[Senate Hearing 112-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Harkin,
Alexander, Collins, Murkowski, and Graham.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENT OF JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
opening statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,
and welcome to the Energy and Water Subcommittee's oversight
hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the United
States Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Let me say from the outset, and I've never actually said
this before in 20 years, I am a big fan of both of your
agencies. The work that your agencies do touches nearly every
person in the Nation. It's really where the pedal meets the
metal. Forty-one States are served by 926 Corps harbors and
25,000 miles of waterways.
These harbors and waterways move more than 2.3 billion tons
of cargo annually. Damages prevented by Corps flood control
projects over the last decade exceed 25 billion annually.
That's prevention. Every $1 invested in flood control since
1928 has prevented more than $7 in damages when adjusted for
inflation.
I'd have to say that 7-to-1 is a good return on any
investment. The Corps is the number one Federal provider of
outdoor recreational opportunities, and the number one producer
of hydroelectric power. And they're extensively involved in
environmental and ecosystem restoration.
The Bureau of Reclamation provides water and power to the
17 Western States. They deliver water to 31 million people for
municipal, rural, and industrial uses. Reclamation delivers
water to 20 percent of the West's farmers, providing irrigation
to 10 million acres of some of the most productive agricultural
land in the world.
Reclamation also addresses water resources and challenges
posed by drought, climate change, depleted aquifers,
environmental needs, energy demands, and population increases
in the West.
We depend on both of your agencies to build this water
infrastructure as well as facilitating much needed
environmental restoration. Not only does the work you perform
provide jobs now, the infrastructure that's constructed,
continues to benefit the economy for decades which in turn
creates more jobs and boosts our standard of living.
While we all realize that for the next decade, we're going
to be operating under austere budget caps in the Budget Control
Act, we should not underfund agencies that provide tangible
benefits and create jobs. This is really where America lives,
where America works, and where America either thrives or does
not.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Corps of
Engineers is $4.7 billion, which is $271 million or 5.4 percent
below the 2012 enacted amount. The Bureau of Reclamation's
budget is proposed at $1.03 billion, which is $14 million or
1.3 percent below the 2012 enacted amount.
Candidly, I don't believe these budget requests provide the
necessary resources to adequately fund ongoing work, and I've
never said that before. For example, the Corps construction
budget is proposed at $1.47 billion, which is $223 million or
13.2 percent below the 2012 enacted amount.
Dam safety and environmental restoration and compliance
activities account for $850 million or 58 percent of the
request. Inland and deep draft navigation accounts for $336
million or 23 percent of the request, and only $226 million or
15 percent is directly toward traditional flood control
projects.
Of the 95 construction projects proposed in the budget
request, only 46 are displayed with benefit-to-cost ratios.
That means that more than one-half of the projects proposed for
funding utilize a much more intangible set of budget criteria.
And I'm going to ask about that.
A skeptic might even say that these budget decisions were
arbitrary or politically based. However, my point is, that
while I believe we can agree that nearly all of the items in
the budget request have merit, one certainly has to question
how the decisions were made for the many ongoing projects that
were not included.
Based on my review, I believe your budget request needs
some adjusting. It appears to me that while your overall budget
for fiscal year 2013 boosts funding for navigation, which is a
good idea, the budget proposes less funding for flood control
in 2013 than you proposed in 2012.
I'm concerned about this decrease particularly in light of
two record-setting floods in the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers in 2011. I very much hope that it's not the start of a
trend.
In the general investigation account, 80 studies are listed
in the budget for a total of $52 million. However, five studies
are adequately funded for about $24 million of that total,
leaving the other 75 studies competing for the remaining $28
million. This, candidly, doesn't seem balanced to me.
I have other issues with the Corps budget that I'll ask
about at the appropriate time. Now, turning quickly to the
Bureau of Reclamation's budget.
The scheduled completion of the Animas-La Plata Project and
the Red Bluff fish screen and Pumping Plant Project this year
seemed to have freed up some funding within your budget. As a
result, your budget request seems to be more balanced than in
prior years.
Hopefully, the planned completion of the Mni Wiconi Rural
Water Project in 2013 will have a similar impact on the 2014
budget. So I'm pleased to see an increase in discretionary
funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration in your budget
for 2013.
This discretionary funding along with the mandatory funding
under the settlement agreement will assure that water impacts
are reduced or avoided while maintaining the San Joaquin River
ecosystem.
Rural water projects are proposed at higher levels than in
your budget request but are still not funded at the levels
necessary, we think, to continue progress on these projects. So
I look forward to exploring that with you as well.
Senator Alexander, I'm very fortunate, if anybody in this
room doesn't know it, I say it all the time, I'm really very
fortunate to work with a great ranking member. He is sincere.
He is straightforward. He is bright. He is everything. So I
have really lucked out.
So let me recognize our distinguished ranking member,
Senator Alexander.
statement of senator lamar alexander
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The feeling
is absolutely mutual, and I'd like to write that down if I may.
That's very kind of you to say that.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Senator Alexander. We do have a very good working
relationship, and I thank the staff for their working together
as well and the courtesy that the chairman shows us as we work
on these issues.
That was a very good statement of reaction, I think, to the
proposals that we have. I'd like to make just two or three
points, and then I'll look forward to your testimony.
One, I want to congratulate the Corps of Engineers for the
work you did during the floods and natural disasters of 2011.
The only way to congratulate you is to compare what happened in
2011 with what happened in the big flood in 1927, which we call
the Great Flood.
Books have been written about it. That year, I think 16
million acres were inundated, 500 people died, 600,000
displaced, 41,000 buildings destroyed, rail lines cut,
communities wiped out. That was the story of 1927.
But contrast that with 2011, after a lot of investment and
work by the Corps of Engineers, no lives lost, 4 million people
protected. It was all done so well that many people and the
rest of the country didn't even know there was a big problem.
The Corps estimates that our investments in the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project of about $14 billion over the
last 80 years probably saved about $500 billion. Figures like
that are always speculative, but the idea is probably right.
That a small investment has had a big return.
And the Congress provided $1.7 billion in disaster recovery
funding last year to restore the damages from flooding to Corps
facilities. One way to tell the level of interest in an
agency's work is by the attendance of Senators at hearings
involving them.
And I can remember a hearing last year of the Environment
and Public Works Committee at which I believe 17 Senators of
both parties showed up to either talk about, criticize, praise,
or have some opinion about the effect of the big floods in
their States.
Now, the second thing I'd like to talk about is the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
I've now watched this for a few years. We have two trust funds
and neither one of them works well.
The first, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, collects
money successfully, but it turns out we can't use the money on
things communities need to expand ports and double exports as
the President has suggested.
The second fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, doesn't
collect enough money. And so projects like the Chickamauga Lock
and others are on indefinite hold, really, are not getting the
attention they need.
I would like to strongly suggest, and the chairman and I
have been working on this with other members of the
subcommittees, that we step back and take a look at these two
trust funds, Harbor Maintenance, Inland Waterway, and think
about our country and the competitive position that we want it
to be in in the future, and think of what we need to do.
Don't think about the money involved, or how to collect the
money. Think first about, what do we need to do? What's our
vision for the future? And then, see if we can match money and
procedures to the vision we have.
My experience is that most ideas in Washington, DC fail for
lack of the idea. And I would strongly urge you to work with us
over the next few months to see if we can take both these trust
funds, and not just muddle along the way we had been muddling.
But to say, okay, what do we need to do for, you know, the
greatest country in the world, the one that produces 25 percent
of all the wealth in the world, with the Panama Canal being
deepened, our ports need to be deepened. We need locks and dams
that are safe in the inland waterways.
And I believe that if we have the right vision, we would be
able to do something about that. I remember a few years ago, we
had something called America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and
Science (America COMPETES) Act. We asked a distinguished group,
the National Academies did, to tell us what would be the 10
things the Congress could do to keep us competitive in the
world marketplace.
This distinguished group, headed by Norm Augustine, gave us
20 things. We eventually got 35 Republican and Democratic co-
sponsors. We passed that law. It's been funded. It's been
reauthorized and it succeeded because we had an idea and we
stopped muddling.
Now, it didn't do everything. But we need to do the same
kind of thing with our ports and our locks and our dams. So I
ask you to work with us to do that.
I'm particularly troubled about the $1 billion cost
increase in Olmsted Locks and Dam. Makes me almost think I'm in
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) hearing
where things just keep going up and up and up and up and up
with no rational reason for it.
I mean, what is happening is that single project is soaking
up all the money available for everything else in the country,
and that's poor planning, and something's wrong when we have
that kind of increase.
I'm particularly sensitive to that because of the effect
it's having on the Chickamauga Lock on the Tennessee River near
Chattanooga. If that lock fails, it closes down one-third of
the navigation on the Tennessee River. It would force chemical
plants, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) reactors, Oak Ridge
National Lab to put more freight and hazardous materials on our
roads.
It would put 150,000 heavy trucks in Interstate 75, and it
would flood downtown Chattanooga. Now, we don't want any of
that. And we also don't want the slowdown that we're seeing
right now with the Chickamauga Lock.
I know that there had been some work done with industry to
try to come up with a way to put more money into the trust
fund. But what I'm asking for is working with Industry and the
subcommittee and with anybody who has any idea, let's have a
vision for where we need to go with both the needs that are
supposed to be addressed by these trust funds and come up with
a mechanism that works.
I certainly pledge my effort to do that and working with
the chairman and Senator Collins and other members of the
subcommittee, I would like to give that a try over the next few
months.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Senator Collins, do
you have a comment you would like to make at this time?
statement of senator susan collins
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
First of all, let me just agree with the praise that the
chairman and the ranking member heaped on one another. They do
work extraordinarily well together and they're truly a model
for how the Senate should work.
I know that my west coast colleagues will address the
Bureau of Reclamation's budget requests so my comments and
questions today are going to focus on the Army Corps of
Engineers.
I just want to make two points. The first is that I'm very
concerned about the discrepancy in the way the Army Corps
regulates developments that affect wetlands versus how it is
done in the State of Maine and other parts of the country.
The second issue that I want to raise is my concern that we
not forget as we look at the major navigational waters, the
need for maintenance, dredging projects at smaller harbors and
waterways, those are very important in a State like mine, for
our fishermen, for example.
And I know that last year, the Chair and the Ranking Member
worked with us to include $30 million for operations and
maintenance projects at small, remote, or subsistence
navigation harbors and waterways. And I think that is extremely
important as well.
So, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
From the Department of the Army, we will hear from Jo-Ellen
Darcy, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and
Major General Bo Temple, Acting Chief of Engineers for the
Corps.
From the Department of the Interior, we will hear from Anne
Castle, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, and Mike
Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation.
Secretary Darcy, we will begin with you.
summary statement of jo-ellen darcy
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Senator Feinstein, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
present the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Civil
Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers.
I am Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Work, and I'll now summarize my statement and ask
that my complete statement be included in the record.
The President's 2013 budget provides $4.7 billion for the
Civil Works program. This is $100 million above the President's
2012 budget request for Civil Works.
The budget reflects the Administration's priorities through
targeted investments in the Nation's water resources
infrastructure, including dams and levees to address flood
risks, and navigation projects in support of both domestic and
global trade, especially at coastal ports that support the
greatest national economic activity. The budget also includes
restoration of major ecosystems affected by past water
resources development in support of the Administration's
initiatives such as America's Great Outdoors and the Clean
Water Framework.
The budget also supports programs that contribute to the
protection of the Nation's waters and wetlands, the generation
of low-cost, renewable hydropower, the restoration of certain
sites contaminated as a result of the Nation's early atomic
weapons development program, emergency preparedness and
training to respond to natural disasters, and recreation,
environmental stewardship and water supply storage at existing
projects owned or operated by the Corps.
The budget funds a number of activities to completion,
including 5 flood risk management projects, 3 navigation
projects, 1 hydropower mitigation project, and 18 studies.
The Civil Works budget includes funding for three high-
performing construction new starts, six study new starts, and a
new activity in the Operation and Maintenance account to reduce
the vulnerability of our Civil Works projects to extreme
natural events.
The budget includes funding to evaluate the potential for,
and encourage the use of, nonstructural alternatives during
postdisaster recovery decisionmaking while leveraging the
expertise of intergovernmental teams known as Silver Jackets to
support States and communities in the development and
implementation of actions to reduce flood risks.
The budget includes the highest amount ever budgeted for
use of receipts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to
maintain coastal channels and harbors. Inland waterway capital
investments in the construction account are funded at the
maximum amount that is affordable within the project trust fund
revenues under existing law.
Last September, President Obama transmitted to the Congress
a proposal to modernize financing of capital investments on the
inland waterways through establishing a new vessel user fee to
supplement the existing fuel tax.
The Administration will continue to work with the Congress
and stakeholders to enact a mechanism to increase revenues to
this trust fund. The 2013 budget provides $532 million for dam
and levee safety activities including $491 million for dam
safety activities in both the flood risk management and
navigation programs.
We have $41 million to continue the comprehensive levee
safety initiative. The Army continues to work to modernize the
Civil Works Planning program. Proposed changes are aimed at
dramatically shortening the time and the costs of completion
for pre-authorization studies while retaining the quality of
the analyses.
The budget again includes $3 million for the Veterans
Curation Project which provides vocational rehabilitation and
innovative training for wounded and disabled veterans while
achieving historical preservation responsibilities for
archeological collections administered by the Corps.
This program will contribute to the goals of the
President's recently announced Veterans Job Corps.
prepared statement
In summary, the 2013 budget for the Army Civil Works
program is a fiscally prudent, appropriate level of investment
that will generate jobs, contribute to a stronger economy, and
continue progress on important water resources investments that
will yield long-term returns for the Nation and its citizens.
I'd like to thank the members of the subcommittee and I
look forward to working with you in support of this President's
budget. 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 United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for
fiscal year 2013.
overview
The fiscal year 2013 budget for the Civil Works program reflects
the Administration's priorities through targeted investments in the
Nation's water resources infrastructure, including dams and levees,
navigation investments in support of both domestic and global trade,
restoration of ecosystems affected by past water resources development,
and support of administration initiatives such as America's Great
Outdoors and the Clean Water Framework. These investments will generate
American jobs, contribute to a stronger economy, improve reliability
and efficiency of waterborne transportation, reduce flood risks to
businesses and homes, and provide low-cost renewable hydropower. In
addition, investment in the restoration of significant aquatic
ecosystems and the remediation of sites associated with the Manhattan
Project of the 1940s will not only provide important benefits but also
support jobs.
The primary objectives of the budget are as follows:
--Focus funding on water resources investments that will yield high-
economic and environmental returns or address a significant
risk to public safety.
--Support commercial navigation through maintenance and related
activities at the most heavily used commercial harbors and
waterways in the Nation.
--Modernize financing of capital investments on inland waterways by
establishing a new user fee.
--Restore large ecosystems such as the California Bay-Delta,
Chesapeake Bay, the Everglades, Great Lakes, and Gulf Coast.
--Invest in improvements to the Corps regulatory program that will
provide greater efficiency, providing benefits to businesses
and more protection to regulated wetlands and small streams.
--Provide significant funding for dam and levee safety, including
interim risk reduction measures designed to immediately
mitigate risk at the highest risk dams, and continue funding to
advance the Corps' national levee safety initiative to help
improve the safety of Federal levees and to provide available
levee data on levee safety issues to non-Federal entities.
--Support the modernization of Federal water resources infrastructure
processes to address 21st century water resources needs through
improvements to policies and procedures that govern Federal
water resources development and strategies for both managing
the Nation's aging infrastructure and restoring aquatic
ecosystem functions affected by past investments.
--Increase the organizational efficiency and improve the management,
oversight, and performance of ongoing programs.
The budget funds the planning, design, construction, operation and
maintenance of projects, and focuses on the three main Civil Works
mission areas:
--commercial navigation;
--flood and storm damage reduction; and
--aquatic ecosystem restoration.
The budget also supports programs that contribute to the protection
of the Nation's waters and wetlands; the generation of low-cost
renewable hydropower; the restoration of certain sites contaminated as
a result of the Nation's early atomic weapons development program;
emergency preparedness and training to respond to natural disasters;
and recreation, environmental stewardship, and water supply storage at
existing projects owned or operated by the Corps.
fiscal year 2013 discretionary funding level
The budget for fiscal year 2013 for the Civil Works program
provides a fiscally prudent, appropriate level of investment in the
Nation's water resources infrastructure and in the restoration of its
aquatic ecosystems.
In keeping with President Obama's commitment to put the country on
a sustainable fiscal path, while continuing to invest in those efforts
that are a priority for the Nation, the budget includes $4.731 billion
in discretionary appropriations for the Army Civil Works program. This
represents a reduction of $271 million, or about 5 percent, from the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level, but is a $100 million above the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget. The fiscal year 2013 funding level
reflects a considered, practical, effective, and sound use of the
Nation's financial resources.
Within the $4.731 billion recommended appropriations, $1.47 billion
is for projects in the Construction account, and $2.398 billion is for
activities funded in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) account. The
budget also includes:
--$102 million for Investigations;
--$234 million for Mississippi River and Tributaries;
--$30 million for Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies;
--$205 million for the Regulatory Program;
--$104 million for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program;
--$182 million for the Expenses account; and
--$5 million for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works.
Attachment 1 shows this funding by account and program area.
ATTACHMENT 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2013 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 46 652 536 <1 83 89 172 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,406
Reduction.........................
Coastal........................ 5 17 11 ....... ....... 4 4 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 37
Inland......................... 41 635 525 ....... 83 85 168 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,369
Hydropower......................... ....... 2 178 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 180
Navigation......................... 25 352 1,326 ....... 14 30 44 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,747
Coastal........................ 17 151 797 ....... ....... 2 2 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 967
Inland......................... 8 201 529 ....... 14 28 42 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 780
Environment:
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.. 31 464 14 <1 2 ....... 2 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 512
Stewardship.................... ....... ....... 92 ....... ....... 4 4 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 96
FUSRAP......................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 104 ....... ....... ....... ....... 104
Regulatory......................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 205 ....... ....... 205
Recreation......................... ....... ....... 241 ....... ....... 11 11 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 252
Emergency Management (incl. NEPP).. ....... ....... 6 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 30 ....... ....... ....... 36
Water Supply....................... ....... ....... 5 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 6
Expenses........................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 182 ....... 182
OASA(CW)........................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 5 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................ 102 1,471 2,398 1 99 134 234 104 30 205 182 5 4,731
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 for Civil Works.
The fiscal year 2013 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 2013 budget supports investments in commercial
navigation, flood risk management, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and
other programs. The distribution of funding among these programs is
similar to the distribution in the fiscal year 2012 budget, except for
an 11-percent increase in investments in support of waterborne
transportation. Of the total in the fiscal year 2013 budget, 30 percent
is allocated to flood risk management activities; 37 percent is
allocated to commercial navigation; and 33 percent to environmental,
hydropower, and other activities. Five flood risk management projects,
three navigation projects, one hydropower project, and 18 studies are
funded to completion in this budget.
new investments in fiscal year 2013
The Civil Works budget includes funding for three high-performing
construction new starts and six new study starts, and a new activity to
focus on reducing the vulnerability of Civil Works projects to extreme
natural events.
In the Construction account, parallel to the recommendation for
fiscal year 2012, the budget includes $7.5 million for the Hamilton
City project in California, which will provide environmental
restoration and flood damage reduction benefits in the Bay-Delta area;
$16.8 million for the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration
program, a nationally significant and urgent effort to both restore
habitat and protect the important Louisiana gulf region from the
destructive forces of storm driven waves and tides, which will
complement the ongoing Federal effort under the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, as amended; and $2 million
for the Lower Colorado River Basin, Onion Creek, Texas, project, which
will significantly reduce the risk of flood damages using nonstructural
solutions.
There are six new studies in the Investigations account, five of
which were recommended in fiscal year 2012. These six studies are:
--an important new reconnaissance study for 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;
--the Louisiana Coastal Area Comprehensive Plan for $100,000; and
--the national Water Resources Priorities Study for $2 million.
The fiscal year 2013 budget also includes $100,000 for a new study
of the Houston Ship Channel, Texas.
The Water Resources Priorities Study will establish a baseline
assessment of the Nation's flood risks on both national and regional
scales, improve existing programs, and reduce future costs by focusing
on which ongoing and future investments will best reduce flood risks.
The $8 million for new line-item called Reducing Civil Works
Vulnerability in the O&M account will aid the Corps in creating a more
robust Civil Works infrastructure.
Within the Floodplain Management Services Program, $3 million is
recommended to evaluate the potential for and encourage the use of
nonstructural alternatives and actions during post-disaster recovery
decisionmaking. With these funds, the Corps would leverage the
expertise of intergovernmental teams known as Silver Jackets to provide
selected technical services and support States and communities in the
development and implementation of actions to reduce flood risks, with
an emphasis on nonstructural alternatives.
infrastructure modernization
The Administration is developing and considering proposals to serve
as the foundation of a comprehensive water resources infrastructure
modernization initiative, which will help the Federal Government
support a 21st century water resources infrastructure. In considering
and developing these new policies, procedures, and strategies, the
Administration will continue to engage and collaborate with the
Congress and the many stakeholders whose interests are tied to the
Nation's water infrastructure, including State, local, and tribal
governments.
navigation
The budget includes a high level of investment in support of
domestic and global waterborne transportation, especially at coastal
ports that support the greatest national economic activity. On the
inland waterways, the budget focuses on maintaining reliable service at
those waterways with a high level of commercial use, specifically, the
Lower Mississippi River, Ohio River, Upper Mississippi River, Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Illinois Waterway, Tennessee River, and the
Black Warrior Tombigbee Waterway. Funding to operate and maintain the
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf project is $82 million, a
significant increase above the $68 million requested for fiscal year
2012.
The budget provides $68 million to continue deepening the New York
and New Jersey Harbor project in order to complete construction by
fiscal year 2014. The budget also includes $38 million to construct
dredge material placement sites at several deep draft ports to provide
additional capacity for the maintenance of these projects in the
future. It provides $12 million to continue studies and designs at
coastal ports, including several proposals to deepen existing channels
to accommodate Post-Panamax commercial shipping.
The budget also provides for use of $848 million from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain coastal channels and harbors. This
is a 12-percent increase over the fiscal year 2012 budget and the
highest amount ever proposed in a President's budget for use of
receipts in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Inland waterway capital investments are funded at $201 million, of
which $95 million will be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
This is the amount that is affordable within the projected level of
revenue to this trust fund under existing law. In September 2011, as
part of his Jobs bill proposal, President Obama transmitted to the
Congress a proposal to modernize financing of capital investments on
the Nation's inland waterways. The proposal includes increasing the
revenue paid by commercial navigation users sufficiently to meet their
share of the costs of capital development activities financed from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund. A new vessel user fee would supplement the
existing fuel tax. The Administration will continue to work with the
Congress and stakeholders to enact such a mechanism to increase revenue
to this trust fund, in order to enable a significant increase in
funding for high-performing inland waterway capital investments in the
future.
flood risk management
Through both structural and nonstructural measures, the flood risk
management program serves as a vehicle to reduce the risk to human
safety and property from riverine and coastal flooding. The fiscal year
2013 budget provides $1.4 billion for the flood risk management
program, including $492 million that is directed at dam and levee
safety.
This flood risk management program also includes $41 million to
continue the comprehensive levee safety initiative to assess the
conditions of Federal levees and help ensure that they are safe. These
funds will also enable the Corps to better assess and communicate risk,
for example, by providing information that will assist non-Federal
entities in identifying safety issues with their levees. The Corps will
be conducting levee inspections and levee risk screenings, adding to
the data in the national levee inventory, and providing the available
levee data to communities for their use in gaining accreditation under
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance
Program.
In addition to this funding in the flood risk management program,
the budget includes $40.2 million in the navigation program to address
dam safety issues at two navigation dams (Locks and Dams 2,3,4,
Monongahela River, Pennsylvania, and Lockport Lock and Dam, Illinois).
aquatic ecosystem restoration
The fiscal year 2013 budget reflects a continuing effort by the
Corps and other Federal agencies to collaborate developing a unified
budget proposal, which reflects the Nation's priorities for restoring
its most significant aquatic ecosystems. Attachment 2 provides a list
of these ecosystems and the Corps funding amounts budgeted on this
basis.
ATTACHMENT 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2013 PRIORITY ECOSYSTEMS FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecosystem
account \1\ Projects and studies Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Delta:
I Yuba Fish Passage .1
I CALFED Coordination .1
San Pedro Watershed .2
I Sac-San Joaquin Delta Island and Levee 1.02
Study
I Sac-San Joaquin Comp Study .3
C Hamilton City 7.5
C American River Common Features 8
C Sac River Bank Protection 3
C Success Dam Remediation [DSAP] 3
O&M Additional studies and projects in 28.3
Navigation and Flood Risk Management
Programs
---------------
Total, Bay Delta 51.5
===============
Chesapeake Bay:
I Chesapeake Bay Comp (new recon) .3
I Lynnhaven .3
I Upper Rappahannock .05
I Anacostia--Montgomery .25
I Anacostia--Prince Georges .25
C Chesapeake Oysters 5
C Poplar Island 13.5
---------------
Total, Chesapeake Bay 19.6
===============
Everglades:
C Everglades 153.3
O&M Everglades 7.78
---------------
Total, Everglades 161.08
===============
Great Lakes:
I Interbasin Control Study [GLMRIS] 3
C Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal [CSSC] 24.5
O&M Dredging 75.09
---------------
Total, Great Lakes 102.59
===============
Gulf Coast:
I LCA--studies, PED 9.96
C LCA--Beneficial Use 5
C LCA--Amite Diversion 5.6
C LCA--Atchafalaya to N Terrebonne 6.2
---------------
Total, Gulf Coast 26.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Key: I=Investigation; C=Construction; O&M=Operation and
Maintenance.
The budget for the Army Civil Works program provides $161 million
to efficiently fund the ongoing South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Program, which includes the Everglades, consisting of $153 in the
Construction account and $8 million in the O&M account. It also
supports several major ecosystem-wide initiatives, by providing a total
of $81 million in the aquatic ecosystem restoration program in support
of the Federal efforts in the California Bay-Delta, Chesapeake Bay, the
Great Lakes, and the gulf coast.
The budget includes $98 million for the Columbia River Fish
Mitigation program, an ongoing effort to reduce the adverse impacts of
a series of Corps 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 $90 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.
planning improvements
The Army continues to work to modernize the Civil Works Planning
program to better address the current and future water resources needs
of the Nation. The Army has undertaken an aggressive review of all
ongoing, protracted feasibility studies to assure that studies are
scoped appropriately and to focus limited resources on studies with the
highest probability of leading to high performing projects. Proposed
changes are aimed at dramatically shortening the timeframe for
completion of pre-authorization studies while retaining the quality of
the analyses, reducing the cost of conducting planning studies, and
increasing Corps corporate and individual accountability for decisions.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $4 million for the national
Planning Support Program. These funds will be used to improve training
of Corps planning personnel, including through the Planning Associates
Program; support development and implementation of revisions to the
Water Resources Principles and Guidelines in accordance with
requirements in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (sec. 2031,
Public Law 110-114); and provide for more stable, capable national
planning centers of expertise.
regulatory program
The budget includes $205 million for the Regulatory Program, which
is a $9 million increase above the fiscal year 2012 budget. This
funding increase is one of the Army's priorities. It will support a
transparent and timely permit review process, bringing greater program
efficiency and customer service. It will enable the Corps to better
protect high-value aquatic resources, enable more timely business
planning decisions, and support sustainable economic development.
veterans curation project
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $3 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 the Corps. The project supports work by veterans at
curation laboratories located in Augusta, Georgia; St. Louis, Missouri;
and Washington, DC. This project will contribute to the goals of the
President's recently announced Veterans Job Corps.
american recovery and reinvestment act
The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided $4.6
billion for the Civil Works program. That amount includes:
--$2 billion for Construction;
--$2.1 billion for O&M;
--$375 million for Mississippi River and Tributaries;
--$25 million for Investigations;
--$25 million for the Regulatory Program; and
--$100 million for the Formerly Used Sites Remedial Action Program.
The Corps applied ARRA funds to more than 800 projects across the
Nation.
The Army is proud to report that 99.8 percent of the ARRA
appropriations for Civil Works are obligated, and more than 87 percent
of the funds have been outlayed to date. These investments helped
create or maintain direct construction industry jobs, jobs in firms
supplying or supporting construction work and the businesses that sell
goods and services to these workers and their families.
conclusion
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Army
Civil Works program is a performance-based budget that supports
continued progress on important water resources investments that will
yield long-term returns for the Nation and its citizens.
These investments will generate jobs, contribute to a stronger
economy, support waterborne transportation, reduce flood risks to
businesses and homes, provide low-cost renewable hydropower, restore
important ecosystems, and deliver other benefits to the American
people.
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, Secretary Darcy.
General Temple, would you like to make comments now? Please go
ahead.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MERDITH W.B. TEMPLE, ACTING
COMMANDING GENERAL, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
General Temple. Madam Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, I'm Major General Bo Temple, the Acting Commander
of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Acting Chief of
Engineers, and I'm honored to be here with Ms. Darcy to testify
regarding the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Civil
Works program.
The Corps is wrapping up an unprecedented period of
construction and project execution. Over the past 5 years, we
provided $12 billion in base realignment and closure (BRAC)-
related construction, $7 billion of American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act work in both our Military and Civil Works
programs, and about $14 billion of gulf coast recovery work.
In 2011, more than 2,000 Corps employees deployed in
response to multiple disasters, including Midwest tornadoes and
flooding in the Missouri, Mississippi, and Souris river basins
and also throughout the Northeast due to Hurricane Irene and
Tropical Storm Lee.
Our systems performed as designed, saving lives and
preventing billions in damages. However, as you are aware, many
of our projects were damaged, and we are currently working to
address those issues utilizing the $1.7 billion the Congress
appropriated for this purpose.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $4.7 billion to fund
Civil Works activities within the Corps' three main water
resources missions: Commercial navigation, flood and storm
damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
The budget includes $102 million for these and related
activities in the Investigations account, and $1 million in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) account.
It funds 81 continuing studies and six new studies. It also
includes more than $10 million for work on proposals to deepen
seven U.S. ports.
The budget includes $1.47 billion in the Construction
account and $99 million in the MR&T account, funding 101
construction projects including 57 flood and coastal storm
damage reduction projects, 5 of which are budgeted for
completion, 23 commercial navigation projects, 19 aquatic
ecosystem restoration projects, and mitigation associated with
2 hydropower projects.
The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program includes $2.53
billion and an additional $134 million under the MR&T program
with a focus on the maintenance of key commercial navigation,
flood and storm damage reduction, hydropower and other
facilities.
The Corps will continue to implement actions to improve its
planning program through planning modernization efforts
focusing on how best to modernize the planning program to more
effectively address water resources challenges.
The Corps always strives to improve its efficiency and
effectiveness. In fiscal year 2013, the Corps will further
expand the implementation of modern asset management programs
using a larger portion of its funds for the most important
maintenance work while implementing an energy sustainability
program that pursues major deficiencies in the acquisition and
operations of our information technology assets as well as
finalizing the organization of the Corps acquisition work
force.
The fiscal year 2013 budget provides $30 million for
preparedness for floods, hurricanes, and other natural
disasters including $3 million in support of the Corps
participation in levee safety and other flood mitigation
initiatives such as the Silver Jackets program to provide
unified Federal assistance in implementing flood and coastal
storm damage reduction solutions.
Internationally, the Corps of Engineers continues to
support the mission to help Iraq and Afghanistan build
foundations for democracy, freedom, and prosperity. In Iraq and
Afghanistan, we completed or closed out hundreds of projects in
support of the host nations and coalition forces.
This critical infrastructure and our capacity building
efforts will play a key role in ensuring stability and security
for those nations.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The Corps remains committed to change that ensures an open,
transparent and performance-based Civil Works program while
remaining focused on consistently delivering innovative
resilient risk-informed solutions to the Armed Forces and to
the Nation.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
This concludes my statement, and I'm happy to take questions
when we're ready.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, General Temple.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Major General Merdith W.B. Temple
introduction
Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: I am
honored to be testifying before your subcommittee today, along with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Honorable Jo-Ellen
Darcy, on the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Civil Works
Program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
The Corps is wrapping up an unprecedented period of construction
and project execution. Over the past 5 years, we provided $12 billion
in base realignment and closure (BRAC)-related construction; $7 billion
of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) work in our Military
and Civil Works programs combined; and about $14 billion of gulf coast
recovery work.
In 2011, the Corps responded to several devastating tornadoes and
floods, as well as hurricanes and tropical storms, under the National
Response Framework in support of Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Flooding was a significant problem as we experienced record
high water levels for a much longer duration than is the norm
throughout much of the country. Our flood risk reduction systems were
operated at their maximum capacity, some for the first time.
The great men and women of COE worked tirelessly, together with our
State, local, and industry partners, to ensure that we could deliver on
all of our commitments last year. It is through their efforts that we
were successful and will continue to be able to carry out the projects
and programs included in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
My statement covers the following 11 topics:
--Summary of fiscal year 2013 program budget;
--Direct Program;
--Investigations Program;
--Construction Program;
--Operation and Maintenance Program;
--Reimbursable Program;
--Planning Program Modernization;
--Efficiency and Effectiveness of Corps Operations;
--Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's Economy and
Defense;
--Research and Development; and
--National Defense.
summary of fiscal year 2013 program budget
The Corps is fully committed to its support of the Nation's
priorities to reduce the deficit, contribute to the economy, and
restore and protect the aquatic environment. The fiscal year 2013 Civil
Works budget provides the Corps with the means to support these
priorities. It is a performance-based budget, which reflects a focus on
the projects and activities that provide the highest net economic and
environmental returns on the Nation's investment or address significant
risks to human safety, to include continuing a comprehensive levee
safety initiative and supporting increased interagency and stakeholder
collaboration. The Reimbursable Program funding is projected to provide
an additional $1.6 billion.
direct program
The budget includes $4.7 billion for Civil Works activities, with
priority on the highest performing activities within our three main
water resources missions--commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The budget invests in
more than 600 flood and storm damage reduction projects, 143 commercial
coastal navigation projects, and 51 projects on the inland waterways.
