[Senate Hearing 113-755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Landrieu, Tester, Alexander,
Cochran, and Graham.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
ACCOMPANIED BY HON. THOMAS P. BOSTICK, LIEUTENANT GENERAL, COMMANDING
GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
opening statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,
and welcome to the Energy and Water Subcommittee's Oversight
Hearing of the fiscal year 2015 budget request from the Bureau
of Reclamation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Our witnesses today include Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science for the Department of Interior, Anne Castle; Lowell
Pimley, the Acting Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation;
Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works; and Lieutenant General Thomas Bostick, Chief of
Engineers for the United States Army Corps of Engineers, I
think a division of the military of which both the ranking
member and I are very proud and very grateful for your service.
Before we get started, I just want to take a moment to
comment on the release of the Corps' detailed budget
justifications. The budget was released on March 4. The
completed detailed budget justifications for the Corps were not
available until today.
So it is very difficult for us to conduct an oversight
hearing without those details. So I just want to say, as far as
fiscal year 2016 is concerned, I would like to please receive
the assurance that these budget details will be received
concurrently with the release of the President's budget.
Madam Secretary, I hope you will agree to that.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
I am a big fan of both of your agencies and the work you do
across the Nation and, of course, particularly in California.
Former Commissioner Mike Connor and I had a great working
relationship. I believe he did with the ranking member as well.
And I look forward to working with him in his new position as
Deputy Secretary for the Interior Department.
The Corps is our only nationwide provider of
infrastructure, and we depend on them for emergency response
and recovery from floods and other natural disasters. From an
investment of just around $5 billion annually, the Corps
provides tangible benefits of about $55 billion annually. Now,
that is not according to us, who like them. It is according to
OMB's (Office of Management and Budget) conservative metrics.
So the return on the investment is substantial.
Just as importantly, and particularly so in California, is
the work undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation. They are the
largest water supplier and manager of water in the West.
Reclamation delivers water to one in five western farmers,
irrigating 10 million acres of some of the most productive
agricultural land in the world. And Reclamation provides water
to 31 million people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses.
So, in my opinion, the budget requests for both of your
agencies are really inadequate to meet our Nation's vital
infrastructure needs. The Corps budget is $4.5 billion. It is
the lowest budget request for the Corps of Engineers since
fiscal year 2006. And it is shocking to me, candidly.
The fiscal year 2015 request is down over $930 million, or
17 percent, from the fiscal year 2014 enacted amount, which was
signed into law by the President just 75 days ago. For fiscal
year 2015, the budget proposes only $1.1 billion for the Corps'
construction of water infrastructure projects. That is the
lowest administration proposal for construction since fiscal
year 1999.
Now, I was just talking to somebody from Chico, California,
and they had a tornado. Never had tornadoes before. Who knows
what is happening with weather and hurricanes and damages that
are done. So we have our job, members, ahead of us--you are not
listening----
Senator Alexander. Oh, I am.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. To try to see if we can
plus some of this up in some way because I very much believe
that the need is there.
Reclamation's budget is not cut as severely as the Corps.
It is down $70 million, or 6 percent, from 2014 levels.
Federal investments in our water resource infrastructure I
believe are key to providing better protection to our citizens
and mitigating the damages from natural disasters. We know it
is much cheaper to design and construct projects in a reasoned,
thoughtful manner before a disaster occurs than to react after
its aftermath. If we don't invest more in our water resources
today, we are going to be forced to spend more in recovery
efforts following massive natural disasters tomorrow.
So I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses. But
right now, I would like to turn to my very distinguished
partner on this bill, our ranking member, Senator Lamar
Alexander.
statement of senator lamar alexander
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I look
forward to working with you.
And welcome, Secretary Darcy and General Bostick. Good to
see you both again. Secretary Castle, Commissioner Pimley, good
to have you here. Thank you for coming.
I want to thank the chairman for holding the hearing, and I
want to start by thanking Secretary Darcy and General Bostick
of the Nashville District of the Corps for the outstanding job
they did working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the
water levels at Lake Cumberland.
We got the dam fixed, and then we found this fish and it
threatened to slow things down in getting the water level back
up. It is going to be back up, I understand, before the April
14 Lake Cumberland bass fishing tournament. That is not
important to some people, but it is to others.
And I would like for you to know that the people of
Kentucky and Tennessee appreciate very much the fact that you
worked on an accelerated schedule to get the water level back
up toward where it needs to be, and we thank you very much for
that, as well as for the good job of repairing the dam. This is
something we have looked forward to for quite a while.
I agree, the chairman has already made the point, it is
hard to have a hearing without the budget and to only get it on
the day--get the details only the day before is not helpful. I
look forward to what you have to say.
Let me mention four priorities I have, briefly. Restarting
Chickamauga Lock construction; two, increased funding for ports
generally; three, fully dredging the Port of Memphis; and four,
making sure that Corps regulations aren't unnecessarily
burdensome to American business, including our farmers.
First, on Chickamauga Lock. We have talked here about how
important it is to Oak Ridge Lab, to power plants, TVA
(Tennessee Valley Authority) power plants, to chemical
businesses, to countless other businesses in East Tennessee
about the number of big trucks it keeps off our highways. And
we have been working with you to try to create an environment
in which you will have two things.
One is an agreed-upon list of projects so you don't get
pulled and pushed quite as much by Members of Congress and,
second, enough money to do the projects. And last year, we
increased funding for inland navigation by $81 million by
changing the funding formula for Olmsted Lock for 1 year.
We have been working to increase funding for inland
navigation by permanently changing the cost share for Olmsted,
and of course, that new capital development plan should create
a more orderly way to deal with the various projects. And I am
pleased to see that under that plan, Chickamauga Lock ranks
fourth for funding and is a part of the Water Resources
Development Act reauthorization.
I want to work with General Bostick and Secretary Darcy to
make sure the cost share is made permanent and that your
follow-through with lock construction is included in the
capital development plan.
Second, it is no secret that we collect more money for the
harbor maintenance fee than we spend each year on port and
harbor maintenance. Last fiscal year, we collected almost $1.6
billion in fees and only spent $844 million of it. We talked
together in a bipartisan way, and with you and with industry,
and have come to a 6-year agreement to try to cause the amount
of money we collect to equal the amount of money we spend, and
we made the appropriate progress toward that last year.
I would like to keep making progress toward that. If we
collect the money for ports, we should spend the money for
ports. It is not right to do it any other way.
Third, the Port of Memphis has at least $4 million in
dredging work that needs to be done. Yet the President's budget
request only includes $1.1 million. Port of Memphis is home to
manufacturing of steel and household appliances, agricultural
exports, oil refining, and a TVA power plant. Supporting the
transportation of these things is in our Government's interest
if we want to have a strong economy. And I hope that is a
priority.
And finally, I am troubled by the recent rulemaking the
Corps has entered into with the EPA, the Environmental
Protection Agency, which changes the definition of waters of
the United States in an attempt to expand the regulatory
authority of the EPA. I am hearing a lot about that from
farmers in my State. They are afraid the rule will mean that
farm ponds, even man-made ponds as well as drainage ditches,
will be regulated.
Many acres of farmland in Tennessee have historically been
farmed as a result of man-made drainage ditches. That now would
be subject to the clean water regulation. This will require at
least a burdensome permitting process, may end up with the
farmers in court.
Our General Assembly in Tennessee in 2009 clarified that
field drainage ditches are not regulated waters. A lot of time
and effort was devoted to that, and we hope that is respected
by the Federal Government. Not to do that would be the kind of
agency overreach that Members of both parties do not agree
with, and it over-politicizes the work of the subcommittee.
So, again, I will end where I started. Thank you for your
good work on Lake Cumberland. I look forward to working with
you on your budget, and especially on the four priorities that
I outlined.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. And I thank you, Senator.
Senator Landrieu, do you have an opening statement?
Senator Landrieu. I do. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, I beg your pardon.
Senator Landrieu. I am sorry. Senator Cochran.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Cochran, you are so quiet. I
didn't see you. If you would like to make a brief opening
statement, please go ahead.
statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. Madam Chair, thank you very much. And
thank you for scheduling and chairing this hearing to review
the President's budget request for 2015 year, fiscal year
funding, which is requested for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the U.S. Department of Interior.
The funding recommended to be appropriated by our committee
will be used to support dredging of ports, flood control, and
other very important construction and maintenance projects. The
Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico provide great economic
benefits with respect to water-borne transportation. They
provide access to foreign markets and access to the most
fertile soils in the world--in the Mississippi Delta.
With those great benefits come responsibilities and risks,
and we need to be sure that we are providing support for the
Army Corps of Engineers to do its duty and carry out its
responsibilities in providing flood control protection and
other essential elements of this project. We provide support
for those activities, and we look forward to hearing the
specific recommendations that you will be making and trying to
make decisions that are consistent with these very important
national interests.
Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Senator Landrieu.
statement of senator mary l. landrieu
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Yes. Senator Feinstein, thank
you for your leadership. And I will try to be brief and put
some of my remarks into the record.
But as you all know, the Society of Civil Engineers has
given our inland waterway infrastructure system a D-minus in
their 2013 report card. Yet the budget that we are reviewing
today with the Army Corps of Engineers, this amount represents
the smallest percentage of the Federal budget in more than 200-
year history of the Army Corps. It is a 17-percent decrease
from last year's budget. It is woefully inadequate.
Now Senator Feinstein and the ranking member and the
members say this every year. The chairman has tried to work to
bring additional resources and was successful last year in
identifying some additional resources for this budget. But we
are starting way behind the eight ball at this meeting.
Louisiana and the Gulf Coast could literally allocate the
entire budget in just projects that we have that are authorized
and that are literally shovel-ready, ready to go, just
America's energy coast: Louisiana, Mississippi, parts of
Alabama, not even counting Texas. We have, for instance, the
Port of Lake Charles, Madam Chair, has attracted somewhere
between $40--I will be conservative--$40 billion to $60 billion
in private investment. Private investment. And we can't find
enough money to dredge the shipping channel that supports this
private investment.
I know that you have read about what the Houston shipping
channel looks like. They just had an accident there last week.
Somebody described it as--one of the reporters--it is like
playing chicken in the Houston shipping channel, their locks
and dams, et cetera.
So if this committee last year, because of the chairman's
leadership, allocated an additional $10 million over this
budget. We found $750 million in unallocated funds that we were
able to provide to you all to help. But we have got to step up
in some way and find some additional funding.
Finally, this committee upped the President's request for
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund last year from $890 million to $1
billion. While this year it is $915 million request, it is well
short of the $1.8 million that was collected last year in the
Harbor--I am sorry--billion. I am sorry, $1.8 billion.
Senator Alexander has been hard at work with Senator
Feinstein on that, but we have got to step up our maintenance
in our waterways. It is a very important part of our national
economy. It affects every State. And unlike highways that seem
to get a lot of attention and unlike railways that seem to get
a lot of attention, our waterways are woefully underfunded, and
it is hurting the economy and restricting the economic growth
of our country.
So I look forward, as a member of this committee, to trying
to find additional resources to allocate to some of these
priorities. And I thank the chairman for holding this hearing.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
And who would like to go first? I would urge you to keep
your--we have your written comments--keep your remarks as short
as you wish so that we can have some time for questions. One of
the secretaries. Secretary Darcy, please proceed.
summary statement of hon. jo-ellen darcy
Ms. Darcy. How about I go first?
Thank you, Chairman Feinstein and distinguished members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
President's budget for the Civil Works Program of the Army
Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2015.
This budget for 2015 for the Civil Works Program provides a
fiscally prudent and a sound level of Federal investment in the
Nation's water resources. The President's 2015 budget includes
$4.561 billion in gross discretionary appropriations for the
Army Civil Works Program offset by a $28 million cancellation
of unobligated carry-in to fiscal year 2015; a total of nine
construction projects, three of which are navigation, four are
flood risk management, and two are aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects; 28 studies as well as six designs are
funded to completion in this budget.
Completed construction projects will result in immediate
benefits to the Nation and directly impact many local
communities as benefits are realized from the combined Federal
and non-Federal investments. The civil works budget includes
funding for one priority construction new start and 10 new
study starts in the investigations account, including the water
resources priority study, which will build on and broaden the
progress that is being made in the Corps' North Atlantic Coast
Comprehensive Study, which is funded under the Sandy
supplemental bill.
At a funding level of $915 million, the budget provides for
the third consecutive year the highest amount ever proposed in
a President's budget for work financed through the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund in order to maintain our coastal
channels and for related works in those channels.
The budget funds capital investments in the inland
waterways based on the estimated revenues in the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund under current law. However, the budget
also assumes enactment of the legislative proposal submitted to
the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction in 2011, which
would reform the laws governing the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund.
The Administration's proposal would generate approximately
$1.1 billion in additional revenue over 10 years from the
commercial users of these inland waterways. This amount
reflects estimates of future capital investment for navigation
on these waterways over the next decade, including an estimate
adopted by the Inland Waterways Users Board. The proposal is
needed in order to ensure that the revenue paid by commercial
navigation users is sufficient to meet their share of the costs
of capital investments on the inland waterways, which would
enable a significant increase in funding for such investments
in the future.
The budget provides $398 million for dam and levee safety
activities, including $38 million to continue the levee safety
initiative, which involves an assessment of the conditions of
Federal levees.
In continued support for the President's Veterans Job
Corps, the budget includes $4.5 million to continue the
Veterans Curation Project, which provides vocational
rehabilitation and innovative training for wounded and disabled
veterans while achieving historic preservation responsibilities
for archeological collections administrated by the Corps of
Engineers.
prepared statement
In summary, the 2015 budget for the Army Civil Works
Program is a performance-based budget that supports an
appropriate level of Federal funding for continued progress
with emphasis on those water resources investments that will
yield high economic, environmental, and safety returns for the
Nation and its citizens. These investments will contribute to a
stronger economy, support water-borne transportation, reduce
flood risks to businesses and homes, restore important
ecosystems, provide low-cost renewable hydropower, and deliver
other benefits to the American people.
Chairman Feinstein and members of the subcommittee, I look
forward to working with you in support of the President's
budget. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy
Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to present the President's budget for the Civil
Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2015.
overview
The fiscal year 2015 budget for the Civil Works program reflects
the Administration's priorities through targeted investments to
develop, manage, and restore water resources. Commercial navigation,
flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration are
the primary mission areas of the Army Civil Works program. The budget
also supports related efforts at existing projects owned or operated by
the Corps (hydropower, recreation, environmental stewardship, and water
supply storage); as well as emergency preparedness and training to
respond to natural disasters, the regulatory program, and the
restoration of certain sites contaminated as a result of the Nation's
early efforts to develop atomic weapons. These investments will
contribute to a stronger economy, improve reliability of waterborne
transportation, reduce flood risks to businesses and homes, increase
public safety, protect and restore aquatic ecosystems affected by water
resources development, and support American 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, including investing in restoring
significant aquatic ecosystems to help promote their ecological
sustainability and resilience.
--Support commercial navigation through investments in maintenance
and related activities at the most heavily used coastal ports
and inland waterways in the Nation.
--Increase the organizational efficiency and improve the management,
oversight, and performance of ongoing programs.
fiscal year 2015 discretionary funding level
The budget for fiscal year 2015 for the Civil Works program
provides a fiscally prudent and sound level of Federal investment in
the Nation's water resources.
In keeping with the Administration's commitment to continue to
invest in those efforts that are a priority for the Nation, while
putting the country on a sustainable fiscal path, the budget includes
$4.561 billion in gross discretionary appropriations for the Army Civil
Works program offset by a $28 million cancellation of unobligated
carry-in to fiscal year 2015, including funds previously earmarked for
particular programs, projects, or activities. This gross funding level
represents the amount of new Federal discretionary resources that would
be available to the Civil Works program.
Within the $4.561 billion recommended appropriations, $1.125
billion is for projects in the Construction account, and $2.6 billion
is for activities funded in the Operation and Maintenance account. The
budget also includes $80 million for Investigations; $245 million for
Mississippi River and Tributaries; $28 million for Flood Control and
Coastal Emergencies; $200 million for the Regulatory Program; $100
million for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; $178
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.
[The attachment follows:]
ATTACHMENT 1--FISCAL YEAR 2015 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 37 548 567 10 55 105 169 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,321
Reduction.........................
Coastal........................ 4 ....... 14 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 18
Inland......................... 33 548 553 10 55 105 170 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,304
Hydropower......................... ....... 2 209 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 211
Navigation......................... 22 277 1,487 ....... 8 31 39 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,825
Coastal........................ 17 97 875 ....... ....... 2 2 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 991
Inland......................... 5 180 612 ....... 8 29 37 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 834
Environment........................ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.. 21 298 15 ....... 2 ....... 2 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 337
Stewardship.................... ....... ....... 74 ....... ....... 5 5 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 78
FUSRAP......................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 100 ....... ....... ....... ....... 100
Regulatory......................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 200 ....... ....... ....... 200
Recreation......................... ....... ....... 236 ....... ....... 11 11 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 247
Emergency Management (incl. NEPP).. ....... ....... 4 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 28 ....... ....... 32
Water Supply....................... <1 ....... 7 ....... 19 ....... 19 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 26
Expenses........................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 178 ....... 178
OASA(CW)........................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 5 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................ 80 1,125 2,588 ....... ....... ....... 245 100 200 28 178 5 4,561
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
A total of nine construction projects (three navigation projects,
four flood risk management projects, and two aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects), 28 studies, and 6 designs are funded to
completion in the budget. Completed construction projects will result
in immediate benefits to the Nation and directly impact many local
communities as benefits are realized from the combined Federal and non-
Federal investments.
budget criteria
The fiscal year 2015 budget continues the Army's commitment to a
performance-based approach to budgeting to provide the best overall
return for the Nation in achieving economic, environmental, and public
safety objectives. Competing investment opportunities for studies,
design, construction, and operation and maintenance were evaluated
using objective performance metrics, which guided the allocation of
funds.
Within the Investigations account, deciding which studies to pursue
can be a challenge. The Corps must use its professional judgment in
these situations. Generally, funding is allocated to those studies that
appear the most promising based on the potential for high economic,
environmental, and safety returns to the Nation; and have an active
local sponsor. Under the SMART Planning initiative, to be eligible for
funding the Corps (the District, Division, and Headquarters) must also
have reached agreement with the local sponsor on the scope, cost, and
schedule of the study. This improvement to the planning process is
helping to bring studies to a conclusion sooner and with less money
without compromising the quality of the analyses.
new investments in fiscal year 2015
The Civil Works budget includes $10 million to start construction
of a nationally significant aquatic ecosystem restoration effort, the
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration program. This program,
authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, is needed to
restore habitat while reducing the risk of damage to coastal Louisiana
from storm driven waves and tides, and complements the ongoing Federal
effort under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration
Act. The Administration is committed to restoration of the Gulf Coast,
and starting construction on this program serves as an important step
in fulfilling that commitment.
The budget also includes funding for 11 new study starts in the
Investigations account. Two of these studies support efforts to
encourage States and communities to assume responsibility for the
development, management, restoration, and protection of water
resources. Those studies focus on the disposition of locks that are no
longer being used for commercial navigation, or have very little
commercial navigation; these studies are the Allegheny River
Disposition study in Pennsylvania and the Kentucky River Locks 1-4
Disposition in Kentucky.
Three additional studies are focused on deep draft navigation
improvements--Manatee Harbor, Florida; New Haven Harbor Deepening,
Connecticut; and San Juan Harbor Navigation Improvements, Puerto Rico.
The principal criterion used to select these studies was the
anticipated economic return to the Nation.
Three studies are focused on flood risk management--Du Page River,
Illinois; Fairfield and New Haven Counties, Connecticut; and Short
Creek and Wheeling Creek, Ohio. The principal criteria used to select
these studies were the population affected, the condition of the flood
damage reduction measures that currently exist, and the potential
consequence of a flood event.
One new aquatic ecosystem restoration study--Salton Sea
Restoration, California--will examine the potential for a project of
environmental improvements to the Salton Sea.
Finally, the budget again includes funding for the Water Resources
Priorities Study. This study would assess the Nation's vulnerability to
inland and coastal flooding; compare the flood risks faced by different
regions of the United States; evaluate the effectiveness of current
approaches to reducing these risks in different settings at the
Federal, State, and local levels; and develop recommendations to
improve existing programs to save lives, and reduce flood losses and
associated recovery costs nationwide, in ways that will also promote
the long-term sustainability of communities and ecosystems. In short,
it would improve our understanding of why flood costs are increasing so
dramatically and identify better ways for the Nation to address these
risks. This is not being proposed as a study leading to a new project,
and thus should not be subject to any potential limitation on new
starts. Rather, this study will build on, and broaden, progress being
made by the Corps in its North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study under
the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013, Public Law 112-3, and
is a logical next step to that effort.
navigation
The budget includes $1.825 billion in support of global and
domestic waterborne transportation, with emphasis on the coastal ports
and inland waterways that support the greatest national economic
activity.
The Cleveland Harbor (Dike Raise), Ohio; New York and New Jersey
Harbor, New York and New Jersey; and Texas City Channel (50-Foot
Project), Texas Dredged Material Placement Facility projects are all
funded to completion in fiscal year 2015.
At a funding level of $915 million, the budget provides, for the
third consecutive year, the highest amount ever proposed in a
President's budget for work financed from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund to maintain coastal channels and for related work. The fiscal year
2015 budget includes $595 million for the operation and maintenance of
inland waterways.
Overall, the total number of lock closures due to mechanical
failures at main chamber locks on the high and moderate commercial use
inland waterways has decreased, in both fiscal year 2012 and fiscal
year 2013.
For the operation and maintenance of navigation projects with a low
level of commercial use (coastal and inland combined), the budget
provides $113 million. Starting in 2012, the Corps modified the levels
of service for certain inland waterways locks. This has resulted in
reduced operating costs and the Corps is using these savings for work
on these waterways or other inland waterways.
The budget continues to include funding in both the Investigations
and Construction accounts on proposals to deepen and widen channels at
several of our coastal ports to accommodate post-Panamax vessels with
deeper drafts. Within the Investigations account, funding is included
to complete feasibility studies for Charleston Harbor, South Carolina
and Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina; continue design efforts at
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, Savannah Harbor, Georgia, and Freeport
Harbor, Texas; and to complete design efforts at Jacksonville Harbor,
Florida. Within the Construction account, funding is included to
continue construction of a new dredged material placement facility at
Charleston Harbor, North Carolina.
The budget includes $160 million for Olmsted Lock and Dam,
Illinois, of which $80 million would be derived from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. The budget does not support a reduction in the
portion of the costs of this project financed from this trust fund. The
budget also includes $9 million for ongoing work to address dam safety
issues at Locks and Dams 2, 3, 4, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania, of
which $4.5 million would be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund.
The budget funds capital investments in the inland waterways based
on the estimated revenues to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund under
current law. However, the budget also assumes enactment of the
legislative proposal submitted to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction in 2011, which would reform the laws governing the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund, including an annual per vessel fee to increase
the amount paid by commercial navigation users of the inland waterways
sufficiently to meet their 50-percent share of the capital investments
that the Army Corps of Engineers incurs on their behalf. The revenue
from this user fee would supplement the revenue from the existing
excise tax on liquids used as fuel in commercial transportation on the
inland waterways.
The Administration's proposal would generate an estimated $1.1
billion in additional revenue over 10 years from the commercial users
of these inland waterways. This amount reflects estimates of future
capital investment for navigation on these waterways over the next
decade, including an estimate adopted by the Inland Waterways Users
Board (Users Board). The proposal is needed to ensure that the revenue
paid by commercial navigation users is sufficient to meet their share
of the costs of capital investments on the inland waterways, which
would enable a significant increase in funding for such investments in
the future.
Under the Administration's proposal, the Corps would be able to
structure the user fee in two tiers. Nearly all of the capital
investment by the Corps to support commercial navigation on these
waterways involves work at Corps locks and dams. Under a two-tiered fee
system, those who use the locks and dams would pay more of the non-
Federal share of capital investments, as they should. This would
increase economic efficiency by requiring the specific users who
benefit from these investments to internalize the costs. The
Administration's proposal also includes other needed changes, which
would clarify the scope of cost-sharing for inland waterways capital
investment, and the authority for appropriating funds from the IWTF and
from the General Fund to finance inland waterways costs; and would
close an existing loophole under which traffic on roughly 1,000 miles
of the inland waterways does not now pay the fuel tax.
flood risk management
Through both structural and nonstructural measures, the flood risk
management program serves as a vehicle to reduce the risk to safety and
property from riverine and coastal flooding.
The fiscal year 2015 budget provides $1.3 billion for the flood
risk management program, which includes $325.7 million for construction
of dam safety projects, $34 million for the assessment of existing dam
safety projects, development of dam safety modification reports, and
preconstruction engineering and design for existing dam safety
projects, and $38 million to continue the levee safety initiative,
which involves an assessment of the conditions of Federal levees.
Between 10 percent and 15 percent of the levees in the Nation are
maintained by the Corps, or are maintained by others and inspected by
the Corps. The fiscal year 2015 budget includes funds for periodic
inspections, levee screenings, and risk characterization by the Corps
of these levees. The most prevalent deficiencies that the Corps has
found to date have mostly been related to vegetation, encroachments,
and culverts. Where the levee is a local responsibility, the Corps will
suggest both structural and nonstructural risk reduction measures that
the local authority can take to improve the condition of its levee and
manage its flood risk.
