construction and other programs.
Answer. The Principles and Requirements are not yet finalized and
it is anticipated that agencies will have some level of flexibility in
developing agency-specific guidance to allow for the achievement of
their specific missions and authorities. Two essential differences
between the proposed Principles and Requirements and the 1983
Principles and Guidelines will affect BOR's planning and evaluation
process.
First, under the 1983 Principles and Guidelines, agencies relied
solely on economic benefit-cost analysis to recommend a particular
alternative for implementation. When evaluating, comparing, and
recommending a specific alternative for implementation under the
proposed Principles and Requirements, agencies are to fully consider
the social, economic, and environmental effects of proposed
alternatives before selecting the one to be recommended for
implementation.
Second, the proposed Principles and Requirements may apply to a
broader scope of Federal water resource activities than the 1983
Principles and Guidelines. This means that certain BOR programs and
activities not previously subject to the 1983 Principles and Guidelines
may be subject to the Principles and Requirements.

BOR DEG.CLIMATE CHANGE

Question. What is BOR doing to address Climate Change in the West?
Answer. BOR is addressing the stressors of climate change through a
comprehensive set of activities, including participating in Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and Climate Science Centers (CSCs),
providing West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments, and conducting research
and development of climate analysis tools through the WaterSMART Grant
and Science and Technology Programs. BOR is also supporting the
Department of the Interior's Priority Goal for Climate through these
activities to support the LCCs, conduct vulnerability assessments, and
implement adaptation actions. LCCs and CSCs are an important part of
the framework established by Secretary Salazar in Secretarial Order
3289 to address climate change by bringing science capability to
resource managers. BOR is conducting research through the Science and
Technology program, which includes collaboration with the Department of
the Interior (Department) Climate Science Centers. BOR's Science and
Technology program also established the Climate Change and Water
Working Group (C-CAWWG) in 2008 to partner with other Federal agencies
to address the needs of water managers as they manage the Nation's
water and hydropower resources under a changing climate.
Through the Basin Study Program, which includes the Basin Studies,
West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments, and the LCCs, BOR is conducting
vulnerability assessments to identify the impacts of climate change to
water resources in each of the major river basins in the West, as
authorized under section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act (subtitle F of
title IX of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Public Law
111-11, 42 U.S.C. 10364). In April 2011, BOR submitted its first report
under section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act regarding risks to future
water supplies from climate change. The report, entitled ``SECURE Water
Act Section 9503(c)--Reclamation Climate Change and Water 2011'', is
available at http://www.usbr.gov/climate/ and identifies current
uncertainties regarding projections of climate change risks and
impacts, while highlighting likely significant impacts associated with
the projected rise in temperature, changes to precipitation, reduced
April 1 snowpack levels, and changes to both the timing and quantity of
streamflow throughout the Western United States. The vulnerability
assessments conducted under the Basin Study Program will contribute to
the Department's Priority Goal for Climate Change. Additionally, in
fiscal year 2011, BOR identified a number of adaptation actions (e.g.,
WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grants, Bay Delta Conservation
Plan, retrofitting of Hoover Dam to wide-head turbines, and Pilot Run
of the Yuma Desalting Plant) being conducted to adapt to stressors
within the Western United States, including those from climate change.
These adaptation actions will also contribute to the priority goal and
span a wide array of BOR's mission responsibilities from water supply
planning efforts, retrofitting of hydropower turbines, to the
restoration of rivers and ecosystems.