For example, it provides increased funding for high use, commercial,
coastal channels, and harbors including support of efforts to
accommodate Post-Panamax ships. In total, the budget supports ongoing
construction of 98 projects and three new construction starts. The
budget includes funds for 81 studies already underway and six new study
starts. It will enable the Corps to process approximately 80,000 permit
requests and to operate 75 hydropower plants with 350 generating units
that produce approximately 24,000 megawatts annually. At its multi-
purpose projects, the Corps also stores water to supply about 14
percent of the Nation's municipal water needs. The budget will also
sustain the Corps' preparedness to respond to natural disasters.
investigations program
The budget for the Investigations program will enable the Corps to
evaluate and design future projects that are most likely to be high-
performing within the Corps three main water resources mission areas.
The budget includes $102 million for these and related activities in
the investigations account and $1 million in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account. It funds 81 continuing studies and six new
studies:
--Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River) Fish Passage,
California;
--Cano Martin Pena, Puerto Rico;
--the Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan;
--the Louisiana Coastal Area Comprehensive Study; and
--the Houston Ship Channel, Texas.
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.
Investigations funding also includes $10.63 million for work on
proposals to deepen seven U.S. ports:
--Boston, Massachusetts;
--Charleston, South Carolina;
--Savannah, Georgia;
--Wilmington, North Carolina;
--Brazos Island, Brownsville Channel, Texas; and
--Jacksonville, Florida, and Houston, Texas.
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 flood and storm damage
reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, commercial navigation, and
hydropower projects. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $1.47 billion
in the Construction account and $99 million in the Mississippi River
and Tributaries account to further this objective. Consistent with this
objective, the budget also gives priority to projects that address a
significant risk to human safety.
The budget funds 101 construction projects, including:
--57 Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction projects (five budgeted
for completion);
--23 Commercial Navigation projects (including 11 continuing
mitigation items and 6 dredged material placement areas);
--19 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Projects (including 4 projects to
meet Biological Opinions); and
--mitigation associated with two Hydropower projects.
Three of these construction projects are new starts:
--Hamilton City, California;
--Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana; and
--Lower Colorado River,Wharton-Onion Creek, Texas.
This program also includes significant environmental mitigation
work in the Columbia River Basin and the Missouri River Basin needed to
support the continued operation of COE multipurpose projects, which
improves habitat and migration pathways for endangered and threatened
species.
Performance measures, which the Corps 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, and static
instability correction work and to activities that address a
significant risk to human safety. These performance measures maximize
the overall return to the Nation from the investment in the Civil Works
construction program, by focusing on the projects that will provide the
best net returns for each $1 invested.
operation and maintenance program
The facilities owned and operated by, or on behalf of, COE care
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 American people, a growing challenge in some cases, as
proper maintenance is becoming more expensive at many of our projects.
The operation and maintenance (O&M) program for the fiscal year
2013 budget includes $2.53 billion and an additional $134 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 COE,
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, commercial navigation, aquatic ecosystem
restoration, hydropower, and related purposes;
--maintenance and repair of the facilities; monitoring of completed
storm damage reduction projects along our coasts; and
--general management of Corps facilities and the land associated with
these purposes.
reimbursable program
Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Services Program we
help non-Department of Defense (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 workforces to oversee project design and construction, these
agencies can turn to COE, which already 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 Programs missions. The work is principally technical
oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and
construction contracts performed by private sector firms, and is
totally financed by the agencies we service.
We only accept agency requests that we can execute without
impacting our Civil Works or Military Programs missions that are
consistent with our core technical expertise and that 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 2013 is projected to be $1.6
billion, reflecting the completion of ongoing reimbursable work and an
estimated amount for fiscal year 2013.
planning program modernization
The Corps will continue to implement actions to improve the
performance of its Civil Works Planning Program through a planning
modernization effort. This effort focuses on how best to prepare,
organize, manage, operate, and oversee the planning program to more
effectively address 21st century water resources challenges. This means
improved project delivery that yields smarter outcomes; improved
technical capability of our planners; enhanced collaboration with
Federal, tribal, State, local and nongovernment partners; evaluating
and enhancing production capability and staffing at Corps Planning
Centers of Expertise; 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 that improve our
effectiveness, efficiency, transparency, and responsiveness;
and
--enhanced technical capabilities.
In fiscal year 2011, the Corps launched a 2-year National Planning
Pilot Program to test these concepts and to develop and refine
processes for planning studies across all business lines. This approach
will be both sustainable and replicable, which will inform future Civil
Works guidance. Seven to nine pilot studies will be executed over the
course of this National Planning Pilot Program.
efficiency and effectiveness of corps operations
The Corps always strives to continually improve its investigations,
construction, and operations programs' efficiency and effectiveness. In
2013, the Corps will further expand the implementation of a modern
asset management program, using a larger portion of its funds for the
most important maintenance work, while implementing an energy
sustainability program that pursues major efficiencies in the
acquisition and operations of its information technology assets, as
well as finalizing the reorganization of the Corps' acquisition
workforce.
value of the civil works program to the nation's economy and defense
COE personnel continue to respond whenever needed to assist during
major floods and other natural disasters. The critical work that they
perform reduces the risk of damage to people and communities. The
budget provides $30 million for preparedness for floods, hurricanes,
and other natural disasters, including funding in support of Corps
participation of the levee safety and other flood mitigation
initiatives, including the Silver Jackets program, with a goal of one
in every State, and to provide unified Federal assistance in
implementing flood and storm damage reduction solutions.
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 and our quality of life.
national defense
Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to
support the mission to help Iraq and Afghanistan build foundations for
democracy, freedom, and prosperity.
We are proud to serve this great Nation and our fellow citizens,
and we are proud of the work the Corps does to support America's
foreign policy, particularly with our ongoing missions in Afghanistan
and Iraq. Men and women from across the Corps--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, 885 Corps
employees (both civilian and military) are deployed in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Since these deployments began, the Corps has completed
more than 9,000 civilian and military projects that were managed by the
Corps in support of U.S. and Coalition efforts in those countries.
In Iraq, we completed a more than $15 billion construction program
and in Afghanistan we have constructed $5 billion worth of work through
fiscal year 2011. By the end of 2014 we will complete another $10
billion, for a total Afghanistan program of $15 billion. This critical
infrastructure and our capacity building efforts will play a key role
in ensuring stability and security for these nations.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2013 budget represents a continuing, fiscally
prudent investment in the Nation's water resources infrastructure and
in the restoration of its aquatic ecosystems. COE is committed to
change that ensures an open, transparent, and performance-based Civil
Works program, while remaining focused on consistently delivering
innovative, resilient, risk-informed solutions to the Armed Forces and
the Nation.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of subcommittee. This
concludes my statement.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENT OF HON. ANNE CASTLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
WATER AND SCIENCE
Senator Feinstein. Secretary Castle, please.
Ms. Castle. Thank you. Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Alexander, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to talk to you today about the water-related
programs of the Department of the Interior and the 2013 budget.
Commissioner Connor is going to address the specifics of
the Bureau of Reclamation budget, and I'm going to talk about
some of Interior's overall programs to address water challenges
in the West and contribute to the development of renewable
energy that are contained in the budget.
It's well known that we're facing unprecedented pressure on
our water supplies. And that's all across the country, but it's
particularly in the Western United States. We've got population
growth, aging infrastructure, and increased demand for water to
support domestic energy development.
We have increased recognition of environmental needs. We
have changing climate. And all of those are challenging already
scarce water supplies. This Administration puts a very high
priority on addressing these water challenges.
Interior's WaterSMART Program (Sustain and Manage America's
Resources for Tomorrow) Program is designed to do that. It's
designed to help secure and stretch our water supplies and to
provide tools to water managers that allow them to work toward
sustainability.
Reclamation proposes to fund the WaterSMART Program at $54
million. The WaterSMART Program includes our WaterSMART grants
that are funded at $21.5 million, the Basin Studies program
funded at $6 million, and the Title XVI Recycling and Reuse
projects that are funded at a little more than $20 million.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also has $21 million in
the 2013 budget requested for WaterSMART programs and that's
primarily for the water availability and use assessment. These
WaterSMART programs have a very real and a very positive
impact.
We have set the goal of enabling the saving of 730,000
acre-feet over the 4 years from 2010 to 2013. That's as much
water as the San Diego County Water Authority uses to serve all
of its customers for 1 year.
We're on track to meet that goal. With our programs in 2010
and 2011, we've enabled the savings of almost 488,000 acre-
feet, and that number is right around the annual use for the
seven largest cities in the State of Colorado. So we're talking
about real water savings.
Another very important focus of the Department of the
Interior is our New Energy Frontier initiative that's intended
to foster the development of clean and renewable energy to
create jobs and to achieve greater energy independence.
And one of the components of the all-of-the-above energy
strategy is hydropower. Hydropower is clean, it's efficient,
it's flexible, and it's a renewable energy resource.
Reclamation's hydroelectric power plants produce an average
of 40 million megawatt hours of electricity every year. That's
enough to meet the needs of more than 3.5 million households.
Last year, Reclamation released an assessment of the
hydroelectric potential on its existing dams and reservoirs,
and that report highlighted 225 megawatts of hydro-potential
with favorable cost-benefit ratios.
In the next couple of weeks, we're going to release Phase 2
of that assessment that looks at the hydropower potential on
Reclamation's canals and conduits. And we're anticipating that
we'll see another 100 megawatts of potential on those
structures.
These facilities with potential are being made available
for private development. The Reclamation budget allocates $2
million to increase clean renewable energy generation by
integrating renewable technologies into Reclamation projects
and continuing the effort to optimize our own hydropower
projects so that we can produce more energy using the same
amount of water.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madam Chair, we really appreciate the support that this
subcommittee has shown for Reclamation's mission, projects, and
those tangible benefits that you mentioned in your opening
statement. And we appreciate the support for the mission of the
Department.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne Castle
Madame Chair, Mr. Alexander, and members of this subcommittee, I am
pleased to appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2013 budget for the Department of the Interior. I would also like
to thank the members of this subcommittee for your efforts to enact a
2012 appropriation, and for your ongoing support for our initiatives.
The fiscal year 2013 budget builds on that strong foundation with
$11.5 billion budgeted 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 as the President details in his
``Blueprint for an America Built to Last''; the budget supports
responsible domestic energy development and advances an America's Great
Outdoors strategy. 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 discuss the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Office of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act (CUPCA), including our proposal to reconsolidate the
CUPCA Office into Reclamation, and the water-related programs of the
United States Geological Survey (USGS). I thank the subcommittee for
your continued support of these programs.
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 of the Interior 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, 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 within Interior and improve scientific understanding
worldwide. The Department also helps fulfill 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. We estimate that it supports more than 2 million
jobs and approximately $363 billion in economic activity each year.
Visits to our national parks, cultural and historic sites, refuges,
monuments and other public lands contribute more than $47 billion in
economic activity from recreation and tourism. The American outdoor
industry estimates 1 in 20 U.S. jobs is in the recreation economy.
Conventional and renewable energy produced on Interior lands and waters
results in about $230 billion in economic benefits each year, and the
water managed by Interior is a major contributing factor to more than
$40.2 billion in agriculture.
2011 accomplishments
Three years ago, Secretary Salazar set Interior 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:
--In 2011, the Department of the Interior generated a total of $13.2
billion in receipts benefitting the U.S. Treasury--from a
combination of royalties, rents and bonuses from mineral,
timber, and other natural resource development. Of the total
receipts generated by Interior in 2011, $11.3 billion was
collected from energy production on public lands, tribal lands,
and Federal offshore areas--a $2 billion increase over the
previous year--with receipts disbursed among Federal, State,
and tribal governments.
--Since March 2009, 29 onshore projects that increased approved
capacity for production and transmission of power have been
approved, including the first-ever utility scale solar project,
five wind projects, and eight geothermal projects. The Cape
Wind Energy Project, approved for construction and operation,
is the first-ever offshore commercial wind operation.
--We continue to make youth a priority, and increased the number of
youth employed in conservation activities through Interior or
its partners by 31 percent more than the 2009 levels. We
launched the YouthGO.gov portal in January 2011, a tool of the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to provide
information on education programs, outdoor activities, and job
opportunities.
--Water Sustain and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow
(WaterSMART), established in 2010, has assisted communities in
improving conservation, increasing water availability,
restoring watersheds, resolving longstanding water conflicts,
addressing the challenges of climate change, and implementing
water rights settlements. The WaterSMART grant program has
provided more than $85 million in funding to non-Federal
partners, including tribes, water districts, and universities.
In 2011, we provided $33 million in funding for 82 WaterSMART
grant projects.
--The year 2011 was the second year of a 2-year pilot at four
reservations to conduct expanded community policing, equip and
train the law enforcement cadre, partner with the communities
to organize youth groups and after school programs, and closely
monitor results. The results exceeded expectations with a 35
percent overall decrease in violent crime in the four
communities. Information about the four reservations is being
analyzed, and the program will be expanded in 2013 to an
additional two communities.
--In December 2011, the President hosted the third 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.
--The Department advanced key priorities and strategic goals that
will improve the conservation and management of natural and
cultural resources into the future.
--Interior and its Federal, State, and tribal partners have created a
national network of 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
(LCCs) and eight Climate Science Centers (CSCs) in order to
address an increasing variety of conservation challenges.
--In the spirit of America's Great Outdoors, we welcomed new national
wildlife refuges in Kansas, the Dakotas, Pennsylvania, and
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 implement short-term measures
and develop a long-term action plan to help address water
supply and environmental challenges in the California Bay-Delta
area, invested more than $600 million in major water projects
over the past 3 years, and moved forward on longstanding water
availability issues in the Colorado River Basin.
fiscal responsibility
Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget must be viewed in the context of
the difficult fiscal times facing the Nation. This budget is
responsible and austere. Interior's $11.5 billion budget funds
important investments by eliminating and reducing lower priority
programs, deferring project start-ups, reducing duplication,
streamlining operations, and capturing savings. It maintains funding
levels for core functions that are vital to uphold stewardship
responsibilities and sustain key initiatives. The fiscal year 2013
budget includes $10.5 billion for programs funded by the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriation. The fiscal year 2013
budget for Reclamation, including the CUPCA, is $1 billion in current
appropriations, $42.4 million below the 2012 enacted level.
Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget reflects many difficult budget
choices, cutting worthy programs and advancing efforts to shrink
Federal spending. Staffing reductions are anticipated in some program
areas, which will be achieved through attrition, and buy-outs in order
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.
growing the economy outdoors
The President's ``Blueprint'' recognizes the economic potential of
renewable energy development. The economic benefits could be
particularly significant in America's remote and rural places near
public lands. The Department's 2010 estimates identified nearly $5.5
billion in economic impacts associated with renewable energy
activities, a growing economic sector that supports high-paying jobs.
Interior is at the forefront of the Administration's comprehensive
effort to spur job creation by making the United States the world's top
travel and tourism destination. In a recent statement, President Obama
cited Department of Commerce figures showing that in 2010,
international travel resulted in $134 billion in U.S. exports.
The President has asked Secretary Salazar to co-chair an
interagency task force with Commerce Secretary Bryson to develop a
National Travel and Tourism Strategy to expand job creation by
promoting domestic and international travel opportunities throughout
the United States. A particular focus of the Task Force will be on
strategies for increasing tourism and recreation jobs by promoting
visits to the Nation's national treasures.
According to a departmental study, in 2010, 437 million visits were
made by American and international travelers to these lands,
contributing $47.9 billion in economic activity and 388,000 jobs. Eco-
tourism and outdoor recreation also have an impact on rural economies,
particularly in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North
Carolina, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.
america's great outdoors
The Administration continues to listen to the American public as
they ask for protection and restoration of our outdoors and to expand
opportunities for recreation through partnerships with States and
others and the promotion of America's parks, refuges, and public lands.
An important element in this effort is the restoration of our rivers to
both protect the environmental benefits and to secure future water
supplies. By encouraging innovative partnerships in communities across
the Nation, the Administration is expanding access to rivers and
trails, creating wildlife corridors, and promoting conservation while
working to protect historic uses of the land including ranching,
farming, and forestry. As part of America's Great Outdoors, Interior is
supporting 101 signature projects in all States across the country to
make parks accessible for children, create great urban parks and
community green spaces, restore rivers, and create recreational
blueways to power economic revitalization. Projects were selected in
concert with governors, tribal leaders, private landowners, and other
stakeholders and were evaluated based on the level of local support,
the ability of States and communities to leverage resources, and the
potential to conserve important lands and promote recreation.
The 2013 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.
Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget continues 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.
The Department's budget includes $6 million for Reclamation's Basin
Studies program, which funds Reclamation's partnerships with State and
local entities to initiate comprehensive water supply and demand
studies in the West.
Reclamation continues to participate in and support to the Desert
and Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. These LCCs
are partnerships between Interior and other Federal agencies, States,
tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders, to bring
together science and sustainable resource conservation activities to
develop science-based solutions to on-the-ground challenges from a
changing environment within an ecological region or ``landscape.'' The
LCCs leverage the resources and expertise of the partners and work
across jurisdictional barriers to focus on natural resource issues
specific to a particular ecosystem or landscape.
investing in our youth
Furthering the youth and conservation goals of the America's Great
Outdoors initiative, the fiscal year 2013 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 longstanding
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, build a conservation ethic, and educate the next
generation of land and water stewards.
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 to already scarce
supplies. 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.
Traditional water management approaches no longer meet today's needs.
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.
Reclamation proposes to fund the rebased WaterSMART at $53.9
million, $6.8 million above 2012 enacted levels. The three ongoing
WaterSMART programs include:
--the WaterSMART Grant program funded at $21.5 million;
--Basin Studies funded at $6 million; and
--the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program funded at $20.3
million.
The rebasing adds the existing Water Conservation Field Services
program, funded at $5.9 million, and participation by Reclamation in
the Cooperative Watershed Management program, funded at $250,000.
WaterSMART is a joint effort with the USGS. The USGS fiscal year 2013
budget includes $21 million, an increase of $13 million more than the
2012 enacted level, for the USGS WaterSMART Availability and Use
Assessment program.
In November 2011, the Department adopted the WaterSMART Strategic
Implementation Plan, which discusses the coordination of activities
across bureaus, and the contributions they will make in providing
Federal leadership toward a sustainable water resources future. In
December 2011, we released a report on a pilot project within the
Colorado River Basin. This report represents a snapshot of Interior's
WaterSMART activities within the Basin and demonstrates the diversity
and significance of several ongoing Federal, State, tribal, local, and
nongovernmental cooperative efforts that are underway. It also
demonstrates the effectiveness of the WaterSMART program, and the
importance of these coordinated efforts to the sustainability of
resources in the Colorado River Basin.
Other significant programs and highlights specific to Reclamation
include:
--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 completing
environmental compliance on a new protocol for high-flow
releases from Glen Canyon Dam to improve and protect downstream
resources. We have begun the process for updating the long-term
plan of operations for Glen Canyon Dam to incorporate the
scientific advancements that have occurred since the last plan
was finalized, more than 15 years ago.
--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. In coordination with five other
Federal agencies, we are leveraging our activities to work in
concert with the State and local authorities to encourage the
smarter supply and use of water, ensure healthy ecosystems and
water quality, help deliver drought relief services, and ensure
integrated flood risk management. Over the past 3 years, we
have invested more than $600 million in water projects in
California. This funding supports the co-equal goals of
providing a more reliable water supply for California and
protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Bay-Delta ecosystem.
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 February 22, 2012, we announced the initial Water Supply
Allocation for Central Valley Project (CVP) water users. Even though
2011 was a wet water year that allowed reservoirs to fill and provided
abundant flows in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems, the
exceedingly dry conditions earlier this winter pose risks to threatened
and endangered fish species, as well as to the water supplies of the
CVP. Interior, Reclamation, State and local agencies, and other
interested parties are working together to identify and secure
additional water supplies and create opportunities that will aid water
management in California. We will continue to work with our Federal,
State, and local partners to improve water supply reliability while
addressing significant ecological issues. Reclamation is continuing to
update the forecast to provide the most current information to its
stakeholders.
innovation through science
Sustainable stewardship of natural resources requires strong
investments in research and development (R&D) in the natural sciences.
Research and development funding is increased by $64 million in the
Department's fiscal year 2013 budget, with R&D funding increases among
all of the Interior bureaus, and particularly USGS with a $51 million
increase to fund R&D priorities in disaster response, hydraulic
fracturing, coastal and ocean stewardship, and ecosystem restoration.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes R&D funding of $10.1 million for
Reclamation to address climate change adaptation, control invasive
quagga mussels, improve desalination technologies, and promote
renewable energy development.
new energy frontier
The fiscal year 2013 budget continues Interior's New Energy
Frontier initiative to create jobs and achieve greater energy
independence. The Administration's blueprint for energy security
focuses on safely and responsibly developing our domestic energy
resources, including both conventional and renewable resources. The
Department plays an important role by providing opportunities for safe
and responsible development on public lands and on the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf.
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. Reclamation has nearly 500 dams and
10,000 miles of canals and owns 58 hydropower plants, 53 of which are
operated and maintained by Reclamation. 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
3.5 million households on average.
Reclamation and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) are
parties to a Memorandum of Understanding (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
Bureau of Reclamation facilities. Reclamation and FERC recently met to
discuss how to improve the timeliness of the processes developed in
that MOU and resolution of authority issues.
The Department signed a MOU 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. Activities
under this MOU have been ongoing, and have resulted in accomplishments
such as assessments of potential hydropower resources on Federal and
non-Federal lands, a collaborative basin-scale pilot project in Oregon,
and grant opportunities for R&D of new technologies. An example of its
on-going efforts to maximize potential generation at existing Federal
facilities, Reclamation has assessed the potential for developing
hydropower at existing Reclamation facilities and by utilizing low-head
hydroelectric generating capacity on Reclamation-owned canals and
conduits. A report on this assessment will be released within the next
few weeks.
The budget allocates $2 million to increase clean renewable energy
generation by exploring how renewable technologies including solar,
small hydropower, and hydrokinetics can be integrated into Reclamation
projects; by continuing the effort to optimize Reclamation hydropower
projects to produce more energy with the same amount of water; by
investigating hydro pump-storage projects that can help integrate large
amounts of variable renewable resources such as wind and solar into the
electric grid; and by working with tribes to assist them in developing
renewable energy sources.
indian land and water settlements
Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget includes $82.8 million in the
Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to implement
land and water settlements.
The Department has a unique responsibility to American Indians and
Alaska Natives, which is upheld by Interior's support for a robust
Government-to-government relationship as demonstrated by a new
comprehensive and transparent consultation policy that ensures there is
a strong, meaningful role for tribal governments.
In 2011, Interior started planning to implement the landmark $3.4
billion settlement of the Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit, and appointed a
Secretarial Commission on Trust Administration and Reform to oversee
implementation of the Settlement agreement. The Commission is
undertaking a forward-looking, comprehensive evaluation of Interior's
management of nearly $4 billion in American Indian trust funds--with
the goal of making trust administration more transparent, responsive,
customer focused, and accountable.
The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 settled the Cobell lawsuit and
four settlements that will provide permanent water supplies and
economic security 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. The agreements will enable
construction and improvement of reservation water systems, irrigation
projects, a regional multipueblo water system, and codify water-sharing
arrangements between Indian and neighboring communities. The primary
responsibility for constructing water systems associated with the
settlements was given to Reclamation; and BIA is responsible for the
majority of the trust funds.
Reclamation is budgeting $21.5 million in 2013 for the continued
implementation of these four settlements and $25 million for the
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project. Reclamation is proposing the
establishment of an Indian Water Rights Settlements account to assure
continuity in the construction of the authorized projects and to
highlight and enhance transparency.
central utah project
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 (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 fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to reconsolidate the CUPCA
Office and program into the Bureau of Reclamation. This consolidation
is part of broader administration efforts to implement good Government
solutions to consolidate and streamline activities. The CUP is the only
water project within the Department of the Interior not managed by
Reclamation. The proposed merger would correct that anomaly, ensuring
that these projects receive equal and consistent consideration and
treatment. Concerns about Reclamation's previous management and
operation of the CUP have been addressed within Reclamation and
corrected. The fiscal year 2013 CUPCA budget is $21 million, a decrease
of $7.7 million from the 2012 enacted level. Of this amount, $1.2
million will be transferred to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission (Mitigation Commission). We propose to maintain
both the Central Utah Project Completion and the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Accounts for CUPCA appropriations after the
proposed consolidation of the CUPCA Office into Reclamation in order to
enhance transparency.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $17.3 million for use by the
District to continue construction of the Utah Lake System facilities
and to implement approved water conservation and water management
improvement projects. The Act requires a local cost share of 35 percent
for projects implemented by the District which increases the
effectiveness of the program. The budget for the District includes $7.3
million to fund the designs, specifications, land acquisition, and
construction of the Utah Lake System, a decrease of $6.7 million from
the 2012 enacted level. The budget also includes water conservation
measures at $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 fiscal year 2013 budget includes $1.2 million for the
Mitigation Commission to implement the fish, wildlife, and recreation
mitigation and conservation projects authorized in title III ($1
million) and to complete mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992
Bureau of Reclamation planning documents ($200,000), all of which are
necessary to allow CUP operations.
Finally, the budget includes $1.2 million for the Program Office
for endangered species recovery and operation and maintenance costs
associated with instream flows and fish hatchery facilities and $1.3
million for program administration.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Department of the Interior
and the Bureau of Reclamation. I want to reiterate my appreciation for
the longstanding 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 testimony. I am happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Commissioner Connor.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER
Mr. Connor. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Alexander, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity
to discuss Reclamation's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
The overall request for Reclamation is $1 billion. I have
submitted detailed written testimony for the record. The budget
reflects a comprehensive set of actions and initiatives that
support Reclamation's mission as well as hundreds of thousands
of jobs in the Western United States.
Reclamation is employing an all-of-the-above strategy in
the area of water resources. Certainty and sustainability are
primary goals with respect to the use of water resources and
require Reclamation to take action on many fronts and our
budget proposal was developed with that in mind.
To help meet the water and energy needs of the 21st
century, we must continue to maintain and improve existing
infrastructure, develop new infrastructure, conserve and make
more efficient use of limited water resources, protect the
environment, better understand and plan for future challenges,
and help clarify the relative rights to use water.
I'll briefly summarize areas of particular interest in our
budget. Infrastructure. Overall, the budget supports the need
to maintain our infrastructure in safe operating condition.
Approximately 52 percent of the water and related resources
account is dedicated to operation, maintenance, and replacement
(OM&R) activity with 48 percent allocated to resource
management and development.
OM&R include the Dam Safety program, Site Security program,
and Replacements, Additions, and Extraordinary Maintenance
(RAX).
A second priority area is WaterSMART. Secretary Castle
summarized our WaterSMART initiative. I'll simply reiterate
that WaterSMART is yielding significant results West-wide and
demand greatly exceeds available resources at this point in
time.
Ecosystem Restoration is a third-priority area. In order to
meet Reclamation's mission goals of producing power and
delivering water in a sustainable manner, we simply must
continue to focus on the protection and restoration of the
aquatic and riparian environments affected by our projects.
Specifically, the 2013 request provides substantial funding
for a number of restoration programs in California including
the Central Valley Project (CVP) Improvement Act, San Joaquin
River Restoration, Trinity River Restoration, and Bay-Delta
initiatives.
And our ESA Recovery and Compliance Programs have received
specific authorization from Congress and also enjoy broad
support from diverse interests.
Fourth, Cooperative Landscape Conservation is a
Departmental initiative in which Reclamation is actively
engaged. We are developing and implementing approaches to
understand and effectively adapt to the array of challenges
facing Western water management. Reclamation's Basin Studies
and Science and Technology programs are key efforts in this
area.
Fifth, to support the Department's New Energy Frontier
Initiative, the 2013 budget allocates funding to specifically
support Reclamation-wide Renewable Energy Initiatives and to
collaborate with other entities on renewable energy
integration.
Once again, Secretary Castle discussed our efforts in this
area and their yielding of significant results and all are part
of the President's all-of-the-above strategy for meeting the
country's energy needs.
Sixth, and finally, Reclamation has a longstanding
commitment to the Secretary's goal of strengthening tribal
nations. The 2013 budget supports this goal through a number of
activities including fisheries restoration, rural water
projects, and the implementation of the new Water Right
Settlements.
Reclamation has a large role in implementing settlements
and our goals are simple: help tribes realize settlement
benefits as quickly as possible; two, ensure certainty in the
use of water for tribes and their non-Indian neighbors; and
three, promote economic prosperity in Indian country in both
the short term and the long term.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madame Chair, as Secretary Castle mentioned, we greatly
appreciate your support for our programs and efforts at the
Bureau of Reclamation, and I'm happy to answer questions at the
appropriate time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael L. Connor
introduction
Thank you Madame Chair, Mr. Alexander, and members of this
subcommittee, for the opportunity to discuss with you the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation.
I appreciate the time and consideration this subcommittee gives to
reviewing and understanding Reclamation's budget and its support for
the program. Reclamation works hard to prioritize and define our
program in a manner that serves the best interest of the public.
Our fiscal year 2013 budget continues support for activities that,
both now and in the future, will deliver water and generate power,
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 Reclamation is doing its part to support the basic needs of
communities, as well as provide for economic growth in the
agricultural, industrial, energy, and recreational sectors of the
economy. In keeping with the President's pledge to reduce spending and
focus on deficit reduction, this budget reflects reductions and savings
where possible. The fiscal year 2013 budget allows Reclamation to
fulfill its core mission, but cost savings have been implemented where
possible.
The budget also supports the Administration's and Department of the
Interior's (Department) priorities to tackle America's water
challenges; promote America's Great Outdoors and Cooperative Landscape
Conservation; and support and strengthen tribal nations. The Department
will continue the Water Sustain and Manage America's Resources for
Tomorrow (WaterSMART) program (with participation from both Reclamation
and the United States Geological Survey) and Reclamation's budget
reflects that priority.
Reclamation's fiscal year 2013 budget is $1 billion, $42.4 million
below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Reclamation's budget request
is partially offset by discretionary receipts in the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund, estimated to be $39.6 million. The request
for permanent appropriations in 2013 totals $174.1 million. The budget
proposes the establishment of a new Indian Water Rights Settlement
account and a discretionary appropriation for the San Joaquin River
Restoration Fund.
As the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17 Western
States and the Nation's second largest producer of hydroelectric power,
Reclamation's projects and programs are critical to driving and
maintaining economic growth in the Western States. Reclamation manages
water for agricultural, municipal and industrial use, and provides
flood control and recreation for millions of people. According to a
June 2011 economic report prepared by the Department, Reclamation
activities, including recreation, have an economic contribution of $55
billion, and support nearly 416,000 jobs. Reclamation's 58
hydroelectric power plants generate more than 40 million megawatt hours
of electricity to meet the annual needs of more than 3.5 million
households and generates nearly $940 million in revenues for the
Federal Government. It would take more than 23.5 million barrels of
crude oil or about 6.8 million tons of coal to produce an equal amount
of energy with fossil fuel. As a result, Reclamation facilities
eliminate the production of more than 27 million tons of carbon dioxide
that would have been produced by fossil fuel power plants.
The fiscal year 2013 budget allocates funds to projects and
programs based on objective, performance-based criteria to most
effectively implement Reclamation's programs and its management
responsibilities for its water and power infrastructure in the West.
water and related resources
The fiscal year 2013 budget for Water and Related Resources,
Reclamation's principal operating account, is $818.6 million, a
decrease of $76.4 million from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This
decrease is due, in part, to a shift of $46.5 million for the proposed
establishment of the Indian Water Rights Settlement account, and $12
million for a discretionary appropriation for the San Joaquin River
Restoration Fund.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a total of $395.6 million at
the project/program level for water, energy, land, and fish and
wildlife resource management and development activities. Funding in
these activities provides for planning, construction, water
sustainability activities, management of Reclamation lands including
recreation areas, and actions to address the impacts of Reclamation
projects on fish and wildlife.
The budget also provides a total of $423.1 million at the project/
program level for the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation
associated with Reclamation's water and power facilities. Reclamation
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 adequate funding for
these activities continues to be one of Reclamation's highest
priorities.
highlights of the fiscal year 2013 budget for water and related
resources
I would like to share with the subcommittee several highlights of
the Reclamation budget including an update on the WaterSMART program,
and the Department's priority goal target to enable capability to
increase available water supply in the Western United States by 730,000
acre-feet by the end of 2013 based on cumulative savings since 2009.
WaterSMART Program.--The fiscal year 2013 budget continues to focus
resources on expanding and stretching limited water supplies in the
West to reduce conflict, facilitate solutions to complex water issues,
and meet the growing needs of expanding municipalities, domestic energy
development, the environment, and agriculture.