The budget also includes $2 million under the National Flood Risk
Management Program to support the continued development of interagency
teams known as Silver Jackets to provide unified Federal assistance in
implementing flood risk management solutions. Silver Jackets teams have
now been established in 41 States.
The Dover Dam, Muskingum River, Ohio and Muddy River, Massachusetts
projects are both funded to completion in the fiscal year 2015 budget.
aquatic ecosystem restoration
The fiscal year 2015 budget reflects a continuing effort by the
Administration to have a coordinated approach to restoring significant
aquatic ecosystems. The Corps has been working collaboratively with
other Federal resource agencies on this effort. Attachment 2 provides a
list of these ecosystems and the associated funding in the fiscal year
2015 budget for the Civil Works program.
[The attachment follows:]
FISCAL YEAR 2015 LARGE ECOSYSTEM FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecosystem
Account \1\ Projects and Studies Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Delta:
I Yuba Fish Passage .2
I CALFED Coordination .1
I Sac River Bank Protection 1
C Hamilton City 3.8
C Sac River Bank Protection 3
O&M Additional studies and projects in Navigation 35.62
and Flood Risk Management Programs
O&M Fish and Wildlife 1.24
-----------
Total, Bay Delta 44.96
===========
Chesapeake Bay:
I Chesapeake Bay Comp .1
I Anacostia--Montgomery .25
I Anacostia--Prince Georges .25
I Lynnhaven River Basin .6
C Chesapeake Oysters 5
C Poplar Island 15.1
O&M Fish and Wildlife 1.42
-----------
Total, Chesapeake Bay 22.72
===========
Everglades:
C Everglades 65.55
O&M Everglades 9.03
O&M Fish and Wildlife .86
-----------
Total, Everglades 75.44
===========
Great Lakes:
I Interbasin Control Study (GLMRIS) .5
C Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) 29
C Green Bay Harbor .13
C Cleveland Harbor 5.73
O&M Dredging 87.54
-----------
Total, Great Lakes 122.9
===========
Gulf Coast:
I LCA--studies, PED 2.5
I Coastal Texas Feasibility study .2
C LCA--construction 10
O&M Fish and Wildlife 1.16
-----------
Total, Gulf Coast 13.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Key: I = Investigation; C = Construction; O&M = Operation
and Maintenance.
The budget for the Army Civil Works program provides $74.9 million
for the ongoing South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program, which
includes the Everglades, consisting of $65.6 million in the
Construction account and $9 million in the Operation and Maintenance
account. The budget includes $29 million in Construction and $500,000
in Investigations to continue efforts to combat the threat of Asian
Carp and other aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes region.
Approximately $1.5 million of fiscal year 2014 funds are projected to
be carried into fiscal year 2015, which will be used in conjunction
with the budgeted funds to further the Great Lakes Mississippi River
Interbasin Study efforts.
The budget includes $71 million for the Columbia River Fish
Mitigation program in order to meet requirements laid out in the
Columbia River Biological Opinion and to meet commitments made under
the Columbia River Basin Fish Accords. The budget includes statutory
language to increase the authorized program limits for the Lower
Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration, Oregon and Washington
construction program and for the research efforts on the Lower Columbia
River, which have both been relied upon to meet requirements laid out
in the Columbia River Biological Opinion.
In addition, the budget includes funds to initiate two new phase
feasibility studies on the Russian River in California in order to
address requirements laid out in the 2008 Russian River Biological
Opinion. These feasibility studies will serve as the follow-up to the
reconnaissance study that was initiated in fiscal year 2014. The Corps
anticipates that the operational requirements and the likely
alternatives needed to address problems in the study area will be
specific to each facility, warranting separate feasibility studies. It
has been common practice for the Corps to use one reconnaissance study
to determine if there is a Federal interest in addressing the same
water resource challenge in the same geographic area with the same
project sponsor, before moving to separate feasibility studies.
The budget also provides $48.8 million for ongoing work under the
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery program, including funds to
award construction of the Yellowstone Intake Dam Diversion project.
resilience to a changing climate
The budget supports continued progress on very important
investments that will yield long-term returns for the Nation. For
example, the Corps of Engineers continues its active role in climate
change adaptation. Through the Administration's proposed Opportunity,
Growth, and Security Initiative, the Corps would be able to further its
efforts to increase the resilience of water resources infrastructure to
a changing climate. This would include investments in small flood risk
reduction projects, with the focus on nonstructural and/or natural
approaches to risk reduction. It would also provide technical
assistance to non-Federal, State, and local agencies to assist and
enable their development and implementation of nonstructural actions to
reduce risks; and an interagency study by Corps and the Bureau of
Reclamation to develop more resilient approaches to Federal development
and management of water resources infrastructure to support project
planning.
sustainability and energy
We have redoubled our efforts to leverage third party financing to
achieve Administration, Energy Policy Act (EPAct 2005), and Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA 2007) energy efficiency and
renewable energy goals while reducing the demand on appropriated funds.
By leveraging investments made since January 1999 in USACE hydropower
infrastructure, we are now solidly ``GREEN'' on the Federal renewable
energy goal (7.5 percent of total agency electricity in fiscal year
2013). We achieved a new high in renewable energy use in fiscal year
2013: 12.1 percent of our electricity consumption in fiscal year 2013
was provided by renewable resources, the majority of which (78 percent)
we generated on-site in our hydropower dams.
regulatory program
The budget includes $200 million for the Regulatory Program, which
is the level provided in the enacted appropriations for fiscal year
2014, to enable the Corps to continue to protect high-value aquatic
resources, enable more timely business planning decisions via a
transparent and timely permit review process, and support sustainable
economic development.
veterans curation project
In continued support of the President's Veterans Job Corps, the
fiscal year 2015 budget includes $4.5 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 August, Georgia; St. Louis, Missouri;
and the Washington, DC area.
conclusion
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2015 budget for the Army
Civil Works program is a performance-based budget that supports an
appropriate level of Federal funding for continued progress, with
emphasis on those water resources investments that will yield high
economic, environmental, and safety returns for the Nation and its
citizens.
These investments will contribute to a stronger economy, support
waterborne transportation, reduce flood risks to businesses and homes,
restore important ecosystems, provide low-cost renewable hydropower,
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, Madam Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENT OF HON. ANNE CASTLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
WATER AND SCIENCE
ACCOMPANIED BY HON. LOWELL PIMLEY, ACTING COMMISSIONER
Senator Feinstein. Secretary Castle.
Ms. Castle. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Alexander, Senators. Thanks for the opportunity to talk to you
today about Interior's Water-Related Programs and the
President's 2015 budget request.
Acting Commissioner Pimley will address the specifics of
the Reclamation budget, and I will highlight some of the
Department's programs related to addressing the water
challenges that we face in this country.
It is well known that we are confronted with unprecedented
challenges in terms of water supplies all across the Nation,
but particularly in the West. This year is an unfortunate
example of that, most prominently in California, but not
limited to that location. We also have very acute shortages in
the Rio Grande Basin, in the Republican River, in other
locations. The Colorado River watershed has had a good snow-
pack year, but it is also in the clutches of long-term drought.
We have population growth, aging infrastructure, climate
change; increasing pressure on use of water for development of
domestic energy supplies; increasing recognition of the need
for water for ecosystem; and all of those are challenging what
are already scarce supplies. And this subcommittee recognizes
that better than anyone.
This administration puts a very high priority on coming to
grips with long-term water supply sustainability, and the
Department of the Interior's WaterSMART program is geared to
secure and stretch water supplies and to provide tools to water
managers that allow them to continue to move toward
sustainability.
The Department has established a goal of facilitating the
increase of water supplies in the West through Reclamation's
WaterSMART program by 840,000 acre feet. And we are well on
track to meet that goal.
That was a goal from 2010 to 2015. As of the end of fiscal
year 2013, we have helped to save 734,000 acre feet of water
every year. That is a lot of water. That is enough to serve a
very large city, 3 million people or more.
In 2015, Reclamation proposes to fund its WaterSMART
programs at $52.1 million, and there are a number of different
components. WaterSMART Grants at $19 million, which are cost
share funding for water efficiency projects. Reclamation's
Title XVI program, funded at $21.5 million. That enables large
recycling and reuse projects to make municipal systems more
reliable and drought resistant. The Basin Studies Program,
funded at $3.9 million in the request.
These are possibly the best tools that the Federal
Government can provide to State and local water managers by
convening a collaborative and proactive analysis of projected
supplies and demands and identifying options and strategies to
meet any expected shortages and to respond to changing needs.
The drought in California and the other Western States
underscores the need for tools like these and the importance of
improving the resilience of communities to the effects of water
shortage. Reclamation recently finalized its 2014 water plan
for California's Central Valley project, and that outlines the
actions that can be taken in the near term to manage ongoing
water supply challenges, things like expanding operational
flexibility, streamlining the water transfer process.
In California, the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture and Commerce are working together with the State to
minimize the drought's social, economic, and environmental
impacts. Reclamation and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) are
leveraging their Federal funding programs to help water
delivery agencies and agricultural producers.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
And in 2014, USDA, NRCS, and Reclamation are together
providing up to $14 million--half from Reclamation, half from
NRCS--for water districts and their farmers to promote
conservation of water and improve water management. We hope to
continue and expand that partnership to support agricultural
economies in other parts of the drought-stricken West.
The budgets for the Department of the Interior and for the
Bureau of Reclamation are geared toward creating these
sustainable supplies. And we at Interior very much appreciate
the support that this committee has given and, Madam Chair,
that you have given yourself to our water programs. Thank you.
[The statements of Anne Castle and accompanying witness
Lowell Pimley follow:]
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 2015 budget for the Department of the Interior. I would also like
to thank the members of this subcommittee for your efforts to enact a
2015 appropriation, and for your ongoing support for our initiatives.
The 2015 budget request of $11.9 billion for the Department of the
Interior makes key investments to maintain vital funding for Interior's
missions, in landscape-level conservation, balanced energy development,
water management, engaging youth and veterans, and fulfilling
commitments to American Indians, Alaska Native Tribes and Insular
communities.
I will discuss the President's fiscal year 2015 budget for the
Bureau of Reclamation, the Office of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act and the water-related programs of the U.S. Geological
Survey. I thank the subcommittee for your continued support of these
programs.
introduction
The Department of the Interior's mission affects the lives of all
Americans. Interior has stewardship of 20 percent of the Nation's
lands, oversees the responsible development of over 20 percent of U.S.
energy supplies, is the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17
Western States, maintains relationships with 566 federally recognized
Tribes, and provides services to more than 2 million American Indian
and Alaska Native peoples. This budget enables the Department to carry
out its important missions in resource stewardship, balanced
development of energy and mineral resources, water management and
conservation, providing opportunities to youth and veterans, resilience
in the face of a changing climate, advancement of self-determination
and stronger communities for tribal Nations, and fulfilling commitments
to Insular communities. The Interior Department's 2015 budget maintains
core capabilities to meet these responsibilities and proposes
investments in key priorities.
2013 accomplishments
Interior's programs and activities serve as economic engines in
communities across the Nation, contributing an estimated $371 billion
to the economy in 2012 and supporting an estimated 2.3 million American
jobs. Of this total, energy and mineral development on Interior-managed
lands and offshore areas generated more than $255 billion of this
economic activity and supported 1.3 million jobs. Recreation and
tourism on Interior lands contributed $45 billion to the economies of
local communities and supported nearly 372,000 jobs. Water supply,
forage and timber activities, primarily on public lands in the West,
contributed more than $50 billion and supported 365,000 jobs.
In 2013 and 2014, Interior continued to focus efforts on promoting
sustainable water strategies, and improving water management through
science, collaboration, and cooperation. These approaches were
demonstrated through the Water Census, Reclamation Basin Studies and
Cooperative Watershed Management Program projects, and through joint
activities like the Urban Waters Federal Partnership and the Western
Watershed Enhancement Partnership. Comprehensive basin-wide approaches
such as these will be critical to assessing water needs, evaluating the
availability of and risks to water supplies, mitigating those risks,
and planning for the impacts of reduced availability and increasing
demands in collaboration with Interior's partners.
2015 budget and fiscal responsibility
The Department's $11.9 billion 2015 budget for Interior represents
a 2.4-percent increase from the 2014 enacted level which includes a cap
exemption for fire emergencies. Without this exemption, Interior's
budget totals $11.7 billion, a 0.3-percent increase, or nearly level
with 2014. This is a smart and balanced budget. It sustains support for
essential requirements and allows for targeted increases above the 2014
enacted level. Within the overall increase for 2015, $54.4 million
covers unavoidable fixed cost increases for such things as Federal pay
and rent. Reflecting the need to prioritize budget resources, this
request includes $413.3 million in proposed program reductions to
offset other programmatic requirements. These tight fiscal times demand
responsible budget requests that are based on strategic priorities.
Interior's 2015 budget request includes $10.6 billion in current
funding for programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee. This is a $104.9
million, or a 1 percent, increase compared to 2014. Total funding for
the Department includes $1 billion requested for the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA), under
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
Interior programs continue to generate more revenue for the
American people than the Department's annual current appropriation. In
2015, Interior will generate estimated receipts of nearly $14.9
billion, a portion of which is shared with State and local governments
to meet a variety of needs, including school funding, infrastructure
improvements and water conservation projects. Also, included with this
request are revenue and savings legislative proposals estimated to
generate more than $2.6 billion over the next decade.
celebrating and enhancing america's great outdoors
Throughout American history, the great outdoors have shaped the
Nation's character and strengthened its economy. The 2015 budget
requests the resources and authorities to care for our public lands and
prepare for the future. The budget strengthens the President's
commitment to the America's Great Outdoors initiative and includes
legislative proposals to provide full and permanent funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund and a 3-year investment in advance of
the 100th Anniversary of the National Park Service.
Coupled with these efforts is a historic commitment to America's
natural and cultural heritage through Land and Water Conservation Fund
programs. The budget includes a combined request of $672.3 million
($246 million requested as current funding and $426.3 million as
permanent funding) for Interior's LWCF programs that conserve lands and
support outdoor recreation.
Reclamation continues to participate in and provide support to the
Desert and Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. These
LCCs are partnerships between Interior and other Federal agencies,
States, tribes, non-governmental 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.
Reclamation's 2015 budget includes $116 million in numerous projects
and programs for river restoration that directly supports the goals of
AGO.
engaging the next generation
The 2015 budget supports a vision to inspire millions of young
people to play, learn, serve and work outdoors by expanding volunteer
and work opportunities for youth and veterans. The budget proposes
$50.6 million for Interior youth programs in the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Reclamation, a
collective $13.6 million or 37-percent increase from 2014.
A key component of the Department's efforts will be partnering with
youth organizations through the 21st Century Conservation Service
Corps. The proposed funding includes an increase of $8 million to
expand opportunities for youth education and employment opportunities.
ensuring healthy watersheds and sustainable, secure water supplies
The 2015 budget addresses the Nation's water challenges through
investments in water conservation, sustainability, and infrastructure
critical to the arid Western United States and its fragile ecosystems.
The budget includes $66.5 million for WaterSMART programs in
Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey, nearly a 17-percent
increase from 2014, to assist communities in stretching water supplies
and improving water management. This funding supports the Department's
goal to increase by 840,000 acre-feet, the available water supply for
agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in the
Western United States through water-conservation programs by the end of
2015. The budget includes $3.9 million for Reclamation's Basin Studies
program. The Basin Studies program is a collaborative tool Interior has
available for facilitating sustainable water supplies and improving
water management decisionmaking. Basin studies in particular watersheds
are conducted through a partnership between Reclamation and State and
local stakeholders. A study will assess projected future water supplies
and demands and the ability of existing infrastructure to address any
imbalances. The study will then work with interested parties to develop
adaptation strategies to cope with identified imbalances on a
collaborative basis.
In addition to $1 billion requested for the Bureau of Reclamation
within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, the
budget also requests $210.4 million for the U.S. Geological Survey's
water programs to provide scientific monitoring, research, and tools to
support water management across the Nation.
drought
The drought in California and other Western States underscores the
importance of improving the resilience of communities to the effects of
climate change. The President's Opportunity, Growth, and Security
Initiative includes a $1 billion government-wide Climate Resilience
Fund to invest in developing more resilient communities, and finding
solutions to climate challenges through technology development and
applied research. Part of this proposal would be executed by
Reclamation including research and breakthrough technologies.
In California, the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and
Commerce are working with the State to accelerate water transfers and
exchanges, provide operational flexibility to store and convey water,
and expedite review and compliance actions, to help stretch
California's water supplies.
Reclamation finalized its 2014 Plan for the Central Valley Project
which outlines actions that can be taken in the near-term to manage on-
going water supply challenges such as expanding operational flexibility
and streamlining the water transfer process. Federal and State
officials are also discussing a collaborative response to the drought
to minimize its social, economic, and environmental impacts.
Reclamation and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
are working to leverage Federal funds for water delivery agencies and
agricultural producers. In 2014, they will jointly provide up to $14
million in funding, $7 million from Reclamation and $7 million from
NRCS, for water districts and associated growers to promote
conservation of water and improve water management. The projects funded
through this partnership will help communities build resilience to
drought by modernizing their water infrastructure and efficiently using
scarce water resources while continuing to support the agricultural
economy. We've also identified $3 million in WaterSMART funding to
support specific drought response measures and projects to create
drought resilient infrastructure.
powering our future
The 2015 budget advances the President's energy objectives by
encouraging smart and safe domestic renewable and conventional energy
development in concert with conservation objectives and improved
protections for Americans and their cultural and natural heritage. The
budget includes $94.8 million for renewable energy activities and a
total of $658.4 million for current, fee-based, and permanent funded
conventional energy programs. In executing these programs, the
Department is working to take a landscape level approach, modernizing
programs and practices, improving transparency, streamlining
permitting, and strengthening inspection and enforcement of on and
offshore development.
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 76 hydropower plants, 53 of which are
operated and maintained by Reclamation. On an annual basis, these
plants produce an average of 40 billion kilowatt hours of electricity,
enough to meet the entire electricity needs of over 3.5 million
households on average.
Reclamation and FERC are parties to a Memorandum of Understanding,
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 Memorandum of Understanding with the
Department of Energy and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2010 to
increase collaboration between those 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 on existing dams and conduits 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 research and development 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.
To support the Powering Our Future initiative, the 2015 Reclamation
budget includes $1.2 million to optimize its hydropower projects to
produce more energy with the same amount of water; investigate
Reclamation's capability to integrate large amounts of 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 will assist in the production of cleaner, more
efficient renewable energy.
strengthening tribal nations--indian water settlements
The Department has a unique responsibility to American Indians and
Alaska Natives. The 2015 budget invests in: Advancing nation-to-nation
relationships and tribal self-determination, supporting and protecting
Indian families and communities, sustainable stewardship of energy and
natural resources, and improving education in Indian Country.
Interior's investments in Indian water settlements total $171.9
million in Reclamation and Indian Affairs, for technical and legal
support for water settlements. This includes $147.6 million to bring
reliable and potable water to Indian communities, more than a 9-percent
increase from 2014, with $112 million in the Bureau of Reclamation and
$35.7 million in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to implement land and
water settlements. Among the investments is $81 million for the ongoing
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, which, when completed, will have
the capacity to deliver clean running water to a potential future
population of approximately 250,000 people.
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 multi-pueblo 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 $90 million in 2015 for the continued
implementation of these four settlements, including the $81 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
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (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 2015 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 that prompted the enactment of CUPCA about
Reclamation's previous management and operation of the CUP have been
addressed within Reclamation and corrected. The 2015 CUPCA budget is
$7.3 million. Of this amount, $1 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.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
President's 2015 budget for the Department of the Interior and the
Bureau of Reclamation. I want to reiterate my appreciation for the
long-standing support of this subcommittee. This budget has fiscal
discipline and restraint, but it also includes forward looking
investments. We have a tremendous opportunity to improve the future for
all generations with wise investments in healthy lands, clean waters
and expanded energy options.
I look forward to working with you to implement this budget. This
concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
______
Prepared Statement of Lowell Pimley
Thank you Madame Chair, Mr. Alexander and members of this
subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss with you the President's
fiscal year 2015 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central
Utah Project Completion Act, also known as CUPCA.
I appreciate the time and consideration this subcommittee gives to
reviewing and understanding Reclamation's budget, projects, and
programs. Reclamation is committed to prioritizing and defining our
overall program in a manner that serves the best interest of the
American public.
Our 2015 budget continues to support activities that will deliver
water and generate power, consistent with applicable State and Federal
law, in an environmentally responsible and cost-effective manner both
now and for future generations. Overall, our goal is to promote
sustainability, resiliency, and certainty 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
growing communities, and provide support for economic growth in the
agricultural, industrial, energy and recreational sectors of the
economy. The 2015 budget is consistent with the President's pledge to
reduce spending and focus on deficit reduction. It allows Reclamation
to fulfill its core mission and implements cost savings, whenever
possible.
The budget also supports the Administration's and Department of the
Interior's (Department) priorities to address America's water
challenges, and major trends including the likelihood of continued
constrained funding resources, population growth and new domestic
needs, including energy development, increased demand and competition
for supplies. Water availability and quality are a constant and
increasing challenge across the Country as intensifying droughts and
changing climate and hydrology exacerbate water shortages, deplete
groundwater resources, and contribute to impaired water quality that
all impact land, water, wildlife and tribal communities. Reclamation
tackles water challenges across the American West in concert with the
Department's priorities by: Ensuring healthy watersheds and
sustainable, secure water supplies; promoting the America's Great
Outdoors initiative; supporting an all-of-the-above energy strategy;
strengthening tribal nations; and engaging the next generation. The
Department will continue to ensure healthy watersheds and sustainable,
secure water supplies primarily through the WaterSMART--Sustain and
Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow--Program with participation
from both Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey. The WaterSMART
Program provides incentives and cost-share funding for water
conservation projects and facilities and collaborative mechanisms for
water users and policy makers to identify pathways that contribute to
water sustainability. Reclamation's budget reflects those priorities.
Reclamation's 2015 budget, including the Central Utah Project
Completion Act, is $1 billion. These expenditures are offset by current
receipts in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, estimated to
be $57 million. The budget proposal for permanent appropriations in
2015 totals $122.8 million. The budget also proposes the establishment
of a new Indian Water Rights Settlement account and a current
appropriation within the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.
water and related resources
The 2015 budget for Water and Related Resources, Reclamation's
principal operating account, is $760.7 million, a decrease of $193.4
million from 2014 Enacted levels. This decrease is due, in part, to
shifting $90 million to establish a separate Indian Water Rights
Settlement Account, a shift of $32 million to establish a separate
current appropriation within the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund,
and various program and project decreases including a reduction in the
Central Valley Project.
The 2015 budget includes a total of $343.5 million at the project
and 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 $417.2 million at the project
level for water and power facility operations, maintenance, and
rehabilitation activities. 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 2015 budget for water and related resources
I would like to share with the Committee several highlights of the
Reclamation budget. Even in this tight fiscal climate, Reclamation's
budget continues to promote and support efficient water management;
increased renewable energy production; the construction of new
infrastructure and sound maintenance of existing facilities;
restoration of aquatic environments; and the continued use of applied
science and new technologies to help ensure sustainable water
deliveries and energy production. As a result, Reclamation continues to
play an important role in providing a strong foundation for economic
activity across the American West.
WaterSMART Program.--One method Reclamation employs to stretch
water supplies in the West and prepare for these ongoing challenges is
the WaterSMART Program. The programs included in WaterSMART are
collaborative in nature and work to effectively achieve sustainable
water management. WaterSMART Grants, Title XVI Water Reclamation and
Reuse, and the Water Conservation Field Services Program, along with
other Reclamation activities, support the Department's Priority Goal
for Water Conservation. The Basin Studies component of WaterSMART
supports the Department's priority for Ensuring Healthy Watersheds and
Sustainable, Secure Supplies.
In the 2015 budget, Reclamation proposes to fund WaterSMART at
$52.1 million. The WaterSMART components include: WaterSMART Grants
funded at $19 million; the Basin Study Program funded at $3.9 million;
the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program funded at $21.5
million; Water Conservation Field Services Program, funded at $4.5
million; the Cooperative Watershed Management Program, funded at
$250,000; new Drought Response activities, funded at $1.5 million, and
new Resilient Infrastructure activities, funded at $1.5 million.
Rural Water Projects.--Congress has specifically authorized
Reclamation to undertake the design and construction of six projects
intended to deliver potable water supplies to specific rural
communities and Tribes located in the 17 Western States--primarily in
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The 2015
Reclamation budget includes $34.1 million for rural water projects,
$17.8 million of that total is for operation and maintenance of
completed tribal systems and the remaining $16.3 million is for
continued construction for authorized projects.