BOR DEG.SECURE WATER

Question. What guidance documents exist for implementing the
Cooperative Watershed Program and the SECURE Water Act?
Answer. The Cooperative Watershed Management Act, subtitle A of
title VI of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (Act) of 2009
(Public Law 111-11), authorized the Department of the Interior
(Department) to provide financial assistance to establish and expand
collaborative watershed groups. The act authorizes direct financial
support for the operations of a collaborative watershed group, as well
as watershed project funding, including restoration projects. The act
calls for the Department to establish an application process for the
program and prioritization and eligibility criteria for considering
applications, in consultation with the States.
In the summer of 2010, the Department received input from the
States regarding the program processes and criteria in response to a
questionnaire. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget requests
$250,000 to implement the CWMP through a funding opportunity. The
funding opportunity announcement will describe the proposal selection
process and criteria, taking into consideration the early feedback
received from the States. BOR expects to post the draft funding
opportunity announcement in the Federal Register later this year in
order to solicit additional public comments on the proposed selection
process and criteria. The funding opportunity announcement will then be
revised, as needed, based on comments received and will be posted on
www.grants.gov before the end of 2012. The funding opportunity
announcement will be the first document describing program processes
and procedures. Additional guidance will be developed as program
implementation begins.
Section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act (subtitle F of title IX of the
Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009), authorizes BOR to assess
the risks and impacts of climate change to water resources, identify
adaptation strategies, and provide financial assistance for feasibility
studies. BOR implements section 9503 through complementary activities
within the WaterSMART Basin Study Program and Science and Technology
program. This comprehensive approach allows BOR to incorporate the
best-available science--through coordination with science agencies--
into climate change adaptation planning with stakeholders. The Basin
Study Program activities include the West-Wide Climate Risk
Assessments, the Basin Studies, and the Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives. Guidance related to each of these activities is available
through program specific links on BOR's Basin Study Program Web site at
www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/basinprogram. A document entitled ``Basin Study
Program Framework'', available at the aforementioned Web site, provides
an overview of the Basin Study Program and specifically describes the
process for conducting a Basin Study. Additionally, in April 2011, BOR
submitted its first report to the Congress under section 9503 of the
SECURE Water Act, identifying the risks to future water supplies as
well as potential changes in demands and impacts on BOR's mission
responsibilities from climate change. The report, entitled ``SECURE
Water Act Section 9503(c)--Reclamation Climate Change and Water 2011,''
is available at http://www.usbr.gov/climate/and provides a
comprehensive explanation of BOR's activities (including primarily the
West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments) that contributed to the report.

BOR DEG.BAY-DELTA INTERAGENCY PLAN

Question. Are there remaining interim Federal Bay-Delta Interagency
action plan items that are unfunded and if so, how will they be funded?
Answer. Implementation of the four elements of the Interim Federal
Action Plan (IFAP) is a multi-year process. Multiple Federal agencies
are strategically aligning resources to implement the IFAP. To date,
BOR has funded programs and projects to support those elements of the
IFAP that are within BOR's purview. Funding in the future is subject to
appropriations. Budget requests will be submitted as appropriate and
will continue to be a priority for BOR in the future. Potential funding
sources include, but may not be limited to Water and Related Resources,
California Bay-Delta Restoration, and Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund.

BOR DEG.TITLE XVI PROGRAM

Question. These projects are critical to providing additional water
sources to many western communities, including many communities in
California. Is there more that BOR can do to assist in these programs?
Answer. Water reuse projects are a critical aspect of water supply
sustainability in the West. By improving efficiency through reuse,
title XVI projects provide flexibility during water shortages and help
to diversify the water supply. On May 23, 2011, BOR selected eight
congressionally authorized projects to receive approximately $11.3
million in fiscal year 2011 title XVI construction funding. In
addition, recently BOR invited sponsors of potential new water
recycling projects to apply for cost-shared funding to develop new
title XVI feasibility studies. On May 9, 2011, after applying program
criteria to funding applications submitted by non-Federal sponsors, BOR
selected eight entities who will leverage $1.1 million in Federal
funding to complete $4.9 million in studies of new water reuse
projects.
Question. What is the backlog of unfunded projects?
Answer. For previously authorized title XVI projects, the remaining
authorized Federal cost-share totals approximately $595 million once
fiscal year 2011 funding has been applied. BOR is currently working to
gather information from project sponsors to determine whether any
projects have smaller costs than expected, in which case Federal cost-
share may require adjustment, and to refine estimates of each project
sponsor's construction plans over the next few years. Once additional
communications with sponsors have been completed, BOR will have an
updated estimate of the remaining Federal cost-share for authorized
projects.
Question. How many separate projects are authorized, and of these
does BOR have an opinion on the viability of the individual projects?
Answer. There are currently 53 authorized title XVI projects. We
are developing a list of authorized projects that sponsors are not
planning to pursue with new or additional construction at this time.
Question. Why don't these projects compete well within the
administration budget?
Answer. Water reuse through the title XVI program is a key aspect
of the Department's WaterSMART program. The President's fiscal year
2012 budget, which includes $29 million for such projects, points to
the crucial role of water reuse in efforts to address water supply
sustainability and represents a significant increase over funding
levels for the program in recent years.
Question. Has placing these projects under the WaterSMART Program
given them more or less visibility within the BOR budget?
Answer. By incorporating the title XVI program into WaterSMART, the
Department has been able to articulate the role of water reuse in
efforts to stretch the limited water supplies in the West. The fiscal
year 2012 budget request builds on lessons learned in other programs
such as WaterSMART Grants, including the use of funding opportunities
that incorporate prioritization criteria to identify projects that most
closely match program goals. Through the use of such funding
opportunities, project sponsors have a chance to communicate to BOR the
expected benefits of each project--how each project can be expected to
contribute to water supply sustainability, benefits to the environment
and water quality, and any contributions to increased energy efficiency
in the delivery of water, among others.
The Department's coordinated approach to addressing water supply
sustainability issues in ways that maximize the benefits of Federal
funding extends beyond title XVI and existing WaterSMART Grants. This
year as part of WaterSMART, for example, BOR and USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) worked together on an innovative
funding opportunity to leverage funding for water delivery agencies and
agricultural producers in California's Central Valley. BOR announced
its selection of five Bay-Delta Agricultural Water Conservation and
Efficiency Projects for funding, totaling $4.2 million, on May 18,
2011. The selected projects will increase district-level efficiencies
through BOR funding and also facilitate water conservation and/or water
use efficiency on farms. NRCS will provide up to an additional $5
million in funding and technical assistance to growers in the selected
districts for eligible on-farm conservation practices.
Title XVI projects, along with WaterSMART Grant projects, are also
included as part of the Department's Priority Goal for Water
Conservation, which provides additional visibility.

