U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

55–275 PDF 2010

AGENCY BUDGETS AND PRIORITIES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

(111–93) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

March 4, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland Vice Chair 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

BOB FILNER, California 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary for the Army for Civil Works, 

United States Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................ 5 

Perciasepe, Robert, Deputy Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................................................... 5 

Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers ............................................................................................... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry, of Arizona ............................................................................ 26 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen ............................................................................................... 27 

Perciasepe, Robert ................................................................................................... 33 

Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert ............................................................ 58 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Perciasepe, Robert, Deputy Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency: .....................................................................................................

Response to request for information from Hon. Boozman, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas .......................................... 47 

Response to request for information from Hon. Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ................................................ 51 

Response to request for information from Hon. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ............................. 00 

Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, response to request for information from the Subcommittee .............................................................................................................. 63 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and National Center for 

Environmental Health Centers for Disease Control Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Henry Falk, M.D., M.P.H, Acting 

Director, written testimony ................................................................................. 73 

International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. and Mexico, Edward 

Drusina, U.S. Commissioner, written testimony ............................................... 85 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, David Kennedy, Acting Administrator for Ocean Services, written 

testimony .............................................................................................................. 87 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

David White, Chief, written testimony .............................................................. 98 

Saint Lawerence Seaway Development Corporation, Collister Johnson, Jr., 

Administrator, written testimony ....................................................................... 105 

Tennesee Valley Authority, Tom Kilgore, President and Chief Executive Officer, written testimony .......................................................................................... 121 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 55275.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 55275.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 55275.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 55275.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 55275.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 55275.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 55275.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 55275.008
xiv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 55275.009
xv 


Insert offset folio 10 here 55275.010
xvi 


Insert offset folio 11 here 55275.011
xvii 


Insert offset folio 12 here 55275.012
xviii 


Insert offset folio 13 here 55275.013
xix 


Insert offset folio 14 here 55275.014
xx 


Insert offset folio 15 here 55275.015
xxi 


Insert offset folio 16 here 55275.016
(1) 

AGENCY BUDGETS AND PRIORITIES FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 

Thursday, March 4, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The committee will come to order. 

Good morning and welcome. Today’s hearing is on the Fiscal 

Year 2011 Budget and Priorities of Agencies under the jurisdiction 

of the Subcommittee. 

At today’s hearing, the Subcommittee will receive oral testimony—I am sorry, my voice is not quite up to par. 

At today’s hearing, the Subcommittee will receive oral testimony 

from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of 

Engineers. The Subcommittee has asked for written testimony for 

each of the other Federal agencies under the jurisdiction of this 

Committee and that should be included in each Member package. 

Just a couple of years ago, the budget request of the previous administration was not adequate to meet the Nation’s needs. Today’s 

message is much more optimistic, at least with respect to investing 

in the Nation’s growing wastewater infrastructure needs, and the 

commitment to clean, safe and secure water for all Americans. For 

the Environmental Protection Agency, the President’s fiscal year 

2011 request is $10 billion, which is consistent with last year’s request and continues the presidential commitment to restoring and 

protecting the Nation’s environment. 

Similarly, the administration’s request for the clean water State revolving fund is $2 billion, consistent with last year’s request that 

was well above the previous administration’s request and that renewed the Federal commitment to meeting the Nation’s growing 

wastewater infrastructure needs. 

So once again, the administration needs to be commended for 

producing a budget that, for the most part, restores the prospect 

of a cleaner, more sustainable future. 

However, there are certain budget areas that could still undergo 

some improvement. For example, the fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers was approximately 9 percent below the appropriated levels of the agency in fiscal year 2010. 

My greatest disappointment in the Corps’s budget request is the inVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:27 Dec 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\55275.0 KAYLA
2 

vestigations and construction accounts which are respectfully 35 

percent and almost 17 percent below last year’s appropriated levels. For the investigations account this disappointment stems from 

a concern that at the requested amount, the Corps of Engineers 

would be able to plan and design the next generation of projects 

within its core mission of environmental restoration, flood damage 

reduction and navigation. 

In fact, the President’s budget requests funding for no new specific studies, and for no new programmatic studies. In addition, if 

enacted at the levels proposed, the fiscal year 2011 investigations 

budget could have a negative effect on staffing levels of the Corps’ 

district offices because the salaries of Corps employees are paid 

from the project funds, and in part, from funds for project studies. 