Dam Safety Program.--A total of $82.9 million is provided for
Reclamation's Safety of Dams Program, which includes $62 million to
correct identified safety issues. Of that amount, $21.4 million is for
work at Folsom Dam. Funding also includes $19.8 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 $26.2 million is provided for Site
Security to ensure the safety and security of the public, Reclamation's
employees, and key facilities. This funding includes $4.1 million for
physical security upgrades at high risk critical assets and $22.1
million to continue all aspects of Bureau-wide security efforts
including law enforcement, risk and threat analysis, personnel
security, information security, risk assessments and security-related
studies, and guards and patrols.
Powering Our Future.--To support the Powering Our Future
initiative, the 2015 Reclamation budget includes $1.2 million to
optimize its hydropower projects to produce more clean, renewable
energy with the same amount of water; investigate Reclamation's
capability to help integrate large amounts of 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 will assist in the production of cleaner, more efficient
renewable energy.
Strengthening Tribal Nations.--The 2015 Reclamation budget supports
the Strengthening Tribal Nations initiative through a number of
activities and projects. For example, the budget includes $8.1 million
in support of Reclamation's activities with tribes, including technical
assistance, Indian Water Rights Settlement negotiations, implementation
of enacted settlements, and outreach to tribes; and $14.1 million to
continue the operation and maintenance associated with the delivery up
to 85,000 acre-feet of water to the Ak-Chin Indian Community. Ongoing
authorized rural water projects also benefit both tribal and nontribal
communities. Projects in the 2015 budget benefiting tribes include the
rural water component of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program,
Garrison Diversion Unit; Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie; and Rocky
Boy's/North Central Montana; and operation and maintenance funding only
for tribal features of the Mni Wiconi Project following completion of
construction. Numerous other projects and programs, such as the
Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery Program, Klamath Project, and the
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project also benefit tribes. In
2015, $90 million for planning and construction of five recent Indian
Water Rights Settlements is being proposed in a new separate account.
Ecosystem Restoration.--In order to meet Reclamation's mission
goals of securing America's energy resources 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 influenced 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.
America's Great Outdoors (AGO) fosters the intrinsic link between
healthy economies and healthy landscapes to increase tourism and
outdoor recreation in balance with preservation and conservation.
Reclamation's 2015 budget includes $116 million within numerous project
and program line items that directly supports the goals of AGO.
The 2015 budget provides $150.6 million to operate, manage, and
improve California's Central Valley Project, including a $32 million
current appropriation within the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.
Overall, funding is $28 million below 2014 levels. The primary factor
for the decrease is a 6-month delay in the schedule for drainage
services for the San Luis Unit as approved by the U.S. District Court.
Within the CVP total, is $16.7 million for the Trinity River Division,
of which $11.9 million and an additional $2 million in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund are for the Trinity River Restoration
Program.
Many other projects and programs also contribute to ecosystem
restoration including the Lower Colorado River Multi-species
Conservation Program, Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act
Collaborative Program, the Endangered Species Act Recovery
Implementation Program, the Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery
Program, Klamath Project, and the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement
Project.
Engaging the Next Generation.--Funds proposed in the fiscal year
2015 President's budget request will expand Reclamation youth programs
and partnerships to accomplish high priority projects, and promote
quality participant experiences and pathways to careers. The funding
for youth programs and partnerships, including the proposed 21st
Century Conservation Service Corps, is included within Reclamation's
project and program line items within the various accounts.
Climate Change Adaptation.--Consistent with the direction in the
President's 2013 Climate Action Plan, in 2015 Reclamation is developing
and implementing approaches to understand, and effectively adapt to,
the risks and impacts of a changing environment on western water
management. Some examples include:
--The Basin Study Program takes a coordinated approach to assess
risks and impacts, develop landscape-level science;
communicates information and science to other entities and
agencies; and works closely with stakeholders to develop
adaptation strategies to cope with water supply and demand
imbalances in a collaborative manner.
--The Drought Response Program will implement, under existing
authorities, a comprehensive new approach to drought planning
and will implement actions to help communities manage drought
and develop long-term resilience strategies.
--Through the Resilient Infrastructure Program, Reclamation will
proactively maintain and improve existing infrastructure for
system reliability, safety, and efficiency for water
conservation to prepare for extremes and to support healthy and
resilient watersheds. Reclamation will develop and implement an
enhanced decisionmaking criteria framework for selecting
resilient infrastructure investments and will identify
opportunities to integrate operational efficiencies more
compatible with climate change adaptation goals, as part of the
Bureau's ongoing infrastructure investments.
--Within Reclamation's Science and Technology Program is water
resources research to improve 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.
--Additionally, Reclamation's WaterSMART Grants, Water Conservation
Field Services, and Title XVI Programs are enabling the West to
better adapt to the impacts of a changing environment by
helping to conserve tens of thousands of acre-feet of water
each year in urban and rural settings, and on both large and
small scales.
central utah project completion act
Interior's 2015 budget proposes to consolidate the CUPCA project
within Reclamation while maintaining a separate account for CUPCA. This
consolidation is part of broader Administration efforts to implement
good government solutions, to consolidate activities when possible, and
reduce duplication and overlap. The 2015 CUPCA budget is $7.3 million
of which $1 million will be transferred to the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by the Mitigation
Commission. The 2015 funding will be used to provide for construction,
program oversight, the Ute Tribal settlement, fish and wildlife
development, and Endangered Species Act recovery.
central valley project restoration fund
The 2015 budget includes a total of $57 million for the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF). This amount is determined on
the basis of a 3-year rolling average not to exceed $50 million per
year and indexed to 1992 price levels. These expenditures are offset by
collections estimated at $57 million from mitigation and restoration
charges authorized by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
california bay-delta restoration
The 2015 budget provides $37 million for California Bay-Delta
Restoration, equal to the 2014 budget. The account focuses on the
health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem and improving water management and
supplies. The budget will support the coequal goals of environmental
restoration and improved water supply reliability, under the following
program activities: $1.7 million for a Renewed Federal State
Partnership, $8 million for Smarter Water Supply and Use, and $27.4
million for Habitat Restoration. These program activities are based on
the Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta issued
December 22, 2009.
san joaquin river restoration fund
The 2015 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 includes a provision
to establish 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
nearly $2 million in annual appropriations from the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund for this purpose. Reclamation proposes $32
million of current funds for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund
account in 2015.
indian water rights settlements
In 2015, Reclamation will enhance support of tribal nations, most
notably through the establishment of an Indian Water Rights Settlement
account. The 2015 Budget proposes $90 million for Indian Water Rights
Settlements (IWRS), in a new account of the same name. Reclamation is
proposing 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. This
account is proposed to cover expenses associated with the four Indian
water rights settlements contained in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-291) and the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project within
Title X of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-11).
Of this amount, $9 million is for implementation of three water
rights settlements contained 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, and the
Crow Tribe of Montana. The budget also includes $81 million for the
ongoing Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project. In 2015, funding priority
was given to those settlements whose mandated completion dates would be
most in jeopardy without it.
In addition, the 2015 budget for the Water and Related Resources
Account contains $22 million for on-going settlement operation and
maintenance functions including the Ak Chin Indian Water Rights
Settlement Act, San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Settlement Act, Colorado
Ute Settlement Act Animas--La Plata Project, and Nez Perce/Snake River
Water Rights Act which is part of the Columbia/Snake River Salmon
Recovery Program.
policy and administration
The 2015 budget for Policy and Administration, the account that
finances Reclamation's central and regional management functions is
$59.5 million.
permanent appropriations
The total permanent appropriation of $122.8 million in 2015
primarily includes $110.7 million for the Colorado River Dam Fund, and
reflects a $51.7 million decrease for permanent funding. 2014 is the
last year for the $60 million permanent appropriation for each of 3
years to Reclamation's Water Settlements Fund provided in Public Law
111-291. In 2015, the Central Utah Project Completion Act accounts are
consolidated within Reclamation.
2015 through 2018 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 will enable conservation capability for agricultural,
municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in the Western United
States by at least 840,000 acre-feet (from 2010) through 2015, and
1,000,000 acre-feet through 2018 with the use of the WaterSMART Program
to assist communities in stretching water supplies while improving
water management and increasing the efficient use of water.
Moreover, Reclamation's water conservation activities address 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 2015 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 support the mix of water resource needs in 2015 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, Madam Secretary. I
appreciate your comments.
Do either of the gentlemen wish to speak? We have your
remarks. If you do not, that is--we will let the women handle
it.
Ms. Darcy. He will handle the questions.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I don't mean to intimidate you. If
you have something you want to say, say it.
General Bostick. I think they have covered it very well.
The only thing I would say, Madam Chairman, is that I have
great pride in the Corps of Engineers and the work our people
are doing each and every day all across this country and
throughout the world.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. And we share that pride and
are very grateful to you for it. So thank you very much.
Oh, about I guess it was 3, 4 weeks ago, Senator Boxer and
I flew out with the President and got on a helicopter in Fresno
and flew over the Central Valley. And I am a native
Californian, and without giving up my age, I have lived there
all my life, and I have never seen a drier Central Valley. I
guess a half million acres to date have been fallowed. It could
be a million acres coming.
The California Water Project has a zero allocation. The
Central Valley Water Project, which goes to farmers, has a zero
water allocation. So there is virtually very little water, and
it is a real problem.
We are the biggest ag State in the country. It is a $50
billion industry. It employs tens of thousands of people, and
it is falling apart in a hand basket right now.
So the question comes, what can we do? I have a bill that I
have introduced. It was Rule 14'd yesterday. I hope it will
come to the floor. It has some measures of operational
flexibility for the departments, for the Federal departments.
And it raises the caps on certain programs to allow counties
and States that have been declared an emergency to be able to
partake in those programs.
We have removed the emergency spending part of the bill,
candidly, because obviously we need 60 votes, and it was a
problem for the Republican side. I have two great Republicans
on my left, and I very much hope that they will vote to suspend
cloture so that we can vote on this bill soon. And here is why.
It is now raining in California, and we need to take
advantage of that water with increased operational flexibility
while it rains. And the bill has some specific things that can
be done to increase flexibility. We have worked with the
Department of Reclamation in producing them. We have worked
with the State Department of Water Resources, with Fish and
Game, et cetera.
It is my understanding, Mr. Pimley, that Reclamation is
taking steps to increase operational flexibility of the water
distribution systems that you oversee now. And Reclamation's
latest report stated that through March 27, the cumulative loss
of winter-run Chinook Salmon at the export facility at Jones
Pumping Plant is 304 out of an allowable incidental take limit
of 24,237. So, clearly, the salmon are not affected. The
estimated take for Delta Smelt is zero.
So the data, it would seem to me, does support the notion
that higher levels of water pumping in this emergency situation
can occur. Could you indicate what your department is doing in
that regard?
Mr. Pimley. Yes. Thank you.
We have been working very hard over the past 3 months.
Senator Feinstein. I don't want to miss this. Could you
speak directly into the mike?
Mr. Pimley. Sorry, I have a bit of a cold. I am sorry.
We have been working very hard since the first of the
calendar year and even beginning last year to prepare for what
we had feared could be a worst-case scenario, which has
actually exceeded our concerns from a year ago. We have worked
very much in concert with Federal fish agencies, NMFS (National
Marine Fisheries Service) and Fish and Wildlife Services, as
well as the State Fish and Wildlife Division and Department of
Water Resources and the California State Water Board.
Through those efforts, over the past 2 to 3 weeks of
intense efforts, we have worked with NMFS and others to be able
to increase pumping at the two facilities, the Central Valley
and State Water Projects, beginning yesterday from what had
been about 1,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) exports up to just
shy of 5,000 between the two projects now. I think at this
stage the State Project is at about 700, and we are--
Reclamation is at about 4,200.
Senator Feinstein. Is that the cumulative total for both
projects, State Water?
Mr. Pimley. Correct, 4,900 for the two projects. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Forty-nine hundred. Okay.
Mr. Pimley. So these actions were taken as a measured
approach not just concerning drought, but also to address the
need to strike a balance between fishery concerns and the needs
of water supply. And then the third real key that we work with
the State board on is the salinity control within the delta. So
by balancing those three components of delta operations, we
think we have struck the right, middle road to do the best we
can for all three.
It is an evolving situation out there, literally day by
day. Conversations take place not just on a daily basis, but
literally on an hourly basis and 7 days a week. We are trying
to maximize pumping so that we can stay in a situation where we
are not putting ourselves into a state of jeopardy with regard
to endangered species.
Senator Feinstein. So is that all you are doing? There are
other things in our bill--keeping open the cross-delta
channels, the one-for-one release ratio. Is any of that being
done?
Mr. Pimley. Yes, the one-to-one San Joaquin import/export
ratio has been adjusted for the first part of April until we
have to have a pulse flow, as I understand it, to help
migrating salmon move out of the delta. But we are able to hold
off on that until that pulse flow that waive the one-to-one
ratio until that pulse flow is needed, which I believe is in
about 2 weeks.
Senator Feinstein. Say that again. This is important.
Mr. Pimley. The one-to-one ratio is not controlling for the
next two or so weeks until that pulse flow is required. So then
the criteria we have to be concerned about, is how much
negative flow we have going backwards through the Old and
Middle Rivers.
And we have worked with NMFS--they have raised that limit
to minus 5,000 cfs, which is the 14-day average. But we are
actually allowed to go, I think, 25 percent above that to
capture these pulse flows or these flows that are coming in. As
you mentioned, the storm that is in California right now, I
believe, it is over a 5-day period that we can ramp up a little
bit higher.
We are not there yet, as I mentioned earlier, but we are
following the hydrograph as the water is available in the
delta.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I am fully supportive of this, and
I want you to know that. And the take figures being so low
would seem to support this action, and I think the hope is that
you can get upwards of 500,000 additional acre feet of water.
Do you think that is possible?
Mr. Pimley. I honestly don't know the total volume, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. Pimley. I do know that, I am not a biologist, but I
have been taking a crash course over the past 2 weeks in the
terminology.
Senator Feinstein. Lucky you.
Mr. Pimley. But my understanding is that there is a lot
more to the equation than simply the incidental take numbers
that they have been observing. I am paraphrasing here, and I
believe you will get more details at the end of the week when
we have a report come out on the drought operation plan for the
rest of the water year. But my understanding is that there are
a lot of fish migrating as we speak and will be in the delta
over the next 2 months. That is when the story will be told on
the species for this year.
And so, the incidental take so far is admittedly quite low.
But there are other factors that are stressing the populations,
and I think we have got the real concerns going out into the
next few weeks.
Senator Feinstein. Just one comment, and this isn't your
problem. It is ours. So is unemployment going to be going up.
So are farmers that are not going to be able to get their loans
to plant. So are contractors that are not going to be able to
put together crews to work. And when this happened a few years
ago, the unemployment in Valley towns, particularly Mendota,
was 40 percent, and farmers were actually in bread lines.
So I understand the fish. But I also understand that people
have to live and earn and be able to buy their food. So I very
much appreciate your taking this action.
Senator.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
General Bostick, will the increase in funding for the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund spending result in increased fund
for the dredging in the Port of Memphis?
General Bostick. I can't specifically say, Senator
Alexander, but I can follow up on that question whether it
would help in that particular port.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. I would appreciate if you
would. We worked together to try to get on a 6-year path so
that we can take care of the backlog of needs that we have, and
that is one of the most important ones in our area.
Secretary Darcy, last year the subcommittee added $81.5
million in funding for inland navigation projects. Again, we
all worked together on that, came to a pretty good result, I
thought, for the inland navigation. And of course, we need
those. If we are going to be a great country, we have got to
keep our waterways, our locks, and our dams in good shape.
We also were able to create a capital development plan that
we agreed upon, which gave us an orderly way to move toward the
priority projects. And fourth in that capital development plan
is the Chickamauga Lock.
Well, here is my question. If that increased level of
funding continues, the $81 million higher in this year, is
there a way for you to restart construction of the Chickamauga
Lock during the fiscal year 2015?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, that would depend on the other projects
in line. As you know, Olmsted and then Monongahela and then
Lockport and then Chick, none of those are currently funded to
completion. We would need to look at if that additional revenue
is there. Again, it would need to be met through the trust fund
as well as the Treasury.
Senator Alexander. Well, the hope was--as we worked through
this last year and the conversations we had was as we got these
projects in a priority order, which we all agreed on, which
is--should be very helpful to the Corps so you won't be pulled
in so many different directions--it is helpful to us as well--
that the increased funding would make it possible for you to
move ahead on two or three at once.
Obviously, you have your priorities. Two comes ahead of
three. Three comes ahead of four. But you don't have to
actually fully complete two before you restart construction on
four because these are big projects that take a long time.
Now let me ask you this. There was also a part of our
proposal was to increase the revenue in the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund. I believe the administration had a proposal.
Ms. Darcy. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. We had another one. What are the
prospects for that increased revenue, and how much revenue
would that be?
Ms. Darcy. Under the Administration's proposal for the user
fee, we are projecting that, if enacted, we would be able to
generate $1.1 billion over a 10-year period.
Senator Alexander. And I think the proposal that we had in
the Congress was to increase the fuel tax.
Ms. Darcy. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. And it would produce about the same
amount of money, which would--if I am remembering right. Now
that would add another $100 million a year or so to the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund.
In addition to maintaining the $81 million increase that we
had last year, if we are able to either take the
administration's proposal of a lockage fee or the fuel tax, the
increase that the barge owners have said they would like to
pay, if we had that extra $100 million, would that increase the
chances that Chickamauga Lock could be restarted in 2015?
Ms. Darcy. I think it would increase the chances. However,
the revenue coming into the trust fund, as you know, if you
increase the tax, that would significantly increase the amount
coming in. But it is that match between what is in the trust
fund and the Treasury that would ultimately need to be
reconciled in order to pay for any increase to the Chick Lock
or to restart Chick.
Senator Alexander. Well, you know, in the case of the fuel
tax increase, we have got the barge owners who are asking to
pay it so they can get through the lock more rapidly. And it
doesn't affect any of the fishermen except if you have got a
little boat, right now you are waiting. And if the big boats
pay more to make it easier to get through the lock, the little
boats get through faster without paying any more.
So I would hope the administration would work with us to
increase the fee and that as you and the General make your
plans, that you would think about all of these projects, or at
least two or three of them, at once. If we go up $81 million
and stay there, and particularly if we are able to get the
revenue up, as many of us think we should, in either the way
the administration wants to do it or the way we have
recommended, that that will give us a chance to move ahead on
those next two or three projects, including the Chickamauga
Lock.
Ms. Darcy. I think we share the same goal, Senator.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Madam Chair, thank you for scheduling this
hearing.
And to our panel of witnesses, thank you very much for
being here and helping us review the budget request for the
Secretary of Army's budget for civil works and related
activities that come under your jurisdiction.
In looking at the priorities, I am curious to know how you
make the decisions, based on a shrinking budget, to provide
upkeep, maintenance, dredging where that is required, and other
activities that are over and above the day-to-day operations
and activities of the agencies and departments under your
jurisdiction. How do you go about assigning priorities? I'm
curious. If you have a process, can you describe it for us?
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Senator.
We do have a process. First of all, it is a performance-
based budget, where we look at projects across the Nation as
far as the value to the Nation and what those outputs for a
specific project would be.
For example, the way we budget in our Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) account for dredging, is that we look at the
high commercial use harbors and take the money that we have and
put it toward those high commercial use harbors. We also take a
percentage of that money also to address some of the lower use
harbors, some subsistence harbors, smaller harbors. But in that
instance, we look at the highest commercial use in order to
determine the percentage of money that goes to each of those
projects.
Senator Cochran. Our State of Mississippi has a great deal
of economic interest in ports along the river on the western
part of our State. Are there any ports that are on the
Mississippi border, the State of Mississippi border that
qualify for maintenance activity during this next fiscal year
under the appropriations that we will approve in this budget
bill?
Ms. Darcy. I believe so. Can I name them? Vicksburg and
Madison Parish. Yellow Bend. And----
Senator Cochran. What about Memphis? Memphis, is part of
Memphis?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Cochran. We share that. Senator Alexander and I
both are interested in that.
Ms. Darcy. I was looking at Mississippi, but, yes, Memphis.
Senator Cochran. Memphis. Right. Don't forget Memphis. And
is Natchez or Vicksburg among those listed?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir.
General Bostick. The only thing I would add is that our
districts have a big play in what we fund. We look at the
national economic benefit and we look at risks to life and we
look at environmental issues; the districts provide their
recommendations up to the divisions, and then they come to the
headquarters and go through the performance-based budgeting
criteria process that Secretary Darcy explained.
Senator Cochran. Let me ask you this. Is the appropriations
being requested for maintenance of these ports sufficient in
this budget request to take care of the needs that will exist
over the next fiscal year?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, the amount that is being requested in
the President's budget--am I on? The amount that is being
requested----
Senator Feinstein. Move it down just a small bit.
Ms. Darcy. The amount that is being requested in the
President's budget is what we believe we can afford at this
time from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. It doesn't meet
all of the needs for all of the harbors or in all of the ports,
but it is what we are going to be able to afford to spend on
those needs at this time.
Senator Cochran. Well, with the emphasis on cutting
spending and reducing the budget and trying to cut the deficit
and that kind of thing, I hope that we don't get so carried
away that we forget some of the primary responsibilities of
these agencies that benefit from the appropriations approved by
our committee to protect against catastrophic failures. And
when we have so much of our commerce moving down the
Mississippi River, it occurs to me that we need to be sure that
we are getting that right.
Are you satisfied that the funds being requested are
sufficient for those purposes for the next fiscal year?
Ms. Darcy. They are what we are able to afford at this
time, sir.
Senator Cochran. Now we can afford more, this committee
can, by appropriating more, if it is consistent with our budget
rules and restraints here on the Hill. You don't think it is
important to make any requests for or in looking ahead, knowing
that supplemental appropriations might be needed for any of
these purposes?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, this is the administration's request
for this at this time.
Senator Cochran. Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein. Are you muzzled?
Ms. Darcy. No, Senator. I am supporting the President's
budget request.
Senator Cochran. I think so.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. I think so, too. But the point is
it is a huge budget cut for an agency that is our only real
infrastructure agency. And that is the ``too bad'' thing.
So, you know, I actually believe that this subcommittee has
great respect for the Army Corps, and we want to see it be able
to perform. So I would hope that if you have other priorities
or will have other priorities, we are going to try to find a
way to increase that amount.
And Senator Cochran, you will support us. Right?
Senator Cochran. Indeed, I will, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
I want to follow up on what Senator Cochran said because I
think he raises an excellent point. And I understand the
constraints, you know, Secretary Darcy, that you are under. But
we are not under those same constraints. And it would help us
to have the best information possible to make the arguments
that we need to make, which is that continuing to grossly
underfund water infrastructure projects in this Nation is
counter to economic development and the creation of high-paying
middle-class jobs.
This maritime industry--I am not talking just about oil and
gas. I am talking about maritime that affects every State,
every community, is imperative. So I want to ask the question
this way. And this is in, General Bostick, your testimony. You
say this.
Our budget includes 400 flood and storm damage reduction
projects. This budget includes 192 coastal navigation projects.
And this budget allocates money to 193 sites with navigation
locks.
I am going to ask you to submit to this committee the
deficits associated with these: 400 flood, 192 coastal, and 193
sites for this committee. Because you are putting $4.5 billion
against these projects. You know, that is one way to testify.
But the more interesting question is how much would it actually
cost to complete all of them?
I am not even sure--we need to know that. The country
should know. Because it is billions and billions and billions
and billions of dollars, and we are, like, throwing nickels and
dimes at it. So I want that answer. If you have it, you can
give it to me now. And if not, you can give it to me later. But
I want that answer. What is the total amount?
My second question is this. I mean, do you have a number
right now for this?
General Bostick. What you are asking for, Senator, is about
our capability. And the capability is an estimate of each study
or project that the Army Corps of Engineers estimates for the
most that it could obligate efficiently for a fiscal year----
Senator Landrieu. No, it is not obligate efficiently. It is
what are the needs--if we built all these projects or if we had
them completed. That is what I think the public is interested--
--
Senator Feinstein. What the total amount.
Senator Landrieu. What the total amount. And I know you
don't--I don't think you have that number.
General Bostick. For something like critical dredging, it
is about $1.8 billion.
Senator Landrieu. For what we need every year to dredge.
General Bostick. Of what we could do in 2015.
Senator Landrieu. Not what you can do, but what the country
needs. It is two different things.
Like we have a port of South Carolina that needs some
dredging. We didn't even--now we do have a new start in here,
and I am very grateful to the President, which was a promise
made after Katrina destroyed the Gulf Coast. But we have the
new start, and I am grateful, and our State is going to come up
with a lot of money to help with this. We don't expect this
committee to fund it. We have a funding plan. We need the
authorization.
But the Mississippi River needs to get dredged from Baton
Rouge to New Orleans. It is literally the largest port system
in the country, and we don't have the money in here, I
understand, to dredge the Mississippi from Baton Rouge to the
mouth. Do we?
General Bostick. We do not.
Senator Landrieu. We do not. And you do have four dredging
projects in here. Correct?
General Bostick. Correct.
Senator Landrieu. And do we have the information about how
those dredging projects were chosen? Can you submit those to
the record in terms of economic impact?
Ms. Darcy. We can do that.