BOR DEG.SOUTH OF DELTA WATER ALLOCATIONS

Question. As you know, I and many others have been closely
following the BOR's water allocation for south-of-Delta water users in
California's Central Valley. I was pleased to learn of BOR's decision
last week to increase the allocation for farmers from 65 percent to 75
percent of their service contract. This followed two previous rounds of
increases in recent weeks. However, there remains a great deal of
frustration and consternation in California as to why BOR is unable to
provide 100 percent of the allocation given the historic level of snow
and rainfall we have experienced this year. Do you expect to increase
the allocation of water supplies to south-of-Delta users again this
year? If so, do you believe that you will ultimately be able to
announce a 100 percent allocation?
Answer. On April 8, 2011, BOR increased the allocations for the
south-of-Delta agricultural project water users from 65 percent to 75
percent, and on April 25, from 75 percent to 80 percent.
The most probable runoff forecast for this water year shows that we
will be in the upper quartile of the historical annual volumes. We are
currently analyzing the runoff forecast and are preparing our forecast
of CVP operations. Our studies should be completed later this summer
and a determination will be made about further increases to the
allocation. With the current operational constraints, it may not be
possible to achieve 100 percent allocation this contract year. Factors
affecting BOR's ability to declare a 100 percent allocation for the
south of Delta agricultural water users include the actions required by
the biological opinions to avoid jeopardizing listed species and
project operations.
BOR has been able to utilize flood flows that have reached Mendota
Pool to supplement the water supply to the extent that the flood flows
can be forecasted. We have also been able to augment the allocated
water supply with water that the districts rescheduled from contract
year 2010 and supplemental water exported from the Delta between March
1 and May 8. With these additional water supplies, the total delivery
to the south-of-Delta agricultural water users will exceed the volume
of an 80 percent allocation.