In addition, the need for new projects is increasing and it is critical to maintain and enhance the capability of the Corps’s planning 

mission. Both for the civil works program and for its military competency for the construction account I am disappointed that the 

budget only requests $1.7 billion for the construction of vital Corps 

projects. I am equally disappointed that the budget only requests 

funding for two new starts that were authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. That monumental piece of legislation authorized a myriad of projects across the varied missions of 

the Corps which are vitally important to local community needs. 

However, for the most part, these authorized projects were again 

passed over for funding in this budget request. Also the budget request for the Corps shows a decrease of $39 million in the operations and maintenance of the Corps’ projects and facilities. These 

funds are necessary for the preservation, operation, maintenance 

and care of existing navigation, flood damage reduction and environmental restoration projects. As I look at the EPA Superfund 

program, the administration’s request is a slight decrease in funding for the program. However, EPA is increasing its estimated 

number of Superfund construction complete sites for fiscal year 

2011. This is a welcomed increase in the pace of clean up and I 

hope this trend continues. 

I would gather that EPA would be able to further increase these 

cleanup numbers if there was more available funding for this program in the future. EPA seems to be working to reverse the past 

few years of slowdown in the Superfund pipeline of moving cleanups from the investigation phase to the design phase, to the implementation of effective clean up plans. To that end, I am pleased 

that the administration has, once again, called for the reinstatement of the taxes on petroleum chemical feed stocks and corporate 

income that traditionally funded clean ups under the Superfund 

program. This effort, which was abandoned under the last administration, should allow for an increase in the number and pace of 

cleanups and a return to the goal of polluter pays. 

On a positive note, the administration requested an increase of 

$40 million over last year’s appropriations for brownfields. This up 

in funding will better enable the Federal Government, States, and 

communities to work together to address cleanup and reuse 

brownfield sites. I am pleased that the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

3 

the International Boundary and Water Commission, the Agency for 

Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, and the Tennessee Valley 

Authority were able to provide written testimony for the hearing 

this morning. Like EPA and the Corps, the budgets of these agencies have points of praise and points of criticism. 

I commit to continued oversight of all of the budget requests for 

the agencies under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, and I 

welcome each of the witnesses here this morning. 

And now I will yield to my distinguished Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee, Mr. Boozman, for any comments he may have. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and we appreciate your leadership. 

Today we will hear from two agencies whose work falls within 

the jurisdiction of our Subcommittee, the Army Corps of Engineers 

and the Environmental Protection Agency. Let me begin by saying 

that I support efforts to control Federal spending. However, these 

are important programs that benefit our economy and improve the 

quality of life of our citizens. While I agree we must be diligent in 

our oversight of these agencies to be sure that programs are run 

effectively and efficiently, I do not support cutting programs or flat 

funding programs that have a proven record of providing economic 

benefits. 

It is inevitable that the administration’s priorities and congressional priorities will not always coincide. For instance, once again 

the administration’s proposing to reinstate the Superfund taxes. 

These punitive Superfund taxes unfairly penalize those who are 

not responsible for pollution at the Superfund sites. Under this proposal the Superfund taxes would be levied on many companies and 

industries such as financial, insurance, real estate, retail and 

wholesale trade and service businesses that have absolutely no connection to a Superfund site or to any environmental cleanup. 

Superfund should remain the cost recovery statute, not a putative one on those who fuel the Nation’s economic engine. 

Cost recovery advances the polluter pays principle while not injuring innocent businesses, shifting the burden to those who had 

no part in the contamination is simply unfair and unwarranted. 

For nearly two centuries, the Civil Works Missions of the Corps 

have contributed to the economic vitality of the Nation and have 

improved the quality of our life. At the same time, the Civil Works 

side of the Corps represents an experienced engineering workforce 

that can be quickly mobilized to address a national defense threat 

or a national disaster. Yet the fiscal year 2011 budget request from 

the administration for the Corps of Engineers is less than the fiscal 

year 2010 request and well below what was enacted in 2010. 

Given the fact that the navigation projects and the flood damage 

reduction projects provide the economic benefits to the Nation, I 

would like to see the administration play a higher priority in the 

Corps’s work. All the Corps projects put people to work, which is 

another reason to put the investments high on the priority list. Investing in flood damage reduction projects the protects people in 

businesses in cities and towns all across the Nation. It makes good 

economic sense to protect existing development rather than have to 

pay for the losses and clean up that comes from hurricanes or 

4 

floods. Every one dollar invested in flood damage reduction provides protection for more than $6 worth of infrastructure. 