General Bostick. We can provide that. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Because the volumes in these ports
I am fairly familiar with, and I don't know of any port system
in the country--any--that has more volume than the ports of
Baton Rouge to the mouth of the Mississippi. They couldn't
possibly because this river is the biggest river in the whole
country. I mean, there is no question about that.
So, do you have a response to how the Mississippi River got
left out?
Ms. Darcy. I think you are referring to the one dredging
project from Baton Rouge to----
Senator Landrieu. To the mouth.
Ms. Darcy [continuing]. To the mouth. At the time we were
doing the allocations for the 2014 work plan, the local sponsor
was not supportive of doing it.
Senator Landrieu. Well, we have submitted information that
counters that and it will. But that is one of my questions. I
have gone over my time, and I am--well, no. I have a minute
left. We sent you some additional information about that.
But the point is--and it is not just each of us arguing for
our own State. I have started off by saying the whole country
has a huge need. And I can just--you know, I am more familiar
with my State than I am with some others. But when I look at
the Mississippi River and what is happening along this huge
commercial corridor, and then I look at Lake Charles. So let me
just ask about Lake Charles.
You said that you allocate money, Madam Secretary, on
economic commercial use. Are oil and gas tankers, like natural
gas import or export, commercial use? Do you find it as
commercial use?
Ms. Darcy. That is commercial use.
Senator Landrieu. And you take that into consideration?
Okay. Since we are the only port right now that is positioned
to do that, it is hard for me to understand how we don't get a
regular allocation of dollars for the Calcasieu Ship Channel
since we are one of the only ports that do that right now. Can
you look into that for us?
Ms. Darcy. I can look into it. What we look at is the
volume, the commercial ton miles. So we will look at how that
port competes compared to other high-use ports.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. And the other is the energy ports
along the Gulf Coast. We are not the only ones. But Port
Fourchon, 18 percent of all the offshore drilling, it is not--
they don't even get calculated in some of the calculations that
you all do. So we will continue to work.
Madam Chairman, thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Darcy, do you know why the Congress imposed
sequestration?
Senator Feinstein. Oh, poor Secretary Darcy.
Ms. Darcy. Pardon me?
Senator Graham. I would say you all were dumb, but you
would not want to say that. I would say that we have created a
mess for you and us. And it is easy to beat on you all, but we
ought to beat on ourselves a little bit here. We have got to
fix this.
In 2016, sequestration hits again. Do you agree?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Senator Graham. You think it is bad now. What is going to
happen post 2016, General?
General Bostick. It is going to be worse, Senator.
Senator Graham. Yes, I wish we could find a way to fix
sequestration in a bipartisan manner. We are really gutting the
ability to improve infrastructure. Do you agree with that,
Secretary Darcy?
Ms. Darcy. Yes. It is limiting that ability significantly.
Senator Graham. Do you agree with that, General?
General Bostick. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Graham. Okay. So the big picture is that we are on
track now to reduce spending in an area I think is vital to our
economy. And I will help you dredge the Mississippi River
because if we don't, we are crazy.
Our Inland Port Trust Fund, Olmsted Lock and Dam takes most
of the money. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Until you fix that, you are never going to
fix the Inland Port Trust Fund problem, are you?
Ms. Darcy. There are ways to fix the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund through a number of things, including the user fee that we
have proposed.
Senator Graham. Well, at the end of the day, I would just
like the subcommittee, which has been one of the best
experiences in Congress for me, to see if we can find a way to
replace sequestration with something that makes more sense and
frees up money.
As to Charleston, the President's budget allocated $695,000
to complete the Post 45 study. Is that enough, General? Madam
Secretary?
Ms. Darcy. It is funded to completion, sir.
Senator Graham. Yes. So we really appreciate that, and I
want to acknowledge the President's support of that.
Now, when it comes to dealing with the West Coast port
problems, they are mainly portside capacity. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. It varies from port to port. But the West Coast
ports have a different capacity because of some of their depths
are naturally----
Senator Graham. Do we have a strategy to make the West
Coast of the United States more competitive and improve our
ports? Do we have a national strategy to do that?
Ms. Darcy. To make them more competitive, as opposed to the
rest of the country?
Senator Graham. Yes. Let us just start with the West Coast.
Ms. Darcy. We don't have a strategy to make them the most
competitive. No.
Senator Graham. Do we have a strategy to make the East
Coast more competitive?
Ms. Darcy. I would say no.
Senator Graham. Do we have a strategy to make the Inland
Port Trust Fund more effective?
Ms. Darcy. We are trying to, by proposing a user fee in
order to increase the receipts into the trust fund, so that we
can be more responsive to the infrastructure needs on the
inland waterways.
Senator Graham. Do you think the administration should come
up with a strategy, or should the Congress come up with a
strategy, or should we just not have one?
Ms. Darcy. The President established a ports task force
last year. One of our charges in the task force, which I sit
on, is to come up with a port strategy for the country, and we
are working on that.
Senator Graham. When do you think that will happen?
Ms. Darcy. I don't know.
Senator Graham. When is the Panama Canal going to expand?
Ms. Darcy. 2015.
Senator Graham. That is next year.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Don't you think we need to get on with it?
Ms. Darcy. We will.
Senator Graham. Okay.
To the chairman and the ranking member, I have really
enjoyed working with both of you trying to come up with a
strategy. But I don't know what you tell the American people.
The Panama Canal is going to change shipping as we know it in
the Gulf area, along the East Coast. Our West Coast ports have
different needs, but many are going unaddressed.
And I would just urge the administration and this committee
to see if we could come up with a strategy fairly soon. You got
any ideas on how to make that happen?
Ms. Darcy. I think that, with the leadership of this
committee and those of us in the Administration who have the
same goals, we should be able to sit down soon and see what
those are and how we get there.
Senator Graham. Do you have any idea how much money it
would take to have a comprehensive strategy to deepen ports, to
dredge the Mississippi River in an effective way, making our
inland ports more effective, and to deal with our capacity
problems along the West Coast? Could you ballpark how much
money it would take?
Ms. Darcy. I can't even envision the ballpark.
Senator Graham. Could you try to envision that, report back
to us, and we will see if we can find the money if it makes
sense to us?
Ms. Darcy. We will do that.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Before recognizing Senator Tester, for
just a minute. If you remember, we talked about this a lot. And
as it washed out, California could never get its fair share
back.
Senator Graham. Well, let us fix that.
Senator Feinstein. That is a problem.
Senator Graham. Let us fix that.
Senator Feinstein. If you can devise a sharing ratio for
this, this funding that is based on what States pay in. But
California is the biggest State to pay in and gets very little
back. That is a problem.
Senator Graham. And I would just say, Madam Chairman, yes,
nobody wants to be unfair to California. There is the immediate
needs of upgrading our infrastructure, and there is the way we
collect money and how we disburse it.
What I am thinking about trying to do is create a pot of
money that fixes your capacity problems--new money--that helps
deepen East Coast ports and will take care of the Olmsted Lock
and Dam, and we can have those sort of one-time capital
expenditures and we can come up with a new way to disburse the
money. I think the needs are great and are being unaddressed as
a Nation, and we are running out of time.
So that is just my 2-cents worth. See if you can come up
with the money to improve our infrastructure and deal with the
allocations kind of as a separate issue. That is just my
thought.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Senator.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to
thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on
this committee.
And I would go back to Senator Graham's first statement
when he said we ought to be beating up on ourselves. The truth
is, I wonder what would happen if the President came out with a
budget that talked about how much spending had to be done to
build up our infrastructure. My guess, there would be ads runs
saying this administration is a bunch of big spenders. And that
is the way our election system works these days.
If you don't believe it, take a look at a GSE (Government
sponsored enterprise) housing reform bill that some hedge fund
folks don't like, and they are running ads right now against
Democrats and Republicans because they don't like the policy.
We have got to fix that. If we fix that, we help fix you guys.
And I want to thank you all for being here because, quite
frankly, all these issues are very, very important to all of
us, and they are all about infrastructure, and they are all
about water. And it is pretty hard for you guys to say that
project isn't worthy because every one of them are.
And so, I am going to talk about some regional water
systems in the President's budget that came out, and it was
funded at half the amount it was funded at last year. And quite
frankly, these projects have been around longer than I have
been involved in State or Federal politics, and they are
projects that are getting more expensive by the day, not less
expensive. Yet the administration cuts them by 50 percent.
Could you tell me the thinking behind it?
Now, the projects I am talking about are projects like
North Central Water Project in Montana, the Northeastern Water
Project in Montana, and there is probably projects throughout
the country that are the same as them.
Can you tell me what kind of thought process goes into
cutting those kind of water projects? I am looking at you,
Lowell, you can rock and fire.
Ms. Castle. Senator Tester, if you wouldn't mind me taking
that?
Senator Tester. You can do it, too. I am happy to hear from
anybody.
Ms. Castle. I will step into the fire.
We do take rural water projects and the projects that you
are talking about very, very seriously. They are important for
the Nation. I will say that we very much appreciate this
subcommittee's work to provide additional funding for
Reclamation's rural water projects in the 2014 Omnibus
Appropriations Bill.
We were not able to, within our budget constraints, come up
with the same amount of funding for the rural water program for
the 2015 request. We are trying, as Secretary Darcy said, to do
our part to balance the budget and to reduce the Federal
deficit. And it is really another version of the conversation
that was taking place here just earlier.
But we are proposing to fund the Fort Peck project at $3.2
million and to fund the Garrison project at $12.3 million. So
we are doing what we can within a responsible budget to move
those projects forward.
Senator Tester. We have already invested north of $100
million, maybe $150 million, in the project you just talked
about, the Northeastern Water Project. I will tell you that--
and this is with all due respect--$3 million doesn't start up
the pickup in that project. It is a fact. It doesn't.
The O&M on that project is $1.5 million. And so, $3
million, I appreciate it. I love you for it. But the fact is it
doesn't even come close to what we need for that project, that
one project. And we have got another one in the north central
part of the State. And these projects have been around since
the 1990s.
And so, we are going to work on beefing that up. And
hopefully, I can get the Chairman and Ranking Member to work
with us, along with you guys, to give you some money that you
can work with to be able to get some of these finished so we
can get them off the books because, quite frankly, I don't want
them to have to come to Washington, DC, anymore, begging for
O&M, begging for money for the projects.
Intake Dam--I will be very quick on this one--is for either
the BOR or the Army Corps. Been working this 52,000 acres
irrigation project. There is a fish passage, okay? The fish
passage has been somewhat--we spent a lot of money on it. Let
us just put it that way.
We think it is going to work. We hope it is going to work.
We don't know for sure if it is going to work. The concern is,
is that after the work is done on that fish passage, if the BOR
and Army Corps walk away from that and that fish passage
doesn't work, we are going to break a bunch of irrigators.
What is your perspective on that, on that issue? And then
if I didn't explain it well, I can do it again. But go ahead.
General Bostick. First, Senator, we agree with you. We
believe it is going to work, and we are going to make every
effort to work it to success. We are developing a Memorandum of
Agreement with the Bureau that this summer will outline the
long-term responsibilities that each of us will take. But we
have learned from the past and are convinced that the plan that
we are pursuing is going to be successful.
Senator Tester. Do you anticipate--do you anticipate that
long-term plan is going to be--if it doesn't work, it is not
our problem?
General Bostick. We are in the business of trying to solve
problems and solve challenges. We are going to find a way to
work together with the Bureau to find the right way forward.
Senator Tester. Okay. One last thing, if I might, Madam
Chair? My time has overrun. I will be very quick.
Invasive aquatic species. Do you guys have a plan to make
sure we are not transferring from one reservoir to another,
from one body of water to another, from an Army Corps or Bureau
of Rec standpoint?
General Bostick. I would say we have some of the foremost
experts working in this area. ERDC (Engineer Research and
Development Center) has some of the best minds working it. We
have also learned a lot in the GLMRIS (Great Lakes Mississippi
River Interbasin Study) study, where we are looking at Asian
carp and other invasive species. I think, from all of that
work, it will help us all throughout the country.
Senator Tester. I don't need to tell you guys, I mean, this
is a huge economic--it would turn things upside down really
fast.
Thank you all. Thank you for the work you do. Thank you for
your dedication to this country. Thank you for your dedication
to water infrastructure. I look forward to working with you and
the Chairman and the Ranking Member to get some of this stuff
ironed out.
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator. Senator Tester, if
there are no other questions, we will thank our witnesses and
look forward to working with you during the budget process.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
And I know members have some questions. The hearing record
will remain open for 1 week, and additional questions for the
record can be submitted to the subcommittee staff during this
timeframe.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
drought
Question. What actions has the Corps taken to address the historic
drought in the West?
Answer. First, the Corps implemented temporary deviations to
operations at Whittier and Prado Dams during the drought which has
allowed the maximum capture of over 22,000 acre feet of water. Other
deviation requests will likely be forthcoming.
Second, the California Department of Water Resources has been
meeting with the Corps about permits for salinity barriers in the
Delta. The Corps expects additional permit requests for other work,
including pumps, siphons, wells and pipe extensions.
Third, the Corps is engaged with other Federal, State and local
agencies to anticipate and assist in providing drought responses.
Regionally, the Corps is participating in forums conducted by the
California Office of Emergency Services, the lead State agency,
regional water planning bodies and directly with project partners.
Fourth, the Corps is providing technical assistance to local
communities. For example, the Corps provided technical assistance to
Redwood Valley Water District to place a temporary floating pump
platform in Lake Mendocino that will allow continued water withdrawal
if the lake level falls below the permanent intake.
Question. Are there other actions that the Corps could be taking?
Answer. The Corps remains engaged with the California Drought Task
Forces and is prepared to immediately act in processing deviations,
regulatory permits and emergency water assistance requests within
existing authorities. To improve longer-term drought resiliency, the
Corps is working with the National Weather Service on improving
forecast-based decision parameters for reservoir operations.
Question. Are there statutory or other impediments that inhibit the
role that the Corps could play in drought relief?
Answer. The Army Civil Works program's actions reflect its
authorities. In a drought, for example, the Corps may be able to take
steps to change project operations at a multi-purpose dam that includes
water supply as an ancillary project purpose. In some cases, the Corps
may also be able to provide certain emergency assistance under Public
Law 84-99.
Question. Does the Corps have sufficient funding to address drought
activities within the limited authorities available to you?
Answer. Yes.
water supply
Question. Questions have been raised about the Corps' operation of
their lakes, particularly in California. The questions centers on the
operating ``rule curve''. Many complain that the ``rule curves'' were
developed 50 or more years ago and don't take into account the latest
climate science or even observational data.
Does the Corps have a process to periodically reanalyze these
``rule curves''?
Answer. Yes. Each dam or reservoir has a water control manual that
is periodically updated based upon need including changing upstream
and/or downstream conditions such as hydraulics, and dam operations.
Engineering Regulation 110-2-240 directs the Corps to revisit the water
control plans regularly. Updates vary from relatively minor to
significant. A significant water control manual update could require an
environmental impact statement, public involvement, endangered species
coordination, engineering analysis, and economic analysis.
Question. Are the rule curves the only factor that governs whether
water is released?
Answer. Rule curves provide the broad guidelines for reservoir
operations. Specific releases are dependent on the conditions at that
time.
Question. Is there any flexibility in these ``rule curves''?
Answer. Yes. We have flexibility in these ``rule curves''. The
deviation process allows this flexibility via several different paths
for temporarily changing operations. A deviation can cover a short-term
change in operations for gate inspection or downstream rescue, to a
longer term change to address downstream levee improvements,
construction at the dam or water supply enhancements. Deviations are
typically requested by an outside agency and are evaluated by the Corps
to ensure that the Congressional authorizations for flood and storm
damage reduction are not compromised.
Question. What is the process for integrating the rule curves with
the weather forecast when there is a storm on the horizon?
Answer. Technically, the Corps does not incorporate weather
forecast in the rule curves. Rather, it uses weather forecasts to
determine whether a deviation from the rule curve is warranted in a
particular situation. A deviation is an approved reservoir operation
that does not follow the rule curve. Deviations can be requested and
approved for immediate short-term emergencies; or they can be requested
and approved for non-emergency situations for longer durations. The
deviation process allows short-term flexibility to safely adjust
reservoir operations to meet current and anticipated conditions for
floods and droughts.
Real-time reservoir operations are based on the amount of observed
water on the ground in the form of rainfall, runoff, or snowpack. This
reduces the potential for inducing damages as a result of operations
based on weather forecasts with errors and uncertainties. Currently,
the Corps is developing a research framework with NOAA's National
Weather Service, River Forecast Centers, and other stakeholders to
evaluate forecast reliability in conjunction with site specific
constraints such as downstream capacity, uncontrolled flood wave
timing, and other risk factors including floodplain development.
Question. Would it not be prudent to take some of the funding that
is proposed in your budget for climate change and utilize it for these
analyses?
Answer. No, that funding is needed to develop tools and evaluate
options for broader programmatic changes in project design,
construction, or operation. Generally, work on rule curves and the
associated planning and implementation of operational changes for a
particular weather forecast are funded with the project's Operation and
Maintenance funds.
Question. How do you answer critics that accuse the Corps of
``flushing'' away water in a reservoir during a drought to maintain a
``rule curve''?
Answer. Each dam is operated based upon its water control manual
and authorizing documents. Rule curves in water control manuals are
defined by the specific authorized purposes of each project as well as
endangered species requirements and are generally designed to best
mitigate risks during both drought and flood events, consistent with
the other authorized purposes and existing law.
Question. Do any of the Corps reservoirs in California have the
capacity for additional storage or the reallocation of storage for
water supply?
Answer. Possibly. The Corps is conducting incidental water
conservation studies at Prado and Whittier Dams that will define any
capacity for additional storage or the reallocation of storage for
water supply.
Question. At Lake Mendocino in Mendocino County, local interests
desire to increase the height of the dam to obtain additional water
supply storage. The locals are concerned that the Corps is going to
walk away from this study without giving it the proper analysis.
What is the status of this study?
Answer. The Corps has reclassified the Coyote Valley Dam
Feasibility Study as inactive based on the available preliminary data,
which suggest that none of the alternatives considered is likely to be
economically justified. In other words, the project costs are likely to
exceed benefits. As a result, the fiscal year 2015 Budget does not
include funding for this study.
Question. Why is it taking so long?
Answer. The Army has concluded that this study is not likely to
result in a recommendation to construct a modification to the existing
project.
Question. How much would it cost to complete the study?
Answer. The Corps has not developed a potential scope, cost, or
schedule for further work on this study.
Question. How much storage might be available?
Answer. The calculation of the ``expected yield'' takes into
account a variety of factors and is therefore only an estimate.
However, assuming construction of the maximum raise proposed by locals
(36 feet), approximately 25,000 acre feet per year could be an expected
yield.
Question. Are there potential partnerships with other agencies that
might lead to development of this water supply storage?
Answer. The Corps has explored this issue with the Bureau of
Reclamation; however, the Bureau of Reclamation also requires a
benefit-cost ratio of greater than one to recommend proceeding with
this type of project.
napa river, napa creek flood protection project
Question. As you know, the Corps continues to work on the Napa
River Flood Protection Project. The Administration proposed and
Congress funded initiation of construction of this project in fiscal
year 2000. The project now is about 70 percent complete. The unfinished
project has already resulted in nearly $1 billion in public and private
investment in downtown Napa. Construction of the Dry Bypass element is
the next major element to be accomplished. This element will allow the
project to capture many of the anticipated benefits of the project.
However, it is my understanding that this may be the last element of
the project that the Corps will pursue.
Is this correct?
Answer. That is correct. The remaining elements of the project have
a benefit-cost ratio of less than one (costs exceed benefits) and are
not required to achieve flood risk reduction outputs from the portions
of the project that the Corps has already constructed. As a result,
Federal investment in constructing the remaining elements is not
economically justified. The Corps conducted a post authorization study
in 2012 that determined that the last economically justified element of
the project was the Dry Bypass. The groundbreaking for the Dry Bypass
project is today and is anticipated to complete in June 2015.
Question. What work remains?
Answer. The unconstructed authorized project features include the
west side floodwall, the Imola detention basin and pump station, the
Tulocay floodwalls and pump station, the Oxbow bypass pump station, and
the River Park Floodwall and levee.
Question. What is the cost of that work?
Answer. The estimated cost of these unconstructed elements is over
$200 million.
Question. Have the benefits of that work been reexamined?
Answer. Yes, the benefits and costs of both the total project and
the remaining unconstructed authorized project elements were evaluated
in the 2012 Limited Reevaluation Report (LRR) and subsequent Dry bypass
justification. The total project benefit to cost ratio was identified
as 0.4 to 1 at 7 percent. Again, much of the benefits have been already
captured with the work that has already been funded.
It is my understanding that the non-Federal sponsor is presently
working to complete a value engineering study to identify the most cost
effective solution for completing the project. This value engineering
could reduce the cost of constructing the remainder of the project.
Question. Will you commit to having the Corps review the results of
the value engineering study expeditiously so the Corps can use this
information to determine the most cost effective solution to complete
this critical flood protection project?
Answer. The non-Federal sponsor expressed an interest in executing
an agreement to provide funding for the Corps to review this study.
With such an agreement and funding, the Corps would review that study
and evaluate its applicability to any future Corps efforts.
budget justifications
Question. Can you describe the process for getting your budget
justifications reviewed and approved? What can be done to improve the
process?
Answer. Budget justifications are drafted at Corps Divisions and
reviewed at Corps Headquarters, in my office, and with the Office of
Management and Budget. All parties involved are committed to providing
timely, quality budget justification materials. We are looking at how
we can streamline our process, including better use of available
technology and earlier coordination of the draft materials, while
maintaining the quality of the end product.
budget--remaining items
Question. Remaining items in most accounts appears to have been
arbitrarily cut by 25 percent. How will that impact ongoing work? How
will that impact the Corps R&D capability? What was the rationale for
these cuts? Where you just trying to meet a number?
Answer. Some impacts to ongoing work are anticipated from these
reductions. However, the amounts proposed for fiscal year 2015 reflect
the relative priority of the proposed work.
For the research and development remaining item, the average
execution of funds has been approximately $16 million per year from
fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013. An additional $10.6 million was
provided to this remaining item in the fiscal year 2013 work plan above
the fiscal year 2013 Budget level. Similarly, the fiscal year 2014 work
plan provided approximately $8 million more than the fiscal year 2014
budget.
Question. Who makes the decisions as to what will be requested in
the budget for research? Is it a committee, a person, etc?
Answer. Each annual Budget is a product of a series of inputs at
all levels of the Administration. For the research and development line
item, Districts and Divisions annually identify their capability for
research and development in the Budget year. Field review groups
consisting of representatives from across the Corps prioritize those
requests. The prioritized lists are then further prioritized by the
Civil Works Research and Development Steering Committee at Corps
Headquarters. Final funding decisions result from how well each
proposed package of work competes with other potential programs,
projects, and activities across the Nation.
Question. Is there a ``backlog'' of research awaiting funding?
Answer. The Corps identifies and prioritizes opportunities for
additional research and development each year. These opportunities
range from improvements to existing tools and capabilities to new
research areas. On average, the Corps adds about 30 new items annually
to the research and development portfolio. It selects these items each
year from a larger pool of potential items (old and new) for research
and development.
Question. Does the Corps accept research proposals from other
institutions?
Answer. Yes. The Corps accepts proposals through its Broad Agency
Announcements on select research topics that are identified and
published annually at https://www.fbo.gov/
index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=88442561687c1770755b4b38
e8231474&tab=core&--cview=1.
budget--construction
Question. You have proposed to initiate a $2 billion ecosystem
restoration construction project as the lone new construction start in
your budget request. It would appear that the inclusion of this project
coupled with the declining construction requests will assure one of two
outcomes. Either there will be continued inefficient funding of the
projects that you propose or you plan to further reduce the number of
construction projects in the budget request? Can you explain how the
Corps was able to rationalize including this project when the
construction account was cut $225 million from your previous budget
proposal?
Answer. Although construction of the full program referenced--
Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) ecosystem restoration program--would
involve a significant investment of resources, the importance of this
ecosystem makes it an important new start for the Nation. Louisiana
contains one of the largest expanses of coastal wetlands in the
contiguous United States, and has experienced 90 percent of the total
coastal marsh loss in the Nation. Its coastal wetlands provide
nationally significant habitat to migratory bird species, help protect
an internationally significant commercial-industrial complex and
communities from storm-driven waves and tides, and support commercial
and recreational fishing activities. Additionally, the Corps has proven
its ability to complete construction projects in recent years. In
fiscal year 2014, 34 construction projects were funded to completion,
and in fiscal year 2015, nine more projects are funded to completion.
The Corps' ability to complete these projects will make additional
funds available to support the construction of this environmentally and
economically significant new start.
Question. You have cut the number of funded construction projects
in your budget request from 81 in the fiscal year 2014 request to 63 in
the fiscal year 2015 request, a reduction of 18 projects. Yet your
budget indicates only 9 projects are funded to completion in fiscal
year 2015.
What is the status of the 9 projects that didn't get completion
funds and are not budgeted?