BOR DEG.CVP RESTORATION FUND

Question. After nearly 20 years what is the status of the CVP
Restoration Fund in addressing the goals of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act?
Answer. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Activity
Report (CPAR), dated August 25, 2009, and made public in December 2009,
provides a detailed report on the status of restoration activities. In
general the report identifies a number of activities that have been
completed under the CVPIA and remaining activities which are yet to be
completed. The fiscal year 2010 ``Annual Accomplishment Report to
Congress'' will provide an update on the status of all CVPIA program
activities and will be available to the Congress and the public before
the end of 2011.
Question. How much funding has been expended to date for these
purposes?
Answer. From fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 2009 the Program
has expended just more than $972 million for program implementation:
--$599.5 million--Restoration funds;
--$290.9 million--Water and related resources;
--$76.2 million--State of California cost share;
--$5.3 million--California Bay Delta Restoration; and
--$29,000--American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Question. Do you have an estimate as to when this program would be
complete?
Answer. The CVPIA fish and wildlife restoration program is
comprised of two broad types of activities: those with endpoints (e.g.,
structural fish restoration actions and fish screens); and those that
are annual ongoing (e.g., instream flow management, gravel
replenishment, scientific monitoring and wildlife refuge incremental
level 4 water acquisition and conveyance. The annual ongoing activities
are expected to occur in perpetuity and thus completion dates do not
apply. The activities with endpoints will attain completion however
those dates have not been established since their implementation is in
some cases beyond the long-range planning timeframe of the next 10
years. Therefore, no date has been set for the reduction in Restoration
Fund collections from water and power contractors since the reduction
is contingent upon completion of activities with endpoints. See the
CVPIA Program Activity Review Report (CPAR, 2009) for more information
on program performance measures and completion criteria.
Question. Is there a better way to allocate the collection of fees
among the users?
Answer. BOR is required per CVPIA section 3407(c)(2) to collect $50
million per year for the Restoration Fund (indexed to about $76 million
in current dollars). Because other CVPIA revenues have not been as high
as anticipated, BOR has been required to assess the maximum mitigation
assessment required by CVPIA. This assessment is paid by water and
power contractors and is capped at $30 million annually (indexed to
about $46 million in current dollars).
Although BOR cannot require its water contractors to pay additional
annual payments in excess of the CVPIA designated amounts of $6 and
$12, respectively, per acre-foot (October 1992 dollars) for agriculture
and municipal and industrial water users, respectively, there is no
comparable limitation on the amount paid by power contractors.
Consequently, when BOR must collect $30 million (October 1992 dollars)
in charges, it has no discretion but to collect the balance from its
CVP power contractors.
CVPIA did not authorize BOR to collect less than $50 million per
year (unless activities are completed) or to collect more from water
contractors. Through fiscal year 2009 (based on a 10-year rolling
average), power contractors have paid about 32.7 percent of all
collections into the Restoration Fund with the balance paid by water
users.
Question. Are there other ways to improve fee collections into the
fund?
Answer. These financial obligations, issues, and impacts are being
examined in detail in an ongoing comprehensive evaluation that BOR is
preparing in collaboration with Western Area Power Administration that
is addressing the following areas:
--Identification of the activities and projects that have met
prerequisites for completing the remaining requirements, and
the impact on future water and power contractor collections.
(CVPIA allows reducing collections from contractors once
activities are complete.)
--An evaluation of BOR's discretion and flexibility regarding
financial obligations and funding under the law.
--An evaluation of the CVPIA reimbursability requirements and BOR's
discretion related to repayment requirements.
--An assessment of the extent to which CVPIA's financial collection
mechanisms have resulted in anticipated Restoration Fund
revenues, along with any problematic consequences.
--An assessment of options for assessing and collecting funds for
reimbursable activities if and when the costs exceed
contractors' credits.
BOR recognizes that the financial viability of the CVP hinges on
the availability and marketability of a reliable and competitive source
of power plans to complete the above-mentioned evaluation by December
2011. BOR staff has met with representatives of the Northern California
Power Association and the Central Valley Project Water Association to
ensure their concerns are addressed as part of the evaluation. BOR is
committed to working with our stakeholders to address concerns about
CVPIA.

BOR DEG.CALFED

Question. As you know, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is a joint
effort of Federal and State water agencies, environmental organizations
and other water users to plan and implement an environmental permitting
process that will restore habitat for Delta fisheries and insure
reliable water deliveries to 25 million Californians. The goal of the
Bay Delta Conservation Plan is to devise a 50-year plan of water system
and ecosystem improvements, and environmental law compliance through
adaptive management. It will still likely take 10 to 15 years to
complete the projects necessary to increase water deliveries south of
the Delta. Until the plan is fully implemented, I fear that farmers
will continue to struggle to receive enough water.
Can you please provide me with an update on BOR's efforts to help
develop a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan?
Answer. Federal agencies are fully engaged in developing the Bay
Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The three lead agencies, Department of
the Interior, through BOR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
and the Department of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
together with COE and the U.S. Geological Survey have significantly
enhanced Federal engagement on the BDCP. BOR has and will continue to
provide expertise throughout the BDCP process to ensure Central Valley
Project (CVP) operations and water deliveries are considered,
evaluated, and addressed. BOR will evaluate the BDCP in consideration
of CVP statutory and contractual obligations. BOR expects to pursue
section 7 consultation with NMFS and FWS for CVP operations as part of
the BDCP process.
BOR serves as a Federal co-lead agency in preparation of the BDCP
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS).
The BDCP EIR/EIS will include both programmatic and project-specific
analyses in compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
Preparation of the EIR/EIS has slowed since the beginning of 2011 to
allow further formulation and development of the BDCP including
identification of the BDCP proposed Project. Federal lead agencies are
coordinating with the new State administration and a revised schedule
for completion of both the BDCP and the associated EIR/EIS is currently
under development. The BDCP EIR/EIS will identify and analyze potential
environmental impacts of permitting and implementing the BDCP Proposed
Project as well as alternatives to the Proposed Project. Therefore, the
EIR/EIS schedule must track with identification of the BDCP Proposed
Project.
Question. What are the greatest challenges you (anticipate) in
completing the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and
implementing the Plan?
Answer. Challenges to complete the EIR/EIS for the BDCP include
finalizing the identification of a proposed Project for the BDCP;
gaining multi-agency support for the effects analysis methodology;
gaining agreement on an array of alternatives to be analyzed in the
EIR/EIS; determining future governance strategies; determining short-
term construction and long-term financing strategies.
Question. Are there small projects, statutory changes or
administrative actions that can be taken in the 10- to 15-year interim
period before the Plan is fully implemented that will allow for
increased water deliveries to south-of-Delta users?
Answer. Actions that could be implemented in the next 10-15 years
will be addressed in a near-term plan, which is being discussed as part
of the development of the BDCP.