In the global economy the Nation’s farmers and businesses must 

compete with their counterparts overseas for customers all over the 

world. The importance of modern waterways and ports has never 

been more critical to the Nation’s economic well-being as it is right 

now. If we follow the administration’s leads projects will take 

longer to complete, cost more and have the benefits delayed. There 

is very little change from previous budget requests for the corps’s 

operation and maintenance account. 

After many years of inadequate funding resulting in deferred 

maintenance the funding level is still too low. The chronic problem 

of deferred maintenance is impacting the navigability for many of 

our water ways and causing ships to enter and leave certain ports 

only partially loaded or in some cases divert to foreign ports. This 

has a huge impact on the reliability of this important mode of 

transportation. And I believe the President’s budget puts the Nations at a competitive disadvantage. I thank all of our witnesses for 

being here and I look forward to your testimony. And with that I 

yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The Chair recognizes Representative Cao. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Madam Chair. And first of all, I just want 

to thank you and I would like to thank the Ranking Member for 

holding this very important hearing. The city of New Orleans as 

well as the whole second congressional district are very much dependent on the many projects that are being conducted by the 

Army Corps as well as the EPA. And I have discussed many times 

in this Committee as well as the Subcommittee that 4–1/2 years 

after Hurricane Katrina, we are still rebuilding and we are still 

struggling to ensure that the people of New Orleans, as well as the 

second congressional district get the necessary hurricane protections that they need. 

In our recovery, we also have encountered many other environmental obstacles. Toxic mold continues to affect my constituents’ 

health and has prevented many from returning to their home. We 

are dealing with Chinese drywall which was used in the rebuilding 

process and which is now literally eating my constituents houses 

from the inside out to say nothing of the health issues it is causing. 

In both of these cases, the true sum of the effects is still being 

learned and it is very concerning to me. 

Another environmental consideration that affects my district is 

coastal restoration with the failures of the levees, wetland reconstruction. Our first line of defense, all of these projects have been 

damaged over the years by coastal erosion and salt water intrusion. 

And we must continue with strong programs to ensure the health 

of these complex networks. 

As I stated yesterday, the recovery of New Orleans very much 

depends on the infrastructure that are under the Army Corps of 

Engineers. And today, I just want to continue our discussion from 

yesterday. And I would like to touch on a number of issues, one is 

the eastern surge protection barrier to the western surge protection 

barrier in the area of Algiers and Harvey Canal. Projects relating 

to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, or MRGO, including the 

reaches 144, 146 and 148 which are slated for T walls. 

5 

The T walls on the Harvey Canal affecting all the levees on the 

lakefront and in the New Orleans areas. I also would like to continue our discussion of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock as 

well as the outfall canals. 

I have noticed that in our discussion yesterday the Corps suggested that the State would not sign the PPA in connection with 

outfall canals. And based on my understanding, the State has some 

concerns with respect to the partnership agreement that was proposed unilaterally by the Corps. And some of the concerns that we 

have include the following: The Corps’ own document reports indicate that other options are better than the option that the Corps 

has chosen to implement. The Corps has refused to conduct a full 

analysis of the other options and suggested to economy that it 

would take 3 years and 15 million to compare the various options. 

This is significantly more time and money than the Corps spent on 

their preferred option. 

Second, the Corps has not developed a feasibility level documentation on any outfall canal options. The State has asked that 

peer review by performed on all three canal solutions. The Corps 

has agreed to perform peer review of only one canal, that is the 

17th Street canal. And the last concern that was conveyed to me 

by the State is the very unique project delivery process the Corps 

intends to use design build to carry out the permanent solution on 

the outfall canals. This State, based on my understanding, has 

asked that the State has an opportunity to concur in the ultimate 

design of the solutions. 

So these are some of the issues that we are trying to address 

with respect to the partnership agreement that was proposed by 

the Corps. And I hope that as we continue our conversations today, 

we can look at some of these issues and hopefully come up with 

some kind of compromise. 

Thank you very much and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Congressman. Now I introduce the panel of witnesses, our first witness this morning is Mr. 

Robert Perciasepe, and he is deputy administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Next Ms. Jo-Ellen Darcy, she is the 

Assistant Secretary for the Civil Works for the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. And our third witness is Lieutenant General Robert L. 

‘‘Van’’ Van Antwerp, who is Chief of Engineers for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

TESTIMONIES OF ROBERT PERCIASEPE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY; HON. JO–ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, UNITED STATES ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS; AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT VAN ANTWERP, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Ms. JOHNSON. Your full statements will be placed in the record. 