Answer. The 2014 and 2015 Budgets included 80 and 66 construction
projects, respectively. Besides completions, there were 13 projects
that were in the fiscal year 2014 Budget, but not included in the
fiscal year 2015 Budget.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason not included in fiscal
Project year 2015 Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, NJ Sandy Supplemental funded
Columbia River Channel Improvements, A Corps decision on further
OR funding for this study is on
hold pending completion of EPA
decision on contaminated
sediments
Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, Sandy Supplemental funded
NY
Fort Pierce Beach, FL Periodic Renourishment; no funds
needed
Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Sandy Supplemental funded
Beach, NJ
Little Calumet River, IN Local sponsor is behind on its
cost-share
Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Sandy Supplemental funded
Point, NJ
Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Proximity to 902 limit
Compensation, WA,
OR & ID
Nassau County, FL Periodic renourishment; no funds
needed
Pinellas County, FL Periodic renourishment; no funds
needed
Turkey Creek Basin, KS & MO Proximity to 902 limit
Wilmington Harbor, NC Project will complete with
carryover funds
Wrightsville Beach, NC Periodic renourishment; no funds
needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How is it reasonable to budget for these projects 1 year
and not budget for them the next?
Answer. Changed conditions as shown in the above table.
Question. Have the local sponsors been notified? What were they
told?
Answer. Yes. Sponsors were notified of the changes in annual
funding, along with the reasons, based on the particulars of the
projects.
Question. Isn't there an inherent commitment that, once started,
the government will see these projects through to completion?
Answer. No. Budget decisions are made on an annual basis based on a
comparison with other potential uses of the available funds including
deficit reduction, and reflect a range of considerations.
Question. Doesn't your budgeting process, contribute to projects
becoming less competitive by stretching out the construction period
thereby increasing project costs to the Federal Government and the
local sponsor?
Answer. The Budget process seeks to achieve the best overall use of
available resources.
budget--investigations
Question. Your planning initiative has proposed that studies be
completed in 3 years for $3 million or less. You are claiming credit
for completing 34 studies, 29 feasibility studies and 6 preconstruction
engineering and design studies in the fiscal year 2015 budget request
yet 15 of these studies were not included in your fiscal year 2014
budget request but most showed up in your fiscal year 2014 work plan.
These studies would not have been completed were it not for the
additional funds Congress provided above the budget request in fiscal
year 2014 since the Investigation account was reduced by $10 million in
your fiscal year 2015 proposal. I hate to seem cynical here, but it
appears that you are deliberately underfunding the investigations
account and depending on Congress to increase the account.
Question. As studies are rather cheap in the scope of Corps
funding, why doesn't the administration provide for more robust
spending on studies?
Answer. The Budget funds those studies that the Corps has
identified as having the greatest chance of leading to a proposed water
resources solution.
Question. Is it as many suspect, that the Administration does not
want to complete studies because they may lead to additional
construction projects?
Answer. No. My guidance to the Corps is to complete the selected
studies as efficiently as possible without compromising quality.
Question. Or does the Administration believe that the studies are
unwarranted?
Answer. No, the fiscal year 2015 Budget included funding for 78
studies of options that we believe have the potential to produce
positive economic and environmental returns across the Nation.
Question. Secretary Darcy, generally the Investigations for Corps
projects are divided into three studies, the reconnaissance, the
feasibility and preconstruction engineering and design. Congress
intended for this to be a ``seamless'' process, both from the funding
and budgeting standpoint, from the new start decision to begin the
study process to the completion of the preconstruction engineering and
design study. It appears from the budget request that the
Administration has abandoned that seamless concept.
Has the Corps created a new start decision point for the
feasibility and PED phase?
Answer. There is a need for an initial investment decision for a
Corps study, which occurs before starting a reconnaissance study. The
Corps also reviews the status of each study through the annual Budget
process to determine whether there is still a sufficient basis to
continue to fund that study. When the study phase is completed, the
Corps uses performance standards to select the projects funded in the
Budget for preconstruction engineering and design work.
Question. Do studies have to compete for these ``new start''
decisions?
Answer. The only studies that compete as ``new starts'' for
inclusion in the Budget are reconnaissance studies.
Question. What criteria are used for these decisions?
Answer. Criteria considered when selecting which reconnaissance
studies to propose for funding include the likelihood that a study will
lead to a proposed water resources solution, the extent of the water
resources problem and its urgency, compliance of the study with
Executive Branch policy, non-Federal sponsor support for the study, and
likely participation of non-Federal sponsor in implementation of a
proposed solution. More specific criteria are applied based on the kind
of problem that is being addressed. For example, flood risk management
studies are evaluated on factors such as the population impacted, area
of inundation, and the risk and consequences of flooding.
Question. Was Congress notified of this change in budgeting
process?
Answer. There has been no such change to report.
Question. What is the rationale behind this change?
Answer. There has been no change to report.
Question. Is this just to limit the number of feasibility and PED
studies?
Answer. There has been no change to report.
Question. Isn't this process a disincentive for a local sponsor to
sign a cost sharing agreement?
Answer. The increased emphasis on the successful completion of each
study phase is an incentive to partner with the Corps.
Question. Why would a local sponsor partner with the Corps on a
study if there is no assurance that the Corps intends to see the entire
Investigations phase through to completion?
Answer. Our local sponsors understand that no one can guarantee
them future funding, as Army Civil Works funding decisions are made on
annual basis. However, the SMART planning process has helped in this
regard. Under this initiative, the completion of ongoing feasibility
studies is a priority, and Corps will be able to complete them sooner.
fiscal year 2014 work plan
Question. In the fiscal year 2014 work plan for construction, the
Administration has left $28 million unallocated for shore protection.
It is my understanding that while you may have funded all of the
ongoing construction projects, that there is a backlog of
reimbursements of prior shore protection work that could be funded. Why
are these funds unallocated? Is there a reason that the Administration
is not allowing reimbursements of shore protection work?
Answer. The fiscal year 2014 work plan includes $23 million for
reimbursements of prior shore protection work performed by non-Federal
sponsors. Reimbursements were considered and included in the work plan
development process, but the remaining funds are unallocated due to the
lack of projects that could use those funds to accomplish work in
fiscal year 2014. We are continuing to assess whether additional
projects could use the unallocated work plan funds and will keep you
apprised of any allocation decisions that are made.
Question. Also in the Investigations account of the fiscal year
2014 work plan there appear to be nearly $8.5 million of the $35
million above the budget request that Congress provided that is
currently unallocated. As chronically stressed for funding as the
Investigations account seems to be, surely there are studies where
these funds could be applied. Why do these funds remain unallocated?
Answer. A combination of factors resulted in some Investigations
funding remaining unallocated. There were slippages and changes in
capability since the submission of capability prior to the conference.
Also, there were some studies that expressed a capability to use the
funding, but not in fiscal year 2014.
That being said, the Army will continue to re-examine the
capabilities and schedules of eligible studies throughout the year and
apply the rating system that was used for the original work plan to
those studies. Studies that become eligible for the unallocated fiscal
year 2014 funding could receive those funds during this fiscal year.
Those funds that remain unallocated by the end of fiscal year 2014
would be carried over, but the use of those funds would remain limited
to the specified purposes of each remaining item.
harbor maintenance trust fund
Question. The budget request proposes $915 million be expended on
Harbor Maintenance Activities. While this is an increase of $25 million
over your fiscal year 2014 request it seems that this increase, to a
certain extent, was at the expense of other parts of the Corps budget,
particularly when the O&M budget itself is reduced by $88 million from
the fiscal year 2014 request. Congress is serious about spending more
of the revenues generated from the Harbor Maintenance Tax to dredge
harbors to their constructed dimensions. What is it going to take to
get this message through to the Administration? Were it not for the
additional funding provided by Congress in fiscal year 2014, how many
less projects would have been funded and what would have been the
projected economic impact at a local and State level?
Answer. The Budget amount of $915 million for Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund eligible activities reflects an appropriate amount. The
level of Federal spending to support harbor maintenance and related
work should reflect consideration for the economic and safety return of
these investments, as well as a comparison with other potential uses of
the available funds.
The Army allocated $62 million for harbor maintenance and related
work at 59 additional projects from the O&M funds added by the
Congress. The Corps does not track projected economic impacts at the
local and State levels, and an extensive study would be required to
determine those impacts.
Question. The metrics that are used in the budget to determine
which harbors to dredge have nothing to do with the economics analysis
for which those projects were analyzed, justified and constructed. To
utilize different metrics on a completed project is to assume that they
should not have been built in the first place. If that is the
Administration's intent, they should propose these projects for
deauthorization in a WRDA bill rather than not funding them until the
projects are no longer viable. How do the metrics that are used in the
budget request have any bearing on the economics of the project as it
was conceived, analyzed and constructed? Wasn't the 50 year maintenance
of the project included as one of the costs in the economic analysis of
the project?
Answer. The economic analysis that the Corps performs when it
formulates a proposed coastal channel improvement typically involves a
set of assumptions about how the future will unfold at that port, in
that region, and globally over a period of 50 years following
completion of construction of the project. Generally, the Corps uses
these forecasts to estimate the potential future transportation cost
savings for a set of predicted commodities and vessels. There is a
great deal of uncertainty embedded in these assumptions.
Once the Corps has constructed a coastal navigation project,
conducting a detailed economic analysis to inform annual spending
decisions is not practical. Instead, the Corps considers a variety of
factors to prioritize harbor maintenance and related work. The Corps
uses tonnage to classify coastal ports based on their level of
commercial use. This provides a good initial indicator of both the
usage and the economic value of a coastal navigation project. However,
in deciding how to allocate funding among projects, the Corps considers
other factors as well. All of these factors, when considered together,
are indicative of the return that can result from a proposed harbor
maintenance activity. Nonetheless, as a first order approximation, the
greater the tonnage, the greater the transportation savings that can
accrue.
Similarly, while our studies typically include the estimated costs
of operating and maintaining the proposed project over 50 years, these
50-year cost estimates are based on assumptions and projections.
However, conditions change and these changes can include less usage
than expected, more costs than expected, and other factors, which may
warrant consideration in developing priorities for the use of operation
and maintenance funding.
inland waterway trust fund
Question. There is an ever increasing backlog of work to be
accomplished on the inland waterways system. The budget request has
repeatedly referred to assume that the lockage fees that have been
proposed are enacted. As has been stated by both the House and the
Senate, this is not a proposal that Congress will accept. Fortunately
you have not included these assumed revenues into you annual budget
request but rather used them as an offset against future spending.
While this may be a clever budget gimmick, it does not really solve the
problem of inadequate funding on the inland waterways system.
This subcommittee has developed a solution for fiscal year 2014
that shifts an additional part of the burden of the Olmsted Lock and
Dam project to the General Treasury from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund. This is a short term solution but we recognized that this was the
only way to move other inland waterway projects forward. This solution
has freed up more than $80 million for other inland navigation work.
Question. Does the Administration plan to develop and propose a
solution to the funding inadequacies of the inland waterways system
that could be acceptable to all parties?
Answer. The Administration submitted a proposed vessel use fee to
the Congress in September 2011 that would supplement the revenue from
the existing diesel fuel tax with a user fee paid by the commercial
users of the inland waterways.
The Administration's proposal would generate an estimated $1.1
billion in additional revenue over 10 years from the commercial users
of these inland waterways. This amount reflects estimates of future
capital investment for navigation on these waterways over the next
decade, including an estimate adopted by the Inland Waterways Users
Board. The proposal is needed to ensure that the revenue paid by
commercial navigation users is sufficient to meet their share of the
costs of capital investments on the inland waterways, which would
enable a significant increase in funding for such investments in the
future.
Under the Administration's proposal, the Corps would be able to
structure the user fee in two tiers. Nearly all of the capital
investment by the Corps to support commercial navigation on these
waterways involves work at Corps locks and dams. Under a two-tiered fee
system, those who use the locks and dams would pay more of the non-
Federal share of capital investments, as they should. This would
increase economic efficiency by requiring the specific users who
benefit from these investments to internalize the costs. The
Administration's proposal also includes other needed changes, which
would clarify the scope of cost-sharing for inland waterways capital
investment, and the authority for appropriating funds from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund and from the General Fund to finance inland
waterways costs; and would close an existing loophole under which
traffic on roughly 1,000 miles of the inland waterways does not now pay
the fuel tax.
Question. What is the backlog of construction work (major rehab and
other) needed to modernize the inland waterway system?
Answer. The Administration's legislative proposal reflects
estimates of future capital investment for navigation on these
waterways over the next decade, including an estimate adopted by the
Inland Waterways Users Board. The Corps does not have a specific, fixed
multi-year investment plan for these waterways. The Congress has
authorized many projects that the Corps has not built, some of which
have a low economic return. Other investments, particularly work to
maintain, repair, and rehabilitate existing inland waterways projects
with a high level of commercial use, may prove to be a better
investment.
Much like the metrics that are used for determining whether to
dredge a port, there are similar metrics for maintaining inland
waterways.
Question. Would the Corps consider other metrics that are more in
line with how projects are analyzed and built as opposed to the tonnage
based metrics currently used?
Answer. Once the Corps has constructed an inland waterways project,
conducting a detailed economic analysis to inform annual spending
decisions is not practical. Instead, the Corps considers a variety of
factors to prioritize operation and maintenance work. The Corps uses
segment-ton-miles to classify inland waterways based on their level of
commercial use. This provides a good initial indicator of both the
usage and the economic value of each of the inland waterways. However,
in deciding how to allocate funding among projects, the Corps considers
other factors as well. All of these factors, when considered together,
are indicative of the return that can result from a proposed operation
and maintenance activity. Nonetheless, as a first order approximation,
the greater the segment-ton-miles, the greater the transportation
savings that can accrue.
Question. How are these lower use projects expected to compete, if
they don't have enough tonnage to be dredged and they can't attract
business because the channel is unreliable?
Answer. The Corps views the navigation program from a national
perspective, and focuses on the investments that will provide the best
returns to the Nation. However, the Budget also includes significant
funding for navigation projects with a low level of commercial use
(coastal as well as inland). In allocating these funds, the Corps
considers a range of factors. These include the need to operate and
maintain locks; use of a harbor as a critical harbor of refuge or a
subsistence harbor; whether the coastal port or inland waterway
supports public transportation, U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue
operations, the national defense, or other Federal agency use; the
reliance on marine and inland transportation for energy generation or
home heating oil deliveries, and the level of commercial use.
Question. What is the backlog of major maintenance that needs to be
accomplished on these waterways?
Answer. The Corps does not keep track of a backlog of maintenance
work as such on an ongoing basis. Instead, it compiles a new estimate
each year of the sum of all amounts not funded that the individual
project managers say they could efficiently and effectively use by the
end of the fiscal year. The Corps uses economic data and other
objective performance measures to inform its decisions on the best way
to allocate funds. All of the maintenance work funded in the Budget is
of higher priority than the unfunded work.
The Corps uses the term ``major maintenance'' to refer to a
specific type of maintenance activities. Major maintenance refers to a
non-repetitive item of maintenance work or aggregate items of related
work for which the total estimated cost exceeds $6 million, which does
not qualify as major rehabilitation. At this time, there is
approximately $547 million in such work that has not been funded on
inland waterways projects.
water supply
Question. With the continued drought throughout the western United
States, it is more important than ever that Federal water agencies work
together to assist States and local communities in addressing needs. It
is also very important that Federal water agencies ensure they are
doing all they can to enhance the resources within their authorities. I
appreciate the effort of the Corps of Engineers in collaborating with
USDA, DOI, and other Federal agencies to address these needs. I
understand across the U.S. the Corps of Engineers stores more than 10
million acre-feet of water for Municipal and Industrial Water Supply
(M&I) behind the multi-purpose reservoirs it operates and maintains.
This is enough to meet the annual needs of 6.8 million households. A
majority of this M&I water supply storage is located in reservoirs in
the arid southwestern U.S.
What is the Corps of Engineers doing to work with local and State
governments to ensure the multi-purpose reservoirs it operates and
maintains that include M&I water supply storage are being operated and
maintained to efficiently manage the waters stored, especially during
this period of long term drought?
Answer. Each Corps of Engineers reservoir has a water control plan
devised to guide effective operations for meeting the Congressionally-
authorized project purposes, including a drought contingency plan. In
many cases, the water control plan includes basic changes to the normal
operating regime in the event of a drought. The Corps also may provide
a temporary deviation from established reservoir operations in response
to drought conditions. For example, two such deviations were recently
granted in Southern California in response to the current drought.
These deviations apply to site-specific, current conditions and
requests for modification and do not constitute permanent changes to
the water control plan. Flexibility in operations is subject to the
limitations of project authorities and Federal law, environmental
compliance, dam safety considerations, and associated flood and storm
damage reduction considerations. The Corps has also actively
participated on drought coordination teams in affected regions of the
country throughout this period of drought.
Looking just at the Corps of Engineers' multi-purpose reservoirs
west of the Mississippi River, there is more than 1.4 million acre-feet
of M&I water supply storage that has not been activated. Can you
provide me a listing of the projects, with information on the State,
congressional district, the amount of storage, estimated population
this storage could serve, and the estimated date for when this storage
will be activated?
Answer. See attached tables for a listing of the projects, with
information on the State, congressional district, the amount of
storage, estimated population this storage could serve. The Corps does
not have dates for anticipated activation--activation is dependent on
State and local authorities requesting activation and paying for the
storage space, among other conditions of contracts for storage,
pursuant to statutory authority, e.g., the Water Supply Act of 1958.
The Corps published its most recent inventory of all M&I water supply
contracts and storage in 2012, including inactivated storage: ``2011
M&I Water Supply Database'' (USACE Institute for Water Resources,
2012). This publication can be found online at: http://
www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/iwrreports/2012-R-02.pdf. For
the 135 Corps reservoirs that have M&I water supply storage, the
database includes storage space, user, contract data (size, date, cost,
etc.), State, and other information.
Question. As a measure to enhance the ability of these reservoirs
to meet the M&I water supply needs of the western U.S., are there any
issues as to why this storage has not been activated to meet the
Nation's M&I water supply needs?
Answer. Initiatives to activate storage are the responsibility of
State and local entities. States and non-Federal entities have the
primary responsibility in the development and management of their water
supplies including the financial responsibility of providing supplies
to users.
Question. Are there any actions within the Corps of Engineers
existing authorities that could be done to enhance the amount of M&I
water supply storage at reservoirs operated and maintained by the Corps
of Engineers?
Answer. Yes. The Corps continues to undertake storage efficiency
measures to address conditions in storage reservoirs such as leakage,
unintentional spilling, and sedimentation. Requests to activate
existing storage, to reallocate storage to M&I from other purposes, or
to contract for use of surplus water (where available) can be
considered by the Corps at the initiative of State and local sponsors.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. In January, the Army Corps of Engineers released the
Great Lakes Mississippi River Inter-basin Study Report (GLMRIS). In the
report, the Corps lays out several pathways to prevent invasive species
from transfer between the Chicago Area Waterway and Lake Michigan.
In the GLMRIS report, the Corps estimates that the costs of these
actions would be $8 billion to $18 billion dollars and would take up to
25 years to build if all the funds were readily available. This is
unlikely to ever occur as Army Corps of Engineers' budget for similar
construction projects on all navigable waterways in the United States
in fiscal year 2014 is $1.66 billion.
Given this fact, many residents in my State what to know what
practical short- and medium-term steps can be taken to thwart the
transfer of invasive species.
In your estimation, what actions can be taken by the Corps and
other key stakeholders--local and State agencies, other Federal
agencies, private actors--in the 5 years that would provide the
greatest additional risk reduction from the aquatic invasive species
threat?
Answer. The Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework, which is
developed by the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (ACRCC), is
the best resource for identifying actions that will reduce the threat
of self-sustaining populations of Asian Carp from becoming established
in the Great Lakes. The Corps currently operates three electric
barriers to control transfer of fish from the Mississippi River basin
toward the Great Lakes. Construction of a permanent upgrade to the
existing Demonstration Barrier is underway.
At Eagle Marsh, Fort Wayne, IN, previously identified as the
highest priority potential ANS transfer pathway outside the Chicago
area in the GLMRIS Other Pathways Preliminary Risk Characterization
released in 2010, the Corps is currently providing planning support to
the Natural Resources Conservation Service and local stakeholders in
design of a long-term mitigation measure. The goal of the NRCS and the
Indiana Department of Natural Resources is to begin construction of the
measure in 2014.
The ACRCC is currently developing a revised Framework that will
outline the most pressing actions needed to reduce the risk from the
aquatic invasive species threat.
Question. What funding and legislative authority would the Corps
and other stakeholders need to accomplish these actions?
Answer. As seen in Framework documents from previous years, both
agency-based funding and the Great Lakes restoration Initiative (GLRI)
funding are being used to focus on short and long-term controls to
reduce the risk of Asian carp invasion to the Great Lakes Basin. The
ACRCC has not identified a need for additional legislative authority at
this time.
Question. Are these actions integral to any of the longer term
control options outlined in GLMRIS? If so, which ones and how?
Answer. Several studies by Great Lakes Commission and the Army
Corps have suggested the Brandon Road lock and dam may be an effective
control point for upstream movement of Asian carp. To further inform
control efforts, studies focused on this location and other potential
bottlenecks (Starved Rock and Lockport locks and darns) can expedite
future actions.
Question. Given that any action to reduce the risk of aquatic
invasive species transfer to or from the Great Lakes basin will have
both regional and national benefits, has the Corps considered options
for cost-sharing all or part of the options outlined in the GLMRIS
report? If so, what are the cost-sharing options? Is there a precedent
for a multi-partner cost-sharing agreement?
Answer. No detailed options for cost-sharing were outlined in the
report. However, if a decision were made to recommend an alternative
from the GLMRIS Report, the Corps would consider its existing cost-
share policies and experience with multi-partner cost sharing
agreements, which have been utilized previously.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
waters of united states
Question. As I mentioned, there are great concerns among Tennessee
farmers that your proposed rule to define waters of the United States
will cover ditches, stock ponds, and other water facilities that have
not been regulated before. While facilities on one farm might not meet
the substantial nexus test that the rule proposes, the rule allows your
agency and the EPA to simply aggregate all the water facilities from
the surrounding area to bring them all under the regulation. Allowing
regulation by aggregation could mean that any limits on the power to
regulate under the Clean Water Act are meaningless because the Federal
Government could just keep adding in more and more areas until they
find a substantial nexus.
Is this a way for the Federal Government to regulate water
facilities that it did not in the past?
Answer. The Army believes that the proposed rule is consistent with
the statute, the applicable science and the U.S. Supreme Court case
law, more specifically the Court's decisions in Riverside Bayview Homes
in 1985, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) in 2001,
and Rapanos/Carabell in 2006. Our goal in this rulemaking is to provide
the clarity, consistency, and predictability members of Congress and
the regulated public have requested while remaining faithful to the
requirements of Federal law. The scope of regulatory jurisdiction under
the CWA in this proposed rule is narrower than that under the 1986
regulations, but may be greater than under the 2003 and 2008 agency
policy guidance.
One way CWA jurisdiction under the proposed rule is narrower than
under the existing rule is the requirement for ``other waters'' to have
a ``significant nexus'' with navigable waters to be determined
jurisdictional. Informed by the Riverside Bayview Homes decision, in
both SWANCC and Rapanos, a majority of Justices required the agencies
to afford meaning to the word ``navigability'' by finding a significant
nexus between non-navigable waters, including adjacent wetlands, and
downstream navigable waters. As Justice Kennedy wrote in Rapanos, ``to
constitute 'navigable waters' under the Act, a water or wetland must
possess a 'significant nexus' to waters that are or were navigable in
fact or that could reasonably be so made.'' Thus, the Army and EPA
collectively determined it is reasonable and appropriate to apply the
``significant nexus'' standard for CWA jurisdiction to other categories
of water bodies as well, for example tributaries of traditional
navigable waters and ``other waters,'' to determine CWA jurisdiction,
whether by categorical rule or on a case-specific basis. The proposed
rule includes revisions to the definition of ``waters of the United
States'' in light of these Supreme Court decisions.
A second examples of how jurisdiction under the proposed rule is
narrower than under the existing rule is the categorical exclusion of
certain waters and ditches from jurisdiction.
The Army recognizes that the U.S. Supreme Court has defined certain
limits on the scope of the CWA as expressed in the SWANCC and Rapanos
decisions and the proposed rule is, in our view, consistent with those
decisions, codifies the agencies' interpretation of the Supreme Court
rulings, and will replace the 2003 and 2008 jurisdictional guidance.
Question. What are the limits of aggregation?
Answer. In order to effectively serve the purpose of the Clean
Water Act, waterbodies must be understood as elements of larger systems
that function together as has been demonstrated by our best science.
The agencies have concluded in the proposed rule that to understand the
health, behavior, and sustainability of downstream waters, the effects
of small water bodies in a watershed need to be considered in the
aggregate. The effect that a single waterbody has on a downstream
navigable water may be small when considered in isolation, but the
aggregated effects of all similarly situated waterbodies in the same
watershed can be substantial.
``Other waters,'' which are waters that do not fall within one of
the categories jurisdictional by rule under the agencies' proposal,
will be evaluated either individually, or as a group of waters where
they are determined to be similarly situated in the region. The
agencies propose to interpret the ``region'' within which similarly
situated waters would be aggregated as the watershed that drains to the
nearest traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the
territorial seas. Waters are similarly situated where they perform
similar functions and are located sufficiently close together or when
they are sufficiently close to a jurisdictional water. How these other
waters are aggregated for a significant nexus analysis depends on the
functions they perform and their spatial arrangement within the region.