BOR DEG.SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION

Question. As the author of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act, I have a keen interest in BOR's implementation of
various programs the legislation authorized. I know that the Settlement
is also an important priority for BOR, but the administration has never
requested the level of new appropriations in the early years needed to
ensure full implementation. Full funding benefits all parties:
--the Friant Water Users;
--the third-party landowners; and numerous interests seeking full
restoration of the river.
When do you expect to release the San Joaquin River Restoration
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement?
Answer. BOR released the Draft Program Environmental Impact
Statement/Report (Draft PEIS/R) for the San Joaquin River Restoration
Program (Restoration Program) for public review on April 22, 2011. The
60-day public comment period ended on June 21, 2011. The Draft PEIS/R
analyzes and discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of
implementing the Stipulation of Settlement in NRDC, et al., v. Rodgers,
et al., (Settlement) consistent with the requirements of NEPA and the
State equivalent to NEPA-CEQA. BOR is the NEPA lead agency and the
California DWR is the CEQA lead agency for the document. BOR
anticipates completing the Final PEIS/R in early fiscal year 2012 and
signing a Record of Decision shortly thereafter.
Question. What is your plan to ensure sufficient funding to meet
the timeline for completing San Joaquin River restoration projects that
are called for in the settlement and the Programmatic EIS?
Answer. We recognize that some actions required by the Settlement
are unavoidably behind schedule. This includes certain channel and
structural improvement projects that may be beneficial for successful
reintroduction of salmon. We are initiating consultation with the
parties to the Settlement to develop a new schedule based upon the
recently released Draft PEIS/R. This new schedule will assure
implementation of the Restoration Program in a manner that addresses
the requirements of the Settlement for expeditious action while meeting
the requirements of the legislation to minimize impacts on third-party
interests. A revised funding schedule will be formulated once a new
settlement schedule has been developed. Funding for the Restoration
Program will remain a priority as we proceed with the program's
implementation. The fiscal year 2012 budget requested $9 million for
this program.
Question. The Settlement Act required BOR to establish a
``Recovered Water Account'' to allow Friant contractors to obtain
additional water for storage during wet years. I understand that BOR
has recently made a decision regarding the ``Recovered Water Account''
that may help provide some additional supplies to Central Valley
farmers this year. Can you please explain?
Answer. On October 23, 2006, the U.S. Eastern District Court of
California approved the Stipulation of Settlement in NRDC et al. v.
Kirk Rogers, et al. Under paragraph 16(b), the Settlement requires BOR
to develop a Recovered Water Account to monitor and record reductions
in water deliveries occurring as a result of the Settlement and make
water available at a total cost of $10 per acre-foot to contractors who
experience a reduction in water deliveries as reflected in their
Recovered Water Account. Recovered Water Account water is to be made
available during wet hydrologic conditions, when water is not otherwise
required to meet other obligations of the Secretary of the Interior.
In 2010, the Friant Division long-term contractors did not
experience substantial reductions in water deliveries as a result of
the Settlement and thus, had relatively low balances in their Recovered
Water Accounts. Since early 2011, the San Joaquin Basin has been
experiencing wet hydrologic conditions and water is available in
Millerton Lake that is not otherwise needed to meet other obligations
of the Secretary of the Interior. In response to this condition, in
early April, BOR credited an additional 460,000 acre-feet to the Friant
Division long-term contractors Recovered Water Accounts. The 460,000
acre-feet of credits were based on a projected average water supply
impact for 2012 to 2015. The credits were allocated to Class 1 and
Class 2 contractors in proportion to anticipated impacts and contract
amounts. With the allocation of 460,000 acre-feet of credits, BOR also
made Recovered Water Account water available to each contractor
accordingly.
Consistent with the Settlement, the Recovered Water Account water
is made available at a total cost of $10 per acre-foot. This relatively
low-cost water provides a source of water for groundwater banking and
other activities that will assist the Friant Division long-term
contractors in avoiding future impacts of the Settlement. With the
allocation of 460,000 acre-feet of credits and making this Recovered
Water Account water available, BOR has worked to avoid some of the
future water supply impacts that may occur with the implementation of
the Settlement.