And we ask that you attempt to limit your testimony to about 5 

6 

minutes as a courtesy of the other witnesses and then we will have 

question rounds. So Mr. Perciasepe, you may proceed. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member, 

thank you for inviting me to the meeting today. And Members of 

the Committee, thank you for being here to talk about the EPA 

budget. I want to discuss the fiscal 2011 budget briefly here in my 

opening comments and obviously go to the questions. 

This budget fully represents and reflects President Obama’s and 

our commitment to environmental protection and ensure that all 

families across the country have access to clean air, water and 

land. Much work has gone into preparing this budget over the last 

year. And I am proud that it reflects the goals of the Agency, and 

specifically, this budget is a framework to protect America’s waters, 

clean up our communities, address climate change, improve air 

quality, assure safety of chemicals, expand the conversation on 

environmentalism in the country and to work for environmental 

justice, and to continue to build strong State and tribal partnerships, which are vital to our success. 

Let me touch on a couple of the highlights of this budget that 

will protect human health and the environment and lay a new 

foundation for our prosperity. Protecting America’s waters are a top 

priority for EPA due to the tremendous impacts water quality has 

on human, environmental health and economic health. For fiscal 

2011, this budget reflects EPA’s commitment to upgrade drinking 

water systems and wastewater infrastructure with a substantial investment of $2 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, 

and $1.3 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. This 

will initiate 800 new clean water projects and 500 new drinking 

water projects across the country. This is on top of all the other Recovery Act funds that are already out there and under contract. 

Also the fiscal year 2011 budget request support for a number of 

nationally significant ecosystem restoration efforts. For instance 

$300 million for the Great Lakes, $63 million for the Chesapeake 

Bay and some other funding for other ecosystem projects. 

This budget also promotes new and innovative strategies for 

cleaning up communities to protect sensitive populations, such as 

children, the elderly and individuals with chronic diseases. The 

budget proposes $215 million for brownfields clean up. An increase 

of $40 million to support planning clean up, job training, redevelopment of brownfields properties, especially in underserved and disadvantaged communities. 

In addition this budget proposes $1.3 billion for Superfund cleanup efforts across the country. Clean up of contaminated properties 

take pollution out and puts opportunity and jobs in. 

The President’s budget also asks Congress to fund the sensible 

measured steps that EPA is taking to begin addressing greenhouse 

gas pollution. Three years ago the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gas emissions are air pollutions under the Clean Air Act. 

EPA has an obligation to prepare itself, State governments and industry for reasonable requirements in a manner fully compatible 

with the objective of legislation that is being debated. 

The budget requests more than $43 million for additional efforts 

aimed at taking action on climate change. Two-thirds of that 

money is for States to develop technical capacity for whatever proVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:27 Dec 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\55275.0 KAYLA
7 

grams may come in the future, as well as the projects under the 

Supreme Court’s decision. 

Example of this commonsense approach is embodied in the agreement that we made with the Nation’s automobile makers. The 

States and we have all reached the historic agreement to establish 

uniform, light duty vehicle standards that will eliminate 950 million metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution and save 1.8 billion 

barrels of oil consumption. The budget requests $6 million for the 

implementation of that rule and pursuing similar agreements in 

the transportation sector. 

While addressing global warming, this budget also takes steps to 

ensure that local air quality is good for all, including those with 

respiratory problems. To improve air quality EPA will continue our 

support of enhanced monitoring and enforcement efforts. This 

budget requests $60 million of increased funding for state grants 

to address expanded national ambient air quality standards as well 

as needed air quality monitoring requirements. The budget also 

provides $6 million to improve air toxics monitoring capabilities to 

address compliance and enforcement issues. 

Toxins are found not only in air missions, but many of the common chemicals that we use every day. And we have an obligation 

to the American people to ensure these chemicals are safe. At the 

end of 2009, EPA released first ever chemical action plans, four 

groups of substances and more plans are in the pipeline for 2010. In this budget, EPA proposes $56 million for chemical assessment and risk review, including continued development of chemical 

management plans to ensure that no unreasonable risk are posed 

by new or existing chemicals. 

We have also begun a new era of outreach and protection for 

communities, historically underrepresented in environmental decision making. We are building strong working relationships with 

tribes, communities of color, economically distressed cities and 

towns, young people and others, but this is just a start. We must 

also bolster our relationships with our State and tribal partners. 

These are areas that call for innovation and bold thinking. And the 

administrator is challenging all of our employees to bring vision 

and creativity to our programs. 

Thank you for allowing me to briefly go through the highlights 

of our 2011 budget, and of course I am going to be happy and looking forward to answering all of your questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. The Honorable Jo-Ellen 

Darcy. 