For other waters that perform similar functions, their landscape
position within the region relative to each other or to a
jurisdictional water is generally the determinative factor. This
significant nexus analysis will focus on the degree to which the
functions provided by those other waters affect the chemical, physical,
or biological integrity of ``waters of the United States'' and whether
such effects are significant.
This combination of functionality and proximity to each other or to
a ``water of the United States'' meets the standard provided by Justice
Kennedy in the Rapanos case decision. The agencies recognize that
examining both functionality and proximity of these factors will reduce
the frequency of aggregation of other waters for significant nexus
analysis.
The proposed rule sets forth several different options for how
other waters should be determined to be similarly situated and
aggregated in order to solicit comment and input from the regulated
public regarding what standard for aggregation would provide the most
clarity, certainty, and predictability.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
funding for the mississippi river and tributaries project
Question. Mississippians are deeply concerned that the fiscal year
2015 Budget for the Army Civil Works program includes only $245 million
for the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) project. That is far
below last year's budget request and $62 million below what Congress
provided in the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
If Congress provides additional funding for the Mississippi River
and Tributaries (MR&T) program to increase preparedness and reduce
risks associated with events such as the 2011 Mississippi River Flood,
could you put those funds to good use?
Answer. The Budget reflects our recommendation for this program,
relative to other potential uses of those funds including deficit
reduction. However, some additional funding could be used to help
increase preparedness and reduce flood risks in the area. Also,
preparedness funding generally is in the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies account, and is not specific to the MR&T program.
2. Should the Mississippi River fall to near-record lows as it did
in the fall of 2012, would additional funding for maintenance dredging
prevent negative impacts on waterborne commerce and rural economies?
Answer. The specific work would depend on the nature of the
problem. For example, the focus of our response to support navigation
on the Mississippi River during the last drought was on rock work and
other structural changes to the navigation channel, which would also be
effective in a future drought.
environmental infrastructure assistance
Question. In recent years the president's budget has included very
little--if any--funding for environmental infrastructure assistance.
Many towns, cities, and municipalities across the country need
assistance to upgrade their wastewater treatment and water supply
facilities. Currently there are a large number of projects in
Mississippi ready to move forward, but need funding and approval to
execute a Project Partnership Agreement. Without environmental
infrastructure assistance, many small towns and municipalities will
remain noncompliant and in violation of Federal laws.
Would you be willing to work with Congress to help address the
environmental infrastructure needs of small towns and cities,
especially those in more rural and underserved areas?
Answer. The Congress has authorized the Corps to provide such
funding for specified States and, in some cases, for specified areas
within a State. However, the Executive Branch believes that this
program should not be an Army Civil Works responsibility.
Question. Are there specific ways in which the Subcommittee can be
more helpful to the Corps on this issue?
Answer. No.
mississippi river levee deficiencies
Question. The Mississippi River levee system protects people,
property, infrastructure, and the environment from catastrophic
flooding. There are currently 122 miles of deficient levees in the
Vicksburg District alone, which puts people in Mississippi, Arkansas
and Louisiana at risk. Catastrophic damage is likely to occur if the
system is below authorized levels of protection, and the fiscal year
2015 funding level for levee improvements is roughly $17 million below
the system's total capacity.
What was the Corps' decisionmaking process in determining the
requested level of funding for levee construction improvements?
Answer. The Corps uses performance-based metrics to allocate funds
among the projects in its construction program.
Question. Would you agree that catastrophic damage could occur if
the system is not maintained at the authorized level of protection?
Answer. There is always a residual risk of serious flood damage in
a large flood, anywhere in the country, even with well-maintained
levees and substantial bank protection. The Corps has been constructing
the levees and the other features of the MR&T main stem system since
the 1930's. Construction and maintenance is ongoing. The Corps uses
risk-based methods to prioritize the work to address potential
vulnerabilities. The 2011 floods subjected this system to historic
flood loads, and the system functioned successfully.
Starting in fiscal year 2014, the Budget is funding a multi-year
effort to collect and study basic data that will update the system's
flow lines and flow capacity. The purpose of this study is to identify
ways to improve upon the MR&T main stem system's operations plan to
ensure continued performance of the system.
lack of funding for upper yazoo projects
Question. The Upper Yazoo Projects (UYP) within the Mississippi
River and Tributaries (MR&T) system includes channel and levee features
along the Yazoo, Tallahatchie, and Coldwater Rivers. The project
provides important flood risk reduction measures in the Yazoo Basin.
There are significant risks, such as loss of life as well as
agricultural and timber production, associated with an absence of
funding for the project. However, the president's budget has not
included funding for the Upper Yazoo Projects in the last few years.
Given the current confinements with regard to addressing specific
projects, what can Congress do to help you address critically important
projects such as this one, that don't seem to be as competitive as
other projects under your criteria, for one reason or another?
Answer. The Corps uses performance-based metrics to allocate funds
among the projects in its construction program. The Corps views its
flood and storm damage reduction mission from a national perspective,
and focuses on the investments that will provide the best returns to
the Nation.
Question. Would you consider completion of the Upper Yazoo Project
important, since Congress has already invested nearly $300 million in
the project to date?
Answer. We would evaluate the potential work on this project and on
other projects, and allocate funds in the way that provides the best
overall return from a national perspective.
maintenance dredging for mississippi river ports
Question. Agriculture is a top industry in Mississippi and farmers
rely heavily on our Mississippi River ports to move their crops to
market. The president's fiscal year 2015 budget significantly
underfunds Greenville Harbor, Rosedale Harbor, Vicksburg Harbor, the
Mouth of the Yazoo River, and the Claiborne County Port. The funding
provided is only sufficient enough to conduct surveys, rather than
maintenance dredging itself. Without additional funding, these harbors
will lose project dimensions during harvest season which will
negatively impact a wide range of businesses and individuals involved
with the agricultural sector.
Does the Corps take into consideration the harmful economic impact
of light loading barges during peak harvest time when the Mississippi
River is generally at its lowest?
Answer. Yes.
flood risk management in pearl river watershed
Question. The Rankin-Hinds Pearl River Flood and Drainage Control
District has been working for quite some time on developing a
comprehensive flood risk management solution for the Jackson
Mississippi metropolitan area. Following the 1979 Easter flood of
record, it became clear that Jackson is vulnerable to significant flood
risk issues. The area has experienced major flooding numerous times
since then. In fact, the river is currently at flood stage.
Currently the flood control district is working with the Vicksburg
district of the U.S. Corps of Engineers to conduct feasibility and
environmental impact studies with non-Federal funds in hopes of
expediting this important project. A solution is critical to our State.
Jackson is the State capitol and home to the highest density population
in the State.
Although the flood control project is in the early stages of
development, it remains very important to the Jackson metropolitan
area. As things move forward, would you be willing to work proactively
with the Rankin-Hinds Drainage Control District to help them find a
solution for Jackson's flood risk problems?
Answer. The Corps is providing technical assistance pursuant to the
July 19, 2012 Memorandum of Agreement with the Rankin-Hinds Pearl River
Flood and Drainage Control District. In this capacity, the District's
technical assistance may include participation in meetings to help
develop the scope of the feasibility study, evaluate alternatives, as
well as, participation in In-Progress Reviews, National Environmental
Policy Act coordination and Agency Technical Review.
Question. Specifically, will you respond to their data as they
conduct the study and will the Corps provide vertical management of
this report?
Answer. In addition to the Corps providing technical assistance
during the study, once the Rankin-Hinds Pearl River Flood and Drainage
Control District submits the report to my office, both the Corps
Headquarters and my office will review the report.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
small ports dredging
Question. I would like to thank you for the funding for the
maintenance dredge for the Royal River that was announced just a few
weeks ago. I can assure you this announcement was warmly received by my
constituents.
As you know, there remains a great need in my State and others
around the Nation when it comes to the dredging and maintenance at our
small ports and harbors. We need to pay careful attention to ensure the
water infrastructure needs of all States are met.
Ports and harbors are the economic lifeblood for many small or
rural communities, and funding for the maintenance dredging is
critically important to supporting these efforts, a fact not fully
accounted for under the Army Corps' budget metrics, which tend to favor
larger ports.
I would like to highlight the $40 million for Operations and
Maintenance projects at ``small, remote, or subsistence navigation''
harbors and waterways that the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations
bill set aside this year--an increase of $10 million over the previous
year. I understand there is a $300 million backlog of operations &
maintenance projects in New England alone. These additional monies are
welcome indeed, but, certainly not enough to meet all the needs in my
State and throughout the country.
There are two small projects in DownEast Maine--Beals Island and
Pig Island Gut--that were last dredged in 1957 and 1965, respectively.
Used primarily by lobster boats, Pig Island Gut and Beals Harbor is
also used by boats engaged in the harvesting of herring, clams,
periwinkles, mussels, and seamoss.
There are about 115 commercial fishing boats that are regularly
moored around Beals Island and about 100 regularly moored at the Pig
Island Gut anchorage. Coast Guard Station Jonesport frequently launches
out of Beals Harbor as well. At present, the boats moored there cannot
safely return to port during low tide. The entire economy of the area
is based on these fisheries, and yet the harbors have not been dredged
in over 50 years.
The dredging of these two harbors is critically important to the
economies of both communities.
Recognizing that funding is limited, what recommendations do you
have for the Harbor Master to help ensure these projects are as
competitive as possible should funding become available?
Answer. Changes in channel conditions should be reported promptly
to the New England District Office as should the economic benefits and
impacts of the projects. Any waterborne commerce should be reported to
the Corps Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center.
camp ellis shoreline
Question. The Army Corps built a jetty at Camp Ellis in Biddeford,
Maine, which has caused massive erosion of the shoreline and destroyed
more than 36 homes during a series of major storms.
The beachfront continues to erode as the city of Biddeford and the
Army Corps have worked to find a solution to this problem over the past
20 years. The Corps and city are preparing to execute a project
partnership agreement that will detail how the repairs will be
maintained following the restoration project.
Recently, this project has been delayed because of concerns about
the impact on Piping Plover habitat.
In a recent meeting between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Army Corps, it was agreed that there will be no adverse effects to
the habitat from this project. It appears that the project will now
move forward.
How do you see the timetable for this project proceeding, given
that this project has taken over 20 years to get to this stage?
Answer. A formal letter concluding endangered species consultation
for the Camp Ellis study is anticipated by May 31, 2014, and agreed
measures will be incorporated into the final feasibility report and
environmental assessment.
However, the Camp Ellis study did not recommend any action on the
beach that is located south of Saco on the other side of the Saco
River, as there is no evidence that the Federal navigation project has
impacted the shore south of the project.
navigation dredging
Question. The State of Maine has 55 Federal navigation projects
that require periodic maintenance dredging to allow for safe
navigation. Many of these projects have shoaled and are in need of
maintenance dredging. Most of these projects, however, are categorized
as ``low use'' and do not compete well for limited Federal funds.
Despite their low ranking, these projects are critical to the economy
of the local communities and the State of Maine.
Does the Army Corps consider the use of non-Federal contributed
funds to supplement the limited Federal budget for small use navigation
projects as a potential model for the future?
Answer. Yes. Over the past few years, a number of non-Federal
sponsors have provided contributed funds to enable the Corps to
undertake unfunded work.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
civil works construction projects--how alaska competes
Question. Assistant secretary, thank you for the work you do in
Alaska. In particular, I thank you for the recent funding of the Valdez
harbor. This harbor is critical to the economic vitality of the
community, State and Nation given the oil that is tanked from this
Alaska pipeline terminus to refineries in Lower 48 and on to
distribution. Truly, this selection was a surprise, but a welcome
surprise.
Given our inability to include earmarks in our appropriations
process today, we look for methods to build our harbor infrastructure
within our smaller communities by including new Remote, Small and
Subsistence funding for those harbors nationwide that do not compete
well with ports in New York or California. I know you feel these
constraints as well.
Given the constraints and cost benefit analysis used to rank port
projects nationally, how do you plan to address the needs of small
harbors across the Nation?
Answer. Small, remote, and subsistence harbors will continue to
compete for the available funding, along with all of the programs,
projects, and activities across the Nation.
Question. What assistance do you need from this committee to
provide for small harbors?
Answer. The fiscal year 2015 Budget provides $50 million for
operation and maintenance work at small harbors.
kenai bluff erosion
Question. We have a town in Alaska, Kenai, whose bluff is falling
into the river. Really, the senior housing facility is at the edge of
the bluff. The community has the project match but an agreement is
necessary between the city and the agency for a study to move forward.
The process for completing an agreement has faltered for nearly 3
years. This is a community and project that is ready to go.
What can we do to get an agreement signed?
Answer. The Corps completed a 905(b) reconnaissance report in March
2014 and has prepared a technical document that will inform the
feasibility effort. The Corps will now develop a scope, schedule, and
estimated cost of the study. If the Corps receives funding to initiate
the feasibility study, the Corps will work with the local sponsor to
execute a feasibility cost-sharing agreement.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
Question. The Georgetown Harbor has been shoaling for close to a
decade and has not been included in the President's Budget because it
falls under the 1 million ton threshold.
How will you interpret new guidance regarding Operations and
Maintenance dollars being allocated to emerging harbors as these
harbors play important economic development roles within their regions?
Answer. If WRRDA 2014 is enacted, the Army will analyze and prepare
implementation guidance for its provisions.
Question. What is the criteria being used in determining how to
allocate maintenance funds for small, remote or subsistence harbors? As
you know, Congress funded this at $40 million in fiscal year 2014.
Answer. In allocating funding for commercial navigation, the Corps
focuses on those activities that provide the greatest economic,
environmental, and public safety returns to the Nation. The Corps
categorizes these projects according to their level of commercial use,
as high, moderate, or low commercial use projects. The Budget focuses
this funding on projects that support a high or moderate level of
commercial navigation traffic (coastal projects carrying at least one
million tons of cargo; and inland waterways with at least one billion
segment-ton-miles of traffic), which together account for roughly 99
percent of the Nation's waterborne commercial cargo.
The Budget also funds navigation projects with a low level of
commercial use (coastal projects carrying less than one million tons of
cargo; and inland waterways with less than one billion segment-ton-
miles of traffic). For coastal channels and inland waterways with a low
level of commercial use, the Corps considers a range of factors such as
the need to operate and maintain locks; use of a coastal port as a
critical harbor of refuge or a subsistence harbor; whether the coastal
port or inland waterway supports public transportation, U.S. Coast
Guard search and rescue operations, the national defense, or other
Federal agency use; the reliance on waterborne 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 by Senator John Hoeven
Question. You are likely to have several new studies and
construction projects authorized under the WRDA bill currently in front
of a conference committee. How will the Corps respond to those new
authorizations? Would you alter your fiscal year 2014 work plan to
support such projects or could the fiscal year 2015 work plan include
funding for such projects?
Answer. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014
(Public Law 113-76), the Corps was authorized to begin nine new study
efforts in the Investigations account and four new projects in the
Construction account. The fiscal year 2014 work plan, which the Army
submitted to the Congress on March 3, 2014, identifies the nine studies
and four construction projects that the Corps would start to fund in
fiscal year 2014. The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act does not
allow the Army to modify these designations, once it has submitted the
work plan to the Congress. When the Congress enacts an fiscal year 2015
appropriations bill, the Corps will consider all eligible projects for
inclusion in a potential fiscal year 2015 work plan.
Question. Will you consider newly authorized projects as possible
candidates for any new starts that the administration or Congress
authorizes for fiscal year 2015?
Answer. If Congress enacts an fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill
that allows new starts, the Corps will consider all eligible,
authorized studies and projects for inclusion in a potential fiscal
year 2015 work plan.
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Lowell Pimley
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
california drought/water pumping
Question. I understand that Reclamation and the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR) have sought permission to change
water operations to capture this week's storm flows. Instead of 1,500
cubic feet per second of pumping originally called for by the
biological opinions, the agencies are seeking a higher level of pumping
while the storm flows last. I appreciate the fact that you are taking
action to capture more water from this week's storms. That being said,
I know many of my constituents are still seeking to understand the
rationales behind the pumping levels you have established. The new
pumping regime began yesterday, but many questions and uncertainties
have been raised due to the lack of documentation. Will you commit to
providing explanations today?
Answer. As of April 1, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Biological Opinion (BiOp) (Reasonable and Prudent Actions (RPA), Action
IV.2.1) requires implementation of the San Joaquin River (SJR) Import-
to-Export ratio (commonly referred to as the I:E ratio, but not to be
confused with the E/I ratio required in State Water Resources Control
Board Decision 1641. During this drought year, the I:E ratio would be
either 1:1 (SJR inflow equals combined exports) or 1,500 cubic feet per
second (cfs) public health and safety pumping whichever is greater.
To capture abandoned and natural flow in the Delta as a result of
recent storm events, Reclamation has sought and NMFS has concurred
that, because of on-going discussions with senior technical staff and
the development of the draft Drought Operations Plan and associated
biological review, an increase in exports at this time is consistent
with the underlying analyses of the NMFS BiOp and its RPA. As a result,
NMFS stated the proposed operation is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of California Central Valley steelhead or result in
the adverse modification of their designated critical habitats, or
exceed its incidental take limit. As such, the proposed operation
conforms to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and its
implementing regulations.
Question. It is my understanding that Reclamation, DWR, and the
Federal and State agencies have decided--for this immediate storm flow
period--to begin pumping yesterday at 4,200 cfs. What are the basis for
the pumping levels you have established for this storm flow period?
Answer. Senior technical staff from the five agencies (National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Department of Water
Resources (DWR), and Reclamation) have been working together to develop
the biological review of the overall 2014 Drought Operations Plan.
Through these discussions, senior technical staff determined increasing
exports to capture flow resulting from this storm event was consistent
with the underlying analyses of the NMFS BiOp and its RPA. The
scientific basis was provided in the supporting documentation with the
2014 Drought Operations Plan released on April 9, 2014.
Question. Reclamation's latest report stated that through March 27,
the cumulative loss of winter-run chinook salmon at the export
facilities is about 304, out of an allowed incidental take limit of
24,237. The estimated salvage for delta smelt is zero. Does the data
support the notion that even higher levels of water pumping can occur
without jeopardizing fish species?
Answer. The 24,237 authorized take limit represents 2 percent
(23,928) of the juvenile-production estimate or JPE of natural winter-
run Chinook salmon (WRCS) and 1 percent (309) of the Livingston Stone
National Fish Hatchery winter-run Chinook hatchery production. It is a
very large number when the population has lots of spawners (like last
year) and is a very small number when the population has few spawners
(like this coming year).
Current cumulative salvage numbers at the export facilities is not
necessarily a good reflection of the risk to the species. Each salmonid
species has a different proportion of the population in the Delta
currently. The majority of WRCS are currently in the Delta migrating to
the Bay. If exports are increased and more negative reverse flows
realized, WRCS migrating through the Delta could be more susceptible to
entrainment at the export facilities. The majority of spring-run
Chinook salmon will enter the Delta in April and May as they migrate to
the Bay. Similar to WRCS, if more negative reverse flows are realized
these fish could be subject to higher levels of entrainment.
The determination of jeopardy is not based on exceeding the
Incidental Take Limit (ITL), but reflects the complex multi-stressor
impacts of the Central Valley Project (CVP)/State Water Project
operations that influence abundance, productivity, and genetic
diversity, all which will be influenced dramatically by drought
conditions during water year 2014.
Question. If salvage data is not the influential factor, then what
other factors influence that decision?
Answer. Salvage data along with trawl, beach seine, and fish trap
data at locations in the Delta and in the Sacramento River watershed
inform decisions regarding operations at the export facilities. In
addition to these biological monitoring data, physical data such as
turbidity, water quality (i.e. salinity), and river inflows are
considered in light of their relationship to risks to species and also
human consumption. During Water Year (WY) 2014, water quality and Delta
outflow, which are both regulatory standards as part of California's
State Water Resources Control Board Bay-Delta Plan, remain influential
factors informing decisions about exports levels.
Question. What do the fish data say if water pumping were to
achieve -7,000 cfs OMR flows or above?
Answer. As of today, senior technical staff has not completed a
biological review of an Old and Middle River (OMR) of -7000 cfs. One
could predict reverse flows of that magnitude could pull special status
species into the sphere of influence of the export facility, possibly
increasing entrainment later in the year.
Question. What level of pumping will be allowed after the storm
flows subside?
Answer. Exports after the storm subsides will be in compliance with
the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) Temporary Urgency
Change Order (Order) as well as any other BiOp requirements that are
triggered. In mid-April, the State Board Decision 1641 San Joaquin I:E
ratio requirement of 1:1 or 1,500 cfs public health and safety pumping
will be in effect and would control operations.
Question. If Reclamation wishes to pump at levels beyond the
biological opinions, what procedure or process can be used to achieve
that?
Answer. Reclamation has been engaging with both FWS and NMFS to
exercise flexibility to operate while maintaining compliance with the
BiOps. Reclamation reinitiated consultation with the FWS under drought
conditions and has been working with NMFS within the drought
contingency planning portion of RPA Action I.2.3.c. The agencies will
continue to work together to operate in a manner that protects species
while meeting the needs of our customers.
Question. What are your constraints in doing so?
Answer. Determinations must be made as to the location and quantity
of special status species within the system, including the Delta and
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Processing monitoring and trawl data
as well interpolating this data is required before fishery agencies can
make any determination regarding flexibility in the BiOps.
Question. What other emergency measures can be implemented within
your discretion to maximize water supplies without jeopardizing
endangered species?
Answer. Reclamation coordinates daily with DWR and the fishery
agencies to evaluate options to increase exports while providing
protections for the species.
Question. And are you prepared to implement those measures
immediately?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation would, in coordination with DWR and the
fishery agencies, implement measures deemed appropriate as quickly as
possible.
Question. How will the need for carryover storage affect the water
projects' ability to export more water as opposed to storing it?
Answer. Reclamation believes current projected operations strikes
the right balance between release of water this year for multiple
beneficial uses and storage carried over into next year should drought
conditions persist. Considerable effort has been devoted to assess the
potential needs for water to serve human health and safety needs next
year in the event 2015 is another critically dry year.
Question. How much carryover storage is needed going into the 2015
water year?
Answer. Based on the most current assessments, the projected
carryover storage contained in the 2014 Drought Operations Plan will be
adequate to supply critical human health and safety needs next year.
Reclamation is also making every effort to conserve storage to make
maximum use of limited cold-water reserves this year to protect several
listed fish species, and to begin building cold water pools for 2015.
water storage
Question. There has been considerable discussion, including by me,
about additional storage needed in California. Just so we all
understand, how far in the future are we talking about new storage
coming on line assuming we make the decision to move forward on that
front this year?
Answer. If the storage projects currently under study were found to
be technically feasible, environmentally acceptable, and cost-
effective, and decisions to move forward were made, each project would
have different construction requirements and associated schedules.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents would need to be
finished over the next 1 to 2 years and acquisition of the necessary
land and easements would begin after that. Final designs must be
prepared prior to initiating construction. The timeline to construct
and bring projects on-line once the final designs are completed would
likely be in the 5 to 10 year timeframe depending on funding
availability for all post-authorization activities, including design,
construction, and mitigation.
Question. What will it take to get all storage studies completed by
the end of 2015?
Answer. Reclamation has completed public review and comment on
draft Feasibility Reports for expanding Shasta Lake and increasing
storage in the Upper San Joaquin River Basin. The draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for Shasta was released for public review and
comment last summer, and the draft for Upper San Joaquin is due out
this summer. Both studies to support Federal decisionmaking are on-
track to be completed by the end of 2015, with Shasta to be completed
by the end of 2014. The North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage
Investigation (NODOS, also referred to as the ``Sites Reservoir'') and
continued study of Los Vaqueros Expansion (LVE275) are delayed due to a
lack of non-Federal cost share. Reclamation is continuing to work with
State and local agencies on strategies to complete these study efforts
in a timely manner.
Question. Do you see any obstacle that would delay the completion
timeframe beyond 2015?
Answer. If Reclamation is required to analyze new or modified
alternatives, the schedules could extend beyond 2015. There are no
other known issues at this time that could delay Shasta or Upper San
Joaquin storage studies. The lack of non-Federal cost share will likely
delay completion of NODOS and LVE275 beyond 2015.
Question. What are those obstacles, and what can be done to
mitigate or remove them?
Answer. Non-Federal cost sharing partnerships could mitigate the
obstacles, particularly when cost shares are provided via timely in-
kind services. Many potential cost share partners are contributing
significant funding to other projects and have been impacted by the
State economy, and are fully engaged in drought activities. Reclamation
will continue to seek non-Federal cost share opportunities.
Question. Can you commit to completing all the studies by the end
of 2015 so the projects could potentially be eligible for State funding
if worthy?
Answer. As described above, Reclamation can commit to completing
the studies for Shasta and Upper San Joaquin by the end of 2015. Also
noted in previous responses is the lack of non-Federal cost share for
NODOS and LVE275.