BOR DEG.LAKE POWELL/LAKE MEAD

Question. I understand that yesterday, BOR announced that it will
release an additional 3.33 million acre-feet of water from Lake Powell
to Lake Mead based on significant snowpack in the Upper Basin of the
Colorado River. Combined with previous releases totaling 8.23 million
acre-feet, that will bring the total to 11.56 million acre-feet this
year. Unfortunately though, because of the prolonged drought we have
experienced, I suspect we have a long way to go before we refill Lake
Mead. Can you tell me about how much water we will now have in Lake
Mead and how far does this get us in terms of recovering from the many
years of drought?
Answer. Glen Canyon Dam is projected to release approximately 12.46
million acre-feet (MAF) from Lake Powell to Lake Mead, which represents
an additional 4.23 MAF of water this water year (October 1-September
30) for Lake Mead. At the end of the water year BOR projects that Lake
Mead will have approximately 12.87 MAF of water in storage
(approximately 50 percent full). Projected releases from Glen Canyon
Dam are updated monthly throughout the year to reflect changing
hydrology.
In terms of drought recovery, it is challenging to quantify because
it is largely dependent on future hydrology; it is not uncommon to have
short periods of high annual runoff from the Rocky Mountains during
extended drought periods.
Due to this year's higher inflow, BOR projects the first occurrence
of shortage in the lower Colorado River Basin could be in 2015, at a 5-
percent probability. At this time last year, BOR had projected an 8-
percent chance of shortage as early as 2012.
Question. How much storage capacity remains in Lake Mead?
Answer. Discounting exclusive flood control space (approximately
1.5 MAF), Lake Mead has an available capacity of 25.877 MAF. By
December 31, 2011, BOR projects that Lake Mead will have 13.973 MAF of
water in storage, which will take up 54 percent of its available
storage capacity. At this level the remaining unused storage capacity
at Lake Mead will be 11.904 MAF (46 percent of Lake Mead's total
available capacity).

BOR DEG.IMPERIAL, COACHELLA, AND METROPOLITAN WATER

Question. What do these additional waters mean in terms of
deliveries to lower Colorado River users, particularly those in
California:
--the Palo Verde Irrigation District;
--Imperial Irrigation District;
--Coachella Valley Water District; and
--the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Answer. The amount of water available to be delivered to water
contractors in the Lower Basin, including California contractors, is
dependent on the condition determined for the operation of Lake Mead
under the 2007 Record of Decision for Colorado River Interim Guidelines
for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake
Powell and Lake Mead (Interim Guidelines). The operating condition is
determined based on reservoir elevations projected for January 1 of the
upcoming year. In 2011, the Secretary has determined that the operating
condition is Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS). This determination
will not change due to the increased flow into Lake Mead. Current
projections for 2012 and 2013 indicate that the most probable operating
condition will once again be in the Normal--ICS Surplus range, with up
to a 30 percent chance of a Surplus Condition in 2013.
The Secretary has the discretion to declare either a Normal or
Surplus Condition when Lake Mead elevations are between 1,075 feet mean
sea level (MSL) and 1,145 feet MSL. During a Normal Condition, water
contractors are allowed to take delivery of their full entitlement. In
an ICS Surplus Condition, water contractors may take delivery of their
full entitlement plus delivery of Intentionally Created Surplus water,
up to the limits allowed under the Interim Guidelines. If over the next
few years the elevation of Lake Mead were to increase above 1,145 feet
MSL, this would trigger a Surplus Condition. Those contractors with a
surplus entitlement would be allowed to take delivery of their surplus
entitlement up to limits established in the Interim Guidelines in
addition to a full entitlement.