Reclamation proposes to fund WaterSMART at $53.9 million, $6.8
million above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. There are five
ongoing WaterSMART programs:
--the WaterSMART Grant program, funded at $21.5 million;
--Basin Studies, funded at $6 million;
--the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program, funded at $20.3
million;
--Water Conservation Field Services program, funded at $5.9 million;
and
--the Cooperative Watershed Management program, funded at $250,000.
Reclamation has budgeted $6.5 million to actively engage in
developing and implementing approaches to understand, and effectively
adapt to landscape-level conservation challenges, including the impacts
of climate change on western water management. The Basin Studies
program is part of an integrated strategy to respond to changing
impacts on the resources managed by Interior, and is a key component of
the WaterSMART initiative. In 2013, the Basin Studies program will
continue West-wide risk assessments, coordinated through the
Department's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and focus on
the threats to water supplies from changing weather patterns.
Reclamation will continue to participate in and lead the Desert and
Southern Rockies LCCs. Included within Reclamation's Science and
Technology program is water resources research targeting improved
capability for managing water resources under multiple drivers,
including a changing climate. This research agenda will be collaborated
and leveraged with capabilities of the Interior Climate Science
Centers.
Supporting Renewable Energy Initiatives.--To support the
Administration's New Energy Frontier initiative, and the Renewable
Energy priority goal, the 2013 Reclamation budget allocates $2 million
to provide support for the renewable energy initiative and to
collaborate with other agencies and entities on renewable energy
integration. The funds will be used to explore how other renewable
energy technologies can be integrated into Reclamation projects.
Reclamation will continue the effort to facilitate the development of
sustainable hydropower; optimize Reclamation hydropower projects to
produce more energy with the same amount of water; explore hydro pump-
storage projects that can help integrate large amounts of variable
renewable resources such as wind and solar into the electric grid; and
work with tribes to assist them in developing renewable energy sources.
These important projects can help produce cleaner, renewable energy.
Supporting Tribal Nations.--Reclamation has a longstanding
commitment to realizing the Secretary's goal to strengthen tribal
nations. The fiscal year 2013 budget continues to support that goal
through a number of activities and projects ranging from ecosystem
restoration to rural water infrastructure and the implementation of
water rights settlement. The budget includes $6.4 million for the
Native American Affairs Program to continue support of Reclamation
activities with Indian tribes. These activities include providing
technical support for Indian water rights settlements and assisting
tribal governments to develop, manage, and protect their water and
related resources. Also, the office provides policy guidance for
Reclamation's work with tribes throughout the organization in such
areas as the Indian trust responsibility, Government-to-government
consultations, and Indian self-governance and self-determination.
Rural Water Projects.--The Congress has specifically authorized
Reclamation to undertake the design and construction of seven projects
intended to deliver potable water supplies to specific rural
communities in the West. Reclamation has been working diligently to
advance the completion of all of its authorized rural water projects
consistent with current fiscal and resource constraints with the goal
of delivering potable water to tribal and non-tribal residents within
the rural water project areas. In support of rural communities, the
fiscal year 2013 budget includes a funding increase to advance the
construction of rural water projects.
Reclamation has proposed $69.6 million in funding for Reclamation's
seven on-going authorized rural water projects. This funding reflects
the high priority that the Department and Reclamation place on
improving the circumstances of rural economies and those living in
rural economies. Tribal and non-tribal people will greatly benefit by
this demonstrated commitment to rural water construction.
Specifically, the budget includes $18 million for operation and
maintenance of tribal features for two projects--the Mni Wiconi Project
and the Garrison Diversion Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program--and $51.6 million in construction funding combined for the
seven projects:
--Garrison Diversion Unit, (North Dakota);
--Mni Wiconi Rural Water System, (South Dakota);
--Jicarilla Apache Reservation Rural Water System, (New Mexico);
--Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, (South Dakota, Iowa,
Minnesota);
--Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie Rural Water System, (Montana);
--Rocky Boys/North Central Montana Rural Water System, (Montana); and
--Eastern New Mexico Water Supply Project, (New Mexico).
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes sufficient funding to complete
construction of the Mni Wiconi Project.
Aging Infrastructure.--In recognition of the growing need to
address aging infrastructure associated with Reclamation projects, the
2013 Reclamation budget includes $7.3 million for a Reclamationwide
Aging Infrastructure program that will make use of recently enacted
authorities such as the aging infrastructure program enacted in Public
Law 111-11. This funding will address the infrastructure needs of
Reclamation projects, which is essential for maintaining system
reliability and safety and to support sustainable water management by
promoting established asset management practices. This budget will
provide additional funding for an increased number of extraordinary
maintenance and rehabilitation activities which will enhance the
ability of Reclamation and its operating entities to preserve the
structural safety of project facilities, while continuing delivery of
project benefits.
Dam Safety Program.--A total of $87.5 million is budgeted for
Reclamation's Safety of Dams program. This includes $67 million
directed to specific dam safety modifications; of which $15 million is
for work at Folsom Dam. Funding also includes $19.4 million for safety
evaluations of existing dams and $1.1 million to oversee the Interior
Department's Safety of Dams program.
Site Security.--A total of $26.9 million is budgeted for Site
Security to ensure the safety and security of the public, Reclamation's
employees, and key facilities. This funding includes $5.9 million for
physical security upgrades at high-risk critical assets and $21 million
to continue all aspects of bureau-wide security efforts.
This includes law enforcement, risk and threat analysis, personnel
security, information security, risk assessments and security-related
studies, and guards and patrols.
Ecosystem Restoration.--In order to meet Reclamation's mission
goals of generating power and managing water in a sustainable manner
for the 21st century, one focus of its programs must be the protection
and restoration of the aquatic and riparian environments affected by
its operations. Ecosystem restoration involves a large number of
activities, including Reclamation's Endangered Species Act recovery
programs, which directly address the environmental aspects of the
Reclamation mission. These programs also implement important river
restoration efforts that support the America's Great Outdoors
initiative.
The fiscal year 2013 budget provides $128 million to operate,
manage, and improve the Central Valley Project. This amount includes
$16.1 million for the Trinity River Restoration program, and $2.9
million for the Red Bluff fish passage to complete postconstruction
activities of the new pumping plant and fish screen, which will be
operational in the spring of 2012, as well as continued biological and
research and monitoring activities.
The budget provides $27.2 million for Lower Colorado River
Operations to both fulfill the role of the Secretary as water master
for the Lower Colorado River and continue the multispecies conservation
program, which is $17.8 million of that total, and provides long-term
Endangered Species Act compliance for the river operations.
The budget includes $18.9 million for Endangered Species Act
Recovery Implementation programs, which includes $8 million in the
Great Plains Region to implement the Platte River Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation program. This funding will facilitate the
implementation of measures to help recover four endangered or
threatened species, thereby enabling existing water projects in the
Platte River Basin to continue operations, as well as allowing new
water projects to be developed in compliance with the Endangered
Species Act. This program also includes $8.4 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
in-stream flows. The budget also provides $18 million for Columbia/
Snake River Salmon Recovery. This funding will be used for the
implementation of required Biological Opinion actions including
extensive hydro actions, plus tributary habitat and hatchery
initiatives as off-sets for the impacts of Federal Columbia River Power
System operations.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $7.1 million for Reclamation
to move forward with actions that address water supply enhancement and
restoration of natural resources that support the Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement and are authorized under existing law. The
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement includes restoration and related
activities to reduce conflicts over water between the Upper and Lower
Klamath Basins.
The results of the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Studies
conducted over the past several years will be used in discussions over
whether or not removing PacifiCorp's four dams on the Lower Klamath
River is in the public interest and advances restoration of the Klamath
River fisheries. No funds are budgeted in 2013 for this effort.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $22.5 million for the Middle
Rio Grande project. Within this amount $8.4 million supports 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 will be used for
recurring river maintenance necessary to ensure uninterrupted,
efficient water delivery to Elephant Butte Reservoir, reduced risk of
flooding, as well as water delivery obligations to Mexico.
The Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement project budget is $9.5
million, which will continue funding grants to implement conservation
measures that stretch water supplies and improve fishery conditions.
central utah project completion act
The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to consolidate the Central
Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) program with the Bureau of
Reclamation, while maintaining a separate appropriations account for
CUPCA. This consolidation is part of broader administration efforts to
implement good Government solutions to consolidate and streamline
activities when possible. The proposed merger would ensure that all
major Federal water projects within Interior are managed by
Reclamation, ensuring that these projects receive equal consideration
and treatment. The fiscal year 2013 CUPCA budget is $21 million, a
decrease of $7.7 million from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Of
this amount, $1.2 million will be transferred to the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by the Mitigation
Commission.
central valley project restoration fund
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $39.9 million for the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF), a decrease of $13.2 million
from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This budget is indexed to 1992
price levels and determined on the basis of a 3-year rolling average.
This budget is offset by collections estimated at $39.6 million from
mitigation and restoration charges authorized by the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The fund supports a number of programs
authorized by the CVPIA, including anadromous fish restoration and the
acquisition and delivery of water to State and Federal wildlife
refuges.
california bay-delta restoration
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $36 million for CALFED,
pursuant to the CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act, a decrease of $3.7
million from the 2012 enacted level. The budget will support
implementation of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, under the following
new program activities--$1.9 million for a Renewed Federal-State
Partnership, $6.6 million for Smarter Water Supply and Use, and $27.6
million for actions that address the Degraded Bay-Delta Ecosystem.
san joaquin river restoration fund
The fiscal year 2013 budget funds activities consistent with the
settlement of Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers as
authorized by the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Act
included a provision establishing the San Joaquin River Restoration
Fund to implement the provisions of the Settlement. The Settlement's
two primary goals are to restore and maintain fish populations, and
restore and avoid adverse water impacts. Under the Settlement, the
legislation provides for approximately $2 million in annual
appropriations from the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund for
this purpose, as well as permanent funds of $88 million. The
legislation also authorized appropriations and Reclamation proposes $12
million of discretionary funds for the San Joaquin Restoration Fund
account in 2013.
indian water rights settlements
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $46.5 million in the proposed
Indian Water Rights Settlement account. Of this amount, $21.5 million
is for implementation of the four settlements included in the Claims
Resolution Act of 2010. These settlements will deliver clean water to
the Taos Pueblo of New Mexico, the Pueblos of New Mexico named in the
Aamodt case, the Crow Tribe of Montana, and the White Mountain Apache
Tribe of Arizona. Reclamation is proposing the establishment of an
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 addition to the four settlements, the account also budgets $25
million for the on-going Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project (authorized
in title X of Public Law 111-11). The total for Reclamation's
implementation of Indian Water Rights Settlements in 2013 is $106.5
million, $46.5 million in discretionary funding and $60 million in
permanent authority, which is provided in title VII of the Claims
Resolution Act.
policy and administration
The fiscal year 2013 budget for the Policy and Administration
appropriation account, the account that finances Reclamation's central
management functions, is $60 million.
research and development
Reclamation's Science and Technology Program focuses on a range of
solutions for supporting the bureau's capability to manage, conserve,
and expand water supplies. This year Reclamation's budget includes $13
million to support research and development programs which give the
highest priority to address the impacts of drought and climate change;
mitigation of invasive species such as zebra and quagga mussels;
creating new water supplies through advanced water treatment; and
advance renewable energy development on Reclamation lands.
permanent appropriations
The total permanent appropriation in 2013 of $174.1 million
includes $111.1 million for the Colorado River Dam Fund and $60 million
for Reclamation's Indian Water Rights Settlements account.
campaign to cut waste
Over the last 2 years, the Administration has implemented a series
of management reforms to curb growth in contract spending, terminate
poorly performing information technology projects, deploy state-of-the-
art fraud detection tools, focus agency leaders on achieving ambitious
improvements in high-priority areas, and open Government up to the
public to increase accountability and accelerate innovation.
In November 2011, President Obama issued an Executive order
reinforcing these performance and management reforms and the
achievement of efficiencies and cost-cutting across the Government.
This Executive order identifies specific savings as part of the
Administration's Campaign to Cut Waste to achieve a 20-percent
reduction in administrative spending from 2010 to 2013. Each agency was
directed to establish a plan to reduce the combined costs associated
with travel, employee information technology devices, printing,
executive fleet efficiencies, and extraneous promotional items and
other areas.
The Department of the Interior's goal is to reduce administrative
spending by the end of 2013, $207 million from 2010 levels. To
contribute to that goal, the Bureau of Reclamation is targeted to save
$13.5 million by the end of 2013.
fiscal year 2013 priority goal for water conservation
Priority goals are a key element of the President's agenda for
building a high-performing Government. The priority goals demonstrate
that they are a high value to the public or that they reflect
achievement of key departmental milestones. These goals focus attention
on initiatives for change that have significant performance outcomes
which can be clearly evaluated, and are quantifiable and measurable in
a timely manner. Reclamation's participation in the Water Conservation
priority goal helps to achieve these objectives.
Reclamation's water conservation efforts are critical to sustain
the economy, environment, and culture of the American West. Competition
for finite water supplies is increasing because of population growth,
ongoing agricultural demands, and increasingly evident environmental
needs. With increased emphasis on domestic energy development,
additional pressure is placed on limited water supplies, as significant
amounts of water may be required for all types of energy development.
At the same time, climate change, extended droughts, and depleted
aquifers are impacting water supplies and availability.
In response to these demands, by the end of 2013, Reclamation will
enable capability to increase available water supply for agricultural,
municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in the Western United
States by 730,000 acre-feet cumulatively since 2009 through its
conservation-related programs, such as water reuse and recycling (title
XVI), and WaterSMART grants.
Moreover, Reclamation's Water Conservation program addresses a
range of other water supply needs in the West. It plays 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.
Finally, the fiscal year 2013 budget demonstrates Reclamation's
commitment to meeting the water and power needs of the West in a
fiscally responsible manner. This budget continues Reclamation's
emphasis on managing those valuable public resources. Reclamation is
committed to working with its customers, States, tribes, and other
stakeholders to find ways to balance and provide for the mix of water
resource needs in 2013 and beyond.
conclusion
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. And, we'll now
proceed with questions and, Mr. Connor, let me thank you for
your constant cooperation and helpfulness. It's really been
very special.
I just want you to know how much it's appreciated.
Mr. Connor. Thank you.
NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Senator Feinstein. Let me speak for a moment about a deep
concern in California.
I've had occasion to speak with people about it. It's the
Natomas Project in Sacramento. My understanding is it's 42
miles of levees, 18 have been repaired at a cost of about $320
million by Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA). I've
had a chance to talk with Secretary Darcy about it.
It's priority number one for the City of Sacramento. I have
been told that a failure could cause a flood which would flood
as much as 20 percent of the city. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Madam Secretary, I believe that's accurate.
Senator Feinstein. I know it's not included in what you're
proposing. Can you tell us why it hasn't been included?
Ms. Darcy. On this specific project, I may have to defer to
the General, because that portion of the project is one that
I'm not quite familiar with.
Senator Feinstein. General Temple, could you speak directly
into the microphone?
General Temple. Sorry. I'll have to get back to you on the
specifics pertaining to that, but I do know that we are
diligently working to reduce flood risk in the Central Valley
of California, and Natomas is certainly a key part of that.
Senator Feinstein. Right. Well, I think I know what
happened. In the 2010 Chief's report, the costs were identified
to be $1.1 billion in necessary levee improvements which I
understand is a high ticket item.
The question I have is, can the work be segmented? So the
work that's most critical, where there are people behind the
levee, can be protected. Madam Secretary?
Ms. Darcy. I believe that the portion that you're
discussing needs authorization; that portion that you're
discussing is currently not an authorized part of the project.
Senator Feinstein. Well, that's interesting. Do you have
any information as to why it's not authorized?
Ms. Darcy. That Chief report is still pending; there has
been no authorization for any projects since 2007.
Senator Feinstein. So when would authorization be likely?
Ms. Darcy. That Chief's report is pending; it's up to the
Congress to authorize the project.
Senator Feinstein. Right. Well, I can tell you this, I
think this is the number one levee need in California, and
Sacramento is the capital city. It's been confirmed that 20
percent of the city would be flooded. It's a very serious
problem and I know we've discussed it.
Anything that can be done, would be very much appreciated,
so I just want to publicly bring it to your attention.
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
I marked a question that I wanted to be sure to ask, and
here it is. The subject is harbor maintenance taxes to the
States which generated them.
It's my understanding that California ports provide at
least 30 percent of the funding that goes into the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund. If we assume that the trust fund
generates $1.5 billion annually, then California annually
contributes $450 million into the fund, so how much dredging of
eligible harbors and waterways in California were reimbursed by
the trust fund in 2011?
Ms. Darcy. I believe the figure, Senator, is $102 million.
Senator Feinstein. $102 million. So, about 5 percent of the
annual revenues?
Ms. Darcy. Give or take, close to 5 percent.
Senator Feinstein. So, this is one of the problems that----
Senator Graham. California is getting ripped off.
Senator Feinstein. So, it's a bipartisan issue now. You
know, it's only so long that you can tolerate paying this money
and not getting back adequate services.
The question I have is, what would be the impact of
changing the law in a manner that sets a percentage of the
revenues generated in a given State to be returned to that
State?
Ms. Darcy. If the law were changed to do that, then the way
we would budget for the revenues coming from the fund would be
based on that percentage.
Currently, we look at the appropriation that we have from
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This year's President's
budget includes $848 million. And what we do with that money
now is look at where the needs are around the country.
All ports pay into this Fund, so we look at the needs
nationally. We don't do it on an----
Senator Feinstein. I don't disagree with that. I think
that's not a bad way to do it. I think it's a responsible way
to do it.
On the other hand, we have 50 percent of the container
traffic coming into America, coming into LA-Long Beach, and
harbor maintenance is a huge issue. Our harbors are decrepit.
So this is my view, and I don't know that others on this
subcommittee agree, but if you have a lot of traffic, harbor
maintenance also relates to things like the ability to move
those containers out.
Intermodal transportation, roadways that are suitable, are
also important because the delivery of a container doesn't end
at a port. This is something I am really concerned about, and
would like to ask your help on in the future as to how we might
be able to work this.
I think all of it should go to areas of need. I could make
the argument to take all of it for California. Mr. Graham could
make a pretty good argument to take it to a certain harbor
called Charleston.
Senator Graham. Not all of it.
Senator Feinstein. Not all of it, but he'd take a part of
it.
So, I think we've got to work something out that is fair.
I'd really like to have your cooperation in trying to do so in
the future.
Ms. Darcy. We'd be happy to work with you.
Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Well, I think the chairman has roused up an ``amen'' corner
over in the southern section of the subcommittee, and I'd just
like to say as we begin this discussion, I have a pretty good
idea what Senator Graham's going to be talking about when the
time comes.
And I agree with him. We've been having some discussions
about--and Secretary Darcy, I think this is mainly aimed for
discussion with you--and I'll leave it to him to explore this,
I hope that's what he intends to do, is that we need to take a
big look at these two trust funds, and think bigger than the
funds.
Think about what the needs of our country are, and outline
a policy and a program and an idea, and think in a big way
about it, and I very much agree with that. And part of that may
be recognizing that in some cases, we need a different sort of
formula for harbors.
And it may mean we need different ways of collecting money.
But my experience in Government is you don't start out by
talking about the money, you start out by talking about the
policy and the need and what our goals are. And then, it makes
it a lot easier to figure out how we pay for it.
Now, in that spirit, let me narrow down something that I
think emphasizes the problems with one of the funds, the Inland
Waterway Trust Fund. The problem with the Harbor Trust Fund, of
course, it has a lot of money in it, we just can't spend it.
INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND
The Inland Waterway Trust Fund doesn't have much money in
it, but it has a lot of needs. One of the reasons we don't have
money for the dams and locks that it should be funding is this
Olmsted Lock on the Ohio River that between last year and this
year, according to the budget, increased its costs by $1
billion from $2 billion to $3 billion.
And this one lock is soaking up the money that ought to go
for other priority projects. Have you given any consideration
to changing the cost sharing on the Olmsted Lock from the
current 50-50 to something such as 90 percent from the Treasury
and 10 percent from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund so that we
could consider other priority projects?
Ms. Darcy. No, Senator. Under current law, we have to cost
share 50-50 from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
Senator Alexander. Well, why can't we change that to 90-10?
Ms. Darcy. That would take an Act of Congress.
Senator Alexander. Well, we're in a position perhaps to do
that if you were to recommend it. You think it'd be a good
idea?
Ms. Darcy. I think what we'd have to look at is all the
competing priorities on the system before we made any
recommendation.
Senator Alexander. Well, do you think it's a good idea for
one big project to soak up virtually all of the money available
for the Inland Waterway Trust Fund dams and locks?
Ms. Darcy. Well, unfortunately, given the constraints of
the incoming revenue from the tax, that's all that we can
afford at this time. The priorities have been discussed with
the industry.
Unfortunately, it is a very expensive project.
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK
Senator Alexander. Has this huge increase, 50-percent
increase, just this year in the cost of this lock, changed the
projected timeline to restart construction on Chickamauga Lock?
Ms. Darcy. I don't believe so, but in general I----
Senator Alexander. That would be encouraging news.
General Temple. Do you mean whether it has changed the
timeline for construction on Chickamauga Lock?
Senator Alexander. To restart construction, right. Is the
fact that they're going to spend an extra $1 billion on
Olmsted, has that affected the timeline for restarting
construction on Chickamauga Lock?
General Temple. It will affect it in 2013, Sir, based on
current projections of revenue and priorities.
Senator Alexander. General, have you made projections about
how much longer the current Chickamauga Lock can be operated
and maintained?
General Temple. Our asset management database system is
going to be used to perform that analysis. We know that we can
sustain operations on the Lock at least through 2013.
How much longer we'll be able to do it given its current
condition, which you're very aware of----
Senator Alexander. You mean it might be closed after 2013?
General Temple. There is that possibility, Sir, depending
upon----
Senator Alexander. You might close the Chickamauga Lock
after 2013?
General Temple. There is that possibility, Sir, depending
on the status of the Lock itself and its integrity.
Senator Alexander. Well, that is dramatic news for the
people of the Southeastern United States which I've not heard
before.
What would it take to keep it open?
General Temple. Sir, if we were able to continue to apply
O&M dollars to keep it going because of the expensive concrete
situation that I know you're familiar with there, we would be
able to sustain it for some time longer.
Senator Alexander. But you've recommended reduced funding
for aggressive maintenance on the Chickamauga Lock?
General Temple. That is correct, Sir, because of competing
priorities and funds available, we had to make some difficult--
--
Senator Alexander. So you're going to spend, you're going
to increase by 50 percent the cost of this one project, Olmsted
Lock, by $1 billion and run the risk that after 2013, which is
only a year plus a few months away, that the Chickamauga Lock
might be closed which would cost thousands of jobs in the
Tennessee-Georgia area, put 150,000 heavy trucks on I-75 and
threaten the operations at the Tennessee Valley Authority, the
Oak Ridge Laboratory, and many industries in the area.
General Temple. Sir, that is the recommendation based on
working with all of the stakeholders to determine the relative
needs throughout the entire system.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, could I just add something? The 2013
budget includes Operation and Maintenance dollars for the
Chickamauga Lock. We just haven't added the enhanced
maintenance.
So the maintenance that we have ongoing, hopefully, will
continue to keep it operable. We just haven't included funding
for the enhanced maintenance. We will continue to monitor the
effects of that.
Senator Alexander. Well, I would hope so. Even the
possibility that it might close at the end of 2013 is a
startling development to me if that's what you're saying. Is
that what you're saying?
Ms. Darcy. We don't anticipate it closing, but it's a
possibility. Right now, we are providing funding for ongoing
maintenance, just not for the enhanced maintenance.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
VERNAL POOL REGULATIONS
Secretary Darcy, the Corps has permitting responsibilities
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act for development
activities that may occur in wetlands.
And several of my constituents, including municipal
officials, hospital on the coast that had a project underway,
have raised concerns about the application of regulations in
the New England district, particularly, as they differ
dramatically from what is required under State law and
maintenance, known for very strong environmental laws.
And they seem to be far more demanding than those supplied
by the Corps in other parts of the country. For instance, for
significant vernal pools, the State of Maine regulates a 200-
foot terrestrial buffer area that includes the vernal pool.
The Corps published rule requires a 500-foot radial
circumference. But more recently, guidance has been issued, not
through the formal rulemaking process, but just guidance, that
increases the radial distance to 750 feet for any vernal pool
that may be perceived as having critical habitat.
Now, just so I want to understand the difference, if you
apply a 700-foot buffer to property, it results in a regulatory
footprint of more than 40 acres for just a 50-foot diameter
vernal pool.
So going from 500 feet to 750 feet has enormous
consequences and has brought to a halt several important
development projects that municipalities have been pushing in
Maine.
I'm interested in first getting a better understanding of
how your New England district determined to increase the
regulated area to a 750-foot radius without going through the
normal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) procedure and instead
did it through informal guidance.
Ms. Darcy. I can't answer that because I don't know, but I
will commit to you that I will ask the New England district as
soon as this hearing is over, and I will find out why.
Senator Collins. Let me ask you a second question. In the
New England district, it also appears that the Corps has
abandoned the nationwide permit program and has begun to defer
to the commenting agencies on protection of vernal pool habitat
even in the less significant, and frankly, ubiquitous forested
wetlands that are present throughout my State of Maine.
Now, by contrast, again, the State distinguishes between
significant vernal pools as well as natural and manmade vernal
pools in its regulation. But the Corps does not make that
distinction, and instead is regulating every vernal pool in the
same way.
And in my State there are literally thousands of vernal
pools and forested wetlands that are different from other
States and the application of this regulation in Maine has the
potential to affect literally tens of thousands of acres of
land. And that's why we're getting this slew of complaints.
Now, by contrast, in the South Atlantic district, these
nationwide permits are still available for projects with
multiple acres, and in some cases, projects are allowed without
permits.
And, again, I'm trying to understand why is there such a
great difference in the way the New England district regulates
wetlands versus the South Atlantic district?
Ms. Darcy. I'm going to say that it's probably because of
the different topography and geography that we're dealing with,
but I am not sure that is a good enough answer. I think I owe
you a better answer than that as to why the New England
district is considering these differently from other districts,
considering the nationwide application of permits.
Senator Collins. Well, I would ask that you respond to
those questions in writing, and my time has expired. I have a
couple more that I will submit for the record on this issue as
well.
I know it's a very technical issue, but what I'm hearing
from everyone from officials in Brewer, Maine to a manufacturer
in Auburn, to a hospital in Rockport, Maine, there's something
going on.
And, as I said, Maine has strict environmental laws. We
prize our environment. But the implications of this new
approach by the New England district is bringing to a halt a
lot of very important economic development projects.
I do want to thank the President for including $13 million
in the budget request for the dredging of the Portland Harbor.
That is a very important project to economic development in my
State.
And I am still concerned about those smaller ports and will
be proposing a question for the record. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, very much.
Senator Lautenberg, I usually do early bird, and you've got
a bird earlier than----
Senator Lautenberg. I consider Senator Graham a friend, and
I wouldn't want to deprive him of the opportunity to proceed,
if necessary.
Senator Graham. I will certainly defer, if you need to go
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. All right. Now, it's my hand. Thank you
very much. Thank you, members of the Corps for the wonderful
work you do and for the dependence that we've built over a long
period of time for you to fix things sometimes where nature's
gone wrong, or where man's gone wrong.
PASSAIC RIVER BASIN
But we need your work to continue and we need it to be
appropriately budgeted. Last year, President Obama toured the
Passaic River Basin in New Jersey following Hurricane Irene.
And the budget includes $1 million for a study to find a
long-term solution to chronic flooding in this area. However,
I'm told it will take at least 3 years for construction to
begin on a solution.
Now, how can the Corps, General, expedite this project to
ensure that families in the Basin have flood protection as soon
as possible?
General Temple. Well, thank you, Sir. We are re-looking our
whole planning program in order to address this issue of
timeliness, and this includes not only changing the process in
order to get after timeliness, but also we are using six pilot
projects to look at how we can compress studies in a way to
provide these studies more quickly.
We're taking a look at the entire inventory of all of our
feasibility studies to determine how best to apply our limited
capabilities against the highest priority studies, and we're
improving our training and certification of all of our
planners.
That said, we're striving towards a goal of a three-by-
three-by-three strategy which involves a $3 million effort at
less than 3 years in order to provide these types of services,
Sir.
So, we're working to compress the schedule, and we'll
certainly do that in this case.
ONGOING FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Darcy, the budget requests funding
for six new Army Corps studies is included. However, the budget
doesn't include funding for several critical ongoing New Jersey
studies including the Rahway River Basin, the South River
Raritan River Basin, the Stone Brook Mill Stone River.
Now, why does the budget request funding for these new
projects while leaving out these three ongoing, flood control
programs; do you know?
Ms. Darcy. Well, Senator, we did provide some money in the
work plan for these three studies. However, in evaluating the
ongoing studies for funding in 2013, these did not compete as
effectively as some other studies.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, we'd like to make sure that we
get these things in order because we know one thing, the three
projects that I talk about are critical to the safety and
wellbeing of people in those areas.
NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR DEEPENING
I'm pleased that the budget includes, Secretary Darcy, $68
million to complete the deepening of the New York-New Jersey
Harbor, a critical economic engine that supports more than
230,000 regional jobs.
Now, following completion of the construction phase, what
are the Corps plans to maintain the Harbor so that large cargo
ships have easy and sustained access to the port and that we
don't lose these ships to other places?
Ms. Darcy. Once the deepening is completed, we will
continue to operate and maintain that harbor through the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, and it will compete within that trust
fund for available dollars.
Senator Lautenberg. The Corps is filled with experienced
professionals that do great work. However, the most frequent
complaint that I hear from local communities about the Corps is
that it takes too long. I think, generally, you made reference
to that in your comments.
Is the Corps considering ways to decrease the time to build
projects? Perhaps, General, that question should go to you?
General Temple. Thank you, Sir.
When I spoke earlier about the transformation of planning,
that's a subset of Civil Works transformation, which includes
four key elements.
First, planning, which I described a little earlier. Also,
a focus on performance based budgeting processes which are
reflected, for instance, in the 2013 budget.
Performing a complete inventory of our assets and
performing better asset management across those facilities that
we're responsible for.
And last, but not least, we are looking at how we deliver
these through changes in methods of delivery that allow us to
leverage the expertise across each district, across each
region, and indeed, across the entire enterprise, to ensure
that we deliver our products and services in a more timely
fashion.
Senator Lautenberg. Now, we appreciate the fact that
there's almost always an overload in the Corps because there
are more projects than there are hands or dollars. But we
encourage you to keep up your good work.
Thank you very much.
General Temple. Thank you, Sir.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Graham.
IMPACT OF PANAMA CANAL EXPANSION ON UNITED STATES SHIPPING PORTS
Senator Graham. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to recognize the Executive order issued by President
Obama. It says, ``Improving Performance of Federal Permitting
and Review of Infrastructure Projects'' dated March 22.
I am very impressed by this document. It really does
through the Executive branch lay out a way to speed up these
projects and to come up with a better vision about how to
execute and maintain major infrastructure projects.
The one thing I would suggest is to look at putting port
people on the steering committee, the people that are on the
front lines. But I just wanted to recognize the
Administration's efforts in that regard.
Now, you also report, Secretary Darcy, in June?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. And as you can tell from a California
perspective, the current system's not exactly where you would
like it to be.
And from Senator Lautenberg's question, you have a harbor
that's been studied, designed, constructed, and he's worried
about maintenance of large ships. Now, I'm worried about the
Chickamauga Lock. I didn't know about it, but I'm worried about
it now. So, good, I am sufficiently worried.
What we're doing, among ourselves up here, is trying to
create a vision, in collaboration with the Executive branch,
that recognizes things are about to change dramatically.
The ports on the west coast seem to have a real need in
terms of interior infrastructure development, and the
definition of harbor maintenance doesn't seem to get us to that
need.
I would argue that the best way for us to have a vision is
to look at these trust funds anew. And try to find ways to get
more money in the system, maybe more matching money.
But what we're going to be working on among ourselves is
when the Panama Canal expands in 2015, it has a direct impact
on the east coast, and will change shipping as we know it,
including the interior along the Mississippi River and other
places; do you agree with that?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. So what we're looking at doing is seeing
how can we reconstruct or redesign these trust funds to get the
money in place to build toward a vision?
So rather than worrying about funding up front, we're
trying to create a vision, a vision that would allow west coast
ports who have a different problem than the east coast to be
able to access funds that they're helping generate to make sure
that America on the west coast has the best facilities possible
in an international competition for export jobs.
And, if we don't get this right soon on the east coast,
ports are going to pop up along the Caribbean, Cuba, and other
places, and if we don't watch it, this change in shipping is
going to be lost to the United States.
Do you agree that's a possibility?
Ms. Darcy. It's a possibility, yes.
Senator Graham. So what we're looking at doing is that some
ports need to be deepened along the east coast. Maybe we can
look at the Harbor Trust Fund anew and say that, you know,
dredging is a new activity allowed in the Harbor Maintenance
Fund.
And when it comes to Harbor Maintenance definitions on the
west coast, allow money for interior development. Now, the
inland piece is going to be affected by what happens on the
east coast.
So what I would suggest is that we try to create a vision
of what happens to our interior ports, based on Panama Canal
expansion, look at what the west coast needs, in terms of their
harbors, and take these trust funds and redesign them to meet
the reality of the 21st century.
Do you think that's a good project for us to engage in?
Ms. Darcy. I do. I think we need to look at both trust
funds as to what needs need to be met that aren't being met by
them right now as well as increasing the revenues to them.
Senator Graham. And the trust funds, as I understand it,
generate about $1.2 billion a year, right?
Ms. Darcy. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund generates
about $1.4 to $1.5 billion a year.