Study partners have agreed to add alternatives for expanding San
Luis Reservoir to the San Luis Low Point Improvement Project (Low
Point). The Low Point project is part of the CALFED Conveyance Program,
and reservoir expansion alternatives were eliminated from study before
the potential safety issue was identified and before the current
operating restrictions for the Central Valley and State Water Projects.
While Reclamation and the State continue the study to correct the
safety issue, by law, separate funding is needed to develop the
information and designs needed to eliminate the safety issue with a
larger volume of water stored behind the dam. Reclamation identified
funding to evaluate a reservoir expansion alternative to the Low Point
studies this year. At this time, Reclamation cannot commit to
completing the NODOS, LVE275, or Low Point studies by the end of 2015.
Question. According to the Bureau of Reclamation's December 2013
appraisal study, the initial and partial construction cost estimate for
expanding San Luis Reservoir is $360 million; about two-thirds are for
seismic repairs that must be done regardless of whether storage is
expanded. Therefore for an incremental cost of approximately $120
million, the project could yield additional average annual Delta
exports of 43,000 acre feet. When will you initiate the feasibility
studies for expanding San Luis Reservoir?
Answer. This is a correct interpretation of the initial estimates
for the appraisal study. However, these estimates will likely change
significantly as more information is learned through additional data
collection, design, and cost estimating efforts. Initiation of a
feasibility study is uncertain as neither Federal appropriations nor a
non-Federal cost-share agreement are in place.
Question. Can you please share with me your overall schedule for
completing the San Luis feasibility study?
Answer. A detailed schedule is being completed and a non-Federal
cost-share agreement is being negotiated. Generally, the Draft
Feasibility Report and environmental documents are scheduled for late
Spring 2017, with the final documents completed by December 2017.
Question. The Safety of Dams Act limits expenditures to repairing
dams and not creating additional water storage capability. However,
there seems to be some significant cost-efficiencies that can be
achieved if these goals can be integrated. Do you agree that there
should be legislative changes to the Safety of Dams Act to facilitate
such dual-purpose projects?
Answer. No such legislative change was included in the President's
fiscal year 2015 Budget. As we continue to develop the Administration's
fiscal year 2016 Budget, we will consider a broad range of issues,
including legislative changes relevant to Reclamation programs. A
legislative change to the Safety of Dams Act could be written to
facilitate the study, planning and even construction of projects which
integrate additional water storage or other project benefits with an
identified dam safety corrective action. There could be potential
efficiency and cost savings if a project associated with increased
water storage is integrated with a Safety of Dams project. Bureau of
Reclamation water projects are constructed and operated for a variety
of congressionally authorized purposes. However, Reclamation projects
generally require congressional approval to increase project benefits
and expanding project benefits through a dam safety corrective action
is explicitly prohibited by the existing language of the Safety of Dams
Act. This prohibition seems to clearly indicate Congress intended funds
budgeted for Dam Safety purposes should be used only for Dam Safety and
not to provide water supply, hydropower, recreation, or any other type
of benefit to project beneficiaries. Reclamation agrees with this
expressed intent. Integration of Safety of Dams modifications with
increased water storage or other project benefits would require
separable appropriations and accounting, and development of new
processes to implement any revision to current law. Moreover,
Reclamation believes any costs associated with developing an additional
project benefit should be fully borne by the beneficiaries of such
additional project benefits at the time of construction and appropriate
financial commitments should be documented through a cost-share
agreement with the Secretary.
central valley project improvement act restoration fund
Question. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA)
established a restoration fund which required water users, power users,
the State and Federal Government to contribute towards the habitat and
species restoration. Since 1992 the fund has spent $1.4 billion on
restoration activities. Though the Act intended for water and power
users to make proportionate contributions, frequently that has not been
the case, with power users often contributing much more. For example,
this year power users expect to contribute roughly 56 percent of all
CVPIA Restoration Fund receipts, double their share. Does the Bureau of
Reclamation have discretion to resolve this administratively by
assessing water and power contributions to the fund proportionately?
Answer. Reclamation is actively exploring options to address the
issue administratively but a preliminary assessment seems to indicate
that Reclamation does not have the authority to assess water and power
contributions to the fund proportionate to CVP repayment
responsibilities without violating provisions of the CVPIA that were
enacted to ensure an appropriate amount of restoration funding, even in
dry years. Furthermore, if such a change were enacted, our analysis
shows this would ultimately reduce amounts available to the Restoration
Fund and impact our ability to carry out the mandates under the CVPIA.
Because collections into the Restoration Fund depend upon hydrology and
because per acre-foot of water collections from irrigation and urban
customers are fixed (although indexed) under law, shortfalls in
collections in drier water years shift to power customers since they
are not fixed. If collections had been limited to contractor
proportionate responsibility for repayment of the CVP, it would have
resulted in an estimated $77 million less collected over the last 10
fiscal years. It should be noted in the early years of implementation
of CVPIA, water users paid a higher proportion of the total
collections.
Question. If not, would the administration support a legislative
correction to require a proportionate assessment, fixed annual
contribution, or some other solution that more fairly assesses
contributions from power and water users?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2015 Budget does not propose
any changes in language from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014.
Reclamation is committed to continue working with all parties on
implementation of the CVPIA in a way that ensures continued progress on
important program elements. This requires a sufficient funding stream
that is derived from the annual collections, but with recognition of
the desire for equity. We will continue to review options in the future
during budget formulation. We are also carefully monitoring the
situation regarding collections during the extreme drought event this
year, which adversely affects both water collections and the generation
of power.
Depending on the approach, legislation to require a proportional
assessment could smooth the volatility of funding obligations or shift
obligations between power and water. However, the Department would not
support legislation that would reduce the funding available to meet
requirements under the CVPIA.
Question. What have been the State and Federal contributions to the
Restoration fund in recent years?
Answer. From 1993 to 2013, contributions from Federal water and
power contractors totaled $915 million, including the Friant surcharge
which has been directed to the San Joaquin River Restoration Program as
of 2009, resulting in $887 million available for the CVP Restoration
Fund. This amount can be categorized as follows: Irrigation:
$518,288,595, M&I: $126,281,920, and Power: $270,789,562. Additional
expenditures from Water and Related Resources ($426 million), the
CALFed Bay-Delta Fund ($37 million), the American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act ($151 million), and a State Trust Fund ($85 million) also
contribute to meeting CVPIA requirements up through 2013 according to
the draft 2013 Expenditures, Credits and Offsets (ECO) Report. The
State does not contribute to the Restoration Fund, but some of the
provisions in the CVPIA require a cost share varying from 25 percent to
50 percent. State contributions generally occur through in-lieu
services under a Sharing of Costs Agreement for Mitigation Projects and
Improvements (SCAMPI) which expires December 31, 2014. The SCAMPI
requires reconciling costs upon expiration. During preliminary efforts
the State identified $230 million in cost-share from 1993-2012. The
U.S. and the State have not yet agreed on the documentation required to
substantiate State expenditures. The U.S. and the State are currently
negotiating a new agreement for activities after the expiration of
SCAMPI.
Question. Have both met their obligations?
Answer. As discussed above in response to question 18a, Reclamation
and the State are still working on reconciling costs, but the State has
identified nearly $230 million in direct contributions and in-kind
services.
Question. Based on the $1.4 billion spent by the Restoration Fund
to date, can you please summarize the program's accomplishments to
date, future funding needs and schedule to meet the CVPIA's objectives?
Answer. From 1993 through 2013, funding sources expended for
activities authorized under the CVPIA include Reclamation's Water and
Related Resources account ($426 million), the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act ($151 million), and the Restoration Fund ($887
million). Accomplishments working with our partners include
facilitating and providing technical advice to local watershed groups
for planning and implementing the restoration of anadromous fish
spawning, rearing, and migration habitat; development of in-stream flow
requirements and operations to support anadromous fish and water
quality on CVP streams; facility modifications to manage water
temperatures, provide passage, and prevent entrainment; delivery of
water supplies to Federal, State, and private wildlife management areas
and refuges; development of water operations models; actions to support
meeting the biological opinions for operations of the CVP; and support
for the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, the Trinity River
Restoration Program, and the Habitat Restoration Program. For all
Central Valley streams for all races of Chinook salmon, the average
1992-2011 populations were 398,273 fish compared to a 1967-1991
baseline of 497,054 fish, but on streams with substantial investments
in restoration by the CVPIA and our partners (Butte Creek, Clear Creek,
and Battle Creek) fish populations exceeded and continue to exceed the
local doubling goals despite the recent population crash due to ocean
conditions. The CVPIA program assisted in constructing 44 fish screens
on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and tributaries, many of which
resulted in improved diversion facilities. By the end of calendar year
2016, the CVPIA will have screened all large intakes (greater than 150
cfs) on the Sacramento River. Actions in support of fisheries also
substantially contribute to State efforts to manage for water quality
objectives. The scope and scale of the uncertainties in actions to
achieve the anadromous fish doubling goal and full refuge water supply
deliveries preclude a specific funding requirement and schedule;
however, Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are working
with stakeholders to prioritize the limited available funding on the
actions that best contribute to meeting the fish doubling and refuge
water supply goals.
[The attachment follows:]
10-YEAR ROLLING AVERAGE OF CVP RESTORATION FUND (ALL YEARS) RECEIPTS FOR IRRIGATION, M&I, AND COMMERCIAL POWER CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrigation M&I Water Commercial Power Non-Fed Contributions Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal 10-Year 10-Year 10-Year
Year Receipts Percent Rolling Receipts Percent Rolling Receipts Percent Rolling Receipts Percent Receipts Percent
Average Average Average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 8,488,521 96.779 ....... 282,532 3.221 ....... 0 0.000 ....... 0 0.000 8,771,053 100.000
1994 12,445,670 59,320 ....... 3,062,475 14.597 ....... 5,472,398 26.083 ....... 0 0.000 20,980,543 100.000
1995 19,653,199 58.558 ....... 3,326,054 9.910 ....... 10,582,808 31.532 ....... 0 0.000 33,562.061 100.000
1996 33,963,427 72.533 ....... 4,532,763 9.680 ....... 8,328,838 17.787 ....... 0 0.000 46,825,028 100.000
1997 28,285,292 77.131 ....... 6,441,240 17.564 ....... 1,945,430 5.305 ....... 0 0.000 36,671,962 100.000
1998 16,735,441 67.943 ....... 3,050,510 12.385 ....... 4,845,695 19.673 ....... 0 0.000 24,631,645 100.000
1999 31,450,074 64.578 ....... 6,339,033 13.016 ....... 10,911,746 22.406 ....... 0 0.000 48,700,853 100.000
2000 28,518,202 60,684 ....... 6,487,597 13.805 ....... 11,989,179 25.512 ....... 0 0.000 46,994,978 100.000
2001 22,658,904 62.749 ....... 5,560,639 15.399 ....... 6,891,001 19.083 ....... 1,000,000 2.769 36,110,545 100.000
2002 24,668,330 47.668 63.906 6,525,177 12.609 12.847 20,556,612 39.723 22.965 0 0.000 51,750,118 100.000
2003 27,019,792 56.451 62.269 5,034,994 10.519 12.779 15,809,615 33.030 24.698 0 0.000 47,864,401 100.000
2004 27,196,590 71.043 63.236 6,903,465 18.033 13.175 4,181,758 10.924 23.346 0 0.000 38,281,814 100.000
2005 32,737,905 56.861 62.754 5,873,948 10.202 13.034 18,963,247 32.937 23.983 0 0.000 57,575,099 100.000
2006 33,853,402 61.696 61.590 7,529,892 13.723 13.473 13,488,271 24.582 24.711 0 0.000 54,871,565 100.000
2007 28,062,780 70.013 61.070 6,652,464 16.597 13.417 5,366,834 13.390 25.288 0 0.000 40,082,078 100.000
2008 17,478,762 33.025 57.590 8,436,749 15.940 13.752 27,011,088 51.035 28.447 0 0.000 52,926,599 100.000
2009 18,692,314 31,460 53.694 6,188,421 10.415 13.418 34,536,089 58.125 32.682 0 0.000 59,416,823 100.000
2010 31,260,772 65.169 54.150 6,026,431 12.563 13.296 10,681,594 22.268 32.348 0 0.000 47,968,797 100.000
2011 30,438,715 51.419 53.224 7,797,695 13.172 13.133 20,960,452 35.408 33.643 0 0.000 59,196,862 100.000
2012 26,821,459 45.077 52.843 11,816,747 19.860 13.958 20,862.633 35.063 33.198 0 0.000 59,500,839 100.000
2013 17,859,043 40.889 51.490 8,413,096 19.262 14.730 17,404,274 39.848 33.779 0 0.000 43,676.413 100.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 518,288,594.6 56.559 ....... 126,281,920. 13.781 ....... 270,789,561. 29.551 ....... 1,000,000.00 0.109 916,360,076. 100.000
3 44 78 85
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrigation M&I Water Commercial Power Capital Costs Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 10-Year 10-Year 10-Year
Capital Costs Receipts Rolling Receipts Rolling Receipts Rolling Receipts Percent
Average Average Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993-2002 14,486,575,55 60.031 4,610,396,615 19.105 5,034,866,339 20.864 24,131,838,50 100.000
4 8
1994-2003 14,632,880,48 60.126 4,552,428,315 18.706 5,151.536,987 21.168 24,336,845,79 100.000
8 0
1995-2004 14,746,727,75 60.275 4,473,508,093 18.285 5,245,527,205 21.440 24,465,763,04 100.000
1 9
1996-2005 14,849,152,16 60.419 4,389,655,764 17.861 5,338,023,815 21.720 24,576,831,74 100.000
6 5
1997-2006 14,951,521,68 60.624 4,304,226,069 17.452 5,407,051,351 21.924 24,662.799,10 100.000
2 2
1998-2007 15,030,984,26 60.843 4,216,611,404 17.068 5,457,134,543 22.089 24,704,730,21 100.000
3 0
1999-2008 15,092,295,01 60.797 4,174,222,599 16.815 5,557,613,187 22.388 24,824,130,80 100.000
4 0
2000-2009 15,134,750,35 60.715 4,138,874,526 16.604 5,653,754,512 22.681 24,927,379,39 100.000
9 7
2001-2010 15,141,844,01 60.596 4,084,990,814 16.348 5,761,288.940 23.056 24,988,123,77 100.000
8 2
2002-2011 15,158,866,33 60.277 4,039,444,885 16.062 5,950,484.470 23.661 25,148,795,68 100.000
0 5
2003-2012 15,205,203,24 60.084 3.973,320,671 15.701 6,128,035,195 24.215 25,306,559,11 100.000
6 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
drainage
Question. Could you explain the drainage issue with Westlands
addressed in your budget?
Answer. On November 13, 2013, the Court granted Westlands'
unopposed Motion for an orderly suspension for implementation of
Revised Control Schedule (November 4, 2011) (R-Schedule) activities
specific to providing drainage service to the central sub-unit of
Westlands for a period of 6 months, to allow Westlands and the Federal
Defendants to continue discussions toward a potential settlement of
drainage within Westlands. On April 30, 2014, the Court granted
Westlands' unopposed Motion seeking a 6 month extension to the partial
suspension of the R-Schedule In an effort to continue settlement
discussions, Reclamation consented to the granting of Westlands' Motion
with the caveat that the Motion be granted on the same terms as those
adopted in the November 13, 2014 Order. Reclamation intends to brief
members of Congress, other interested parties, and stakeholders on a
proposed settlement based on the terms and conditions of the Draft
Principles of Agreement, and is in the process of scheduling the first
briefings of members of Congress. Negotiations are proceeding with the
drafting of a proposed settlement agreement.
Concurrent with the discussions with Westlands referenced above,
Reclamation continues parallel discussions with northerly San Luis Unit
(SLU) districts--San Luis Water District, Panoche Water District,
Pacheco Water District (collectively, the ``Northerly Districts'')--as
well as with the Panoche Drainage District, on a potential settlement
of drainage in those districts' service areas.
Question. It is my understanding that funds normally used for
drainage have been used for higher priority items while negotiations on
the drainage issues continue. Can you give me a better understanding of
what is being discussed?
Answer. Specific programs included in the fiscal year 2014 budget
were reprogrammed as directed by the July 28, 2014 memo identifying
specific programs for reprogramming. The majority of these programs
were in California and others were distributed in other regions based
on their priority needs. Reclamation's fiscal year 2015 budget includes
funding to address the need to consider Court Ordered Revised Control
Schedule activities that support the Demonstration Treatment Plant as
well as the potential for the re-initiation of drainage activities in
Westlands in the event negotiations are unsuccessful. Given the
progress in the negotiations and other factors, the funding levels for
fiscal year 2015 were reduced from the amounts identified on the
Revised Control Schedule as originally filed with the Court which are
less than the levels identified in the Control Schedule filed with the
Court. Also, the April 30, 2014 Court Order confirmed that, during the
partial suspension of the implementation of the Revised Control
Schedule, Reclamation may redirect a portion of appropriations
designated for drainage activities within Westlands to other high
priority activities. However, the Court cautions the parties that
further extension requests will be viewed with disfavor and must be
supported by specific showings of progress toward settlement and
absence of harm to the public interest resulting from further delay.
sites reservoir
Question. The Committee has indicated its interest in accelerating
the completion of the CALFED authorized storage studies and getting to
a decision about whether to construct these new water storage
facilities as soon as possible. The budget request does not reflect any
particular urgency to see these studies completed. For example,
Reclamation has budgeted only $100,000 in fiscal year 2015 for work on
the Sites Project. That does not seem sufficient to meet the optimum
schedule for completion of this work. The Sites Project Joint Powers
Authority and others believe the Final Feasibility Study and the Final
Joint EIR/EIS on the Sites Project can be completed by June 30, 2015.
Can you tell the Subcommittee what additional resources you intend to
commit to this effort in fiscal year 2014 and what additional resources
are needed in fiscal year 2015 in order to meet that June 30, 2015
target date for the completion of the Final Feasibility Study and Final
Joint EIR/EIS?
Answer. Reclamation and the State of California agreed to cost
share the CALFED storage projects at a program level. As planned and
agreed, the State was to be the primary funder of the Sites project,
expending four-fold over Federal expenditures. Other than bond funding
provided to the Sites Joint Powers Authority, the State ceased funding
Sites in 2010. Reclamation did not request additional appropriations to
maintain the Sites project schedule for two reasons: (1) Reclamation
policy required a minimum of a 50 percent non-Federal cost share for
all feasibility studies; and (2) The State legislators and voters
approved the framework for a large ``Water Bond''. The amount and
makeup of the total bond fund that was to be established separately in
2010, was delayed to 2012, and again delayed to 2014. Reclamation's
Commissioner approved a limited waiver to the cost share policy through
2017. At this time, Reclamation is focusing planning efforts on Shasta
and Upper San Joaquin. The fiscal year 2015 funding request is
sufficient to meet the scheduled milestones for these studies.
Question. This project is estimated to generate over 500,000 acre-
feet of water each and every year, and it will allow the CVP and the
State Water Project to keep an additional 1.3 million acre-feet of
usable water in storage, in Sites and the other existing Federal and
State reservoirs north of the Delta, at the end of each year. Can you
provide the Subcommittee with the steps Reclamation can take to
expeditiously complete work on the Sites Project studies and the
studies on the other CALFED storage projects?
Answer. Reclamation is on track to complete studies to raise Shasta
Dam and increase storage in the Upper San Joaquin River Basin. Due to
cost sharing requirements, funding increases for non-Federal
participation are needed for Sites and Los Vaqueros.
Question. How is Reclamation weighing the pros and cons of each of
the CALFED storage projects?
Answer. Reclamation's analysis follows the process outlined in the
Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Development.
Each project includes two primary objectives: water supplies and
ecosystem enhancement.
Question. Specifically: How is Reclamation calculating the public
benefits for each of the CALFED storage projects and are they being
calculated equally?
Answer. Reclamation is following the process described in the
Principles and Guidelines for calculating all benefits from all four
storage studies currently underway. In addition, Reclamation is
providing input to the California Water Commission as they develop
State guidelines for identifying and quantifying public benefits.
Each project is unique in the benefits provided and/or the
information available to calculate the benefits. For example, a
population-level model of existing anadromous fish populations is
available to help quantify the benefits of providing additional cold
water in the Sacramento River below Shasta Dam. However, the benefits
of cold water releases from Friant Dam cannot be calculated in the
exact same way because the anadromous fish population does not
currently exist in the San Joaquin River between Friant Dam and the
Merced River.
Question. Are the cold water and salmon protection values for
Temperance Flats, for example, the same as those values for the Shasta
raise project or Sites?
Answer. These studies are still works in progress, in draft form at
most, and have not been completed or fully reviewed. As previously
mentioned, Reclamation will follow the process described in the
Principles and Guidelines (P&G) for calculating all benefits from all
four storage studies currently underway. The source of information
available to value environmental benefits varies from project to
project due to varying existing conditions, varying least-cost
alternatives, etc. As we continue working towards completion of these
studies, we will apply the long-established principles and processes
described in the P&G in a way that is appropriate for the unique
attributes of each study.
Question. If Reclamation determines there is a Federal interest in
moving forward with one or more of the CALFED storage projects, does
Reclamation intend to seek Federal funding, using Reclamation's
traditional approach of seeking funds to cover the non-reimbursable and
the reimbursable portions of the projects?
Answer. Public Law 108-361 Sec. 103 (d) 1 (B) states ``If on
completion of the feasibility study . . . the Secretary, in
consultation with the Governor, determines that the project should be
constructed in whole or in part with Federal funds, the Secretary shall
submit the feasibility study to Congress.'' If there is a determination
of Federal interest and a decision to seek congressional authority for
construction, Reclamation would evaluate whether to seek Federal
funding, concurrent with an up-front non-Federal cost share, as part of
the annual Budget process. It is also possible the State or another
non-Federal entity may wish to implement one of the storage projects
currently being studied, other than Shasta Dam, with no, or more
limited, Federal involvement.
Question. And what are the currently projected reimbursable and
non-reimbursable costs for each project?
Answer. As previously mentioned, these studies are still works in
progress, in draft form at most and have not been completed or fully
reviewed, and all of the following information is subject to change:
Reclamation has prepared preliminary cost allocations for the Shasta
and Upper San Joaquin projects. The alternatives in the draft
Feasibility Reports that appeared to have the highest net National
Economic Development benefits are displayed below as an example to
demonstrate how costs may be allocated and then assigned to
reimbursable and non-reimbursable purposes. However, final alternatives
have not yet been selected for any of the projects. Further, for the
Upper San Joaquin project, the potential for State bond funding was
incorporated. The following tables display information from the Draft
Feasibility Reports.
EXAMPLE OF CONSTRUCTION COST ASSIGNMENT FOR SHASTA LAKE WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATION
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Assignment
Purpose/Action Total --------------------------------
Nonreimbursable Reimbursable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrigation Water Supply........................................ 132.5 0.0 132.5
Municipal and Industrial Water Supply.......................... 198.6 0.0 198.6
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement.................................. 654.9 654.9 0.0
Hydropower..................................................... 84.0 0.0 84.0
------------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... 1,069.9 654.9 415.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
All numbers are rounded for display purposes; therefore, line items may not sum to totals.
Subject to refinement/change during remainder of feasibility study.
EXAMPLE OF CONSTRUCTION COST ASSIGNMENT FOR UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STORAGE
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonreimbursable
Purpose Reimbursable -------------------------------
Federal State/Local
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Supply:
Agricultural Water Supply Reliability....................... 306.8 0.0 0.0
Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Reliability........... 360.9 0.0 0.0
Emergency Water Supply...................................... 0.0 0.0 440.8
Municipal and Industrial Water Quality \1\.................. 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ecosystem....................................................... 0.0 627.7 627.7
Hydropower...................................................... 25.8 0.0 0.0
Recreation...................................................... 0.0 61.9 61.9
Flood Damage Reduction.......................................... 0.0 32.2 32.2
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 693.5 721.8 1,162.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\ Water quality improvements for specific beneficiaries are assumed to be reimbursable to Federal, State or
local governments. Delta water quality improvements may be a broad public benefit and nonreimbursable. There
is no Municipal and Industrial water quality benefit for the Upper San Joaquin River storage.
Subject to refinement/change during remainder of feasibility study.
Question. Can you provide the Subcommittee with a schedule of when
Reclamation anticipates that these projects will come to this Congress
for an authorization to construct and the timing of associated
appropriations requests?
Answer. Reclamation currently estimates the Final Feasibility
Reports and Environmental Impacts Statements for the Shasta Lake Water
Resources Investigation and the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage
Investigation could be sent to Congress in the spring and fall of 2015,
respectively. While we are working to complete the studies as quickly
as possible, they are still in draft form and are still subject to:
review from the State and other Federal agencies, a mandatory public
comment period, and further review within the Administration, prior to
transmittal to Congress. Decisions on any specific appropriations
requests will be developed during the agency's budget formulation
process. Furthermore, any appropriation requests would be contingent on
decisions regarding the feasibility of the projects as well as the
establishment of construction cost-share agreements.
Question. What steps is Reclamation taking to informing the project
locals or the other beneficiaries paying for the water supply costs and
to determine if the projects under consideration are affordable to
potential project beneficiaries?