BOR DEG.QUAGGA MUSSEL

Question. In January 2007, quagga mussels were detected in Lakes
Mead and Mohave within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Since
then, Federal, State, and local agencies have been working to prevent
the spread of this environmentally and economically damaging non-native
aquatic invasive species. Despite their best efforts, quagga mussels
continue to impact water users along the Colorado River system--
clogging filters, pipes, and pumps. Most traditional methods of control
are not compatible with drinking water and environmental regulations.
Given that 25 million people down river rely on the Colorado River as a
key element of their water supply, resolving, or at least managing the
quagga problem may be a priority for BOR. Can you please explain what
BOR has done to address the problem and what does it propose to do in
the future?
Answer. As a high-priority component of BOR's Science & Technology
(S&T) Program since 2008, BOR has focused invasive mussel research
activities on improving early detection methods; identifying,
developing, demonstrating, and implementing facilities protection
technologies and strategies; and assessing ecological impacts.
Researchers are engaged in a number of mussel-related activities
including monitoring of more than 350 water bodies throughout the
Western United States for the presence of mussels, coatings testing to
prevent or reduce settlement on critical infrastructure, development of
a promising treatment product called Zequanox^TM (based on
the common bacteria Psuedomonas florescens), and field evaluation of
filtration and UV treatment technologies to exclude mussels from raw
water systems. The potential of several other technologies is also
being explored for removal or settlement prevention on intake
structures and within pipelines including elevated pH control
strategies; pulsed pressure devices; turbulence generating devices;
carbon dioxide injection; dissolved oxygen reduction; potential for the
use of certain registered herbicides; retrofit of trashrack raking
systems; fish predation; and alternative fish screening technologies.
Many of these activities involve collaboration with other Federal and
State agencies, BOR's managing partners, and private industry and are
expected to evolve as future research needs and new technologies are
identified. BOR is also continuing to assess the long-term ecological
impacts related to mussel infestations in western water bodies.
BOR has also developed an Equipment Inspection and Cleaning Manual
in cooperation with COE. This manual provides recommendations for
inspection and cleaning of vehicles and equipment as a prevention tool
to limit the spread of mussels and other invasive species carried to
new sites by contaminated equipment. Since release of this manual, many
other agencies and organizations have adopted its mussel prevention
protocols. BOR also hosted the 17th International Conference on Aquatic
Invasive Species in San Diego last year to help attract attention of
the global scientific community to the importance of these mussels in
the western watersheds of the United States.
Question. How much has BOR spent to address the quagga mussel
problem?
Answer. It is estimated that BOR will have spent more than $12.5
million through fiscal year 2010 and includes appropriations, power
revenues and other funding from customers.
Question. What are those funds being used for?
Answer. Since 2008, BOR funding has supported mussel-related
activities including prevention, early detection and rapid response,
control and management, research and development, and education and
outreach.
Question. How has the quagga mussel impacted water quality and
habitat in the Colorado River both above and below Lake Mead?
Answer. Quagga mussels appear to be impacting water quality and
habitat in the Colorado River above and below Lake Mead. Water clarity
is increasing and, as a result, the production of aquatic weeds is
increasing and becoming a problem at pumping plants intakes. The extent
to which this change is caused by mussels versus other factors has not
been quantified. Quagga mussels are also expected to affect nutrient
dynamics and therefore have a detrimental impact on fisheries. BOR is
continuing to assess the long-term ecological impacts related to mussel
infestations including changes in water quality, interactions with
other benthic organisms, and the potential for cyanobacteria-producing
toxins in western water bodies.
Question. What else could we do to address the problem, to protect
habitat and wildlife, and to preserve water and irrigation district
infrastructure?
Answer. BOR continues to address evolving issues through
monitoring, research, outreach, and education activities. Further
knowledge is continually being gained through research that improves
our understanding of mussel-related ecological and infrastructure
impacts in the West and supports our strategies to mitigate impacts to
water and hydropower facilities. Prevention of mussel movement to new
water bodies is a very important activity, but it falls primarily to
agencies that manage recreation at lakes and reservoirs and have
authority to control the movement of watercraft and invasive species.
As a high-priority component of BOR's S&T program since 2008, BOR
has focused invasive mussel research activities on improving early
detection methods; identifying, developing, demonstrating, and
implementing facilities protection technologies and strategies; and
assessing ecological impacts. Researchers are engaged in a number of
mussel-related activities including monitoring of more than 350 water
bodies throughout the Western United States for the presence of
mussels, coatings testing to prevent or reduce settlement on critical
infrastructure, development of a promising treatment product called
Zequanox^TM (based on the common bacteria Psuedomonas
florescens), and field evaluation of filtration and UV treatment
technologies to exclude mussels from raw water systems. The potential
of several other technologies is also being explored for removal or
settlement prevention on intake structures and within pipelines
including elevated pH control strategies; pulsed pressure devices;
turbulence generating devices; carbon dioxide injection; dissolved
oxygen reduction; potential for the use of certain registered
herbicides; retrofit of trashrack raking systems; fish predation; and
alternative fish screening technologies. Many of these activities
involve collaboration with other Federal and State agencies, BOR's
managing partners, and private industry and are expected to evolve as
future research needs and new technologies are identified. BOR is also
continuing to assess the long-term ecological impacts related to mussel
infestations in western water bodies.
BOR has also developed an Equipment Inspection and Cleaning Manual
in cooperation with COE. This manual provides recommendations for
inspection and cleaning of vehicles and equipment as a prevention tool
to limit the spread of mussels and other invasive species carried to
new sites by contaminated equipment. Since release of this manual, many
other agencies and organizations have adopted its mussel prevention
protocols. BOR also hosted the 17th International Conference on Aquatic
Invasive Species in San Diego last year to help attract attention of
the global scientific community to the importance of these mussels in
the western watersheds of the United States.
______