Senator Graham. And how much do we spend each year?
Ms. Darcy. The President asked for $848 million this year.
Senator Graham. So I would just suggest that people are
paying or investing in these ports through fees that we ought
to be using the money to make sure that we meet the President's
goals of doubling exports.
Do you agree that one way to double exports in America is
to have modern ports and shipping systems?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, and we're trying to reach that goal by
keeping what we have in working order.
Senator Graham. Okay. Now, that's just not enough. We need
to keep what we have in working order, but we also need to have
the best in the world. So that's our goal, right?
Senator Feinstein. Would you yield for just a moment?
Senator Graham. Yes, I will.
Senator Feinstein. I once took a little tour of ports, the
Hong Kong port, the Singapore port, other ports. Our ports are
so far behind in infrastructure that it's scary.
Senator Graham. It's scary, isn't it.
Senator Feinstein. We are nowhere close to modern.
Senator Graham. And we're going to fix that together,
aren't we?
Senator Feinstein. Yes, I hope so. For existing ports as
well as potential future port improvements.
Senator Graham. Okay. Yes, Ma'am.
So, my time is up. But here's what I would like in the June
Report. I'd like you to detail, as much as you can, the
reasonably known consequences of Panama Canal expansion,
knowing that you're going to have limited funds no matter what
you do, and give us some sense of prioritization.
Look at the idea of changing the Harbor Maintenance Fund
and allow dredging to come out of that pot of money. Change the
definition of the Harbor Maintenance Fund when it comes to west
coast port Interior infrastructure development.
Look at the Interior Trust Fund and see if it can be
married up with the Harbor Maintenance Fund to create a vision
that goes from the east coast to the interior to the west
coast.
And give us some idea of what happens if the Panama Canal
expands, and what affect the larger ships will have on the east
coast as well as the interior of the country. What kind of
ripple effect will it have?
And not just try to maintain what we got, but think outside
the box and suggest to us ways to leverage the current system,
ask for matching funds that are not asked for today, maybe more
money coming from the private sector.
This effort should not be just to maintain what we have,
but to get ahead of the world before it's too late. Because if
we don't act in a reasoned, rational way, this shipping that's
coming through the Panama Canal is going to be lost.
And if we don't upgrade our west coast ports, we're going
to lose jobs at a time we need jobs.
Do you think the June Report could be that expansive and
that forward leaning?
Ms. Darcy. The report, the study as you know, is well
underway, and I'm not sure that we are looking at the uses of
the trust funds in that report.
Senator Graham. Could you do that?
Ms. Darcy. We can try; because the Corps is on track to
have it completed by----
Senator Graham. Well, just think big.
Ms. Darcy. Think big.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I agree with the Senator that we have to think big, but
we're going to need a bigger budget to do that. And there's
absolutely no way around it.
This budget that we have in front of us, despite the very
good work that this chairman has done, and it is in no a
reflection on the work that she has done, or that we've done
over the course of the last years, simply does not have enough
money to maintain or invest or build the structures that we
have to to build an economy that lasts.
And that's just the simple truth. There's no way around it.
And until we can figure out a way to put more private and
public money on the table, we're not going to get there.
I want to thank the Chairwoman for her extraordinary help
with the very limited resources that are in this budget, in the
President's request, and reflected in our 302(b) allocation.
To thank her very much for the $1.7 billion that you were
able to find and direct, Madam Chair, last year for emergency
flooding. It has been a tremendous help to not just Louisiana
and to our communities that were flooded, but all throughout
the Mississippi River, and I understand, the Missouri River as
well, and around the country.
So thank you very, very much for being supportive. I want
to thank the Corps, even with this limited and wholly
insufficient budget, that you were able to start two new
projects in the country. And one of them is a project that we
should have started 30 years ago. But at least it's getting
started now.
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA PROJECTS
And that is the Louisiana coastal area projects. There were
only two new starts. The sad story is that if we had started
this project, and this isn't only the Corps' fault, there's
enough blame to go around.
We could have saved the size of the State of Rhode Island,
which we have already lost, and we're not sure even with this
new project, and the billions of dollars that we're finding
through a variety of sources, to put towards saving Louisiana's
coast, which is America's wetlands.
We're not sure how much of that marsh we can ever recover.
But we think we can stop the degradation. We think we can build
safe communities for the millions of people that live near this
shore, from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, that
simply cannot be moved north.
So we thank you for recognizing the significant importance
of that. But I do want to talk about these trust funds because
that is the first step. And Senator Levin has been particularly
vocal on this, and I want to do a shout out for him.
Because he's worked extremely hard. And I was wondering
why, and then I looked at the map of all of the ports, and saw
the cluster of ports in Michigan. And it dawned on me that that
is one reason.
But he's right. We have a cluster of ports in the southern
part of the country, on America's energy coast. And the fact
that we have not been allocating, Madam Chair, all of the money
to these trust funds that the private sector is paying into
them, I think this should be the major issue for our
subcommittee.
I mean the highway committees have done a pretty good job
of building support to capture the gasoline dollars for surface
transportation. We need to be very aggressive in gathering the
maritime dollars that are being paid for our ports and for our
dredging.
I understand from looking at this issue that is a huge
issue now for us in Louisiana. And I want to ask you if this is
true? That of all of the waterways that taxpayers have put in
money to build, that the average width and depth is only one-
third, we're only maintaining about one-third of that capacity;
is that correct?
Or, do you think it's more close to one-half?
Ms. Darcy. I would like to say it's more, closer to one-
half, but I think it's probably somewhere in between.
Senator Landrieu. So, Madam Chair, just think about this
big picture for a minute. Of all the waterways in the country
that bring in resources from the South, the East, and the West,
our channels, this budget, is barely maintaining one-third of
their capacity, either at width or depth.
What that means is our economy is weaker every day that a
ship has to be light-loaded or stand offshore because the
channel isn't deep enough to come in. Senator, whether this is
natural gas coming in or going out, or whether this is
fabrication materials coming in and out. They're standing
offshore because the channels are not wide enough or deep
enough.
This is really a shame. And people focus on infrastructure,
thinking about roads and bridges and mass transit. I'm going to
be on a tear this year to focus on our water transport because
it's crucial.
MODIFIED CHARLESTON METHOD FOR MITIGATION
And, finally, I know my time is out, I want to follow up on
one other point. And this is of great concern to Louisiana. Our
division down in Louisiana, the New Orleans Division of the
Corps, has recently adopted what they call the Modified
Charleston Method for Mitigation.
Until I can get a better explanation, I'm going to try to
insert money in this bill to prevent that from going in place
until I can understand how the cost is going to affect our
efforts to save our coast.
Because just what Susan Collins--Senator Collins was
speaking about the complaints in Maine, Madam Chairman, if we
don't really understand this mitigation, sort of one for one,
like if you take an acre of wetlands, you have to replace it,
I'm all for that.
I mean I don't think we can have a net loss of wetlands.
But the Corps is now going to a method that's costing a three-
to-one. So, instead of a levee, let's say that I have to build
a lot of that you have to help pay for, this is why it's
important to you, and to me, instead of it costing $100, that
same foot of levee is going to cost $400.
It's going to bankrupt us. We have a problem as it is under
the one-for-one. If we go to a three-to-one method, the
projects are going to become that much more expensive. So I
know that there's an environmental reason for this, and I want
to be sensitive to it.
But we also have to be sensitive to the taxpayers that are
picking up this tab, and be very clear before we implement this
what the economic impacts are going to be.
So would you make just a brief 30 seconds, and then I'll
thank the Chair for allowing me to go a little over, on the
increased cost for flood control if we use that Charleston
method?
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Senator Landrieu.
What's being referred to as the Modified Charleston Method
is a different way of evaluating permit applications. As you
say, there's an increase in the acreage that would be used for
the mitigation on flood control and other projects.
That method is just starting to be used in some of our
districts, and what I think I need to do is take a look at what
the impact is on all of our districts. Because not all
districts are using it.
One of the reasons for using it was to have some
consistency throughout a State. And I think consistency is
something that we need to have, but your concern about the cost
impacts is one that I think we need to look at before we move
forward.
Senator Landrieu. So before we expand that, I would really
recommend that we get an analysis of the economic impact for
California, for Louisiana, for, you know, South Carolina, North
Carolina, so at least we know what we're laying on people
Because the final question, Madam Chair, we have an
obligation to put up some money, but remember, the local
governments have to put up some funding too. And this is
substantially increasing their costs.
And I'm getting nothing but complaint after complaint from
our levee boards. My parish officials said, Senator, this will
absolutely bankrupt us, and that's the last thing we need to
do.
Senator Feinstein. You have done yeoman's service to your
State.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. I don't know of anyone that's worked
harder than anybody for their State than you have.
Here's the problem. You know, we're the chorus talking to
each other. The fact of the matter is that the Corps' budget is
down 5.4 percent. The Bureau's budget is down 1.3 percent.
Here's the overall issue in the energy and water portfolio,
the security part of it, which is tens of billions of dollars,
has projects that start out costing $600 million end up costing
$6 billion. That's an actual case.
It all has to do with the nuclear security and the warheads
of this Nation. They are absorbing a bigger and bigger part.
And you can't change that. It's a mandatory spending item.
Who suffers? The Corps, the Bureau. They are pushed and
compressed. Somehow people have to wake up to this, and talk to
the Administration to help us because it simply isn't the right
thing.
At home, our infrastructure is poorer and poorer and
poorer. Our ports are outdated. Our levees need fixing. The
storms are bigger. The hurricanes are stronger. The tornadoes
are much more volatile.
Senator Landrieu. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. The damage is much, much greater. There
is no ability to respond to it proportionately. That's just a
fact.
Senator Landrieu. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. That's why I love both these budgets
because I said earlier, it's where the pedal hits the metal.
It's really where we live. It's what we see.
If 20 percent of Sacramento gets flooded, and I know that's
going to happen, and the Corps confirms it to me, and the levee
collapses, all I can say is it would have been an earmark. I
would put it in, but I can't put it in.
Senator Landrieu. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. So the bottom line is, I have to fish
around for a way to go around that. It's wrong. It's just plain
wrong. I've been here for 20 years. I've never seen anything
like it. I mean, why be on the Appropriations Committee if you
can't do anything to be of help.
Senator Landrieu. Right.
Senator Feinstein. So I am overwhelmed with frustration. I
asked the staff to give me a paper of the eight big nuclear
projects and whether they're on budget and whether the costs
have been borne out. Nothing done in the last 10 years there.
Have the costs that it was initially scheduled to be, been
accurate? So we're going to study root causes for this because
I think Senator Alexander agrees, and you see it here now.
I am really concerned about Sacramento. The major is
concerned about Sacramento. The House delegation is concerned.
In the old days, I'd just put an earmark in. I can't do that.
Senator Landrieu. Well, Madam Chair, I'm with you 1,000
percent. I serve on the Appropriations Committee, obviously,
I'm on the subcommittee, but I can honestly say, of all the
committees I serve on, there is no budget that is in more
crisis than this one.
We have strains on all the other budgets. They're strained.
This is one wholly insufficient. And the reason I know I can
say that is because if I asked you, Ms. Darcy, what your
backlog is today, there are two new starts in the country that
you have in your budget.
They're probably 50 that are worthy to be started, and one
of them might be your project, but they don't have the money to
do it. So I'm happy to be one of the two. But the sad story is
there should be 50 new starts.
And, if I asked you what your backlog is, isn't it about
$60 billion?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, it is.
Senator Landrieu. And so, how much money do you have this
year if you could apply it to the backlog to get these
projects? You have about $2 to $3 billion, right, in
construction money, of the $60 billion?
Ms. Darcy. Yes. It's $1.5 billion.
Senator Landrieu. You see what I'm saying about this budget
being in crisis? I don't think the defense budget is that far
backlogged. I don't think the health budget is that far
backlogged. It's strained.
This budget is wholly insufficient, and it's not your
fault, Madam Chair. It's our fault as the general
Appropriations Committee, and we have to say to the President,
and to our leadership, we cannot take it, the country cannot.
And I'll just say this one more thing, if there was ever an
example of what's going to happen, when the levees broke in New
Orleans, in 52 places, and the cost has exceeded to fix it $140
billion, is there any other case study that needs to be
presented to thinking people that we cannot survive on this
budget?
That's the budget that produced the 52 breaks. Lord help us
if something happens to Sacramento. You will feel waves across
the whole country because of the products that come out of
that.
So I just have to say I'll do what you want, Madam Chair,
but we have to do something extraordinary this year for this
budget.
Senator Feinstein. I think we have to find a way, and right
now, I'll tell you, I don't know what that is. If anyone has a
suggestion, I'm open to it.
I think maybe we send a shock wave, and we just don't fund
some of these other things.
Senator Alexander. Well, Madam Chair. I think there's a way
to deal with this. I think Senator Graham, you, and others have
come up with a pretty good idea.
We need to ask the Administration, starting with the
thinking that's already done, to think with us, and provide a
vision, an idea, for what we need to do about locks and dams
and what we need to do about harbors.
And then--and not think about the money, think about the
vision. And then after we have the plan or the vision, then
we'll see how much it costs, and then we'll see how we pay for
it.
Senator Landrieu. Could you put the gulf coast in that
vision?
Senator Alexander. Don't you have locks and dams and
harbors, yes. Of course, I mean, for the whole country, for the
whole country.
And part of our problem is we're all tied up in the rules
that we have around here which we can change. But if we start
out just arguing about the rules that we have, that create the
absurdity of having a fund with a lot of money in it that we
can't spend, even though we have a lot of needs, and the other
fund doesn't have any money in it.
Even though we should be able to construct a way to do
that, we just need to start with a vision, then with how to
fund it, then how much it costs, and then with how to fund it.
And I think we can do that in fairly short order, and I'd like
to be a part of it.
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Senator Feinstein. Well, for example, the Natomas Project
isn't authorized. Why isn't it authorized?
Are you planning to send your number one priority projects
for a bill to get them authorized? Or have you been kiboshed?
Ms. Darcy. As the Chiefs Reports are approved by the Chief
of Engineers and cleared by the Administration, they are sent
to the Congress. We have sent, since 2007, 14 Chiefs reports,
and we probably have about another 12 to 13 that might possibly
be completed this year. All of them would need to come to the
Congress for an authorization.
Senator Feinstein. So summarize that. What does that mean
to you?
Ms. Darcy. What it means is that by the end of this
calendar year, we will probably have more than 20 Chiefs
reports that will need to be authorized by the Congress. They
range from harbor deepening projects to aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects to flood control projects around the
country.
Senator Feinstein. Priority one? The highest priority?
Ms. Darcy. Of those projects?
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. I don't know that I could put one above the
other.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me ask you, is there any way
for the Administration to propose, award a bill, for the
highest priority projects in the country based on protection of
life and property?
Ms. Darcy. That's a possibility. Any Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) proposal that would be developed would
include other kinds of policy changes that we are looking at
within the Administration.
Within the President's budget, he talked about the White
House Task Force on Navigation. In your conversations here
today you discussed the need for revamping both the trust
funds, that's something that I think this Task Force is going
to have to tackle.
In addition, we're working on a capitalization
modernization program within the Administration, looking at
ways on how we can recapitalize this aging infrastructure.
We've all heard today we don't have enough money to do that, so
we need to look at different ways.
Senator Feinstein. Stop, stop. I don't mean to be rude, but
here's the problem. The Administration has all of the clout.
Therefore, it has the responsibility.
Let me tell you a little story. When I was mayor, I used to
have these Monday morning department head meetings. The
Director of Public Works waited until after one of these
meetings, and he said to me, ``Madam Mayor, I've got some news
for you. I think if there were an earthquake, the rim around
Candlestick Park would come down.'' I said, ``Oh, my God, Jeff.
I don't have money.'' I said, ``How much would it be?'' He came
back and said that to retrofit just the rim at $6 million.
Then I thought, well, Candlestick is used so infrequently,
you know, what is the real liability here? Then I thought, I
now know, therefore, I have a responsibility. So we took and
took from others. We had $2 million a year for 3 years.
Who would have ever thought the San Francisco Giants would
be in the World Series. At 5 o'clock on a weeknight in
Candlestick Park when the big earthquake struck, and the rim
held. And the estimate was you had a 60,000 seat stadium, 20 to
30,000 people would have been impacted.
As it is, one of the floors of the Bay Bridge fell down.
So, you know, there's a responsibility. I think on a Federal
level, we take this stuff too much for granted. I now know what
will happen in Sacramento. You know. You have an obligation
because this is administration.
Anything we do is an earmark. Anything you do is not, and
it gets done. So, I heard you on the public record say that you
agree that 20 percent of the City of Sacramento would be
flooded if that levee collapses.
What are you going to do about it? You have a
responsibility. I have a responsibility. The White House has a
responsibility. So, you know, I think up there, there is this
perception that, well, it's a low priority, you know, the W61
warhead is more important, et cetera.
Well, not if you get flooded. And, you know, the chances of
it getting flooded are much greater than ever having to use the
W61 warhead. So, we need to see some passion from the
Administration to help because that's where it's at right now.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. We could put earmarks in the bill and a
rule of order would lie against the bill, and I don't know
whether we could get the votes or not to overcome it.
But these are not private companies that somebody's doing
an earmark for. These are major projects that protect the
people and the property of the people. And I think that's
really important, and it's the quality of life, and it's the
ability to run an economy.
So, Senator Landrieu is absolutely right. But right now,
it's got to come from the Administration, and I've got to ask
you all to be forceful and fight the fight, and we'll back you
up.
I'm going to write a letter to the President, and ask you
all to sign it, and ask him to adjust his budget. Then, he can
do it, and then it's not an earmark.
It will be for the most serious projects that involve the
safety of the people of this country. So, the projects for what
hurricanes are doing, and what tornadoes are doing and the
destruction that's caused. Those related to the climate getting
warmer.
In California, I've tracked the last 5 years of the water
levels, and they're definitely changing from the historic
average, and the snow pack is getting less and less. So it's
just frustrating, to see the Corps and the Bureau take these
cuts, and to see another part of our budget which is mandatory
with billions of dollars of cost overruns.
It's very frustrating.
General Temple. Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, General, back us up.
General Temple. Do you mind if I take us back to Chick Lock
for just a minute?
Senator Feinstein. Of course.
General Temple. I did say earlier that there was a
possibility that the Lock could close after 2013, but based on
the monitoring that we've done, and assuming that we have
normal operating and maintenance dollars to maintain the Lock,
we don't anticipate that it would close within about the next 5
years.
It could, but we don't anticipate that it will. I just
wanted to make sure it was clear.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I know Senator Alexander is
pleased.
General Temple. Thank you. Thank you, Sir.
Senator Feinstein. We have been joined by Senator Harkin.
Senator, we're delighted to have you.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein. You'd like to ask some questions?
Senator Harkin. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I
appreciate your indulgence, thank you very much. We all have
other committees and many things that we're working on, so I
appreciate this opportunity.
And thank you for your wonderful leadership on these
issues. I appreciate it very much.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
FEASIBILITY STUDIES
Senator Harkin. I just had a couple of questions I wanted
to go over with General Temple and the Secretary.
But, first, General Temple, I want to go over these
feasibility studies and flexibility on feasibility studies.
Well, I've been briefed and am supportive of your three-three-
three concept to reduce the maximum level of cost and time
taken to complete feasibility studies as outlined in your
February 8 memorandum.
I think this is an important advance. But I also think it's
important for the Corps to move forward with specific guidance
beyond just the question of scoping, regarding things like the
use of older data, simplifying requirements, and providing for
accelerated review in order to maximize the ability of your
districts to reach the goal of keeping these feasibility
studies to 3 years and costing under $3 million.
So it's the issue of providing guidance. My question is,
what actions will the Corps be taking to provide additional
guidance to the districts regarding these issues? What degree
can there be simplification, and the waving of certain current
requirements that are now the law?
And what would be the timing of providing more detailed
guidance to the districts on this issue? If you need me to
elaborate, I will, elaborate anymore on that. Okay.
General Temple. No, that's fine, Sir. Thank you.
Because what you're talking about is planning
transformation within the Corps. And as you may know, we have
six pilot projects that are ongoing, in addition to the
guidance that we've already put out.
We will use information that we collect from those pilot
projects to adjust the guidance, to address many of the issues
that you have just described. The planning transformation is a
work in progress, and as we continue to learn, we will continue
to adjust it to achieve the three-by-three-by-three goal that
you mentioned earlier, Sir.
Senator Harkin. Okay, General, let me pursue this just a
little bit further. So you got the six pilot projects. You're
using the data from that to inform you on the guidance
principles that you will put out.
Is there any way you can give me some kind of a timeframe
on this at all? Some of these people are looking for detailed
guidance on what they need to do, and so they're waiting on
that kind of guidance.
General Temple. We will address guidance pertaining to
planning as we look at each feasibility study in addition to
input that we get from the pilot studies.
So it is a continuous process, Sir. I mean, I can't give
you a time because we are working on this all the time, but
we'll continue to make progress on it as we move forward
together, Sir.
Senator Harkin. Well, I hope at least I detect some sense
of urgency on your part.
General Temple. Yes, Sir, absolutely.
Senator Harkin. Thank you. That's very important.
DES MOINES RIVER
I'm also concerned about projects, and I think you'll pick
up on this, where a local government is paying and conducting a
feasibility study, but again, working to meet these
requirements of what they call a ``work-in-kind credit.'' I'm
specifically talking about Des Moines, Iowa.
I'm facing a very difficult problem with the Corps, the
Corps having made a determination of higher flows on the Des
Moines River, which is probably true, which calls into question
the current flood control system meeting these Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements for a 100-year
event.
The city is moving as fast as possible to take corrective
action. What specific actions are best though, however, does
require considerable analysis. I think we all should be doing
whatever we can to allow the process to move forward as quickly
as possible to provide appropriate flood protection and to
avoid significant economic problems if large areas of Des
Moines are determined to be in a flood zone.
So again, I'm asking that the Corps be, I guess what I'm
asking is the Corps be at least as helpful to these local
sponsors as if the Corps was doing it themselves.
General Temple. Absolutely, Sir. We're aware of the Des
Moines situation. We will support the local efforts in
addressing this particular issue. It is very important. Yes,
Sir.
OLMSTED LOCK
Senator Harkin. I appreciate that. Third, I don't know if
you covered this before I was here, if you have, did you cover
anything about the Olmsted Lock at all on the Ohio? No.
Well, people have suggested that it's logical for the Corps
to do an in-depth study of the way Olmsted is being
constructed, the amount of money that it's taking, which, of
course, is keeping us from moving ahead on our whole plan for
the Upper Mississippi Locks.
Others have suggested it might be prudent to hold up
additional work on Alton as a thorough study is conducted and
move forward on other important navigation projects. I just
wonder if you could tell me how you feel about that.
Senator Alexander. Senator Harkin, if I may intercede.
Senator Harkin. Yeah.
Senator Alexander. We did discuss that a little bit and the
Olmsted Lock on the Ohio River is increasing from $2 billion to
$3 billion this year, a 50-percent increase, and it's soaking
up all the money that could be used for other priority
projects.
And my question of Secretary Darcy was, have they
considered changing the allocation or recommending a change in
the allocation from 50 percent from the appropriations and 50
percent from the trust fund to 90 percent from appropriations
and 10 percent from the trust fund, which would free up trust
fund money for other priorities.
So thank you for letting me intercede there.
Senator Harkin. No, I appreciate that. So where are we on
this? Because I'm with you on this. I'm shocked at the amount
of increase in the cost for that Lock.
General Temple. Yes, Sir. We've asked the division and the
district to take a look at multiple methods of delivery with
respect to this project to see what we can do to deliver the
project in a more speedy fashion at less cost if that's
possible.
And we expect that report back a little later this spring,
Sir. And at that time we'll be able to make a better assessment
of the way forward. Thank you.
MISSOURI RIVER
Senator Harkin. Okay. Thank you.
One last thing on the Missouri River which General McMahon
knows well. I appreciate the work that's being done to restore
the levees on the Missouri River, but I want to raise a couple
of issues.
We do need to move forward with the master manual for the
Missouri River, but again, I want to be on record as saying
that it has to be balanced for flood protection but for
hydroelectric generation and also for navigation. And these
things all have to be put in balance. It can't just be one or
the other. These all have to be balanced.
So I guess you are going to have a vulnerability assessment
on the Missouri River in May, is that right Jo-Ellen, Secretary
Darcy?
Ms. Darcy. I think it is next month that it's due, yes,
Sir.
Senator Harkin. Okay. Good. And the reason I mentioned
General McMahon is because there's these levees north of
Council Bluffs that I understand they've been included in an
examination of those needs, in a vulnerability assessment.
There's a problem with them that they were all private
levees. But the impact on public property and public lands from
not fixing those lands could be sizeable, and so we'd looked at
those in the past, and as I understand it, they're at least
going to be included in the vulnerability assessment.
So I appreciate that very much. Thank you, Secretary Darcy.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I just got a note.
If you have the opportunity, you should ask Reclamation a
couple of questions.
Ms. Castle. We need you to justify our salary for the
afternoon.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me do that just with a couple,
and I don't mean to exclusively focus on California. But we've
got a big water problem coming up, Mike, and in contrast to
last year's near-record level precipitation, 2012 looks to be a
fairly dry year.
The Central Valley Project allocation certainly reflects
that, and the South of Delta agricultural service contractors
have 30 percent of their contract. The snow pack is still about
54 percent of normal. So these are really concerning things.
Can you provide us with a status report of actions the
Bureau intends to take to increase deliveries beyond the 30-
percent allocation?
Mr. Connor. Yes, Madam Chair. As a threshold matter, I just
wanted to say I appreciate your kind words, but I've got to
tell you, it's your leadership on these issues and your
understanding that the current water supply situation
infrastructure in California is just unsustainable. This is
what necessitates us to act.
And your urging that we do things better, that we don't
accept the status quo, that we coordinate better, is much
appreciated and very necessary, quite frankly.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. Connor. You're absolutely right about this year's water
condition and I'll get to those actions. I just want to give
you a statistic that just kind of blew me away on Monday when I
received it.
So last year at this exact time in the 2011 water year, we
had combined releases from Shasta, Oroville, the State Water
Project, and Folsom of 70,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). This
year at this point in time, we're at 6,100 cfs, less than 10
percent of what we were last year. So that gives you the
context of the hydrology.
And notwithstanding the fact that overall, there has been
some precipitation that has moved into Northern California as
of late, it's late in the season. It's certainly not near what
it was last year, and it hasn't hit the San Joaquin Drainage
Basin, which is at a record low, only comparable, I think, in
the worst droughts of the late 1970s quite frankly.
So it is a tough year. On the allocations, we're at 30
percent South of Delta Water Service contractors as you
mentioned. Based on some of the hydrology and the actions that
we're taking. Hopefully, we will have another allocation
announcement in the next 7 to 10 days.
So look for that. I just wanted to put that on your radar
screen. Based on specific actions recognized going into this
year that we are in an extremely deficit situation, we've
already started to take some actions.
And we haven't done it alone. We've done it with our
partners in the Central Valley Project. We made what we call
``Section 215'' Water, this is surplus water, available much
earlier than we had and under much different conditions than we
had historically.
So I think in January we saw an opportunity to make some of
the surplus water available through the pumps in the Central
Valley Project and we made available about 70,000 acre-feet
early on.
That doesn't show up in the allocation, but at least that's
good wet water that our contractors can use in this year. We've
got a number of other actions that we're looking at that is
reflected in the water plan now that we've put out.
We just put out our Central Valley Project water plan for
2012, and that's a result of the discussions we had back in
2010, where we started identifying these other actions. So
certainly shifting this partnership that we have with the
Metropolitan Water District and the State Water Project to try
and use some of their water from San Luis Reservoir early in
the season to shore up our supplies.
And we can pay them back later on. I think that's going to
be an action that will yield a significant amount of water this
year. We are working with the State of California and looking
at the Yuba Accord water as a way to help make some additional
water available to both the State Water Project and the Central
Valley Project.
Senator Feinstein. What was that?
Mr. Connor. Yuba Accord. There was some water made
available. I can't remember the year that the Yuba Accord was
developed.
Senator Feinstein. That's okay.
Mr. Connor. But it does make some water available out of
that system for both the State Water Project and now we're
looking at a sharing arrangement with them that we will try and
make use of.
We are still actively trying to promote the water transfer
program. So the first couple I mentioned, the 215 water, Yuba
Accord, the source shifting activity, that is stuff that we are
trying to bring to the table, those actions, this year, to help
shore up water supplies.
Also water transfers. We are looking at trying to
facilitate, particularly, East-West transfers in the Central
Valley, just because it's going to be tough to get water from
North to South this year.
So we will try and shore up and make additional water
supplies available through water transfers. Beyond that, there
are mid-term type of actions that we're looking at, at some
additional infrastructure, interties East to West, that might
facilitate additional transfers in the future above and beyond
what we've been doing historically.
New conservation programs that we can help fund and support
that might allow our contractors in one area of the CVP to make
new water supplies available for transfers to those with
smaller supplies allocations.
And finally, refuge diversification, which we've talked
about since 2010. Even the last couple of years using Recovery
Act funds, we were able to drill a significant number of wells
that helped to diversify the Refuge Water supplies.
It's not a whole lot, but 10 to 20,000 acre-feet is very
helpful in splitting that between the level 4 refuges and
diversifying the Refuge supply to make that and allow CVP base
supplies to be used for other contractors is something that
we're still looking at.
So that's the array of things that we're doing short term
and mid-term to try and improve water supplies.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you this. In your judgment,
what would be the amount of acre-feet that these administrative
changes could provide?
Mr. Connor. I think looking at this year if you throw in
the surplus, the 215 water, we should be in that----
Senator Feinstein. Source shifting with the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California in particular.
Mr. Connor. Source Shifting, I think would add, we're
looking at, if we can pull this agreement together, something
in the neighborhood of 50,000 acre-feet. You add that to the
70,000, Yuba Accord is still a little unclear.
But I think we'll be in the 150,000 acre-foot range and
depending on transfers that we can additionally facilitate
somewhere in the 150 to 200,000 acre-foot range. So that's
getting up to--not a lot of that water shows up on the
allocations itself, but for context, that is an 8- to 10-
percent range of south of Delta Water Service Contracts.
Senator Feinstein. How about at the pumps? Can any changes
be made in how the pumps are run, the reverse flow?
Mr. Connor. Well, we are operating under the current
existing biological opinions right now, notwithstanding the
Court orders that have remanded to both Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries to go back and look at some of the reasonable
and prudent alternatives.
And because the court did not feel that those were defined
or justified enough, we're operating under those Reasonable and
Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) right now, and we're under a
schedule for coming up with new biological opinion actions in
response to court order, probably 2 years on the Fish and
Wildlife Service biological opinion and about 4 years on the
NOAA Fisheries biological opinion.
Senator Feinstein. What does that translate to?
Mr. Connor. Well, that means that until such time as there
are new biological opinions in place as a result of the court
orders, we're going to keep operating under the existing ones.
Senator Feinstein. Even though they have been found to be
wanting.
Mr. Connor. Yes. And that's where the Court left it. I
should say though that we have improved how we implement our
actions under the biological opinions, and we're going to
continue to try and do that.
One of the criticisms of the Court was that our triggers
for certain actions that restricted pumping were from their
view not well-justified.
So we've tried to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service
and NOAA Fisheries to get better data collection, do more real-
time monitoring. Whether it's turbidity as it relates to smelt
or actually tracking the salmon, so that we can be better
justified in when we restrict the pumps and we know it's
because there's fish in the immediate area.
That had significant effect in 2011 particularly with the
Delta Smelt, the implementation of the Fish and Wildlife
Service Pilot program.
Senator Feinstein. Well, that's really what I mean by
adaptive management of the pumps.
Mr. Connor. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. To really track the movement of fish and
get a better sense of the predatory aspects of other fish too.
Mr. Connor. Yes. We're doing it better as far as monitoring
where the fish are. We still have some ways to go on the
predatory aspects and better understanding that aspect of it,
quite frankly.
Senator Feinstein. You previously allowed a permit change
for the Jones Pumping Plant which allowed for a 500 cfs
increase. It helped in 2010. Can you do it again?
Mr. Connor. I think in 2010 we were looking at increasing
pumping at the Banks plant, the State Water Project plant. And
we had some permitting left to do because they have more
capacity.
Senator Feinstein. Well, didn't you say the Army Corps had
the Banks plant?
Mr. Connor. Well, we have to go through an Army Corps of
Engineers permitting process to get the additional capacity,
the 500 cfs additional capacity late in the season. That's what
we were looking at in 2010.
Senator Feinstein. So are you saying that Jones is the same
thing as Banks?
Mr. Connor. Jones is our pumping plant in the Central
Valley Project. Banks is the State Water Project.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Mr. Connor. You know, adjacent pumping plant. And they have
more capacity. We don't really have additional capacity at the
Jones Pumping Plant.
Senator Feinstein. So, in other words, if you increase
Jones Pumping, it comes from Banks, is that right?
Mr. Connor. Well, we would look at specifically the idea we
talked about in 2010, which was increasing the pumping
permitting, the ability to pump more, the permit, at Banks.
So that late in the season, post July, when there are not
nearly the restrictions in place on pumping because the fish
have moved out of the system, near the pumps, that we could use
that opportunity to pump more and get it in the reservoir south
of Delta, San Luis Reservoir, south of Delta.
But we do need to go through the Corps of Engineers
permitting process. The State has to be lead in that particular
effort, and we have to be their partners in that.