Answer. In addition to numerous public meetings, workshops, and
hearings, Reclamation has established a CVP Operating Partner Forum
made up of representatives from the water authorities established to
operate and maintain CVP conveyance facilities. Reclamation meets with
the forum frequently to discuss how new projects may be operated, may
affect the operating partners, may be operated more effectively, and
may be cost shared and repaid.
general questions
Question. What Role does Reclamation see for water recycling and
desalinization in the future of Western water?
Answer. Water recycling offers a drought resistant water supply,
since sources such as treated municipal wastewater continue to be
available during periods of water shortage. For example, recycled water
has proven very useful during the current drought in California as it
provides a source of water without the need for additional water
supplies from the Sacramento River or Bay-Delta. Desalination, although
expensive, can provide drought resistant supply augmentation in
appropriate circumstances. In 2013, for example, recycling and
desalination projects funded through Reclamation's Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse Program delivered 385,000 acre-feet of recycled
water, including about 350,000 acre-feet in California.
Question. Do you believe there should be a Federal role in
desalinization beyond the current R&D efforts through either grants or
direct project construction participation?
Answer. Reclamation's current focus in this area is in addressing
the existing congressionally authorized reuse projects so those
projects can complete construction and begin to deliver additional
water as soon as possible. The President's fiscal year 2015 Budget of
$21.5 million for the Title XVI program reflects the important role
water recycling plays in efforts to work toward sustainable water
management. In this tight fiscal climate, construction funding is
focused on those existing reuse projects owned and operated by non-
Federal entities.
Question. How does recycled water play into the future of western
water supplies?
Answer. Although expensive, water recycling provides relatively
valuable water, flexibility, helps to diversify the water supply, and
reduces the pressure to transfer water from agricultural to urban uses.
Particularly in drought-prone areas of the West, desalinated water and
treated wastewater are among the most drought-proof components of the
water portfolio, since sources such as treated municipal wastewater
continue to be available during periods of water shortage. States such
as California and Texas have made water reuse a fundamental part of
their strategies to meet current and future demands.
Question. Is there any estimate of the potential water savings that
could be achieved if more water recycling was done?
Answer. In its 2012 report, Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding
the Nation's Water Supply, the National Research Council of the
National Academies calculated there is a very large potential for water
reuse in this country, particularly in areas where municipal effluent
is discharged at coastal locations and ``lost'' to the ocean.
The State of California made water reuse a fundamental part of its
strategy to meet current and future demands and estimates 900,000 to
1.4 million acre-feet of ``new water'' could be added to the State's
supply by reusing municipal wastewater that currently flows to the
ocean or saline bays. The 2012 Texas State Water Plan projects about
614,000 acre-feet of water per year will become available by 2060 from
existing water reuse infrastructure. In addition to the existing
supply, the 2012 Texas State Water Plan recommends obtaining
approximately 915,000 acre-feet per year of new water supplies from
water reuse strategy by 2060.
Question. (a)What would the environmental impact be of additional
water recycling?
Answer. Typical wastewater discharges may cause adverse ecological
effects in receiving water bodies, due to individual constituents that
may arise from industrial, household, or wastewater treatment plant
applications. Recycled water is treated to higher levels than typical
wastewater discharges, providing additional environmental benefits to
the bodies of water that would otherwise receive these discharges.
However, recycled water also produces effluent with elevated
concentrations of contaminants which are sometimes discharged into
water bodies at higher concentrations than typical wastewater
discharges. Water recycling may also reduce diversions from rivers
leaving more water instream for plant and animal species that rely on
surface water flows. However, as the National Research Council of the
National Academies notes, some water recycling projects may affect the
water supply of downstream ecosystems due to decreased return flows.
All of the environmental impacts of water recycling must be considered
when examining the benefits of such projects.
Question. (b) For instance, I have been told that by recycling
water, rather than letting it flow unimpeded to the ocean, that we
could improve near shore pollution levels by keeping those pollutants
in the watershed and addressed through the recycling process. Is that
benefit factored into the economics of recycled water?
Answer. Recycling water that would otherwise be discharged to
rivers, lakes, or the ocean does have multiple benefits, including
improving water quality by not discharging wastewater into the
environment. As they plan their projects, sponsors of water reuse
projects commonly perform integrated economic analyses that include
qualitative factors, such as social and environmental benefits, to
evaluate the full benefit of the water recycling project.
Question. Should it be a part of the analysis? Perhaps we are not
counting significant environmental benefits that are provided by water
recycling.
Answer. Environmental benefits are an important consideration under
the Title XVI evaluation criteria used by Reclamation to identify
projects for funding. Points are awarded based on the extent to which
the project will improve surface, groundwater, or effluent discharge
quality; will restore or enhance habitat for non-listed species; or
will provide water or critical habitat for federally listed threatened
or endangered species. By incorporating environmental benefits into
those selection criteria, Reclamation provides an opportunity for
project sponsors to articulate those aspects of their projects to
ensure those benefits are part of the analysis used to make funding
allocations.
Question. You have ``doubled down'' on your Water SMART grants
proposal for fiscal year 2015. Is this primarily due to the dry
conditions, or are there other reasons for this increase in grant
funding?
Answer. The President's Budget for Water SMART Grants represents a
continuing recognition of the importance of water efficiency projects.
Projects funded under the program are completed within 2 to 3 years,
resulting in a near-term impact on water and energy conservation and
improved water management. In addition, many Water SMART Grant projects
make important contributions beyond water and energy efficiency,
including increasing the use of renewable energy, protecting endangered
species, or facilitating water markets. Interest in the program
continues to be strong, with only the most competitive proposals moving
forward. Each year, requests for funding are three to five times larger
than available funding. The continued high level of interest in funding
reflects the priority that water managers across the West place on
water efficiency and other improvements to increase sustainability.
Question. What is the water savings that you anticipate could be
achieved through these grants?
Answer. Water SMART Grants contribute the largest share of water
savings to the Department's Priority Goal for Water Conservation. Water
SMART Grant projects, along with other programs that contribute to the
Goal, are expected to result in water savings of 840,000 acre-feet,
cumulatively since the end of fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year
2015. Projects funded through fiscal year 2013 have contributed 730,000
acre-feet toward that goal, and 50,000 acre-feet of water savings are
expected to result from fiscal year 2015 appropriations for the
contributing programs.
Question. We have made significant progress on screening major
diversions to ensure that anadromous fish do not get trapped in these
diversions. What is the status of this program?
Answer. Since 1992, Reclamation provided funding for the
construction of 41 fish screens, which cumulatively screen over 6,000
cubic feet per second (cfs) of previously unscreened diversions in
California's Central Valley, including the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers and tributaries as well as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We
expect in fiscal year 2014, a contract will be awarded to initiate
construction on the largest major unscreened diversion on the
Sacramento River by Reclamation District RD-2035, which serves the
Woodland-Davis area. A 160 cfs screened diversion on the Sacramento
River for Natomas Mutual at their Pritchard Lake diversion is funded
and work is expected to complete this year. There is a proposed 135 cfs
diversion remaining on the Sacramento River operated by Meridian Farms,
which is still under consideration for funding by the Anadromous Fish
Screen Program (AFSP) if fishery benefits and cost-share issues can be
worked out; and a proposed fish screen project for West Stanislaus on
the San Joaquin River which is still in the planning stages. Completion
of these projects would complete the diversion of all 100 cfs or
greater diversions. There are scores of smaller diversions, many of
which may be good candidates for screening based upon their location
and the fishery benefits to be derived. These additional smaller screen
projects are evaluated by Federal and State fishery biologists within
the AFSP with screening costs typically being less than $1 million per
facility. The Federal Government provides up to 50 percent of the
shared cost for fish screens under the AFSP. The completion of the Red
Bluff Fish Screen (2500 cfs) and Passage project on the Sacramento
River near Red Bluff, California in 2012-2013 was a major
accomplishment.
There are also fish screen and fish passage activities underway in
other regions within Reclamation. An example is the fiscal year 2015
funding request to initiate construction on the Cle Elum fish passage
in the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project in the State of
Washington.
Question. What is the schedule for completing these projects?
Answer. According to the Fish Screens Schedule, Reclamation
anticipates construction on the RD 2035 fish screen to begin in 2014
and to be completed within a 3 year period subject to the continued
availability of Federal funding. Screening for the Natomas Mutual
Pritchard Lake diversion is scheduled to start the summer of 2014 and
be completed in 2015, subject to completing compliance under the
Endangered Species Act; all funding for the project has been obligated.
There are unresolved issues relative to providing Federal funding for
the Meridian Farms project and that project does not have non-Federal
cost-share dollars that would yet allow this project to proceed; the
West Stanislaus project is not far enough along to establish a
completion schedule, and they have not identified a source of funding
for the non-Federal cost-share. With respect to the dozens of smaller
screen projects that might be proposed for screening, we have no date
for completion as we do not have information as to how many of these
diversions might justify screening based upon biological benefits to be
derived.
Question. The budget request for Indian Water Rights Settlements
for fiscal year 2015 is $90 million. This is up nearly 75 percent from
fiscal year 2012, the first year this account appeared in your budget.
These settlements made up 5 percent of your overall fiscal year 2012
request but now make up 8.7 percent of your overall fiscal year 2015
request. I am concerned that this number is rising significantly faster
than your overall budget request squeezing out other work. It is
important that these settlements be kept on track, however, it is also
important that other work that Reclamation undertakes be kept on
schedule as well. Do you see these requirements continuing to escalate?
Answer. The principal driver of the discretionary budgetary
increases since fiscal year 2012 for Indian Water Rights Settlements
(IWRS) is the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project. The fiscal year 2012
funding for the IWRS account of $51 million was increased primarily to
make sure Reclamation meets the deadline of 2024 for completion of the
Navajo--Gallup Water Supply Project. If the project completion deadline
is not substantially met, the Navajo Nation may submit a petition to
the court to terminate the San Juan Basin in New Mexico Navajo Nation
Water Rights Settlement Agreement; thereby increasing uncertainty for
all Colorado River water users. Funding has increased over time from
$25 million in fiscal year 2012 to $81 million in the fiscal year 2015
President's Budget request. Beginning in fiscal year 2020, mandatory
funds will supplement annual appropriations to support completion of
the $1 billion project, but this level of annual appropriations is
necessary to keep the project on schedule.
The Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement (NM) is expected to
require only one additional year of appropriations funding in 2016. The
Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement (MT) and the Aamodt Litigation
Settlement Act (NM) will require discretionary appropriations into the
future, but also have access to specific quantities of mandatory funds
that supplement annual appropriations. The White Mountain Apache (AZ)
settlement does not require annual appropriations in 2015 as mandatory
funding is available under the 2010 Claims Resolution Act.
Question. If so, how will they be addressed in future budgets
without impacting other Reclamation missions?
Answer. Both Public Law 111-11 and Public Law 111-291 make
available significant amounts of mandatory funding to Indian water
settlements. Public Law 111-291, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010,
directed almost $625.0 million in mandatory funding to projects
administered by Reclamation. These mandatory funds have been received
from Treasury. Most of the funds are associated with construction and
they will be indexed to account for inflation. In addition, Public Law
111-11 will make available $120 million per year between fiscal year
2020 and 2029 for a total of $1.2 billion in mandatory funding to a
broad range of current and prospective Indian water settlements.
The availability of significant mandatory funding will allow
Reclamation to plan for the balanced use of discretionary and mandatory
funding over a series of years. Reclamation's future budget requests
and plans will reflect the judicious application of mandatory and
discretionary funding for Indian water settlements. Indian Water
Settlements' projects and activities are an important constituent of
Reclamation's overall mission and goals. In this difficult budget
climate, Reclamation's future request for their funding will provide
for equity and balance throughout Reclamation's entire portfolio of
mission essential projects and programs.
Question. (a) For Title XVI projects, Reclamation has developed a
competitive funding opportunity system for providing Title XVI funds
rather than choosing projects to budget for as was past practice. Has
this competitive system resulted in providing funds to more deserving
projects?
Answer. We believe the process used to select Title XVI projects
for funding has been successful at allowing Reclamation to prioritize
the projects that most closely match program goals through a process
that is transparent to all potential applicants and the public.
Question. (b) How?
Answer. The funding criteria Reclamation developed in 2010 are used
to identify the Title XVI projects that most effectively stretch water
supplies and contribute to water supply sustainability; address water
quality concerns or benefit endangered species; incorporate the use of
renewable energy or address energy efficiency; deliver water at a
reasonable cost relative to other water supply options; and meet other
important program goals. Reclamation incorporated these criteria into
funding opportunity announcements used each year to invite sponsors of
authorized projects to apply for funding. Proposals are evaluated
against these criteria to identify projects for funding.
Question. (c) Could there be advantages to providing a few larger
grants over a period of several years to provide a reliable funding
stream for regional systems or does the competitive nature of the
current system ensure that the most viable projects are funded
regardless of their size?
Answer. We believe the current procedure does provide a reliable
funding stream for projects that closely match program goals--including
larger regional projects. In 2012, Reclamation made significant
revisions to its funding opportunity announcements for the Title XVI
Program to address feedback and to ensure the program works as well as
possible and in a way that minimizes the burden on project sponsors,
including sponsors of large or regional projects that may have longer
construction timeframes. Sponsors may request up to $4 million
annually, which is more per project than what was made available before
the use of funding criteria, as planning, design, and construction
activities continue, without being required to divide large projects
into shorter phases. Regional-scale projects that include multiple
partners are an important part of the Title XVI Program. Reclamation's
funding criteria provide significant consideration for projects that
implement a regional planning effort or include collaborative
partnerships to meet the needs of a region or watershed.
Question. (a) Regional water reuse projects appear to offer the
opportunity to generate very substantial amounts of additional water,
relatively quickly. This Committee provided additional resources for
water reuse, Title XVI in fiscal year 2014. What is being done, if
anything, to advance these regional water reuse projects, which appear
to offer opportunities for near-term significant additional water
supplies for many of our drought stricken, water short regions?
Answer. Within the Title XVI Program, funding criteria reflect
Reclamation's assessment that regional-scale or watershed-based
projects can be particularly effective at achieving results. The
funding criteria addresses the extent to which a project applies a
watershed or regional- scale approach, and 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. Additional
resources are being made available to congressionally authorized
projects that most closely match those goals, including projects that
use a watershed or regional-scale approach. Additional resources are
also being made available for development of new water reuse
feasibility studies.
Question. (b) Is Reclamation taking any steps to implement the
guidance that the House and Senate Appropriations Committees provided
in the reports to accompany the fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill encouraging the Bureau of Reclamation
to consider providing additional assistance for regional water reuse
projects?
Answer. This year, Reclamation made significant adjustments to its
funding opportunity announcement for development of new water reuse
feasibility studies. Applicants may submit requests in one of two
funding groups, including one category that allows for up to $450,000
per study (previously applicants could only request up to $150,000) and
up to 3 years to complete the study. This adjustment allows sponsors of
potential new regional-scale projects additional flexibility, a point
communicated to potential applicants in the funding opportunity
announcement used to solicit proposals, without a significant effect on
other important program goals.
Question. What do you believe is an appropriate role for
Reclamation to play in recycled and impaired water research and
development?
Answer. Consistent with the 2008 National Research Council report
on the role of Federal R&D investments related to advanced water
treatment research, Reclamation's R&D role is to encourage investments
in areas where private-sector entities are unwilling to make
investments and assume risk, and where the benefits are widespread.
Question. Does your budget support these R&D efforts?
Answer. Reclamation's R&D budget requests lead to innovation and
solutions that can be successfully implemented by the private and
public sectors. This role includes providing funding for the
identification of institutional barriers and identifying research gaps,
for lab-scale testing, for pilot-scale testing, for demonstration-scale
testing, and for the transfer of new technologies and solutions in
water treatment.
Question. Can you give me an update on Quagga Mussel R&D? Are there
any promising techniques to address this invasive species?
Answer. Reclamation R&D has been pursuing a spectrum of quagga
mussel prevention and control technologies for both closed conduit and
open water applications. Specific research includes:
--Biocides to eradicate mussel infestations;
--UV light technologies to prevent and eradicate mussel infestations;
--Coatings sufficiently durable to protect metal water infrastructure
yet not allow mussels to attach; and
--Evaluating underwater pulse-pressure technologies as a method to
prevent mussel infestations.
Significant advances resulting from Reclamation's investments in
quagga mussel R&D include:
--Working with Reclamation under a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement (CRADA), Marrone Bio Innovations matured
their biocide based technology into a commercial-ready product
to eradicate and control infestations in small diameter
conduits. Following tests at Davis Dam, the product received an
EPA label for commercial use.
--Reclamation demonstrated, working in partnership with private
sector consultants and industry representatives, that certain
forms and dosing of commercially available UV light
technologies offer an additional promising alternative for
closed conduit applications.
--Reclamation has been testing commercially available coatings for
their ability to prevent mussel attachments. Although many
commercially available coatings were found to prevent mussel
attachments, none of the coatings tested were able to provide
the durability needed to adequately protect Reclamation's metal
water infrastructure (e.g. gates, screens, trashracks,
penstocks, pipes etc.). As such, Reclamation's Science and
Technology Program entered into a CRADA with a U.S. coating
manufacturer in 2014 to jointly develop and commercialize such
a coating.
--Reclamation entered into a CRADA with Fluid Imaging Technologies to
conduct research for improving automated detection and
quantification of invasive mussel larvae (also known as
``veliger''). Under the CRADA, both parties jointly improved
the Fluid Imaging Technologies' FlowCAM into a new commercially
available VeligerCAM to accurately count abundant organisms
including mussel larvae and monitor physical larvae damage.
Question. Is Reclamation continuing to work with States to ensure
water bodies not currently infested with Quagga mussels remain that
way? What are the steps that Reclamation is taking to prevent the
further spread of these invasive species?
Answer. Reclamation continues to work with the western States and
other Federal agencies to maintain our Mussel Detection and Monitoring
Program. Water samples from hundreds of water bodies are collected by
both Reclamation and the States and are tested for the presence of
microscopic mussel larvae. Testing is provided at no cost to the
States. Water quality data is collected at the same time to improve our
understanding of the susceptibility of various water bodies to mussel
infestation. Reclamation shares all results with our recreation
management partners to assist in their efforts to educate the public
and to implement boat inspection and cleaning programs.
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Anne Castle
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein on Behalf of Senator
Michael Bennet
Question. Assistant Secretary Castle, I'd like to raise an issue
about which you and I have spoken several times, and which I know you
appreciate is a top priority for both Senator Udall and me: the future
of the Arkansas Valley Conduit. As you know, the conduit is a planned
water-delivery system from the Pueblo Dam to communities throughout the
Arkansas River Valley that will help bring clean drinking water to up
to 42 municipalities, towns, and water providers in southeastern
Colorado. With the water in so many of these communities contaminated
and unsafe to drink, Coloradans urgently need construction on this
conduit to move forward as quickly as possible.
I appreciate that the Bureau of Reclamation signed a final record
of decision for the conduit in February, clearing the way for work to
proceed. But I am also troubled by the Administration's decision to
propose just $500,000 in the Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 2015
budget.
Are the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior
committed to building the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a project that
President Obama has publicly identified as a priority?
Answer. Reclamation continues to make progress in engineering
design for the project. Current constrained budgets, along with
competing water infrastructure needs across the West, have made it
difficult to fund new large-scale projects. Reclamation continues to
identify funding opportunities when they arise.
Question. Can you provide more context as to why the Administration
chose only to request $500,000 to fund the project for fiscal year
2015?
Answer. In fiscal year 2014, the Arkansas Valley Conduit received
appropriations of $1 million as well as an additional $2 million of
reprogrammed funds in order to advance the engineering design drawings,
land acquisition planning, and other necessary pre-construction design
work. The proposed funding level for fiscal year 2015 is a result of
the constrained fiscal environment. In fiscal year 2015, pre-
construction activities of data collection and engineering work for the
completion of the final design will continue.
Question. And finally, with the ROD signed and with several
communities now under enforcement orders to meet the standards of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, can we look forward to increased support for
this project in the fiscal year 2016 budget?
Answer. The Record of Decision helps make it possible for the
Arkansas Valley Conduit to make the most of any funding opportunities
that may become available, whether at the Federal, State, or local
level. As the fiscal year 2016 budget for Reclamation is developed,
careful consideration will be given to this project.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
Question. Over the years, Congress has made it clear that it is
important that rural residents have access to clean, safe drinking
water. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Bureau
of Reclamation's Rural Water Projects proposes a reduction of more than
50 percent from the enacted fiscal year 2014 funding, which itself
falls far short of meeting the needs of the existing authorized
projects. With the approach the Department is taking on these projects,
it will take several decades to bring them to completion. Why does the
Department appear to place such a low priority on these projects?
Answer. Reclamation recognizes current and projected appropriations
may not be sufficient to fully address all of the needs and
capabilities to meet the goals for every project. Consequently, as has
been the case in the past, Reclamation must prioritize the allocation
of its available funding--both on an annual and on a long term basis.
In response, Reclamation developed a set of objective prioritization
criteria to guide its decisionmaking process in order to maximize the
agency's ability to meet its programmatic goals, to maximize water
deliveries to rural communities in as short a period as possible, and
to reflect the diverse needs and circumstances facing each individual
project. The criteria also reflect the goals and priorities identified
in the statutes that authorized each individual rural water project as
well as the goals of the Reclamation Rural Water Supply Act (Public Law
109-451).
Question. What steps can the Department take to help bring these
authorized projects to completion in a reasonable timeframe?
Answer. Demand for funding in Reclamation's rural water projects
continues to substantially outpace the available funding. Competing
priorities for limited funding include obligations under valid Court
orders, Indian water rights settlement funding requirements, and
restoration and environmental obligations that support the continuation
of provision of existing supplies. The additional funding of $27.1
million that was made available by Congress in fiscal year 2014 was
allocated to the individual projects and fully obligated as of
September 24, 2014. Reclamation will work with the projects' sponsors
to effectively apply all resources that are appropriated to rural water
projects.
Question. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request for the
Mni Wiconi Project in South Dakota is $12 million for operations and
maintenance activities. This is the same amount that was enacted in
fiscal year 2014 despite more of the Project having been completed and
come into operation. Can you explain why the Bureau of Reclamation
proposes a flat budget for a larger and more complex project that faces
continued increases in fixed costs?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget for Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) activities was $10 million. The fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year
2014 budgets were $12 million. The increase was primarily due to the
need to accomplish critical replacements, additions, and extraordinary
maintenance (RAX) items. Reclamation determined the increase of $2.0
million in the fiscal year 2013 and 2014 O&M budgets above the fiscal
year 2012 budget is sufficient to allow a flat budget request for
fiscal year 2015. While there has been a great deal of construction in
this project over the last several years, the amount of O&M needed is
not directly related to the amounts spent on construction. A great deal
of recent construction involves buried pipe which requires little
maintenance. Although the amount budgeted for RAX items will be less in
fiscal year 2015, the budget of $12 million is, in total, adequate to
cover the routine O&M costs and the planned RAX items.
Question. Of this $12 million, I understand that $1.68 million will
be used by the Bureau of Reclamation for its oversight of the Operation
and Maintenance activities of the Project and $500,000 for Replacement,
Additions and Extraordinary Maintenance, leaving less than $10 million
for the Tribes to carry out the on-the-ground activities that keep the
Project going. Can you please confirm the amount of the Mni Wiconi
Project appropriation that is proposed for the Bureau of Reclamation
and provide details on how that funding is used to support the Project?
Answer. Of the $12 million requested, approximately $1.09 million
is anticipated to be used by the Bureau of Reclamation for its
oversight and technical assistance, including salaries, of the O&M
activities of the Project.
An additional $646,000 will be reserved by Reclamation to provide
services to the tribal programs including approximately $213,000 for
contracts (Core treatment plant crack repairs, Core system cathodic
protection), equipment, and travel. $432,000 is budgeted for the
Western Area Power Administration to provide electrical power for the
water treatment plant. We anticipate providing approximately
$10,264,000, to the Tribes in fiscal year 2015 which includes $1.8
million for Replacements, Additions, and Extraordinary Maintenance
(RAX). These are Public Law 93-638 contracts, and the final amounts
will be subject to negotiations.
Question. As part of your response, please explain how many
Reclamation employees are supported by this funding and what role they
play in the operation and maintenance activities of the Project.
Reclamation has approximately 7.5 full time equivalent staff
supported by this funding to provide assistance to the Tribe.
Reclamation staff provides technical assistance at the Tribe's request.
For example, the Tribe requested technical assistance with an
optimization study (an evaluation of the water treatment plant and core
systems to determine what improvements, if any, would be beneficial for
efficiency, energy consumption, water quality etc.) and an automatic
meter reader project. Reclamation staff also provides assistance
ranging from the solicitation of services to the administration of the
contracts and the development of O&M operational procedures,
troubleshooting equipment, compliance with Federal water quality
regulations, training operators, financial, and operational issues.
Finally, Reclamation staff has just completed assistance to tribal
finance with determining available funds and repayment of disallowed
cost and transfer of unallowable costs back into the program.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. I think that we should have some
discussions among us on a bipartisan basis as to how we might
be able to be of more help, and I will leave that for the
mystery of discussions to come.
So thank you very much for being here today. And the
hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., Wednesday, April, 2, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]