Question Submitted by Senator Patty Murray

BOR DEG.ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY

Question. Commissioner Connor, as you know I have worked closely
with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) over several years on the Odessa
Subarea Special Study to look at surface options for irrigation to
reduce the impact to the aquifer. Clearly, agriculture is vital to
Washington State's economy and the Central Washington area is a huge
part of the industry. We are so close to finishing the Study to
determine the best path forward, but I am hearing that the BOR doesn't
plan to fund the remainder. Can you please tell me your plan to ensure
the completion of the study?
Answer. BOR recognizes the importance and understands the
significance of the Columbia Basin water issues, and specifically the
Odessa Subarea Special Study (Study). In this regard, BOR has partnered
with the State of Washington (State) to investigate the possibility of
continued development of the Columbia Basin Project to deliver project
surface water to replace the current ground water use in the Odessa
Subarea. The Study is near completion; however, faced with considerable
competing demands for aging infrastructure, satisfying Endangered
Species Act regulatory requirements on operating projects, and other
high-priority water issues throughout the 17 Western States, it was not
possible for BOR to provide funding for the study in the fiscal year
2012 President's budget. BOR will continue to work with the State to
bring the Study to completion as soon as possible. BOR and State of
Washington Department of Ecology have jointly prepared a draft
environmental impact statement (EIS) to meet the National Environmental
Policy Act and State Environmental Policy Act requirements. The draft
EIS was released to the public from October 26, 2010 through January
31, 2011, with more than 210 comment letters received. The final EIS is
anticipated to be completed by late 2011.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson

BOR DEG.RURAL WATER

Question. Given increases in prices over time and the necessary
noncontract and overhead costs associated with construction projects,
it follows that the longer a project takes to complete, the more
expensive it will be. Has the extension of the completion of Bureau of
Reclamation's (BOR) Rural Water Supply Projects increased overhead
costs at the expense of construction?
Answer. Yes. As annual appropriations are less than what is
necessary to support full project construction, we believe some Rural
Water Supply Projects are incurring increased overhead costs at the
expense of construction.
Question. If so, by how much?
Answer. BOR does not have any way of quantifying such an increase
and does not have specific data to determine the actual extent to which
increased overhead may impact the total cost of completing projects.
Question. How does BOR propose to restore the funds which had to be
used to cover overhead costs so that construction can be completed?
Answer. Historically, cost indexing authorized for each of the
current rural water projects has kept pace with inflation, and coupled
with a favorable construction climate, projects appear to be
progressing within original cost estimates. The funds requested by BOR
for rural water construction are formulated to account for projected
construction capabilities and other mission critical work.
______

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator Feinstein. So thank you for taking it all with good
humor. Thank you very much.
And the hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., Wednesday, April 13, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]