Senator Feinstein. Well, as I recall in 2009, we got about
450,000 acre-feet from a number of administrative changes, that
you and Interior as well were very cooperative and very helpful
with, to get to 45 percent of the allocation south of Delta
which is enough to allow farmers to contract, to plant, to
harvest, to get a minimal level.
I've been told that they have to have at least 45 percent
of their contract. Are you going to be able to get there this
year?
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Mr. Connor. I don't know that we'll be able to get to 45
percent. With the allocation, it's going to very tough. We're
going to try and look at the opportunities to move the
allocation up.
And then there are, as I mentioned before, those other
mechanisms that don't necessarily show up in the allocation,
where we can try and make water available. All told, we're
certainly striving as a goal to get close to that 45 percent.
Through the allocation and additional water supplies, it's
going to be very tough this year.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing but
were submitted to the Departments for response subsequent to
the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy and Major General
Merdith W.B. Temple
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. Why is flood control spending down in your budget for
fiscal year 2013 when compared to fiscal year 2012?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget included $1.45 billion for
flood risk management compared to $1.41 billion in fiscal year 2013.
The fiscal year 2013 budget for flood risk management was developed to
advance the highest priority studies and construction projects. Funding
levels were based on the execution schedules identified for those
studies and projects.
Question. Of the six new study starts that you have proposed, five
are for ecosystem restoration. Were there no flood control studies that
ranked higher in your selection process?
Answer. The one flood control new start study recommended in fiscal
year 2013 is the ``Water Resources Priority Study''. This study
supports the Corps flood risk management business line as a high-
priority study that will provide a baseline assessment of the Nation's
flood risks at both a regional and national level. The study will also
assess existing Federal, State, and local programs and strategies for
managing flood risk, which will provide a basis for significant
recommendations on ways to better manage flood risks at the national,
regional, State, and local levels.
Question. What is your selection process for your proposed new
starts?
Answer. New starts are initially prioritized within their assigned
business programs. One of the most difficult tasks in preparing a
performance-based budget is balancing the most important work,
including new starts, across multiple business programs and sub-
programs in order to obtain the expected outcomes. New starts are
selected when their expected outcomes are likely to be competitive with
priorities for other high-performing activities supported in the
budget. That prioritization is based upon overall performance
guidelines, as follows:
--projects funded to address dam safety assurance, seepage control,
and static instability correction problems;
--mitigation, environmental compliance, and treaty requirements or
biological opinions;
--projects funded to address a significant risk to human safety;
--projects funded on the basis of their economic or environmental
return;
--nonstructural flood damage reduction projects and coastal
navigation projects; and
--coastal navigation projects (project phase would support jobs or
economic activity).
Question. One of your proposed new starts is a $2.2 billion
project. At $150 million a year, which is an optimistic funding level,
it would take 15 years to complete. With flat to declining budgets, how
will this project get completed in a timely manner?
Answer. The Administration continues efforts to fund more
efficiently those projects and studies with the highest return to the
Nation in order to bring those project benefits on line sooner. In this
constrained fiscal environment, tough decisions will need to be made
regarding funding for other remaining ongoing projects and studies that
are not expected to provide as high of a return.
Question. You have a new $8 million line item in your request
called ``Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability'' with an estimated $10
million annual continuing cost. What does this new program propose to
do and how much is it ultimately going to cost? What benefits will it
provide to the Civil Works program?
Answer. The Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability (RCWV) Program will
increase the resilience of Corps projects and programs to the effects
of the dynamic, often strongly interacting changes in demographics,
land use and land cover, social values and social vulnerability,
economic conditions, ecosystem habitat suitability, and aging
infrastructure that arise independently from climate change and
variability. These changing conditions could interact with each other,
or with climate change and variability, in ways that increase the
vulnerability of Civil Works (CW) projects, programs, missions, and
operations. Through RCWV, the Corps will develop comprehensive
solutions to reduce vulnerabilities and improve resilience of U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) missions and operations. This activity will
benefit all USACE business lines and requires close coordination with
complementary activities, including responses to climate change, flood
and coastal storm damage reduction, navigation, ecosystem restoration,
hydropower, recreation, emergency management, and water supply.
Question. In your budget request, you generally require a project
to have a benefit to cost ratio of 2.5; however, for flood control
projects, you have included a number of projects with benefit-to-cost
ratios considerably less than 2.5. These are listed with the additional
criteria of providing substantial life-saving benefits. What does that
phrase mean?
Answer. Providing substantial life-saving benefits is defined by a
substantial reduction in risk to human life due to flood inundation.
The risk factors that are generally understood to have the most
significant, large-scale impacts on potential loss of life from
flooding include population at risk, warning time, and inundation depth
and are evaluated together to provide a relative assessment of the
life-risk associated with each project.
Question. I notice that you have finally increased funding for the
Lower Mississippi River from the lower numbers of the last few years to
a request of $81.7 million. How much have we spent on the Lower
Mississippi to maintain the navigation channel for each of the past 5
years? Do you believe that the request is sufficient? In light of the
new policy to not reprogram funds to this project from other projects,
what is your plan to ensure navigation is maintained if funding runs
short?
Answer. Navigation expenditures for the Mississippi River Baton
Rouge to the Gulf project for the past 5 years, including all regular,
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and Supplemental appropriations
are as follows:
--fiscal year 2007: $76,351,238.87;
--fiscal year 2008: $87,787,717.33;
--fiscal year 2009: $114,634,195.08;
--fiscal year 2010: $134,291,130.03; and
--fiscal year 2011: $106,740,907.01.
Approximately $151 million is anticipated to be expended in fiscal
year 2012. Funding needs for the project vary considerably from year to
year depending on climatic conditions in the Mississippi River basin.
The fiscal year 2013 budget amount of $81.67 million for the project is
appropriate given the anticipated needs in fiscal year 2013. The Corps
monitors the channel conditions on a regular basis and uses that
information to schedule dredging activities and maintain navigation.
Question. Your request for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife
Recovery is up significantly this year to $90 million. As you know,
many people in that area question the need for this spending in light
of the record flooding that occurred along the Missouri River in 2011.
They believe that this funding would be better spent on flood control
for the basin. How do you answer those critics? If this number were
substantially cut, what would be the potential impacts to the
operations of the Missouri River?
Answer. The Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Program
(MRRP) was designed to address mitigation requirements (loss of
habitat) for the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) and
endangered species requirements of the 2003 amended Biological Opinion
(BiOp). The program allows the Corps to continue to operate the
Missouri River for all eight congressionally authorized purposes--
including flood risk management and navigation--while meeting our
environmental requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
As stated, there is $90 million in the fiscal year 2013 budget for
Missouri River Recovery. If that funding were cut or significantly
reduced, the Corps would not be in compliance with the ESA and may not
be in a position to serve all congressionally authorized purposes on
the Missouri River.
The Missouri River Recovery Program is not in competition with
funding for repairs to the reservoirs, levees, and other Missouri River
infrastructure damaged by last summer's record flows. Based on current
estimates to date, the Corps has received all the funds required to
return the system to pre-flood conditions in time for the 2012 run-off
season.
Question. There are a number of projects in your request that are
designated as ``high performing projects.'' Many have benefit-to-cost
ratios of 2.0 or less. What is it about these projects that makes them
``high performing?'' How were they chosen over projects with similar
benefit-to-cost ratios?
Answer. High-performing construction projects anticipate high-
economic, safety, and environmental benefits to the Nation. Examples of
selection criteria include projects that will significantly reduce risk
to human safety, or restore a degraded ecosystem structure, function,
or process to a more natural condition.
Question. Based on your budget request, do you have concerns about
potential failures of any of the Inland Waterway projects in fiscal
year 2013? Some of them are in serious condition. Do you see a
potential increase in unscheduled lock outages occurring due to this
budget request?
Answer. The Army is committed to facilitating commercial navigation
by providing safe, reliable, highly cost-effective, and environmentally
sustainable waterborne transportation systems. The fiscal year 2013
budget prioritizes funds on those projects that have the highest level
of commercial traffic, greatest risk of failure due to component
conditions, and the greatest economic consequences of failure. The
Corps continues to monitor the risk of component failures that could
disrupt or stop traffic. Every effort is made to use the available
funding in a way that will reduce the risk of scheduled and unscheduled
outages due to mechanical failures on both high and moderate use
waterways.
Question. The Corps is the biggest Federal producer of hydropower
in the country.
What is the condition of these projects?
Answer. The design life of these facilities is usually 35 years.
Based on the condition assessment process used by the Corps within the
last 3 years, 36 percent of the turbines and 17 percent of the
generators are rated either in poor or marginal condition.
The rating scale is as follows:
--Good (Condition Index 8.0-10.0).--Expected to continue to provide
reliable service for some time in the future. Continue routine
maintenance and inspections.
--Fair (Condition Index 6.0-7.9).--Expected to provide reliable
service in the near future. Continue routine maintenance and
inspections.
--Marginal (Condition Index 3.0-5.9).--Expected to provide a marginal
level of service in the near future. A more detailed
investigation is needed to determine potential problems and
plan a repair strategy.
--Poor (Condition Index 0-2.9).--Immediate intervention is required
to determine the problem and plan a repair strategy.
These ratings are indicative of the aging hydropower infrastructure
and the decaying nature of this type of equipment over time.
Question. Has there been an increase in unscheduled outages?
Answer. In 1999, the Corps' average unscheduled outage rate was
1.97 percent and has steadily increased to 4.36 percent in 2011,
compared to an electrical industry standard of 2 percent.
Question. Is there a plan for reinvestment in these projects to
ensure they continue to supply needed electricity?
Answer. The Corps is implementing a Hydropower Modernization
Initiative (HMI) to address aging hydropower infrastructure issues for
197 generating units in 54 power plants that are not directly funded by
the Department of Energy's Bonneville Power Administration. HMI study
results show that an investment of approximately $4 billion over 20
years would improve reliability, restore design level efficiencies and
capture improvement and upgrade opportunities where they exist. The
fiscal year 2013 budget for hydropower will fund minimum maintenance
and does not include funding for major rehabilitation of any hydropower
projects. In some areas of the country, the Corps is working with
hydropower users on agreements for direct non-Federal financing of
major maintenance work.
Question. We provided $1.7 billion in disaster funds to repair
damages to Corps projects in December 2011. Was this funding sufficient
to repair all of the damages due to natural disasters? If not, did you
include funding in your budget request for these repairs? If not, why
not? Isn't it important to repair these projects to pre-disaster
conditions to ensure they continue to provide the benefits for which
they were constructed?
Answer. Fiscal year 2012 supplemental funds focused on repairs
resulting from historic flooding in 2011 in the Missouri and
Mississippi River Basins that are covered by Presidential disaster
declarations, using the following priorities:
--Class I: Urgent and Compelling (Unsafe).--Heavily damaged projects
that have breached or failed where there is a probable loss of
life.
--Class II: Urgent (Potentially Unsafe).--Damage projects that are
likely to fail where there is a probable loss of life and
economic damage.
--Classes IIIA and IIIB: High Priority, including:
--Class IIIB (Conditionally Unsafe).--Damaged systems that are
likely to fail where there is a potential for economic,
environmental, and an indirect potential for loss of life.
--Class IIIA (High Impact to Navigation).--Damaged systems directly
impacting high-use navigation.
--Class IV: Priority (Marginally Safe).--All other damaged systems
not meeting Class I, II, or III above.
The Corps has made significant progress toward completing priority
repairs. The Corps identified 11 Class I (urgent and compelling)
projects and expects to complete interim protection for 10 projects by
March 31, 2012. Full completion is expected (pre-event conditions
restored) by March 31, 2013. There is one Class I project that
anticipates completion by March 31, 2014. Similarly, the Corps
identified 31 Class II (urgent) projects and expects completion of
interim protection for 14 projects by March 31, 2012. Full completion
is expected by March 31, 2013. Fourteen Class II repairs are
anticipated to be complete by March 31, 2014, and three repairs expect
completion after March 31, 2014. The Corps identified 31 Class IIIB
(conditionally unsafe) projects and expects completion of interim
protection for 19 projects by March 31, 2012. Full completion is
expected by March 31, 2013. Twelve Class IIIB repairs are anticipated
to complete by March 31, 2014.
A small portion of the costs of damage repairs is not covered by
Presidential declarations and, therefore, not eligible for disaster
relief funding. Repairs not eligible for disaster relief funding were
considered during development of the fiscal year 2012 work plans, and
will again be considered during formulation of the fiscal year 2014
budget.
harbor maintenance trust fund
The RAMP Legislation (requires that receipts of the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund be expended annually)
Question. There seems to be considerable misunderstanding about the
workings of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). Can one of you
simply explain how it is collected and how it ties into the overall
Corps budget?
Answer. The Water Resources and Development Act of 1986 authorized
the collection of an ad valorem Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) on cargo
to recover costs associated with operating and maintaining Federal
commercial navigation coastal and inland harbors within the United
States. Most of the revenue comes from imports, but some comes from
coastwise movement of some domestic cargo, and from passengers. Exports
and commodities carried on the fuel-taxed inland waterways are exempt
from the tax. The HMT is generally collected at the port of entry by
Customs and Border Protection, based on the value of the imported
commodities. The receipts are deposited in the HMTF by the Treasury
Department. Spending from the HMTF is proposed in the President's
budget for the Civil Works program and appropriated by the Congress.
Appropriated funds are transferred from the HMTF to the Corps
expenditure accounts to reimburse the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury
for eligible navigation expenditures. In developing an overall budget
for the Civil Works program, each project, program, or activity
competes for funding on an equal basis.
Question. Are either of you aware of the Realize America's Maritime
Promise (RAMP) legislation (S. 412 in the Senate, H.R. 104 in the
House)?
Answer. Yes, we are aware of the RAMP legislation in the House and
the Harbor Maintenance Act legislation in the Senate. These bills have
almost identical language and seek significantly more spending for work
that is authorized to be financed from the HMTF.
Question. Can either of you provide us with a short synopsis of the
bill?
Answer. The House and Senate bills would direct the Congress to
annually appropriate an amount equal to the total anticipated HMT
receipts, plus interest, for any fiscal year for the operation and
maintenance of the Corps coastal and inland navigation harbors, as well
as the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which is operated by
the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
Question. I realize this is asking a lot but can either of you give
this Committee your opinion on how the Administration might implement
this bill if it were enacted into law? We're not going to hold you to
this, but it is important to know what could happen.
Answer. The Army and the Administration have emphasized the need to
allocate Civil Works funding based on performance.
Question. Based on what you know of the Administration's budget
process, do you believe the Administration would provide the Corps with
$700-800 million in additional budget ceiling or would they just
rearrange funding within the previously planned Corps budget to meet
the requirements of the law?
Answer. Budget decisions are not made in advance. However, proposed
increases generally compete for funding on the merits with other
potential uses of those funds.
Question. Do you believe additional resources might be worked into
the budget to account for the law, or would other missions of the Corps
suffer because of the law?
Answer. As stated above, budget decisions are not made in advance.
proposal to return harbor maintenance taxes to the states where
generated
Question. It is my understanding that California Ports provide at
least 30 percent of the funding that goes into the HMTF. Can either of
you confirm that number for fiscal year 2011?
Answer. An estimated $432 million in HMT was collected on cargo
shipped through California ports in fiscal year 2011, which was
approximately 29 percent of the $1.469 billion in total HMT tax
collected in fiscal year 2011.
Question. If we assume that the Trust Fund generates $1.5 billion
annually, then California annually contributes some $450 million to
this Trust Fund. How much dredging of eligible harbors and waterways in
California were reimbursed by the Trust Fund in fiscal year 2011? In
other words, how much of our $450 million is returned to the State? It
is my understanding that it is less than 5 percent of the annual
revenues. This seems very inequitable.
Answer. The HMT generated $1.469 billion in fiscal year 2011.
Approximately $94 million was expended on California navigation
projects in fiscal year 2011 and subject to recovery from the HMTF.
Most of the revenue comes from imports, but some comes from coastwise
movement of some domestic cargo and from passengers. Neither the ports
nor the States pay this tax.
Question. Would it be possible for the law to be changed in such a
manner that a set percentage of the revenues generated in a given State
would be returned to that State?
Answer. The Congress could consider such a change or other changes
to the current law.
Question. What would be the impacts of such a change? Do you
believe that the Corps would only rearrange port funding, or would this
generate additional dredging resources?
Answer. In the absence of a specific proposal, it would be
difficult to say what the impacts might be or how it might affect
Federal spending.
Question. How can we best increase the amount of funding for the
maintenance of our harbors and waterways without having a deleterious
impact on other aspects of the Corps' program?
Answer. In the current fiscal environment, the Administration
generally has been seeking offsets for any proposed spending increases.
inland waterways trust fund
Question. I note that your budget request anticipates additional
funding being available from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) for
fiscal year 2013. How do you anticipate that these additional funds
will be generated?
Answer. The revenues from the existing diesel fuel tax are expected
to increase to approximately $95 million annually. This reflects an
estimate of how forecasted changes in the broader economy will affect
the amount of receipts collected from this excise tax. The budget also
includes an estimate that enactment of the Administration's inland
waterways user fee proposal, submitted to the Congress in September
2011, would generate $80 million in receipts in fiscal year 2013.
However, the IWTF share of the spending proposed in the fiscal year
2013 budget is financed using the expected revenues from the existing
tax, not from the user fee proposal.
Question. How sure are you of these projections?
Answer. The increase in receipts from the existing tax is a
projection. It represents a reasonable estimate based on forecasted
changes in the broader economy, but it is only an estimate.
Question. If this amount is not generated, what work will you have
to curtail?
Answer. That would, in part, depend on how much is collected during
the remainder of fiscal year 2012. However, if the amount collected in
fiscal year 2013 is significantly below $95 million, the Corps would
have to curtail some work. One option would be to spend somewhat less
on one of our two largest ongoing inland waterways construction
projects, either the Olmsted Locks and Dam project or the Lower
Monongahela Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4 project.
Question. In light of the new cost ceiling that the Administration
is proposing for Olmsted Lock and Dam, what is the projection of the
share of the Trust Fund that will be utilized over the next 10 years by
Olmsted?
Answer. That would largely depend upon progress to enact a long-
term mechanism to enhance revenues in the Trust Fund sufficient to meet
the cost-sharing authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of
1986.
Question. Several of our other locks and dams are in serious
maintenance and rehabilitation needs. Is the funding that will be left
after spending the necessary amounts from the IWTF to keep Olmsted on
schedule sufficient to ensure that we will not see major failures of
this critical infrastructure?
Answer. Lock and dam maintenance is not funded by the IWTF. Major
rehabilitation, however, would be in competition for funding with
ongoing inland waterways construction projects. The fiscal year 2013
budget prioritizes funds on those projects that have the highest level
of commercial traffic, greatest risk of failure due to component
conditions, and the greatest economic consequences of failure. The
Corps continues to monitor the risk of component failures, that could
disrupt or stop traffic. Every effort is made to use the available
funding to reduce scheduled and unscheduled outages due to mechanical
failures on both high and moderate use waterways.
Question. I don't want to see one of these projects fail and
disrupt commodity movements. These projects are getting older every
year and if funds are not available from the Trust Fund, they have to
come from somewhere. Has the Administration considered an aggressive
maintenance schedule to ensure that we do not have a failure?
Answer. The IWTF is used to fund construction activities, rather
than operation and maintenance activities. The Administration has
provided increased maintenance funding for those projects that provide
the greatest economic and safety return.
work plans
Question. Due to the fact that we had a continuing resolution in
fiscal year 2011 and the Committee policy for fiscal years 2012 and
2013 is not to include earmarks in appropriation bills, the Corps has
been given extraordinary leeway to expend funds for the prosecution of
water resource projects. Unfortunately, the Committee has little say,
outside of providing criteria to consider, as to how these work plans
are assembled. We are unsure who, within the Administration, has input
into their preparation. It is all very mysterious to us. One thing I
can assure you based on my review of your work plans is that funding
would be applied differently if the Congress were doing the earmarking
rather than the Administration.
It appears that since fiscal year 2011, funding in some cases is
being applied to bring projects for which the Administration has a
policy issue of some type to a logical stopping point. Is that the
case?
Answer. All ongoing projects were first evaluated for a minimum
level of funding, for example, to complete an increment of useful work
or to otherwise meet ongoing requirements. However, all projects
competed for such funding, whether or not there was ``a policy issue of
some type'' with the project. After projects were funded on that basis
where needed, the Corps work plan for fiscal year 2011 allocated the
remaining funding to policy-consistent work.
Question. I want to make sure we understand. All of these are
projects that meet the standard definition used for years to determine
funding such as technically sound, environmentally sustainable, and
economically viable?
Answer. Some unbudgeted projects and even some previously budgeted
projects with changed conditions no longer meet those standards.
Question. Are these projects that meet the tests that I just named
being considered for funding in subsequent work plans?
Answer. All ongoing projects that could use funding in the
applicable fiscal year would be considered for funding, with priorities
to be given to work based on performance and on criteria provided in
reports accompanying the appropriations.
Question. If not, it would appear that utilizing the work plan
funding is a way for the Administration to shut down all projects
except those that meet your specialized criteria for budgeting. Is that
the case?
Answer. The Administration is committed to maximizing the return on
the investment in Civil Works projects. In some cases, it is clear that
continued Federal investment in certain studies or projects is not the
best use of available funding. Bringing those projects to a logical
stopping point allows the Corps to invest its resources to provide a
greater overall return to the Nation, while allowing local sponsors to
complete the other projects if they choose to do so.
Question. How are local sponsors being impacted by these decisions?
Answer. The Corps works very closely with local sponsors to ensure
that they are fully aware of funding decisions and can plan
accordingly.
Question. Aren't costs incrementally increased by trying to find
these logical stopping points as opposed to continuing construction?
Answer. While funding could be used to advance those projects,
providing that funding would divert resources from higher priority work
elsewhere. Therefore, for lower priority work, reaching a logical
stopping point is sometimes the best use of available funding. Even for
those projects that are funded to logical stopping points, the work
plans sought to ensure safe site conditions, meet legal requirements,
and complete useful increments of work.
Question. Won't this end up costing the national economy more in
the long run if you continue to curtail these projects?
Answer. It is possible that some projects would cost more, but the
national economy as a whole will benefit if the funding is allocated to
higher performing activities. The intent is to optimize the use of the
available funding and to efficiently fund those projects that are
expected to provide the highest return to the Nation.
contributed funds
Question. In fiscal year 2012, the Congress provided additional
authority to the Corps for contributed funds. These are funds that
local sponsors gratuitously contribute to the Federal Government with
no expectation of repayment, is that correct?
Answer. Yes, this authority authorizes State and political
subdivisions thereof to voluntarily contribute funds, with no repayment
authorized.
Question. How is this authority being utilized?
Answer. In accordance with the law, the Corps may accept
contributed funds for authorized studies and projects for all water
resources development project purposes and for all phases of authorized
projects. Every request is reviewed to ensure that the acceptance of
such funds is legally appropriate, that the accomplishment of such work
is advantageous in the public interest, and that the work will not
negatively impact other work in the affected Corps district for which
funds have been appropriated by the Congress. Prior to acceptance of
contributed funds, the Congress first must have appropriated some
Federal funds for the study or construction of the project,
respectively. Upon receiving a proposal from the non-Federal sponsor to
provide contributed funds, the Army provides notification to the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees prior to negotiating an agreement
for the acceptance of contributed funds.
Question. Concern has been expressed that contributed funds could
be undertaken ahead of budgeted work or other work the Corps
undertakes. How is this new authority impacting the Corps' workload?
Answer. The Corps is required to evaluate whether the work to be
undertaken with contributed funds will impact ongoing work for which
the Congress has appropriated funds. The Corps has sufficient expansion
capacity to accomplish work funded from both sources. We do not
anticipate any negative impacts on the execution of other ongoing work,
as demonstrated by the recent experience with American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding where the Corps executed $4.5 billion
of additional work without any negative impacts to ongoing work.
Question. Concern has also been expressed that the Corps would try
to take on more architect-engineer type work in-house with contributed
funds. Are you continuing to contract out at least the same portions of
work that you have in the past as required in congressional direction?
Answer. Yes, the Corps is continuing to contract out at least the
same portions of work as in the past, consistent with congressional
direction.
Question. Are there any negatives to this contributed funds
authority that the Committee should be aware of?
Answer. At this time, we are not aware of any negative outcomes
associated with this contributed funds authority. We will continue to
monitor the use of this authority.
section 104 credits
Question. As you are aware, the new policy on crediting has been
extremely controversial in California and other States. I appreciate
how you have worked with us to ensure that the language in section 2003
was interpreted appropriately. I am not completely happy with the
guidance that you recently released, but it is much better than the
draft guidance. It is my understanding that credit will not be afforded
prior to the draft report stage of the project. Is that correct?
Answer. Yes. When a project partnership agreement has not yet been
executed, an in-kind memorandum of understanding (MOU) must be executed
prior to a non-Federal sponsor initiating construction work in order
for such work to be eligible for credit. As provided in the guidance,
an in-kind MOU for construction work may not be executed prior to the
release of the draft feasibility report for public review.
Question. There could be cases where that may be too restrictive
for some flood control agencies that are trying to maximize flood
protection for their citizens. In those limited cases, will you
consider exceptions to this policy?
Answer. Yes, exceptions to this policy will be considered in those
very limited cases where a compelling reason can be demonstrated why
the construction work for which credit is sought must be undertaken
prior to the release of the draft feasibility report for public review.
Question. If lands are purchased as a part of the credited work,
are those lands generally credited against the lands required for the
overall project?
Answer. Yes. Section 221 does not alter any responsibility of a
non-Federal sponsor to provide or pay for lands, easements, rights-of-
way, relocations and disposal areas (LERRDs) for a project, nor does it
affect the affording of credit for such LERRDs. Any LERRDs required for
a project, including LERRDs associated with work determined to be
integral to the project, will continue to be credited as LERRDs toward
the non-Federal cost share.
interagency performance evaluation task force
Question. After Hurricane Katrina, the Interagency Performance
Evaluation Task Force was charged with looking at the technical issues
surrounding the levee failures in New Orleans. Another group was
charged with reviewing the policy and decisionmaking process that led
to the system that was in place at the time. It is now 6\1/2\ years
after Katrina yet funding remains in the budget request, at an even
higher level than in the past. The justification shows an allocation of
about $12 million through fiscal year 2012, but an additional $53
million in funding needed to complete.
What exactly is this funding for?
Answer. The Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET)
assessment reviewed the technical issues associated with the
infrastructure performance during Hurricane Katrina. The Hurricane
Protection Decision Chronology (HPDC) reviewed the policy and
decisionmaking associated with the New Orleans hurricane protection
system over several decades leading up to Katrina. Those two
assessments were the drivers for the Chief of Engineers announcement of
the ``12 Actions for Change'' initiative in August 2006. That strategic
program was initiated to incorporate the lessons learned from the two
post-Katrina assessments into Corps policy, practice, and culture in
order to modify the way the Corps plans, designs, constructs, and
maintains its infrastructure. The ongoing program continues to be
funded under the IPET/HPDC Lessons Learned Implementation remaining
item. This is an ongoing program, aimed at continuous learning and
application of lessons from Katrina and subsequent experience.
The strategic program continues being executed by four national
teams. The four national teams established multiple project delivery
teams to execute specific tasks in support of the program. The teams
have been working on policy, guidance, methods, tools, technology, and
training to expand USACE's use of systems-based approaches, increasing
the use of risk management in our business practices and
decisionmaking, communicating risk more effectively, and giving greater
priority to technical competence and professional accountability. While
all actions are interrelated, each of the four teams has a focus area:
Comprehensive Systems Approach.--Emphasizes an integrated,
comprehensive and systems based approach incorporating anticipatory
management to remain adaptable and sustainable over time. These changes
require USACE to use collaborative, adaptive planning and engineering
systems throughout the project life cycle to effectively manage its
aging infrastructure in an environmentally sustainable manner through
explicit risk management. Approximately $3.6 million has been allocated
to this team through 2012. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $3.6
million to continue development of supporting technologies to improve
the effectiveness of post-authorization evaluations and assessments of
incremental change over time; address climate change impacts to water
resources projects, with particular emphasis on developing the
framework for how climate change and sea level change should be
considered in making decisions for existing infrastructure investments;
and continue to implement the consistent nationwide project datum and
associated subsidence standards and certification.
Risk Informed Decisionmaking.--Emphasizes integrated risk
management. These changes require USACE to use risk and reliability
concepts in planning, design, construction, operations and major
maintenance and to improve its review of completed works program by
including an assessment component with the goal of ensuring safe,
reliable, and resilient infrastructure. Approximately $2.5 million has
been allocated to this team through 2012. The fiscal year 2013 budget
includes an additional $2 million to further develop supporting methods
and technologies to support the transformation of Inspection of
Completed Works from project element inspection to a risk-based system
assessment; advance the understanding of risk and reliability including
establishment of a Risk Gateway containing resources for webinars,
training, and the development of a second generation risk model to
broaden the techniques used in New Orleans for Corps-wide use.
Risk Communication.--Emphasizes clear and candid communication of
risk both internally and externally, supporting risk-informed
decisionmaking. These changes require USACE to improve its
effectiveness in communicating risk; to coordinate a risk management
approach and policy with all agencies and stakeholders; and to
specifically establish ways and means to increase public involvement in
informed risk decisionmaking. Approximately $1.5 million has been
allocated to this team through 2012 focusing most on risk communication
skills. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes an additional $300,000 to
provide training on public participation skills and methods. A pilot
will also be conducted to test those methods in the USACE
infrastructure environment.
Professional and Technical Expertise.--Emphasizes professionalism
and technical competence. The purpose is to enable development of
expert Corps capability to provide safe, reliable, adaptable,
sustainable systems. Approximately $1.5 million has been allocated to
this team through 2012. The funds have been used to assess
competencies, gaps, methods of delivery, and sustainable strategies for
maintaining and building core competencies. The fiscal year 2013 budget
includes an additional $100,000 to survey technical staff and input
technical competencies into Army's Competency Management System, a
recently developed tool that will help USACE managers to better
integrate competency gaps into the hiring process.
The total cost for the four focus areas, before consideration of
post-2011 assessment activities, is $62 million. This figure does not
include $9.9 million to update the system assessment to learn from the
historic flooding of 2011, and develop ways to apply those lessons, as
the scope and cost for the update were only recently developed.
Question. Why aren't the new activities split out as a new start
studies? It seems like this Katrina study is just morphing to fit
whatever crisis is at-hand.
Answer. The 2011 flooding in the Greater Mississippi Basin was
among the largest and most damaging in this century, comparable to the
major floods of 1927 and 1993. Due to the historic nature of the
flooding, a post-flood assessment of the entire system performance is
needed to review the operational decisionmaking process and to identify
opportunities for improving future system operation and performance.
The assessment is intended to evaluate performance of the overall
system and the decision and communication processes and recommend
operational changes, both within and outside of existing authorities
and policies.
The post-flood assessment and the New Orleans assessment are
interdependent in that they employ similar analytic methods, contribute
to the same objective (to improve the operations and performance of
Civil Works water resources systems), and will be applied jointly to
the modification of policy, practice, and culture. Consequently, the
post-2011 flood assessment was integrated into the IPET/HPDC Lessons
Learned Implementation remaining item.
Question. Do you envision this as a permanent line item in the
budget or is there a definitive endpoint to the proposed activities?
Answer. The total cost for the scoped activities described above is
$71.9 million, before consideration of future price level adjustments.
The activities will compete for available funding until completed.
performance-based budget and development of work plans
Question. The Administration claims the budget funds the highest
performing projects and programs in its water resources missions. It
appears to us that the budget, as proposed, is woefully short of
funding those projects that contribute to the national economy and
provide benefits and services to the Nation through navigation and
flood control. The Congress generally has increased the agency's budget
above the Administration's request and expanded the list of projects
and types of projects funded. Still, fundamental questions about what
the agency does and how it operates are being asked by some observers.
The perspectives on how to proceed among Members of Congress, project
sponsors, fiscal conservatives, environmental interests, and other
stakeholders vary widely.
What performance-based criteria does the Corps use in determining
how much funding it proposes for planning and construction projects?
Not the individual projects or studies but the overall funding levels
for the accounts?
Answer. Performance criteria are not used to set account totals.
Rather, the Corps evaluates each planning and construction project
based on its individual merits, using the criteria applicable for that
type of project, and account totals are established by considering the
relative returns of investments among the various accounts, within the
totals available for Civil Works.
Question. It seems that the monetary benefits that Corps
infrastructure provide to the national economy is not considered when
determining funding levels. How do you determine the level of funds
within each business line?
Answer. Funding levels within each business line are determined at
the project level and considering the relative return of investments
within each business line, within the totals available for Civil Works.
white house navigation task force
Question. We read with interest in the Administration's budget
proposal to create a White House navigation task force.
What is the scope and intent of this task force?
Answer. Details of the task force's scope, intent, and composition
are being developed. The task force will provide a forum for developing
a broad strategy for investments in support of navigation and may also
seek to coordinate amongst the many Federal navigation programs. The
task force would develop this strategy through a multimodal view of the
Nation's investments in navigation, whereas the Corps is focused on the
type of infrastructure that the Corps has constructed and maintains.
Question. Who will be included on the task force?
Answer. Details of the task force composition are being developed.
Question. Will the Corps get a seat at the table?
Answer. Details of the task force composition are being developed,
but we anticipate that the Corps would be involved.
Question. What about the navigation industry?
Answer. Details of the task force composition are being developed.
water resources modernization
Question. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a new
Water Resources Modernization Initiative as the foundation of a
comprehensive strategy for investing in the Nation's water
infrastructure. We are pleased that the President is committed to
investing in a 21st Century Infrastructure for America--including its
water infrastructure--as a means to strengthen the Nation's economy,
create jobs, and bolster our long-term global competitiveness.
What specific proposals will the Administration include in this new
modernization initiative?
Answer. The Administration and the Corps are exploring options for
modernizing water resources laws, policies, and practices, including
project financing. This effort will be very broad in scope. We want to
consider what improvements are possible within existing law and policy,
what the limitations of those improvements may be, as well as whether
policy revisions or new authorities should be proposed. On the topic of
funding, which is a part of this effort, the Administration has already
proposed a user fee to help finance inland waterways capital
investments. Proposals to change the way that the Nation finances
investments in our other program areas may also be considered.
We are open at any time to a discussion with the Congress, our
cost-sharing partners, or other stakeholders on your and their
suggestions to help us to improve current water resources laws,
policies, and practices.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
army corps of engineers--levee vegetation
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, as you know from our previous
conversations my home State and the entire west coast are very
interested in the ongoing process regarding levee vegetation. Let me be
clear--we must make sure that our levees are safe. But we also have to
balance levee safety with meeting other requirements, such as the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and our Federal tribal treaty
responsibilities.
As you know, in the West vegetation on levees has been a critical
tool in ensuring that levee sponsors are meeting ESA requirements and
tribal treaty obligations. My colleagues from Washington State, and I
have been working with you and your staff for several years on the
draft Policy Guidance Letter (PGL) that will ultimately completely
transform the process by which the Corps issues variances to allow
levee vegetation.
As I read the latest draft guidance, published in February, I'm
pleased that some of the issue we've brought to your attention have
been included. However, I continue to have concerns about how this PGL
will actually be implemented on the ground.
In particular, I am concerned about the ambiguity in the PGL
regarding the ESA and tribal treaty obligations. I'm pleased to see the
Corps acknowledge that these important requirements must be met, but
can you please provide clarity on how the Corps will address this in
variance applications or System Wide Implementation Framework plans?
Answer. The Corps recognizes that in executing its authorities and
responsibilities to promote structurally sound levee systems in
furtherance of life safety, the agency must also address environmental
and natural resource needs and the rights and interests of tribal
nations through compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and
treaties. In instances where multiple interests are involved, the Corps
will collaborate with levee sponsors, natural resource agencies, and
tribal nations to develop solutions to meet the mandates of all
applicable environmental and tribal requirements, while recognizing the
paramount importance of protecting human life. The Corps and the levee
sponsors will be able to use either the vegetation variance process or
a more comprehensive system-wide improvement framework (SWIF) process
to develop strategies for addressing the multiple objectives and
constraints that may apply to a particular levee system.
The Corps believes that a reasonable approach to addressing these
responsibilities and developing sustainable solutions is to review the
environmental impacts of the application of levee system standards as
they are applied to the site-specific circumstances. With this
approach, the Corps recognizes that each levee system 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.
The Corps will work closely with the levee sponsors, appropriate
resource agencies and tribal nations, as well as other interested
parties, to complete the environmental compliance process. As part of
that process, the levee sponsors will be required to:
--provide the background information and documentation necessary to
complete environmental requirements; and
--implement any measures that are required as a product of the
environmental compliance as a condition of their choosing to
participate in the program for rehabilitation assistance under
Public Law 84-99.
Environmental compliance on levee systems operated and maintained by
the Corps remains the responsibility of the Corps.
Question. The Seattle District in my home State of Washington has
been intimately involved in managing vegetation on levees for many
years and has an on-the-ground working knowledge of the region. I
understand the need for Corps Headquarters to be involved in this
process but have concerns about Headquarters employees who have never
been on the ground in my State making final decisions on something this
important. As you finalize the PGL, what steps will you take to
delegate decision authority for the approval of variances and SWIF
plans to the District or Division level?
Answer. Both the vegetation variance process and SWIF policies will
be reviewed periodically and process improvements will be considered,
including future delegation of decision authority, based on
demonstration of consistent application of the PGL nationally and
lessons learned.
Question. Ms. Darcy, making a change of this magnitude in the
process for variance applications is likely to be costly to levee
sponsors--particularly in the Washington, where as I mentioned we have
had a District-wide variance in place for several years. What financial
and technical resources will the Corps provide to levee sponsors who
want to stay eligible for the Public Law 84-99 program, but do not have
the capacity to develop the technical elements needed to complete a
variance application or a SWIF plan?
Answer. The Corps will work closely with levee sponsors to help
determine the most viable option to meet Corps policies and standards.
Both the vegetation variance process and SWIF policy encourage a
collaborative approach. The Corps will assist levee sponsors through
these processes by providing technical expertise, levee data (if
available), and other applicable subject matter experts. For example,
the vegetation variance process encourages involving the Corps
vegetation experts as part of the scoping of variance packages, to
determine early in the process the required environmental and
engineering analysis.
Question. The Corps' own Engineering Research Development Center
(ERDC) analysis of levee vegetation produced--at best--mixed results.
The ERDC report indicates that, in contrast to the standing Engineer
Technical Letter (ETL), vegetation can actually be good for levees in
some cases. It is critical that the Corps provide resources for
continued scientific investigation into this issue. What are your
plans, with ERDC, to implement a prioritized research program to
provide a regionally appropriate, technical basis for a vegetation
management policy that supports our shared objectives of safe levees,
riparian habitat that supports salmon recovery and meets ESA
requirements, and cost-effective management for levee sponsors and the
Corps?
Answer. The results of the initial ERDC vegetation research
indicated that:
--In some cases, tree roots could have a potential shallow
reinforcing effect that improves slope stability, but the
weight of the tree and wind loads on the tree could have a
negative impact on overall deeper seated slope stability; and
--At some locations where a tree was found to increase the factor of
safety under one set of conditions, that same tree was found to
decrease the factor of safety when other likely conditions were
considered.
Overall, impacts of vegetation on levees remains a complex topic, and
the Corps intends to conduct additional research and work with external
scientific professionals to further identify future vegetation research
topics that address both short-term and long-term needs. A follow-up
ERDC report on this topic is being developed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Secretary Darcy and Major General Temple, thank you for
your testimony today. As you know, Corps of Engineers projects are
vitally important in Louisiana. For decades, the people of my State
have been fighting a noble battle to save the most productive and
environmentally significant coast and delta in the world. We are losing
25 to 35 square miles of wetlands per year--about a football field an
hour--which places millions of lives and critical national resources at
alarming risk.
While I have concerns about many Corps issues, I recognize that the
Corps has consistently been woefully underfunded, which presents great
challenges in addressing the needs of Louisiana and the Nation.
I am pleased to see that the Administration requested funding for
Louisiana Coastal Area projects. However, we simply must find a way to
make greater investment in critical flood protection, navigation, and
restoration projects. Some people may say that this country cannot
afford these investments--I say we cannot afford not to make them. Last
year's historic flooding along the Mississippi River provided a perfect
example of how wise and timely investment in construction and
maintenance can save lives and resources.
Since 2008, the Corps' construction budget has been reduced by more
than 50 percent, yet our backlog is greater than $60 billion in
projects nationwide. This near halt in construction funding has dire
consequences across the country. But it is most concerning after what
we learned in Louisiana from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--the approach
of ``patch and pray'' when it comes to flood protection does not work.
I also have continued concerns about insufficient funding to
address the Nation's dredging needs, particularly when channel users
pay a fee that would cover the costs, but the total amount being
collected is not being used for dredging. On average, full channel
dimensions are available only one-third of the time at the busiest 59
harbors in the United States. I am pleased that the budget provides a
12-percent increase from last year's request for use of Harbor
Maintenance Fund dollars, including an increase for dredging on the
Lower Mississippi, but this still will not meet the needs of the Nation
or the State of Louisiana.
As you know, I have been frustrated by the number of years the
Corps spends studying projects. In Louisiana, time is not on our side,
and we cannot afford 10 years to study flood control and restoration
projects. I understand the Corps is working toward more efficient
processes. Can you provide some details about the Corps efforts to
decrease the number of years spent studying projects?
Answer. A new planning modernization initiative was introduced in
January 2011 that is focused on risk-based scoping to define the
appropriate levels of detail for conducting investigations, so that
recommendations can be captured, succinctly documented, and completed
within a goal of 18 months. Corps leadership has issued guidance
mandating all typical feasibility studies be completed in 18-36 months.
The proposed process should dramatically shorten the amount of time and
cost of conducting planning studies and increase corporate and
individual accountability for decisions. This process will save time
and money for both the Federal Government and the project sponsors.
As part of this initiative, all ongoing feasibility studies are
under review. The Corps will reclassify to inactive those studies with
limited likelihood of success, so funding can be focused on the most
credible and viable projects to improve feasibility study execution and
delivery. Studies that are classified as inactive will be considered
for future year funding, but this approach will enable the Corps to
more efficiently fund those studies that are most likely to result in
high-performing projects.
I continue to hear from a number of concerned ports, businesses,
and citizens about consistent navigability along the Lower Mississippi
River. The Corps was responsive to these concerns and provided
additional dredging dollars earlier this year, but I believe we need to
be more proactive. 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.
Question. I appreciate the increase for dredging on the Lower
Mississippi, but does your request provide enough funds to ensure that
the Mississippi River remains open for business at the maximum
authorized depths?
Answer. The Corps will continue to keep the river open for
navigation, except during flood or other emergencies. The river will be
dredged to the maximum authorized depth in some areas. In other
reaches, there could be some reductions in channel width at certain
times of the year, as is the case with other navigation projects around
the country. The budget includes $81.7 million for the Lower
Mississippi River Baton Rouge to the Gulf project, which is the highest
amount ever budgeted for this project. The Corps monitors the channel
conditions on a regular basis and uses the information to schedule
dredging activities and maintain navigation.
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. The Corps focuses on funding those navigation projects with
the highest level of commercial usage, greatest risk of failure, and
greatest economic consequences. Other factors taken into consideration
include:
--whether the project serves as a critical harbor of refuge or a
subsistence harbor, or supports public transportation, U.S.
Coast Guard search and rescue operations, the national defense,
or other Federal agency use; and
--the reliance on marine transportation for energy generation or home
heating oil deliveries, and the level of commercial use (albeit
less than a medium level of commercial use).
inland waterways
Question. Ms. Darcy, I have grave concerns regarding the Olmsted
Lock and Dam project. This project was authorized by the Congress in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 at an estimated project
total cost of $775 million. The most recent cost estimate is more than
$3 billion. The August 1985 Corps of Engineers feasibility report that
the Congress used to authorize the project in 1988 assumed a 7-year
duration. Funds to initiate construction of the Olmsted project were
appropriated in fiscal year 1991, which means the project should have
been complete in 1998.
Can you provide an update on the project's current status and an
explanation of the inordinate delays and the cost increases associated
with those delays? Would you say it about 50-percent complete? What is
the Corps projection for completion year?
Answer. The Olmsted cost increase to $2.918 billion (October 2011
price levels) is attributed primarily to low initial estimate, which
increased substantially in light of construction and contractual
complexities associated with the innovative ``in-the-wet'' construction
technique. This method also lengthened the duration of construction
which pushed costs into an unanticipated period of higher than average
inflation associated with building materials utilized for construction.
There are several factors that have contributed to the low initial
cost estimate. Factors that were unknown when the project was
authorized include the negative impacts on productivity due to river
conditions (elevation and velocities) and the complexity of shell
fabrication necessitated by the seismic condition at the site. Early
on, a decision was made to use the innovative ``in-the-wet''
construction method. After constructing and setting the first set of
shells in 2010, the government and contractor realized that the effort
associated with fabrication and setting these large pieces of precast
concrete and filling them with tremie concrete was not like any work
they had previously experienced or previously had estimated. The
construction challenges associated with developing this innovative
method of construction have been overcome, but required a lot more
effort than was originally envisioned.
Roughly 77 percent of the increase in the estimated total cost of
the project, in real terms (above inflation) is associated with the
increase in the cost of constructing the dam.
The project will be approximately 50-percent complete by the end of
fiscal year 2012.
The Army Corps is working on a Post Authorization Change Report on
the Locks and Dams 52 and 53 Replacement project (Olmsted Locks and
Dam), Illinois and Kentucky. The report re-estimates the project's
benefits and costs and on that basis recommends that the Congress raise
the authorized total cost for the project to $2.918 billion (October
2011 price levels). This is roughly a 95-percent increase in real terms
from the total cost now authorized--$775 million (October 1987 price
levels). The budget includes a general provision to authorize this
proposed increase in the total cost for the project, and provides $144
million to continue construction of the project in fiscal year 2013.
The Post Authorization Change Report is currently under review and is
expected to be transmitted to the Congress shortly.
The report estimates that the Olmsted Locks and Dam part of the
project will become operational in fiscal year 2020, based on the
minimal project features required for the dam to hold the pool and pass
navigation through the locks. Physical Completion for the dam contract
is projected to be in fiscal year 2021, including contractor de-
mobilization and equipment salvage. The remainder of the work,
including other required facilities, buildings and grounds, river
dikes, demolition of Locks and Dams 52 and 53 and permanent operating
equipment is projected to be finished in fiscal year 2024, thus
completing the project.
The schedule in the report assumes that the Corps will spend an
average of about $150 million per year on this project, consistent with
recent funding levels and the level of receipts to the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund (IWTF) under current law.
The report estimates that the maximum that the Corps could use
efficiently and effectively on the remaining work on this project is
around $215 million per year, or roughly $65 million more per year than
the $150 million per year funding stream assumed in this report.
Enactment of legislation that provides additional receipts to the IWTF
would be necessary to reach the higher level of funding, which could
cut up to 3 years from the project schedule, resulting in savings of
approximately $150 million.
Question. What is the Corps doing to address concerns about the
experimental ``in-the-wet'' construction approach currently being used
to construct the project? Have you considered going back to the
traditional cofferdam construction approach?
Answer. The Corps has assembled a team of experts to consider
alternative construction techniques. The team is developing a concept
level design for ``in-the-dry'' construction to a degree that can be
used to prepare a reliable cost estimate and schedule suitable for
comparison to the ongoing ``in-the-wet'' construction for the navigable
pass portion of the dam. The Corps will evaluate the team's
recommendation based on the concept level design and certified cost
estimate by the summer 2012 to determine the most cost-effective way to
complete construction.
Question. What impact do the delays and cost increases have on
other inland waterway construction projects? (Note: The Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal Lock Replacement Project has been waiting for
replacement for more than 50 years.)
Answer. For the Civil Works program as a whole, completing the
Olmsted project is a priority. Based on the current level of revenues
to the IWTF, the Post Authorization Change Report includes a schedule
based on continued funding of the Olmsted project at approximately $150
million annually. Enactment of legislation that provides additional
receipts to the IWTF would be necessary to reach the higher level of
funding for the Olmsted project, which could cut up to 3 years from its
schedule and also result in savings of approximately $150 million. Work
on some other inland waterways projects is being suspended due to a
lack of resources in the Trust Fund to continue construction. This
highlights the importance of enacting a long-term mechanism to increase
receipts to the IWTF.
Question. I understand that by September 30, more than $748 million
will have been allocated from the IWTF for the Olmsted project. This
means that the inland waterway industry has already paid double the
amount that was intended when the project was authorized, the same is
true for the general taxpayer.
What are the average annual economic benefits that the Olmsted
project is expected to return to our national economy when the project
is finally completed? Is this average annual economic benefits figure
also a measure of the cost to the Nation's economy of each year that
the Olmsted project's completion is delayed?
Answer. Average annual net benefits, that is, total average annual
benefits less the total annual construction, operation, and maintenance
costs needed to generate those benefits, is an appropriate measure of
the long-term economic impact of the Olmsted project. Economic analyses
in the draft Olmsted Locks and Dam Post Authorization Change Report,
which is currently under review, indicate that the Olmsted project will
generate an estimated $875 million in total average annual National
Economic Development (NED) benefits. The average annual cost required
to generate those NED benefits is estimated as $235 million. Thus, the
indicated average annual net benefit is an estimated $640 million.
These estimates reflect differences in benefits and costs over a
theoretical 50-year period, after discounting. They do not reflect the
benefits and costs associated with any particular subset of those
years, such as the actual construction period. The estimates also are
based on a variable discount rate, as provided in section 80 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1974, which does not reflect the
long-term opportunity cost of capital for the economy as a whole.
Finally, any delay in project completion at this point is due to the
low level of receipts in the IWTF. The Administration has proposed
legislation to address that problem.
Question. From this point forward, what is the amount of additional
economic benefits that will be lost to the Nation's economy because of
further delays in the Olmsted project's completion?
Answer. The Olmsted cost increase to $2.918 billion (October 2011
price levels) is attributed primarily to a low initial estimate, which
increased substantially in light of construction and contractual
complexities associated with the innovative ``in-the-wet'' construction
technique. This method also lengthened the duration of construction,
which pushed costs into an unanticipated period of higher than average
inflation associated with building materials utilized for construction.
The schedule for this project reflects the nature of the work that
remains. It changes over time, as the Corps incorporates lessons
learned and reassesses the challenges that it will encounter in
completing this complex engineering project. When the project is
complete, the Nation's economy will realize all of the project's
benefits. The ``delay'' reflects the magnitude of the challenge, which
has been more daunting than expected.
For the 91 million tons of traffic that pass through Locks and Dam
52 and the 81 million tons that pass through Locks and Dam 53 annually,
Olmsted offers a new reliable project in place of the two aging and
unreliable projects. Much of the savings estimated in the Post
Authorization Change Report occur from avoiding anticipated cyclical
lock maintenance service disruptions at Locks and Dams 52 and 53.
Completing Olmsted will also save $32 million annually in Federal
maintenance costs now spent to maintain the locks and dams to keep them
operating.
beneficial use of dredged materials
Question. I understand that approximately 50 million cubic yards of
dredged material are dumped into the ocean annually.
Can you provide any general data about how beneficial uses--such as
nourishment of beaches with clean sand or development of wetland
habitats--compare to current and other alternate disposal options?
Answer. The Corps strives to use dredged material beneficially when
technically feasible, environmentally acceptable, and cost effective.
Corps regulations (CFR 335.7, 53 FR 14902) require the Corps to
identify the least costly dredged material placement alternative that
is consistent with sound engineering practices and meets all Federal
environmental requirements. This is known as the Federal Standard or
Base Plan. In some cases dredged material may be used beneficially at
about the same cost as the Federal Standard. However, the majority of
beneficial use options are typically more costly than other placement
options, and there would need to be a non-Federal sponsor willing to
pay all or a portion of the additional costs beyond the placement
method found to be the least costly, environmentally acceptable method
for the navigation project.
Question. Can you tell us more about the Corps Regional Sediment
Management Program? I understand it is still in its infancy but am
interested in hearing about its successes and about plans to expand the
program.
Answer. The Regional Sediment Management (RSM) program supports
sustainable solutions to optimize the use of sediments to benefit a
region. Under the RSM program, the Corps has been successful in
identifying and understanding regional sediment transport processes
along the Nation's shorelines and is now applying this knowledge to
implement solutions to better manage and use sediments. These solutions
span multiple projects, programs, State, local, and political
boundaries and allow the Corps to better manage sediment regionally.
Examples of key successes of the RSM program include the
Jacksonville District's St. Johns County, Florida RSM initiative, which
linked navigation channel maintenance dredging with the adjacent shore
protection project to leverage funds, technical capabilities, and most
importantly, manage the sediment to accomplish the missions of both
projects. The Mobile District is working with stakeholders to develop
an RSM strategy to place material dredged from the Upper Mobile Harbor
within Mobile Bay to create 1,000 acres of marsh habitat. The strategy
will reduce the amount of sediment taken to the offshore placement area
40-miles south of the Upper Mobile Bay navigation channel and provide
environmental benefits. The Portland District has collaborated with
stakeholders to identify and permit four near-shore placement areas for
the mouth of the Columbia River. Rather than placing material in the
offshore deepwater placement area, where sediment is lost to the
system, the material will be placed in the new near-shore sites to feed
adjacent shorelines, create environmental habitat, and assist with
maintaining the jetty infrastructure by reducing erosion along the base
of the structure.
The RSM program will continue to move forward engaging stakeholders
to adopt regional approaches to sediment management. Approximately $1.8
million is included in the fiscal year 2013 budget for the RSM program.
wetlands mitigation
Question. The Corps New Orleans District Office recently adopted
the Modified Charleston Method (MCM) to determine mitigation
requirements for 404 permits. I understand that in some cases, the
mitigation ratio has more than doubled. This drastic increase in
mitigation requirements has caused a significant economic impact and
has the potential to bankrupt vital public works projects and
development efforts.
The New Orleans District's response to public comments on the
adoption of the new method states that they did ``not have the
resources to conduct an economic impact study'' regarding the impacts
of MCM implementation. How is the Corps working to balance
environmental impact, economic concerns, and the need to proceed with
important public works projects?
Answer. An economic analysis is not required prior to adopting and
implementing impact and mitigation assessment methodologies. However,
the Corps does consider the effects to the regulated public when
adopting new policies or guidance. In this case, the need to provide
applicants and our regulatory staff with a rapid and repeatable method
to assess impacts and mitigation in a consistent and predictable manner
was a major consideration in the adoption of the MCM. When planning
projects that may require work in wetlands, applicants should be aware
that the Corps evaluates each project to determine compensatory
mitigation requirements for unavoidable impacts in accordance with the
Federal mitigation rule. The applicant can use the MCM to assess the
impacts and to determine the amount of mitigation that may be required
and then contact existing mitigation banks within the watershed to get
an estimate of the mitigation cost. This information may be used by the
applicant in its economic analysis for its proposal. The applicant may
determine that the cost of mitigation is excessive and then work to
redesign the project to avoid or minimize wetland impacts so that costs
associated with mitigation are reduced.
We have examined the impacts of the MCM on mitigation requirements
for permits issued between May 2011 and October 2011 and our analysis
reveals that the mitigation ratios have increased from 1.6:1 to 2.4:1
on an acre basis. Although this shows an increase, the ratio does not
represent a doubling of mitigation requirements.
Subsequent to the publication of the Federal Mitigation Rule in
April 2008, applicants are required to include in their application ``.
. . a statement describing how impacts to waters of the United States
are to be avoided and minimized. The application must also include
either a statement describing how impacts to waters of the United
States are to be compensated for or a statement explaining why
compensatory mitigation should not be required for the proposed
impacts.'' Our mitigation rule encourages the use of assessment tools,
if available, when determining mitigation requirements.
A permit is issued if the district commander determines that the
proposed project complies with the section 404(b)(1) guidelines and is
not contrary to the public interest. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts
is part of this determination. Our goal is to provide applicants with a
balanced decisionmaking process to ensure aquatic resource protection
while allowing economic development to move forward in accordance with
Federal laws and regulations.
New Orleans District MCM is an improvement over the previous
process used for reviewing mitigation proposals. Previous mitigation
estimates were based on the best professional judgment of the
individual project managers reviewing the mitigation proposal.
Comparatively, the MCM methodology provides a framework for more
consistent, repeatable, and objective results. The MCM is rapid enough
for the applicant to use and provides the applicant the ability to
estimate their mitigation requirements based on the types of resources
they propose to impact and other factors. Other factors that are
considered include those that are related to the type of impact that is
proposed, such as rarity of the habitat, habitat condition, degree of
hydrologic disturbance, length of time impacts are expected to last,
the type of impact (e.g. clearing, draining, dredging, filling, etc.),
and potential cumulative impacts. Some of the mitigation factors
considered include type of mitigation (re-establishment,
rehabilitation, enhancement, etc.), the type of legal protection the
mitigation site will have, the time it will take to restore lost
functions, and when the mitigation will be performed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. I was pleased to see that the fiscal year 2013 budget
includes $1 million for a study to find a long-term solution to chronic
flooding in the Passaic River Basin. However, it will take at least 3
years for construction to begin on a solution. How can the Corps
expedite this project to ensure that families in the basin have flood
protection as soon as possible?
Answer. The Corps is currently realigning all feasibility studies
to complete the most viable studies within 3 years. This process will
expedite projects that are both likely to be found in the Federal
interest and have strong sponsor support to be recommended for new
start construction. The first phase of the Passaic River Basin study is
designed to provide the non-Federal sponsor with an opportunity to
determine alternative(s) on which to proceed to a Detailed Analysis
Phase.
Question. The budget requests funding for six new Army Corps
studies. However, the budget does not include funding for several
critical ongoing New Jersey studies, including the Rahway River Basin,
the South River-Raritan River Basin, the Millstone River-Stony Brook
and the Peckman River Basin projects.
What criteria did the Army Corps use to determine which projects
were included in the budget request? For all categories of project
activity and budget accounts, please include specific factors as well
as an explanation of how each factor influenced the decisionmaking
process. If there was a benefit to cost-ratio threshold that had to be
met, please indicate what that value was for each category.
Answer. The four New Jersey studies, the Rahway River Basin, the
South River-Raritan River Basin, the Millstone River-Stony Brook, and
the Peckman River Basin are all flood risk management studies. The
primary criteria that the Army used to determine which studies were
included in the budget for the Flood Risk Management business line
were:
--study phase;
--study completion date;
--population at risk which is represented by the number of people
living, working and transient located in the study inundation
area for the design level recommended;
--population affected by flooding which is the number of people
located in floodplain afforded risk reduction by the project at
the design level;
--the flooding risk depth; and
--benefit to cost ratio for preconstruction engineering and design
projects.
The Army also takes other factors into account, including the potential
risk reduction, the environmental benefits to a community, and
leveraging Corps resources to provide the highest return for the
Nation.
Question. What specific factors led to the decision to exclude the
following New Jersey projects from the budget request: Rahway River
Basin, South River-Raritan River Basin and the Stony Brook-Millstone
River and the Peckman River Basin? Please include a detailed
explanation for each project.
Answer. While there are many worthwhile programs, projects, and
activities nationwide, the fiscal year 2013 budget focused on the
highest performing studies nationally. Each study was evaluated based
on its performance, including public safety as well as economic and
environmental benefits. The specific factors that led to the decisions
to exclude the four New Jersey projects from the budget request are:
Rahway River Basin, New Jersey.--The population at risk is
approximately 23,000 people and the population affected by flooding is
approximately 2,000 people. The flooding risk depth is 10 feet. This
feasibility study was not included in the fiscal year 2013 budget due
to low population affected by flooding relative to other competing
needs elsewhere in the Nation.
South River-Raritan River Basin, New Jersey.--The population at
risk is approximately 146,000 people, and the population affected is
approximately 21,000 people. The benefit to cost ratio for this project
is 2.2 to 1. The flooding risk depth is 13 feet. This project was not
included in the fiscal year 2013 budget due to low population affected
by flooding relative to other competing needs elsewhere in the Nation
and the benefit to cost ratio of 2.2 to 1 that would make this project
a lower priority for consideration of future construction funding.
Stony Brook, Millstone River Basin, New Jersey.--The population at
risk is approximately 125,000 people and the population affected by
flooding is approximately 5,000 people. The flooding risk depth is 9
feet. This feasibility study was not included in the fiscal year 2013
budget due to low population affected by flooding relative to other
competing needs elsewhere in the Nation.
Peckman River Basin, New Jersey.--The population at risk is
approximately 265,000 people and the population affected by flooding is
approximately 172,000 people. The flooding risk depth is 7 feet. This
study was not included in the fiscal year 2013 budget due to the low
population affected by flooding relative to other competing needs
elsewhere in the Nation.
Question. What specific factors led to the decision to include in
the budget request only project monitoring funds for the Barnegat Inlet
to Little Egg Harbor Inlet project and to exclude the Townsends Inlet
to Cape May Inlet project? Please include a detailed explanation for
each project.
Answer. Both the Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Inlet project
and the Townsend Inlet to Cape May Inlet project were evaluated based
on their performance, including contributions to public safety as well
as economic and environmental benefits of each project. Barnegat Inlet
to Little Egg Harbor Inlet was funded in fiscal year 2013 to continue
project monitoring after construction. Construction funds for the
Townsend Inlet to Cape May Inlet project were not included in the
fiscal year 2013 budget due to the low benefit-cost ratio (BCR) (1.5 @
7 percent) and relative ranking to many other competing needs
throughout the Nation.
Question. I am pleased to see that the Corps has initiated a pilot
program to decrease the time it takes to plan and study projects. What
has the Corps learned to date from this pilot program? What are the
next steps in this review? Can the Corps expand this effort to include
a review of potential options to increase the pace of the complete
lifecycle of projects, from initial study through the completion of
construction?
Answer. The National Pilot Program for Feasibility Studies was
initiated in February 2011 to identify means to shorten the timeframe
for pre-authorization study completion while retaining the quality of
the analyses and decisions. The Pilot Program has affirmed that
increased focus on the scope of each study leads to more effective
decision documents and that early characterization of the risk
associated with each study, and management of that risk, reduces
uncertainty in the iterative planning process. No additional pilot
studies are being proposed at this time as the intent is to now apply
the lessons learned from these pilot studies to all active feasibility
studies by fiscal year 2014. The Corps continues to develop and refine
methodologies and processes for feasibility studies across all business
lines in a manner that will be sustainable, replicable, and will inform
future Civil Works guidance.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
missouri river flood infrastructure recovery
Question. The Corps has been spending down the emergency funding
that was provided last year to rehabilitate damaged flood control
structures following the flood of 2011. Brigadier General McMahon will
want to review the progress of those repairs, the remaining work to be
done, and the funding available. Of particular interest to Montana is
the maintenance to the Fort Peck Dam. The area beneath the spillway was
substantially washed out due to sustained record releases from the dam,
which the Corp will need to address. In addition, of the three channels
for releasing water from Fort Peck (powerhouse, spillway, and bypass
tunnels) for several years, only two have been operable as the ring
gates leading to the two bypass tunnels at Fort Peck have been
inoperative. As the spillway will be out of commission during repairs,
unless the ring gates are brought back online, the powerhouse will be
the only apparatus for releasing water from Fort Peck. Doesn't prudence
require repairs to the ring gates as an adjunct to the spillway
repairs, and shouldn't that necessity allow emergency funds to be used
for both projects?
Answer. The Corps is finalizing design for the spillway repair, and
the current solution allows for flexibility to operate the spillway up
to the levels observed in 2011 (if necessary) during repair activities
without substantial additional damages. As a result, while the ring
gates will require repair in the future, the current repair of the
spillway structure is not dependent upon a fully functional ring gate
system. Since the ring gates were not damaged during the flood of 2011,
repair of the ring gates is not, on its own, eligible for use of
emergency supplemental funding.
yellowstone river corridor study
Question. The Corps is in the process of funding a study of the
cumulative effect of the Yellowstone River, in cooperation with the
Yellowstone River Conservation District Council. The council has
requested funds to complete the study by the end of 2015. This decision
was prompted by members of the Technical Advisory Council who have been
working on the study in some cases well past their retirement, but
whose institutional memory is vital to the project. These members can
not make an unlimited time commitment but have elected to see the
project through to completion given that it does not extend past 2015.
Will the Corps make every attempt to provide sufficient funds to
complete the study by the Council's deadline?
Answer. The Corps is working with the project sponsor, as well as
the State and Federal agencies involved in the study, to define what
can realistically be achieved by the Council's 2015 deadline. The
fiscal year 2013 budget includes $200,000 for this study. This study
will be considered, along with many other worthwhile programs,
projects, and activities for the funding necessary in fiscal year 2014
to complete a high quality study by the Council's 2015 deadline.
missouri river authorized purposes study
Question. For several years, a study has been conducting a
comprehensive re-examination of the economic benefits of the various
authorized purposes of the Missouri River. Recently, flooding on the
Missouri has made the importance of completing this study even more
apparent. However, at the urging of the House, last year's
appropriations bill included a rider prohibiting any use of funds for
Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study (MRAPS). At the same time,
some members from the basin have advocated for legislative changes to
the authorized purposes, even in the absence of the completed study.
The prohibition on funds for the study was, to some degree, academic,
because the Corps has not budgeted to advance the study in either the
fiscal year 2012 or fiscal year 2013 budget request. How will the
Corps, through budgeting and use of discretionary funds, advance the
critical work of re-examining the way the management of the river has
performed, and further inform the Congress as policy changes are
contemplated?
Answer. A limited amount of coordination may continue, as
requested, utilizing unexpended carry over from fiscal year 2010, but
the Corps is not expending any fiscal year 2012 funding to continue
efforts on this study. The Army continues to evaluate each planning and
construction project based on its individual merits, using the criteria
applicable for that type of project and then to fund those projects and
studies with the highest return to the Nation. This activity will
continue to be considered along with many other worthwhile programs,
projects, and activities competing for funds across the Nation.
intake dam rehabilitation
Question. The Army Corps of Engineers is currently in the process
of rehabilitating the irrigation diversion dam near Intake, Montana for
passage of the pallid sturgeon. Since cost estimates for the original
design skyrocketed to more than $100 million, USACE has been re-
evaluating alternatives. It is critically important that whatever
alternative is selected function well to meet the needs of both the
irrigators and the wildlife. The intake to the irrigation canal must
function well despite the absence of the originally modeled rock ramp.
Furthermore, the fish passage must function to facilitate sturgeon
recovery on the river. What has been the Corps's process of engaging
with stakeholders as this project advances, and can they assure the
subcommittee that the selected alternative will serve the needs of the
irrigators and the sturgeon?
Answer. Phase I of this project to construct new headworks with
fish screens is complete and currently operational. The structure will
meet the full needs of irrigators for this irrigation season. The
structure will also prevent annual entrainment of hundreds of thousands
of native fish, including pallid sturgeon, into the irrigation canal.
The existing dam crest, which has historically been maintained by the
irrigation district to provide required flows into the canal, will
continue to require maintenance to the required elevations. The rock
ramp alternative would have required similar adjustment to the dam
crest. Any future fish passage alternatives will continue to
investigate the dam crest elevations within the overall project
objectives to ensure the best opportunity for successful fish passage
to include recovery of the pallid sturgeon.
Reformulation and feasibility evaluation of fish passage
alternatives has been undertaken by a multiagency partnership including
the Corps, Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Department
of Fish Game and Parks, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
Lower Yellowstone irrigation district, and others. All of the agencies
that are engaged in the decisionmaking process for this project are
focused on meeting the needs of the irrigation district, the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it applies to the pallid
sturgeon, and all other applicable State and Federal regulations.
Regular engagement of the stakeholder agencies has been maintained
throughout the design process via both face-to-face meetings and
periodic teleconferences. A revised Environmental Assessment is
currently under development and will have numerous levels of review to
include Independent External Peer Review (IEPR), State and Federal
agency reviews, and public review. Technical aspects of the project
related to pallid sturgeon recovery are reviewed and approved by a
multiagency Biological Review Team comprising some of the Nation's top
experts on pallid sturgeon. All the above methods are aimed to ensure
that the preferred alternative provides the best chance for successful
pallid sturgeon recovery by utilizing the latest science available.
st. mary rehabilitation
Question. The fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill included report
language requesting that the Bureau of Reclamation combine National
Environmental Policy Act compliance activities and preparation of
design, specifications, and contract documents for the entire St.
Mary's project including the diversion dam, fish passage structure,
drop structures, siphon, and canal be combined as a single activity.
What is the Bureau's timeline for completion of the Environmental
Assessment that is currently being conducted on the St. Mary project?
Answer. The Army is not in a position to provide schedules for the
Bureau of Reclamations' program and recommends that the question be
referred to the Bureau.
levee task force
Question. The fiscal year 2012 Homeland Security Appropriations
bill contained language requiring Army Corps of Engineers' to convene a
task force to develop common standards for Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) levee certification studies and the Army Corps of
Engineer's Levee Safety Program, such that the levee inspections
performed by the Army Corps of Engineers may be used to satisfy FEMA's
levee certification requirements. What is the progress of that task
force, and when can the committee expect a report?
Answer. The language in Public Law 112-74 requires FEMA ``to
convene a task force with the Corps to better align NFIP levee
accreditation requirements with levee inspections performed by or for
the Corps such that information and data collected for either purpose
can be used interchangeable to the maximum extent practicable toward
satisfying levee accreditation requirements. FEMA shall provide a
report to the Committee on the progress of this task force within 6
months after the date of the enactment of this act.''
FEMA has convened the task force and, while FEMA continues to have
the lead, the Corps is an active participant on that task force. It is
the intent of the task force to meet the time requirement for the
progress report in the legislation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
Question. General Temple, it is my understanding that the Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) owns more than 21,000 MW of power, and that a
report put out by the ACOE indicates potentially enormous energy
savings and a much lower carbon footprint for the U.S. Government if
you modernize your existing hydropower assets.
What is the ACOE doing on this issue?
Answer. The Army is implementing a Hydropower Modernization
Initiative (HMI) to address aging hydropower infrastructure issues for
197 generating units representing 54 power plants that are not directly
funded by the Department of Energy's Bonneville Power Administration.
HMI was established to assess and prioritize investment needs and
opportunities across the Army's hydropower assets, which include
replacing turbines, generators, and other major generating components
with modern equipment that can deliver better efficiency and additional
generating capability. The John H. Kerr power plant modernization was
completed in July 2011 adding 65 MW of additional capacity to the
plant. The Webbers Falls, Ozark and Denison power plants are being
modernized, which will improve operating efficiency and increase energy
production by 57,000 MWh.
Typically, when a hydroelectric power plant's generating unit is
replaced or refurbished, efficiency improvements can range from 3
percent to as high as 10 percent. If the Corps modernizes its top 20
plants as identified in its Hydropower Modernization Initiative,
efficiency gains on average would be 5 to 6 percent. This efficiency
improvement represents a significant amount of additional renewal
energy and avoided greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the initial
assessment of prioritized equipment modernization and improvements in
HMI would result in 830,000 MWh of additional renewable energy being
produced. This amount of energy would avoid 630,000 tons of
CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and serve 87,400
additional American homes.
Question. What would it take for the ACOE to modernize and upgrade
its facilities to result in more clean-energy production?
Answer. HMI study results show that an investment of approximately
$4 billion over 20 years would improve reliability, restore design
level efficiencies, and capture potential opportunities to improve and
upgrade facilities.
olmsted lock and dam
Question. Secretary Darcy, buried within the Administration's
budget request is a legislative proposal to increase the total project
cost of the Olmsted project to roughly $3 billion. That is an increase
of nearly $1 billion since you last reported to this subcommittee.
What has caused this spike in costs?
Answer. The Olmsted cost increase to $2.918 million (October 2011
price levels) is attributed primarily to a low initial estimate, which
increased substantially in light of construction and contractual
complexities associated with the innovative ``in-the-wet'' construction
technique. This method also lengthened the duration of construction
which pushed costs into an unanticipated period of higher than average
inflation associated with building materials utilized for construction.
There are several factors that have contributed to the low initial
cost estimate for the innovative ``in-the-wet'' construction technique.
Unknown factors when the project was authorized include the negative
impacts on productivity due to river conditions (elevation and
velocities) and the complexity of shell fabrication necessitated by the
seismic condition at the site. After constructing and setting the first
set of shells in 2010, the government and contractor realized that the
effort associated with fabrication and setting these large pieces of
precast concrete and filing them with tremie concrete was not like any
work they had previously experienced or previously had estimated. The
construction challenges associated with developing this innovative
method of construction have been overcome, but required a lot more
effort than was originally envisioned. Roughly 77 percent of the
increase in the estimated total cost of the project, in real terms,
(above inflation), is associated with the increase in the cost of
constructing the dam.
Question. Has an outside review of the cost, construction method,
and schedule been performed?
Answer. The Corps conducted an Independent External Peer Review of
the Post Authorization Change Report, which concurred with the revised
cost estimate. The schedule went through and Agency Technical Review
but was not reviewed externally. The project is currently undergoing an
internal review of the methodology of construction for the dam (``in-
the-wet'' versus cofferdams) and the management controls in place for
the cost-reimbursable contract.
Question. How much confidence should we have that this estimate
reflects the ultimate cost of this project?
Answer. The cost estimate was developed using a variety of
estimating methodologies by a diverse team of experienced U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) cost engineers and Hill International
professional cost engineers and schedulers. A cost and schedule risk
analysis was performed to establish the 80-percent confidence level for
both cost and schedule. Quality control and quality assurance reviews
were performed at various levels of product development. The Corps Cost
Engineering Center of Expertise reviewed and certified the project cost
and schedule estimates on November 9, 2011, confirming that the
estimates and schedules were prepared in accordance with clearly
established professional principles, practices, codes, and criteria.
Question. What is the projected completion of the project?
Answer. The schedule in the Post Authorization Change Report
assumes that the Corps will spend an average of about $150 million per
year on this project, consistent with recent funding levels and
reflecting the level of receipts to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
(IWTF) under current law. Based on that assumption, the report
estimates that the Olmsted Locks and Dam part of the project will
become operational in fiscal year 2020, based on the minimal project
features required for the dam to hold the pool and pass navigation
through the locks. Physical completion for the dam contract is
projected to be in fiscal year 2021, including contractor de-
mobilization and equipment salvage. The remainder of the work,
including other required facilities, buildings and grounds, river
dikes, demolition of Locks and Dams 52 and 53 and permanent operating
equipment is projected to be finished in fiscal year 2024, thus
completing the project.
Question. What is your confidence in this time and cost estimate?
Answer. The cost estimate was developed using a variety of
estimating methodologies by a diverse team of experienced USACE cost
engineers and Hill International professional cost engineers and
schedulers. A cost and schedule risk analysis was performed to
establish the 80-percent confidence level for both cost and schedule.
Quality control and quality assurance reviews were performed at various
levels of product development. The Corps Cost Engineering Center of
Expertise certified the project cost and schedule estimates on November
9, 2011.
Question. Have you considered changing construction methods to a
more traditional construction method?
Answer. The Corps has assembled a team of experts to consider
alternative construction techniques. The team is developing a concept
level design for ``in-the-dry'' construction to a degree that can be
used to prepare a reliable cost estimate and schedule suitable for
comparison to the ongoing ``in-the-wet'' construction for the navigable
pass portion of the dam. The Corps will evaluate the team's
recommendation based on the concept level design and certified cost
estimate by the summer 2012 to determine the most cost effective way to
complete construction.
Question. Do you believe it might be prudent to consider a pause in
this construction project in order for the Corps to re-evaluate the
plan to complete this project in light of the cost increase?
Answer. The Corps is still evaluating which method to use to
construct a portion of the Olmsted Dam and the timeframe for completing
construction of the overall project.
inland waterways trust fund
Question. Secretary Darcy, as you know I represent a State with an
extensive inland waterway system with several of our aging locks and
dams. I am concerned that the Administration continues to not address
enhancing the revenues of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). Your
announcement of the $1 billion cost increase on Olmsted Locks and Dam
would seem to make finding a solution more urgent than ever.
It is my understanding that the current 20 cent per gallon fuel tax
raises about $75-80 million annually. Is that correct?
Answer. Fuel tax revenues in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011
were approximately $74 million and $84 million, respectively. The
projected revenues from the existing diesel fuel tax are expected to
increase to approximately $92 million in fiscal year 2012 and $95
million in fiscal year 2013.
Question. With the projected funding needs for Olmsted over this
time period, what else will the Corps likely be able to do to address
the needs of this aging inland waterway system?
Answer. In addition to providing $144 million for Olmsted, the
fiscal year 2013 budget provides for completing major rehabilitation of
Lock and Dam 27 on the Mississippi River and Lockport Lock and Dam on
the Illinois Waterway, and continuing some funding for the Lower
Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4 project. Based on
projected revenues from the current fuel tax, if Olmsted Locks and Dam
is provided approximately $150 million annually, with $75 million
funded from the IWTF, approximately $40 million to $45 million per year
(depending upon the level of actual IWTF receipts) would be available
annually for other IWTF cost-shared projects for several more years.
One-half of those funds would come from the general fund of the
Treasury; the other one-half would come from the IWTF. This highlights
the importance of enacting a long-term mechanism to increase receipts
to the IWTF.
Question. Would you agree that simply raising the fuel tax, at best
is a band-aid solution to the long-term funding issues of the Inland
Waterways System?
Answer. Yes, we do not favor that approach. The Administration
submitted a vessel user fee proposal in September 2011, which if
enacted in addition to the existing level of revenue from the fuel tax,
as proposed, would raise sufficient revenues to finance needed
construction. To enact an increase in the fuel tax substantial enough
to provide the same level of revenues would require more than doubling
the current fuel tax.
Question. It would seem to me that what we need is an entirely new
way to finance the Trust Fund. Has the Administration given any thought
to an entirely new way to realistically fund this system? For the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund every imported item contributes to the
maintenance fund. Wouldn't a similar funding mechanism for inland
waterways provide a more robust funding sources as well as inflation
protection?
Answer. The budget proposes an equitable way to finance the non-
Federal share of this investment, which is the responsibility of the
commercial users of these waterways under current law. In September
2011, as part of the President's Jobs bill proposal, the Administration
submitted a legislative proposal to the Congress to reform the laws
governing the IWTF. The proposal would provide an additional source of
financing for major new investments in the inland waterways to support
economic growth. It includes a new vessel user fee, which, if enacted,
would supplement the revenue collected from the fuel tax, and would
increase the total paid by commercial navigation users sufficiently to
meet their share of the costs of activities financed from the IWTF. The
proposal has a provision to prevent the IWTF from accumulating too much
revenue and from being depleted. It has the potential to raise an
additional $1.1 billion in additional revenue from the users over 10
years.
Question. Has any consideration been given to changing the cost
sharing on Olmsted from the current 50/50 to something else such as 75
percent from the Treasury and 25 percent from the IWTF?
Answer. We do not favor that approach. The Olmsted Locks and Dam
project should continue to be funded as provided in current law, under
which requires construction is to be funded one-half from amounts
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and one-half from
amounts appropriated from the IWTF.
Question. Is the legislative proposal the same as proposed last
year in the President's deficit reduction package?
Answer. The legislative proposal to reform the laws governing the
IWTF is the legislative proposal President Obama transmitted to the
Congress in September 2011, as part of his Jobs bill proposal. It would
provide an additional source of financing for major new investments in
the inland waterways to support economic growth.
Question. As I recall that proposal allowed the Assistant Secretary
to raise fees as necessary to provide additional funds as well as
continuing the current diesel tax?
Answer. Correct. The diesel fuel tax would continue to be assessed
at the current rate of $0.20 per gallon, although the diesel fuel tax
would be assessed on the existing 27 inland and intracoastal waterways
as well as an additional 40 waterways that are not subject to the
current tax, and the Secretary of the Army would set the rates for new
vessel user fees on all 67 of the inland and intracoastal waterways.
Question. Do you know what these fees might consist of?
Answer. The legislation would impose a flat annual user fee on each
vessel that transports commercial cargo on the inland waterways of the
United States, which would be paid by the owner of the vessel. The
Secretary of the Army would determine the amount and structure of the
fee each fiscal year, with the goal of ensuring that the balance of
receipts in the IWTF is sufficient to cover the user-financed share of
the costs of inland waterways capital investment.
Question. Why are these additional revenues targeted for deficit
reduction rather than for improving or replacing the aging
infrastructure of the inland waterways system?
Answer. The proposal is not for the purpose of deficit reduction.
The revenues would enable an increase in investments in construction
and rehabilitation of inland waterways infrastructure.
Question. Have you been given any indication that legislation
allowing fee increases is being considered in the House or Senate?
Answer. No, although there are bills that would increase the fuel
tax.
flood control and coastal emergencies
Question. Can you update us on the progress you are making on
repair flood and storm damages from the $1.7 billion that we
appropriated in December?
Answer. The Corps is tracking progress on the Class I, II, and IIIB
repairs. The classes are defined as follows:
--Class I is Urgent and Compelling (Unsafe).--Heavily damaged
projects that have breached or failed where there is a probable
loss of life.
--Class II is Urgent (Potentially Unsafe).--Damaged projects that are
likely to fail where there is a probable loss of life and
economic damage.
--Classes IIIA and IIIB are High Priority, including:
--Class IIIB (Conditionally Unsafe).--Damaged systems that are
likely to fail where there is a potential for economic,
environmental, and an indirect potential for loss of life.
--Class IIIA (High Impact to Navigation).--Damaged systems directly
impacting high use navigation.
--Class IV: Priority (Marginally Safe).--All other damaged systems
not meeting Class I, II, or III above.
The Corps has made significant progress toward completing priority
repairs. The Corps identified 11 Class I (urgent and compelling)
projects and expects to complete interim protection for 10 projects by
March 31, 2012. Full completion is expected (pre-event conditions
restored) by March 31, 2013. There is one Class I project that
anticipates completion by March 31, 2014. Similarly, the Corps
identified 31 Class II (urgent) projects and expects completion of
interim protection for 14 projects by March 31, 2012. Full completion
is expected by March 31, 2013. Fourteen Class II repairs are
anticipated to be complete by March 31, 2014, and three repairs expect
completion after March 31, 2014. The Corps identified 31 Class IIIB
(conditionally unsafe) projects and expects completion of interim
protection for 19 projects by March 31, 2012. Full completion is
expected by March 31, 2013. Twelve Class IIIB repairs are anticipated
to complete by March 31.
Question. Will these funds allow you to make all of the necessary
repairs to return these flood control structures to pre-disaster
conditions?
Answer. A small portion of the costs of damage repairs is not
covered by Presidential declarations and, therefore, not eligible for
disaster relief funding. The funds will allow the Corps to make all
critical repairs in areas that are covered by Presidential
declarations.
Question. If not, are you budgeting for the necessary repairs
through regular appropriations?
Answer. Many of the noncovered repairs from the 2011 floods
successfully competed for fiscal year 2012 or fiscal year 2013 funding.
Only lower priority repairs, which did not compete successfully, have
been deferred and will be considered during formulation of the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget.
Question. Will the flood control infrastructure on the Mississippi
and Missouri Rivers, be able to provide protection from the high-water
events expected this year?
Answer. Yes, Corps-owned infrastructure on the Mississippi and
Missouri Rivers impacted by the 2011 Mississippi and Missouri River
flood is operational at this time and will be able to provide
acceptable level of interim protection from potential high water events
that take place during the upcoming flood season. Along the Mississippi
River interim repairs were initiated in several critical areas
including Birds-Point New Madrid (BP-NM), Presidents Island and
Meriwether-Cherokee to withstand possible high water in 2012. Permanent
repairs in the BP-NM Floodway area are scheduled either complete by the
2013 flood season or to a level sufficient to provide protection from
an event similar to the 2011 flood and are still needed to ensure
future operational safety and reliability. Damage assessments continue
and additional required repairs may be identified.
In the lower Missouri Basin between Omaha and Kansas City
Districts, repairs to the levee systems are in progress. Currently
closure of breaches on 10 of the 13 systems has been accomplished. As
we move into their flood season, traditionally late May through early
July, we anticipate all breaches being closed. Any remaining
vulnerabilities will be addressed through flood fighting, with on-site
contractors available should that need arise.
Work to restore levees to their pre-2011 flood condition continues
and is expected to complete on the Mississippi River Levees within a 3-
year time-frame. Damage assessments continue and additional required
repairs may be identified.
Question. How long do you project that it will take to restore
these flood control structures to pre-flood conditions?
Answer. By March 31, 2014, 96 percent of the highest priority
repairs are scheduled to be restored to pre-flood conditions.
principles and guidelines
Question. In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the budget request
proposed a new line item to prepare guidance for the revised Principles
and Guidelines (P&G). It was not funded by the Congress in either year
and the Congress directed that the current Principles and Guidelines
should be used for fiscal year 2012. I note that this line is missing
from your request for fiscal year 2013. Are the revisions of the P&G
still going forward?
Answer. Yes. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) leads the
Administration's process of modernizing the 1983 P&G for Water
Resources Planning.
Question. Are you aware of whether the Administration plans to
release the revised P&G in fiscal year 2013?
Answer. The product of the first step in that revision process--
called the Principles and Requirements--is currently under review
within the Administration. Agency guidelines would be developed
following the release of the final Principles and Requirements.
Question. Will the Corps still need new guidance to implement the
revised Principles and Guidelines in fiscal year 2013?
Answer. Yes. CEQ is expected to direct agencies to develop their
own procedures to conform to the interagency procedures (guidelines).
Within the Corps, ER 1105-2-100 (known as the Planning Guidance
Notebook) will need to be updated to incorporate new policies and
procedures to reflect the revised principles and guidelines.
Question. Without this specific line item, how does the Corps plan
to fund the guidance that needs to be prepared?
Answer. The budget includes funding under the Planning Support
Program for updating planning guidance in general, a portion of which
would be used to fund the guidance that needs to be prepared to reflect
the revised principles and guidelines.
regulatory program
Question. The budget request proposes $205 million for the
Regulatory Program. That is an increase of $12 million or nearly 7
percent, over the fiscal year 2012 amount. As I recall, this program
was funded at $189.6 million in fiscal year 2011, which is the last
fiscal year that is completed. How many permits did the Corps issue in
fiscal year 2011?
Answer. In fiscal year 2011, the Corps issued approximately 56,000
permits. In addition, the Corps finalized approximately 26,000 other
regulatory actions in fiscal year 2011 and more than 58,000
Jurisdictional Determinations.
Question. For fiscal year 2012, the Congress provided $193 million
for this program. Are you able to process permits in a timely manner in
fiscal year 2012?
Answer. Yes. Our data indicate that we are able to process the
majority of applications in a timely manner. We have established
national performance goals for processing time for both general permits
and individual permits, based on anticipated funding levels. The fiscal
year 2012 goal for General Permits (GP) is to process 75 percent of all
GP in 60 days or less. The fiscal year 2012 goal for Individual Permits
is to process 50 percent of these actions in 120 days or less. There is
regional variance in performance, although thus far in fiscal year 2012
the Corps is meeting or exceeding these goals on a national basis.
Program performance data over the past 5 years shows a direct
correlation between funding levels and performance: the more funding is
received, the higher the level of performance is achieved. In most
years, most performance targets are met nationally because the goals
are tied to funding levels. Other program funding factors, such as
increasing complexity, increased costs of litigation, and the need for
technology and science to inform decisionmaking are not reflected in
performance goal targets.
The program strives to deliver excellent customer service while
providing legally defensible decisions based in sound science as
expeditiously as possible. An increase is proposed in fiscal year 2013
to provide additional funds to Districts to sustain on-board staff,
which will support increased performance and thereby increase the
number of permit actions and associated program activities (e.g.
mitigation site evaluations, compliance visits) completed by District
staff. For the past years, funding increases have not kept up with
increases in indirect expenses (rent, vehicle costs, etc.). Additional
funds are needed to support existing staffing levels. The same or less
funds will mean a decrease in full-time equivalents (FTEs), affecting
permit review times and the number of jurisdictional determinations,
permit evaluations, mitigation reviews, and compliance visits that can
be completed.
Question. What is the average length of time for the processing of
your permits?
Answer. The length of time to process an application depends on the
type of permit requested and the complexity of the proposed action.
Individual permit involve a public notice and agency coordination, are
generally more complex, and are sometimes more controversial than
activities that may be authorized by GP. In contrast, GP may require
agency coordination but do not require a public notice and may only
authorize projects that result in minimal adverse impacts to aquatic
resources. To date, in fiscal year 2012, the average time to process an
IP was 139 days and 28 days for a GP.
Question. Are you anticipating a significant increase in permitting
activities in fiscal year 2013 or is an increase in staffing driving
this cost increase?
Answer. The Army anticipates an increase in applications/decisions,
jurisdictional determinations, agency coordination, and consultations,
and other complex workload actions in fiscal year 2013. Staffing levels
in fiscal year 2013 are anticipated to remain approximately equal or
slightly decline from the current staffing levels in fiscal year 2012.
Workload complexity is increasing as evidenced by a substantial
increase in the number of projects requiring Environmental Impact
Statements, projects requiring robust interagency coordination to
include a marked increase in Endangered Species Act consultations. A
10-percent increase was noted above fiscal year 2011 levels in the
total number of permit activities evaluated by USACE Districts.
harbor maintenance trust fund
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2013 anticipates $848
million to be contributed by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for
maintaining eligible harbors and waterways. That is a $90 million
increase over what was proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget. That is
a good trend. Does this meet the needs of all of the eligible ports and
waterways for the required maintenance?
Answer. The budget amount of $848 million for Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund eligible projects reflects an appropriate amount for
operation and maintenance of the Nation's coastal harbors and channels
for fiscal year 2013.
Question. How much additional funding would be required to maintain
eligible ports and waterways to their authorized requirements?
Answer. The cost to dredge and maintain eligible coastal harbors
and channels to their authorized depths and widths is estimated at
approximately $1.35 billion per year for high and moderate commercial
use projects and an additional $0.5 billion per year for low commercial
use coastal projects.
Question. How many of the ports and waterways that you elected not
to fund have not been proposed for funding in the previous 5 years in
an administration budget?
Answer. A total of 832 coastal navigation projects have not been
proposed for funding in the last six budgets (from fiscal year 2008
through fiscal year 2013).
Question. Were these projects economically justified at the time of
their authorization and construction?
Answer. The majority of them were probably viewed as economically
justified according to the laws and policies at the time of their
authorization and construction, which may have been many decades ago.
Question. Was the maintenance of the projects over their 50-year
economic life factored into that economic analysis?
Answer. Corps navigation studies typically evaluate project
maintenance over a 50-year timeframe.
Question. If these ports are meeting the tonnage projections in the
studies for which they were analyzed and authorized wouldn't it follow
that maintaining them would have a positive net impact on the national
economy?
Answer. Not necessarily. For example, the quality of the analysis
has improved since many of these projects were authorized, and also
varies from project to project. Even for a project that is meeting the
tonnage projections from the project studies, the type of commodities
and use of the project may have changed considerably since project
construction. Operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs may also
be higher than projected.
Question. Then how are we not funding these projects?
Answer. The allocation of funds considers the economic and safety
return on investment, in comparison with other potential uses of the
available funds throughout the Corps Civil Works mission areas, as well
as the need to reduce the Federal deficit.
Question. If the Administration has no intention of funding these
in the future due to the economics of the projects, wouldn't it be
appropriate for the Administration to propose that these projects be
deauthorized rather than ignoring this Federal obligation year in and
year out?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget is performance based. The
condition of projects changes over time and projects that do not
compete well in some years may compete better in the future. Projects
with little or no Federal interest can be proposed for deauthorization.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request shows a
decrease in funding for nearly every important Civil Works account:
Construction, Operation and Maintenance, Mississippi River and
Tributaries, and Investigations. However, there is a funding increase
for the Corps Regulatory Program for operational oversight and
management. It concerns me that the Administration is increasing your
ability to impose regulations but decreasing your ability to perform
vital functions such as maintenance dredging and flood protection. Can
you explain this concerning trend?
Answer. In comparison to the fiscal year 2012 budget, the fiscal
year 2013 budget includes increased funding for operation and
maintenance, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Regulatory, and
Emergency Management. The budget is performance-based and focuses on
those investments that will yield high economic and environmental
returns to the Nation or address a significant risk to public safety
and the environment, as appropriate, within the bounds of our statutory
authorities.
Question. I understand that the reimbursement from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) needs to be around $1.3 to $1.6 billion
annually to meet the basic maintenance dredging needs in the Corps'
maintenance inventory. What percentage of Harbor Maintenance Trust
revenue is actually allocated towards harbor operation and maintenance
costs each year?
Answer. Approximately 50 percent to 60 percent of HMTF receipts
have been allocated toward harbor operation and maintenance costs since
fiscal year 2007. The fiscal year 2013 budget increased funding for
harbor maintenance and related work by $90 million, which is almost 12-
percent above the level proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
Question. Are the Administration and the Corps of Engineers
considering ways to maximize use of the HMTF to address the critical
needs of ports that must be dredged and deepened in preparation for the
Panama Canal expansion?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget allocated Civil Works funding
based on performance. For activities funded from the HMTF the Corps
uses performance criteria that focus on the economic and safety return
from the investment in harbor maintenance and related work. In
addition, the fiscal year 2013 budget gives priority to funding studies
or preconstruction engineering and design for several proposed projects
that would enable a port to accommodate larger vessels, which could
transit the deepened Panama Canal, such as Boston Harbor, Brazos Island
Harbor, Charleston Harbor, Houston Ship Chanel, Jacksonville Harbor,
Savannah Harbor, and Wilmington Harbor; and also funds construction of
ports such as New York and New Jersey.
Question. There has been discussion of the needs of ports located
on the east and west coasts. Is the Corps fully cognizant of the needs
and the significance of our Nation's ports located in the Gulf of
Mexico as they relate to the Panama Canal expansion?
Answer. The Army is aware of the significance and needs of the gulf
coast ports. The budget includes funding for deepening studies for both
Brazos Island Harbor and the Houston Ship Channel.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, for any direct impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands, the Corps' New England District has published
``guidelines'' for compensatory mitigation. In the case of permanent
preservation, those guidelines call for a mitigation ratio of at least
15:1. For some projects, this ratio is increased to 20:1, or even 25:1,
based upon the discretionary application of the permit writers
valuation of functions and values. Under the State of Maine's law, the
mitigation ratio for preservation is 10:1.
Under the Corps ``guidelines,'' if one acre of wetland area is
impacted for a project, the Corps has required up to 25 acres to be
permanently protected. This adds significant costs to potential
projects that are key to our economic recovery.
For one project in Western Maine, a constituent sought to reduce
the wetland impact for a project that had been previously approved by
the Corps under its prior mitigation ratios. However, due to the new
higher mitigation ratios, and the requirement of both preservation and
in-lieu fees, the project has not gone forward. It is my understanding
that the wetland impacts would have actually been reduced, but that
still the Corps was asking for greater mitigation.
Does the Corps plan to review and revise its wetland mitigation
guidelines, particularly in the New England District, so that well-
designed and appropriately sited projects that would reduce wetland
impacts are encouraged?
Answer. As a general requirement, in accordance with section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA), an activity's impacts to waters of the
United States must be first avoided, then minimized, and lastly
compensated. Therefore, by nature of the law, projects that would
reduce wetland impacts are already encouraged.
The New England District's guidance has, for many years,
recommended a 15:1 ratio for preservation, although this ratio may be
lower or higher, depending on the functions of the wetland being
impacted as well as the ecological value of the proposed preservation.
The guidance is not binding and may be updated as necessary in the
future based upon new policy, guidance, or science. The New England
District works with applicants to avoid and minimize impacts to waters
of the United States, consistent with the requirements in the Corps
regulations. When projects result in less impact to aquatic resources,
mitigation requirements may be substantially reduced.
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, there remains a great need in
my State and others around the Nation when it comes to the dredging and
maintenance needs at our small ports and harbors. Without the ability
to direct funding to such activity, I believe we need to pay careful
attention to ensure the water infrastructure needs of all States are
met.
I am pleased to see $13 million included in the budget request for
the dredging of Portland Harbor. Portland Harbor is the largest
commercial port in Maine and it is one of the largest in New England.
In 2009, the direct economic impact of Portland Harbor was estimated to
be 3,668 jobs, $101 million in wages, and $209 million to the Gross
State Product. An additional $142 million of economic impact extended
beyond the immediate confines the harbor. This economic impact makes
the maintenance dredging of the Federal Navigation Channel critically
important.
I would also like to highlight the $30 million for operations and
maintenance projects at ``small, remote, or subsistence navigation''
harbors and waterways that was included in the fiscal year 2012 enacted
bill. This funding made a small project in Wells Harbor, Maine,
possible, but many others in my State are still in need of funding.
What funding is proposed under the fiscal year 2013 budget request
to meet the dredging and maintenance needs of the Nation's small ports
and harbors? How do you respond to concerns that the Nation's smaller
ports and harbors may be disadvantaged under the current Corps' cost-
benefit metrics?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget includes $40
million for low commercial use coastal ports and harbors. The Army
focuses first on funding those projects that provide the greatest
economic and safety return on investment to the Nation. For ports and
harbors with a low level of commercial use, the Army also considers a
range of factors such as whether the harbor is a critical harbor of
refuge or a subsistence harbor, or supports public transportation, U.S.
Coast Guard search and rescue operations, the national defense, or
other Federal agency use; the reliance on marine transportation for
energy generation or home heating oil deliveries, and the level of
commercial use (albeit less than a medium level of commercial use).
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Michael L. Connor
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
water banking
Question. Does Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) need additional
flexibility on water banking to better manage water resources in the
West?
Answer. BOR has authority for participation in water banks pursuant
to section 101(d) of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief
Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-250, as amended). However, that authority
is contingent upon Governors of the affected State or on a reservation
making a request for temporary drought assistance and the Secretary of
the Interior determining that assistance is merited, or upon the
approval of a drought contingency plan. BOR was given additional
specific authority to participate in water banks in the 2012
Consolidated Appropriations Act in the State of California. This
authority enhanced water management flexibility. In particular, the act
allows BOR to buy interests in water bank facilities and to pay water
banking fees with Central Valley Project (CVP) water. BOR and the State
of California are satisfied with the authorization, but note that it
expires with the act at the end of the fiscal year. Our Lower Colorado
(LC) Region has existing authority to participate in existing State
water banking programs, and has issued its own regulations to
correspond with water banking agreements among its States. It is
unclear at this point if the same authority would be useful in other
BOR regions or States.
Question. Is additional legislation needed to provide this
flexibility?
Answer. It is unclear what additional authority might be needed
across BOR and would depend on the extent of activity desired of BOR by
the Congress in relation to water banks. The Mid-Pacific (MP) Region
expects to use the authority enacted in 2012 for California and further
legislation would be needed to extend it. Further determinations are
needed to understand what authority exists, and therefore, what more
authority would be needed, in the regions other than MP and LC. Our
preliminary research indicates that BOR may lack authority to buy
interests in water banks in other States.
Question. What impact does tiered pricing have on the agricultural
water service contractors?
Answer. Depending on how a tiered pricing program's rates are
structured, tiered pricing may provide an incentive to use water more
efficiently, i.e., to use less water for crop practices that provide a
lower net return compared to those crops and practices with a higher
net return. This incentive is based on the concept that a direct
relationship exists between the amount of irrigation water delivered to
the farm and the amount the farmer pays for that water. The primary
determinant of the effectiveness of tiered pricing is the change in the
amount demanded relative to a change in the price (or price elasticity
of demand). A rate structure that encourages conservation must
effectively communicate the price of water at different levels of use
to users. However, if changes in price do not result in corresponding
changes to demand, a tiered pricing program will have a relatively
small impact on conservation. There are a number of factors and
conditions that may influence a tiered pricing program's impact on
irrigators. Some of these include:
--the actual structure of the tiered pricing program;
--the efficiencies of existing water management practices;
--the cost of adopting new water technologies;
--the quantity of available water supplies versus the quantity
demanded based on existing (and projected) cropping patterns;
and
--the value of irrigated crops produced, as well as the potential for
dryland crop production.
In the CVP, tiered pricing provisions of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (CVPIA) are triggered when a water service contractor
takes more than 80 percent of its total contract entitlement. Thus, in
dry years when allocations are below 80 percent, CVPIA tiered pricing
provisions do not apply. In addition, contracting actions for
settlement contractors, interim contracts, and section 215 water,
(which is considered to be outside of the contractor's own water
allocation) is not subject to tiered pricing. Consequently, contractors
that have the ability to receive additional water through transfers may
be able to circumvent any potential conservation intended through the
implementation of CVPIA tiered pricing.
One potential means of estimating the impact of CVPIA tiered
pricing provisions to CVP water service contractors is to examine the
amount of revenues collected through the application of tiered pricing
provisions. BOR prepares and submits an annual financial report to the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Senate Committee
on Appropriations, the House Committee on Natural Resources, and the
House Committee on Appropriations describing CVP Restoration Fund
revenues (receipts) and expenditures (uses). Revenues received from
CVPIA tiered pricing provisions amounted to $327,067 in fiscal year
2010. This was less than 3 percent of nondiscretionary CVP Restoration
Fund revenues ($11,132,008) and less than 0.7 percent of total CVP
Restoration Fund revenues ($47,968,797) received in fiscal year 2010.
The fact that the application of tiered pricing results in such a small
percentage of total CVP Restoration Fund revenues suggests that CVPIA
tiered pricing provisions likely have a relatively small financial
impact on water users. However, determining whether tiered pricing
encouraged or discouraged water conservation efforts in fiscal year
2010 is less clear.
Question. Do you believe that tiered pricing encourages or
discourages conservation among contractors?
Answer. In general, charging higher rates for additional water
tends to encourage conservation practices by water users (assuming
water can legally be treated as a commodity and deliveries can be
measured). However, irrigator response to a tiered pricing program is
dependent on the factors listed above--with the primary determinant
being how the tiers are structured.
CVP contractors located south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
receive, on average, about 66 percent of their contractual amounts. As
a result, the tiered pricing provisions of CVPIA generally have limited
impact on these contractors in terms of conserving water.
Question. What about in dry years?
Answer. Generally, we would expect the effects of a tiered pricing
program, in and of itself, to have less of an effect in encouraging
conservation among irrigators during short-term, intermittent periods
of water shortages, primarily because the higher priced tiers would not
be triggered with a reduced water supply. However, as indicated above,
additional factors might cause irrigators to respond in unanticipated
ways.
As indicated above, the tiered pricing provisions of CVPIA do not
take effect until contractors take more than 80 percent of their total
contract entitlement. Thus, in dry years the higher tiered prices of
CVPIA will not apply.
central valley project and state water project
Question. How can BOR and the State Water Project (SWP) in
California better improve their coordination so as to improve water
supply reliability for both systems?
Answer. The CVP operators and the SWP operators are co-located and
closely coordinate the operations of both projects. The Delta Mendota
Canal (Federal)--California Aqueduct (State) Intertie will be
operational this summer to improve water supply reliability.
sierra nevadas
Question. Do you believe there could be potential water salvage
benefits from better forest management practices in the forests of the
Sierra Nevadas?
Answer. Potential water salvage through restoration activities that
improve water quality and quantity varies due to the distribution along
the Sierra Nevada Mountains of precipitation, forest types, land
designations, multiple-use management arrangements, and laws,
regulations, and policies. In general, restoration activities on Sierra
Nevada National Forest Service (NFS) forests and wet meadows improve
water quality, water quantity, and streamflow regimens with the overall
effect of improving California's water supplies. Restoration activities
on these lands can protect water sources from degradation, as well as
improve the capacity of our NFS lands to retain, filter, and release
water during low-flow periods when it is needed the most.
Question. Do you have any suggestions as to how to determine if
this could result in significant water savings?
Answer. In December 2009, six Federal agencies, including the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), issued an Interim Federal Action Plan
for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta),
describing a variety of Federal actions and investments the
Administration has been undertaking or will take to help address
California's water supply and ecological crises. Multiple agencies
within USDA contribute to implement practices that have a high impact
on water resources in targeted landscapes. In 2010, USDA identified
landscapes of national importance including national forests and
private working lands in and around the California Bay-Delta, and
updated the contribution each agency will make to the high impact on
water resources goal, in the immediate future. The Forest Service is
working with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) to develop outcome-based measures for 2012 and
subsequent years.
The Forest Service manages resources on NFS forests land to ensure
that they are sustainable and productive for water, wildlife,
rangelands, timber, and the multitude of other resources found on
national forests and grasslands.
The NRCS has been developing interagency and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) partnerships to improve and protect the health of
the Bay-Delta headwaters by restoring forest lands and wet meadows.
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and Forest Service Chief Tidwell have
made clear the Forest Service's important role in water and watershed
management. Chief Tidwell has said that the Forest Service understands
the need to manage for water rather than mitigate for water. Managing
resources on NFS lands often involves striking a delicate balance. What
one may perceive as less than desirable practices might actually be
needed for restoration. Consequently, ``better'' forest management does
not mean the same thing to everyone.
calfed
Question. Your funding for CALFED is down nearly $4 million from
fiscal year 2012. What is the primary reason for this decrease? Is this
the start of a downward trend?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget, BOR allocated an
additional $2.5 million to support actions in the Interim Federal
Action Plan from the additional $6 million in funds provided by the
Congress under the Water Conservation and Delivery Studies, Projects
and Activities Category that was not included in the President's
request.
The fiscal year 2013 request accounts for increases from fiscal
year 2012 and does not represent the beginning of a downward trend as
the California Bay-Delta Restoration appropriation provides critical
Federal support toward the co-equal goals of improved water supply
reliability and an improved Bay-Delta eco-system.
klamath settlement
Question. Where are we on the Klamath settlement? Are we going to
see significant increased budget requests for BOR when this settlement
is resolved?
Answer. The Department of the Interior has not signed the Klamath
Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Congress has not acted on
legislation introduced in the House and Senate to authorize a
secretarial determination under the terms of the Klamath Hydroelectric
Settlement Agreement (KHSA). However under existing law, the Department
has the authority to provide water and power benefits as well as
addresses our tribal trust and Endangered Species Act (ESA)
obligations.
If the legislation is enacted, budget increases would be
anticipated as the KBRA legislation would likely require specified
levels of funding over the succeeding 15 years.
south dakota projects
Question. I note that your budget request for rural water funding
is increased. Will this funding level allow these projects to keep pace
with inflation? My fear is that with these funding levels, these
projects will never get completed. I am gratified to see that one of
the projects in South Dakota is scheduled for completion in fiscal year
2013, but where are we on the others? Will they be completed on any
sort of a reasonable timeline?
Answer. BOR is making progress on completing rural water projects
throughout North and South Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico. The Mid-
Dakota rural water project was completed in fiscal year 2006; numerous
features within the Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota have been
completed; and the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System is scheduled to be
completed in 2013. Approximately $232 million in American Reinvestment
and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds were provided to rural water to further
construction on these projects. Due to the additional ARRA funding,
Perkins County Rural Water Project received enough funding to complete
construction based on the authorized appropriations ceiling.
The budget request for rural water is a 7-percent increase from the
fiscal year 2012 enacted amount and an 11-percent increase from the
fiscal year 2011 enacted amount.
The total Federal cost to complete the construction of ongoing
projects in BOR is approximately $1.3 billion. The fiscal year 2013
President's request balances several priorities, including funding for
constructing authorized rural water projects. Given the need to work
within the framework of today's budget realities, as well as the need
to be attentive to priorities associated with existing water and power
infrastructure throughout the West, BOR is unable to fund all of the
ongoing rural water projects at their full-capability levels.
We will continue to evaluate each project using the revised interim
criteria and concentrate on finishing projects with the funding made
available through appropriations.
The first priority for funding rural water projects is the required
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) component, which is $18 million for
fiscal year 2013. The rural water request for construction was
developed using revised interim criteria (BOR used the same approach to
allocate additional fiscal year 2012 funds). These revised interim
criteria address BOR's program goals and objectives by incorporating
factors such as time and financial resources committed, regional
watershed perspective, urgent and compelling need, tribal members
served, economic impacts, and water use efficiency. BOR allocated the
funds based on each project's ability to use those funds to complete
distinct construction segments which would significantly advance the
provision of potable water to people.
Since 1980, the Congress has directed BOR to develop 13 individual
rural water supply projects at a combined cost of more than $2.3
billion. Projects have been authorized with non-Federal contribution
requirements ranging between 0 percent and 25 percent.
With a large backlog of rural water projects waiting to be
constructed and limited funding available, BOR developed the revised
interim criteria in order to apply a consistent and fair method for
allocating funds.
san joaquin restoration fund
Question. It is my understanding that the Friant surcharges that
used to go into the CVP Restoration Fund now go into the San Joaquin
Restoration Fund. However, where BOR used to appropriate those funds in
the CVP Restoration Fund, that they are being treated differently in
the San Joaquin Restoration Fund. Is it true that these funds are being
collected but are not being appropriated as a part of the budget
request?
Answer. No, BOR has requested discretionary appropriations to use
funds deposited into the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund (SJRRF) in
both the fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 budget requests. As
described in section 10009 of Public Law 111-11, funds deposited into
the SJRRF include the following:
--the Friant Division Surcharge;
--the construction cost component of payments made by the Friant
Division, Hidden Unit and Buchanan Unit long-term contractors;
--proceeds from the sale of water or land pursuant to the Settlement;
and
--any non-Federal funds contributed for implementation of the
Settlement.
The request made for discretionary appropriations to use funds
deposited into the SJRRF in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013
reflects the funding needs of the restoration program.
california drought
Question. What are the drought projections for this year?
Answer. Water supply conditions have improved significantly in
March and April, but we still may be looking at seasonal runoff indices
falling below historical average, especially in the San Joaquin Valley.
The water supply in the southern part of California has not shown as
much improvement due to less precipitation relative to Northern
California and the difficulty of moving CVP water through the Delta.
The U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook released by National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on May 17, 2012, is attached.
Question. What are the CVP Reservoirs (capacity) current storage as
of May 18, 2012?
Answer. Shasta Reservoir (4,552,000 acre-feet) now 4,436,000 acre-
feet; Trinity Reservoir (2,448,000 acre-feet) now 2,350,000 acre-feet;
Folsom (977,000 acre-feet) now 908,000 acre-feet; New Melones
(2,420,000 acre-feet) now 1,891,000 acre-feet; Millerton (520,000 acre-
feet) now 430,000 acre-feet.
Question. What is the latest projection on water deliveries from
BOR projects in California?
Answer. CVP is currently at 100 percent for the Sacramento River
water rights settlement contractors, 100 percent for San Joaquin water
rights exchange contractors, 100 percent of level 2 wildlife refuge
supply, 100 percent for Agriculture and Municipal and Industrial (M&I)
users north of the Delta, 75 percent of historical use for M&I users
south of the Delta, and 40 percent for agricultural users south of the
Delta.
bay-delta conservation plan
Question. Commissioner Connor, a lot of concern has been expressed
to me about the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process. Can you
tell us what your plans are for thoroughly studying all conveyance
alternatives for moving water past the Delta, not just the large,
isolated conveyance facility that has been identified?
Answer. While the current BDCP effects analysis evaluates a 15,000
cubic foot/second (cfs) facility, the BDCP Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) is evaluating a wide range of
alternatives. There are 15 action alternatives and 1 no-action
alternative which will be described in the BDCP EIR/EIS. The BDCP EIR/
EIS is analyzing various combinations of water conveyance
configurations including capacities ranging from 3,000 to 15,000 cfs,
different operating scenarios, habitat restoration, and the effects on
biological resources and water supply. In addition to conveyance, the
alternatives include a variety of conveyance alignments and other
specifications resulting from public scoping sessions conducted in 2008
and 2009 and the California Water Reform Act of 2009.
Question. How will studies of through-Delta conveyance figure into
the overall BDCP process?
Answer. The information resulting from the EIR/EIS studies
(including the through-Delta conveyance) being conducted will be used
for the selection of the proposed project submitted by the State of
California as part of ESA section 10 application process.
Question. After all diversion and nondiversion conveyance
alternatives have been identified, it is essential that a thorough
benefit-cost analysis be conducted for each. Can you tell us how you
plan to go about that?
Answer. As part of the overall BDCP process, several analyses are
being completed that address costs and benefits. First, the current
BDCP draft documents include initial cost estimates for construction
and implementation of a preliminary project. Secondly, the State of
California is conducting an economic analysis of the benefits
associated with BDCP alternatives. Lastly, the BDCP environmental
documentation will include an analysis of the socioeconomic impacts
associated with alternatives. This information will be used to
determine the proposed project to be included in the ESA section 10
permit application.
delta and delta counties
Question. Will the benefit-cost analyses you undertake include all
foreseeable direct and indirect economic impacts of the Delta and Delta
Counties, including the impacts of any new water infrastructure and
habitat conservation projects? If not, why not?
Answer. Yes, the cost and benefits analysis identified above will
assist in identifying the direct and indirect economic impacts of any
new conveyance facility in the Delta.
bay-delta conservation plan
Question. It is essential that all decisions made through the Bay-
Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process be based on the best possible
science. What steps are taking to ensure that all BDCP proposals are
given an independent review that involves all stakeholders, including
the Delta Counties?
Answer. BOR continues to reaffirm the Federal commitment to work in
close partnership with the State and key stakeholders including the
Delta Counties to pursue the development of the BDCP. BOR is fully
committed to a sound and credible scientific basis for BDCP. This
commitment has been unwavering and has been frequently reiterated.
Credible science is essential for the BDCP to meet regulatory approval
standards and to garner broad stakeholder support. The science issues
underlying BDCP are long standing, complex, and, in certain cases,
contentious. Federal agencies have engaged independent science review
under the Delta Stewardship Council's Delta Science Program and are in
partnership with the State, working towards a sound and credible
scientific basis for the BDCP.
Question. Does the BDCP process include establishing through-Delta
flow standards, consistent with California's water rights priority
system and statutory protections of area of origin prior to the
adoption of BDCP? If so, please describe that process.
Answer. The BDCP process is not establishing new through-Delta flow
standards. However, any BDCP proposed project must comply with State
water rights, including State Water Resources Control Board flow
requirements.
Question. Does the BDCP process include a science-based peer-
reviewed analysis of water amounts and flows needed for use, under
current law, in the Delta for determining available surplus water
supply, and does the BDCP restrict the exporting of water from the
Delta to only surplus water?
Answer. Yes, any water conveyed as part of BDCP must meet
beneficial use standards as required by State law. No, the working
assumption of BDCP does not include any reliance on surplus water.
title xvi water reclamation and reuse
Question. In your fiscal year 2013 budget request, you identify
water conservation as one of BOR's priority goals. Can you tell us what
role the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program has played and
will continue to play in your efforts to achieve that goal?
Answer. BOR's Priority Goal for Water Conservation is to enable
capability to increase available water supply by 730,000 acre-feet of
water by the end of fiscal year 2013. As a result of fiscal year 2010
and fiscal year 2011 funding, the title XVI program has contributed
more than 25,000 acre-feet to the priority goal. Title XVI projects are
a key part of BOR's efforts to address water supply sustainability and
will continue to make an important contribution toward this priority
goal. Fiscal years 2012 and 2013 funding for title XVI projects will
result in additional contributions to the goal.
Question. The subcommittee is aware of the priority that BOR places
on title XVI projects that seek to address water supply needs on a
watershed basis. Does BOR agree that there is an opportunity to enhance
the program's effectiveness through the advancement of regional-scale
projects that include multiple jurisdictions and generate environmental
as well as water supply benefits?
Answer. In 2010, BOR established funding criteria for the title XVI
program after incorporating comments from title XVI project sponsors,
members of the public, and others (including one Member of Congress).
The criteria are intended to meet a number of important program goals,
such as increasing water supply and reducing the need to develop new
water supplies, addressing environmental concerns, and exploring the
use of renewable energy as part of water reuse, among others. As you
point out, the criteria also address the extent to which a project
incorporates a watershed-based approach. In fact, the criteria provide
significant consideration of the extent to which a project implements a
regional planning effort or includes collaborative partnerships among
multiple entities to meet the needs of a region or watershed. BOR
agrees that regional scale projects that include multiple partners and
generate significant environmental benefits are important, and we are
confident that BOR's existing funding criteria provide ample
opportunity for sponsors of those projects to receive additional
consideration based on those benefits. At the same time, BOR plans to
review this year's process prior to development of next year's funding
opportunity to ensure that title XVI program funding is allocated as
effectively as possible.
Question. These regional projects can require longer planning and
construction timeframes than other more narrowly focused projects. What
steps has BOR taken within the overall title XVI program to advance
regional-scale water reclamation and reuse projects?
Answer. In fiscal year 2011, BOR used a Funding Opportunity
Announcement (FOA) for the first time in the title XVI program to
allocate available appropriations. This year, BOR made significant
revisions to the FOA to address feedback and to ensure that the program
works, as well as possible and in a way that minimizes the burden on
project sponsors. For example, under the revised FOA, sponsors of large
projects may request up to $4 million each year as planning, design,
and construction activities continue, without being asked to divide
those large projects into smaller phases. Again, prior to development
of funding opportunities for fiscal year 2013, BOR plans to assess this
year's process and will consider additional revisions, if necessary.
anadromous fish screens
Question. To date, Federal funding provided through the CVP
Restoration Fund's Anadromous Fish Screen Program (AFSP) has
contributed to the completion of 29 projects resulting in screening of
more than 4,833 cubic feet per second of unscreened diversions. Do you
agree that this program has been contributed greatly to the goals of
the CVPIA?
Answer. Since CVPIA's enactment in 1992, AFSP has partnered with
numerous water districts, the State of California, and other non-
Federal entities in the screening of both large and small intake
diversions on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Through fiscal
year 2011, 33 projects screening 5,054 cfs have been completed. The
screening of these facilities has certainly reduced the entrainment of
endangered fish species (winter-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley
steelhead, etc.) and has contributed towards achieving the CVPIA's
goals. The AFSP is funding studies and monitoring activities to help
quantify fish screening benefits to Anadromous fish.
Question. For fiscal year 2012, BOR received a total of $10,349,000
for AFSP. Can you tell how those funds will be spent?
Answer. The AFSP's budget for fiscal year 2012 is broken down as
follows:
--Agency Staff Labor = $1.072 million.
--Studies and Monitoring = $0.765 million.
--Planning (design, environmental compliance, permitting, etc.) =
$0.165 million.
--Construction = $8.347 million (available for the construction of
the Natomas (Phase 2a), Meridian (Phase 2), and Reclamation
District (RD) 2035 fish screen projects, depending on the
availability of the non-Federal cost share. To date, no
district has provided a non-Federal funding commitment).
Question. Can you provide us with a status report, including
funding needs for fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, for each of
the projects currently under construction or planned for construction
under AFSP?
Answer. The response for fiscal year 2012 was provided above. For
fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015, all three projects expect to begin
construction, depending on whether or not all funding sources are
secured. For the Natomas (Phase 2b and 3), RD 2035, and Meridian (Phase
2) fish screen projects, the approximate Federal share is estimated to
be $9 million, $18 million, and $9.5 million, respectively.
Construction periods for the Natomas, RD 2035, and Meridian projects
are 3 years, 3 years, and 2 years, respectively. All Federal funding
requires the district to secure a non-Federal funding match.
In addition to the three fish screen projects mentioned above,
another proposed project is the West Stanislaus Irrigation District's
(WSID) fish screen project on the San Joaquin River. This project is in
the early planning stage; therefore, its construction costs are not
well defined at this time. Construction of WSID's project could begin
as early as 2015, pending completion of all planning, environmental
compliance, design, and permitting activities.
Question. Is BOR committed to providing the 50 percent Federal
share of the cost of construction of the fish screen projects for RD
2035, the Meridian Farms Water Company, and the Natomas Mutual Water
Company?
Answer. Subject to sufficient Federal appropriations, BOR is
committed to providing up to a maximum of 50 percent of these fish
screen projects' costs. However, this commitment is dependent on there
being a secured non-Federal funding match.
title xvi--watersmart
Question. While Tennessee is not a Reclamation State, the work that
BOR does in the West has an impact nationwide. While water reclamation
and reuse is not currently a concern in Tennessee, it could have an
impact in the future, and I am interested in the program that
reclamation undertakes. How are the choices made for the projects that
are funded under the WaterSMART grant program? Note: The question
refers to water reclamation and reuse; therefore, these proposed
responses focus on title XVI instead of WaterSMART.
Answer. The extent to which each project will reduce demands on
existing water supplies by making recycled water available; whether the
project will make water available to address a specific local water
supply concern and whether recycled water will continue to be available
during periods of drought; the extent to which additional funding will
bring a project close to completion; the extent to which the project is
ready to proceed, including completion of necessary environmental
compliance; the extent to which the project will improve water quality
or provide water for endangered species; the extent to which the
project incorporates renewable energy and addresses energy efficiency;
the cost per acre-foot of water expected to be delivered by the project
as compared to alternatives; the extent to which the project would help
to meet the Federal Government's legal requirements such as providing
water for water rights settlements or river restoration; the extent to
which a rural or economically disadvantaged community would be served
by the project; and the extent to which the project incorporates a
watershed perspective, including use of regional planning efforts
across geographically dispersed localities and collaboration among
multiple entities.
Funding criteria for WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grant
proposals include the following:
--The extent to which the project is expected to result in
quantifiable water savings or would otherwise improve water
management;
--The reasonableness of costs for the improvements proposed;
--The extent to which the project would increase the use of renewable
energy in the management of water or otherwise would result in
increased energy efficiency;
--The extent to which the project is expected to benefit endangered
species;
--The extent to which the project proposes water marketing elements,
such as establishment of a new water market or would contribute
water toward an existing market;
--Other contributions to water supply sustainability, including
addressing specific local concerns, promoting collaboration
among parties, or helping to expedite future on-farm irrigation
improvements;
--Project planning and readiness to proceed;
--The applicant's description of performance measures that will be
used to quantify actual project benefits; and
--Connection to BOR project activities.
Sponsors of authorized title XVI projects and applicants for
WaterSMART Grant funding are asked to apply for funding by responding
to a Funding Opportunity Announcement posted for the public. A team of
BOR employees applies criteria to the applications received to rank
proposals and projects are prioritized accordingly.
Question. What is the maximum amount of the grants made under this
program?
Answer. Each of the 53 congressionally authorized projects includes
an appropriations ceiling for the project--typically $20 million,
although some authorized projects have a smaller or larger ceiling.
This year, BOR's Funding Opportunity Announcement informed applicants
that no more than $4 million in fiscal year 2012 appropriations would
be made available to any particular project, up to the amount remaining
under the appropriations ceiling for that project.
Question. Is there any allowance made for providing larger grants
to regional projects?
Answer. To allocate the limited funding available under the title
XVI program (approximately $19 million in fiscal year 2012 for title
XVI funding opportunities) among a number of project sponsors seeking
funding, grants in excess of $4 million were not possible this year.
Project sponsors may apply for additional funding in fiscal year 2013
as construction on projects continues.
As BOR prepares a funding opportunity for fiscal year 2013, we will
evaluate this year's process--including that funding level of $4
million per project--and make revisions if necessary to ensure that the
program works as effectively as possible for project sponsors.
indian water rights settlements
Question. We provided about $51 million last year for Indian Water
Rights Settlements. Has all of that funding been obligated to the
various tribes for which it was specified?
Answer. BOR will obligate the entire $51 million appropriated to
BOR in fiscal year 2012 by the end of the year. The following
represents the funding status of each of the acts within the Claims
Resolution Act.
Navajo Gallup Water Supply Project.--For fiscal year 2012, the
enacted amount was $24.5 million of which, $17.7 million has
been obligated to date. Through construction contracts and
three financial assistance agreements (to provide funding to
entities for design and construction portions of the project)
we anticipate that all funds will be obligated by the end of
fiscal year 2012.
Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.--In fiscal year
2012, $4 million of the $51 million enacted was appropriated
for the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. This
settlement requires $36 million to be deposited into the non-
interest bearing Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund in the U.S.
Treasury. This funding will be made available after the
settlement enforcement date of March 31, 2017, to provide
grants to plan, permit, design, engineer, and construct the
Mutual Benefits Projects. All appropriated dollars will be
deposited into the Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund by the
end of the fiscal year.
Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act.--In fiscal year 2012, $9.3
million of the $51 million enacted was appropriated for the
Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act. As of May 1, 2012, $302,688
of this funding has been obligated. The majority of the $9.3
million is expected to be obligated by September 30, 2012, for
planning and engineering design data collection efforts and a
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) support services
contract for the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System.
Crow Tribe Rights Settlement Act.--BOR and the Crow Tribe
executed a Public Law 93-638 construction contract under
section 405 on September 13, 2011. Under this contract, BOR has
obligated the entire fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount of
$8.2 million.
White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT) Water Rights Quantification
Act.--In September 2011, the $3.2 million discretionary funding
received for the WMAT was obligated. To date, the $4.8 million
discretionary funding received in fiscal year 2012 has not been
obligated, however, is expected to be fully obligated by the
end of the fiscal year.
Question. Some of this Settlement funding was to be used for water
systems on the reservations. Can you give us an update on the progress
of these water systems?
Answer. The following represents the status of each of the water
systems within the Claims Resolution Act.
Navajo Gallup Water Supply Project.--The authorizing legislation
identified eight pre-construction activities that were required
to be completed prior to commencing construction of the
Project. All of those activities have now been completed and
the corresponding agreements and contracts have been executed.
Pre-construction work, including design, Right of Way
acquisition, and environmental and cultural resource compliance
activities continue in fiscal year 2012 for reaches that will
be constructed in the future. The pre-construction land
clearances and designs have also been completed to allow for
the initial construction to begin in fiscal year 2012. In
addition to the pre-construction activities discussed above,
construction is scheduled to begin in several areas of the
project in fiscal year 2012.
Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.--BOR has
requested $4 million to be deposited into the Taos Pueblo Water
Development Fund. All of the $20 million in discretionary
appropriations authorized by Public Law 111-291 (of which the
$4 million is a part) must be appropriated and deposited in the
Fund by the settlement enforcement date of March 31, 2017. None
of the funds are intended to be used on water systems located
on reservation lands. The funds are for the Mutual-Benefit
Projects, which are intended to minimize impacts on the
Pueblos' water resources by moving non-Indian ground water
pumping away from the Pueblos' lands.
A contract has been executed with the Pueblo of Taos for their
share of San Juan-Chama Project (SJCP) water. The Taos
Agreement should be ready for execution later this year. SJCP
contracts have been negotiated with the Town of Taos and El
Prado. Appraisal level designs and cost estimates are being
prepared for some of the mutual benefits projects. This work
has been accomplished with Native American Affairs Program
funding.
Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act.--Using fiscal year 2012
appropriations, BOR has developed project management plans,
begun engineering design data collection in coordination with
the project stakeholders, and has initiated Government-to-
Government consultations with the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque,
Tesuque, and San Ildefonso. BOR expects to award a contract for
NEPA compliance support services in July and anticipates
awarding contracts for geotechnical investigations in
September.
Crow Tribe Rights Settlement Act.--For the Crow Irrigation
Project within the contract initiated under Public Law 93-638,
BOR reviewed and provided comments on plans and specifications
to the tribe for Lodge Grass #1 and #2 diversion structures,
and the tribe prepared final plans and specifications, based on
BOR's review. Procurement of materials for these facilities is
starting this spring and the tribe plans to construct these
facilities in the fall of 2012 after the irrigation season
concludes.
White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT) Water Rights Quantification
Act.--The WMAT is currently in the process of soliciting for
and awarding design contracts to complete the design work of
the Miner Flat Project to the 30 percent stage to enable
completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The WMAT
is also currently in the process of soliciting and awarding a
contract for environmental services for EIS development.
central utah project completion act
Question. You have proposed reintegrating the Central Utah Project
back into BOR's budget as opposed to it being separate as it has been
for the last 20 years. Why is this being proposed for fiscal year 2013?
Answer. This consolidation fits in with broader Administration
efforts to implement good Government solutions and consolidate and
streamline activities where possible. The Central Utah Project
Completion Act (CUPCA) is the only major water project within the
Department of the Interior (DOI) not managed by BOR. The proposed
consolidation is intended to ensure that all major water projects
within DOI receive equal and consistent consideration and treatment.
Question. Will this improve the management of the Central Utah
Project?
Answer. The proposed consolidation will leave the management of
completing construction of the CUPCA with the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District. Oversight and administrative responsibilities
will move from the Department's Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science to BOR. Consolidation of the CUPCA Office into BOR will enhance
local responsiveness and program access to the functions within BOR
that currently provide administrative support for implementation.
Question. Are there any cost savings by making this change to the
Central Utah Project?
Answer. The consolidation will likely have very little impact on
costs. No significant cost savings or increase in costs is anticipated.
Question. What happens to the personnel that are currently
responsible for the Central Utah Project, are they shifted to BOR's
payroll?
Answer. We anticipate that personnel in the CUPCA Office would be
shifted to BOR; however, the details of the consolidation have not been
finalized.
Question. Will this change affect the responsibilities of the non-
Federal partners on the Central Utah Project?
Answer. The consolidation will not impact the non-Federal partners
involved with the completing CUPCA. All non-Federal responsibilities
and authority as described in the original CUPCA legislation would
remain unchanged.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
odessa subarea special study
Question. Commissioner Connor, as you know the Odessa Subarea
Special Study is nearing the end of a 5\1/2\-year effort to develop
alternatives to maintain the economy and jobs base of the Columbia
Basin region by substituting Columbia Basin Project water supplies for
groundwater irrigation. The groundwater aquifer is being rapidly
depleted which threatens not only continued agricultural production but
domestic and municipal water supplies for the region's cities.
I am concerned that the Study is being conducted using the rigid
``Principles & Guidelines'' study methodology that often does not take
into account real world realities and that BOR applies overly cautious
construction contingency margins that are out of line with current
construction experience.
Is BOR committed to timely completion of the Study and to playing a
significant role in finding solutions to the water supply problem of
the Columbia Basin Project area?
Answer. Yes, BOR is committed to the timely completion of the
Odessa Subarea Special Study and is in the process of completing the
Final Environmental Impact Statement and planning documents by summer
2012.
The Preferred Alternative is being developed in consultation with
our Study partners in response to public comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. This alternative will provide a good
opportunity for public private partnerships and maximizes the use of
the existing Columbia Basin Project infrastructure.
Question. The State of Washington has already invested millions of
dollars in the Study and other Columbia Basin Project capital projects.
What are BOR's plans for integrating funding for project elements in
the Administration's budget request, starting in fiscal year 2014?
Answer. BOR's cost is shared with the State of Washington on this
Study as well as other Columbia Basin Project capital projects.
Implementation of the project is dependent on completion of
environmental compliance which is our focus in the near term.
As stated above, BOR is committed to completion of the Study;
however, future budget requests are contingent upon the completion and
outcome of the Study.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
hydropower
Question. Commissioner Connor, given the Bureau of Reclamation's
(BOR) ownership of thousands of megawatts of hydropower facilities, and
the March 31, 2011, Department of the Interior report on the potential
to create clean energy at BOR facilities, what is the Bureau doing on
this issue?
Answer. BOR is focusing its efforts on creating new clean energy on
two fronts. The first is by updating and improving the efficiencies of
its existing hydropower generators and the second is by encouraging
development of new hydropower on dams and canals where hydropower is
currently unavailable.
BOR currently owns and operates 53 hydroelectric powerplants with
an installed capacity of 14,803 megawatts of installed capacity. While
BOR has a long history of increasing the capacity and efficiency of its
hydrogenerators, this initiative could be expanded. By replacing its
older hydrogenerator turbines with more efficient turbines, rewinding
generators to increase capacity and optimizing operation of existing
generators, clean hydropower generation could be increased by an
estimated 2 to 3 percent.
To encourage new non-Federal development on BOR dams and canals,
BOR has performed two hydropower resource assessments. The first
identified 268 megawatts of additional hydroelectric capacity which
could be developed primarily at 191 Reclamation dams. The second
assessment identified 104 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity which
could be developed on BOR canals and conduits. Together these studies
identified 1,565 million megawatt-hours of new renewable energy which
is enough to power 130,000 homes.
BOR is also revising its process for development of power at BOR
facilities through lease of power privilege which is currently under
review. This effort will help make the process clear to developers.
Due to these efforts, there are 20 new non-Federal hydropower
plants being developed on BOR facilities.
Question. What would it take for the BOR to modernize and upgrade
its facilities to result in more clean-energy production?
Answer. BOR could increase its clean hydropower generation by 2 to
3 percent through hydrogenerator turbine replacements, rewinds and
optimization projects. Within BOR, 22 percent of hydroelectric
generator windings and 30 percent of our turbines are 40 years old or
older and have not been refurbished. Using a risk and condition based
approach of prioritizing rehabilitations, BOR continues to work with
its Federal power customers to better identify and schedule these
opportunities.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Just so everybody here knows the
impact of this, California, I should say, America's largest
agriculture State is California.
In 2009 when we had a similar situation, you had 45 percent
unemployment. You had farmers in bread lines. It was really a
terrible, terrible situation. So what we're trying to do is
essentially make certain adjustments that could provide at
least a flow of water necessary to have a somewhat positive
farming experience without throwing people into unemployment.
It's a huge, huge industry. You've been wonderful, and we
appreciate it. Please keep going because 150 to 200 acre-feet
isn't going to do it.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. Everybody, I think that completes our
hearing. Thank you very much, General, two Secretaries, Mike,
thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Connor. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 28, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]