Ms. DARCY. Chairwoman Johnson, Congressman Boozman, other 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present the President’s budget for the Civil Works program of the 

Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2011. The fiscal year 2011 

President’s Budget for Civil Works program is $4.939 billion. The 

budget supports four principle objectives: Funding construction of 

the highest performing water resources infrastructure investments 

that will provide the best return from a national perspective; supporting the Nation’s navigation network by funding capital development achievable within current revenues; advancing aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts and continuing to meet the requirements 

of the Endangered Species Act; and emphasizing critical mainteVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:27 Dec 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\55275.0 KAYLA
8 

nance and operational reliability of the existing Civil Works infrastructure. 

The budget focuses funding primarily on three main Civil Works 

program areas, commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm 

damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The budget 

also supports hydropower, recreation, environmental stewardship 

and water supply services at existing water resources projects 

owned or operated by the Corps. 

Finally, the budget provides for protection of the Nation’s regulated waters and wetlands, clean up of sites contaminated as a result of the Nation’s early efforts to develop atomic weapons; and 

emergency preparedness and training. 

In keeping with President Obama’s commitment to limit the 

overall level of non-security discretionary spending, the level of 

funding in the 2011 Civil Works budget is a reduction from both 

the 2010 budget and the enacted 2010 appropriations. However, 

the 2011 funding level reflects a practical, effective and sound use 

of the Nation’s financial resources. 

The Army continues to apply objective performance guidelines to 

many competing Civil Works construction projects in order to establish priorities among them and to guide the allocation of funds 

to high performing ongoing projects and high performing new construction starts. These guidelines emphasize investments that provide the best return from a national perspective in achieving economic, environmental and public safety objectives. 

The budget includes two new starts and several new initiatives. 

One of the construction new starts is the Louisiana Coastal Area 

Program, which will provide funding for the construction of projects 

coming out of the study by the same name, after they have favorably completed Administration review. The other construction new 

start is a nonstructural flood damage reduction project at Onion 

Creek, Texas. Within the O&M program, there is funding for a new 

Global Changes Sustainability Program to assess the impact on 

Civil Works projects of climate change as well as impacts of shifting demographics, changing land use and changing social value. 

Understanding those impacts will enable the Corps to identify 

operational and other modifications to anticipate and respond to 

changing requirements to achieve and maintain sustainability. 

Last year, the Administration proposed legislation for a new user 

fee to increase revenue to the trust fund, and that proposal remains available for consideration by Congress in support of the 

2011 budget. The Army continues to work in partnership with the 

inland waterway stakeholders to identify priorities and an effective 

funding stream for inland waterway construction and rehabilitation 

for the next 20 years, which could be made possible by enactment 

of a new funding mechanism. 

The budget provides $180 million for the South Florida Everglades ecosystem restoration program. This includes funding for 

continued construction of 5 significant restoration projects: Picayune Strand, Site One Impoundment, Indian River Lagoon South, 

Kissimmee River, and the C-111 project. 

The budget also supports work on other major ecosystem-wide 

initiatives, in part through Federal interagency working groups 

headed by the Council on Environmental Quality. The budget inVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:27 Dec 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\55275.0 KAYLA
9 

cludes a total of $52 million for one such effort, which is the California Bay Delta Restoration. Within the ongoing Cultural Resources Program, $3 million is included to continue the Veterans 

Curation Project, which was initially funded through the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding and recently received the 

annual Chairman’s Award from the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. The Veterans Curation Project supports small 

curation laboratories in Augusta, Georgia; St. Louis, Missouri; and 

Washington, D.C.—three cities with high populations of recently 

returning and wounded veterans. 

The veterans are hired into temporary working positions and receive on-the-job training in curation of some of the backlog of archeological and historic properties that have come into the Corps’ 

possession over the years. This is an innovative approach to supporting returning and disabled veterans of all branches of the military service with jobs and training in a variety of technical skills 

with broad applicability while benefiting the Civil Works program. 

I spoke at the opening of the lab in Augusta, Georgia and I was 

very moved by the stories of how this program has given hope to 

recovering veterans. 

In conclusion, this is a frugal budget that reflects the priorities 

of a Nation that is both at war and successfully navigating its way 

out of economic upheaval. While this budget does not fund all of 

the good things that the Corps of Engineers is capable of doing, it 

will support very important investments that will yield long-term 

returns for the Nation’s citizens. Thank you, Members of the Subcommittee, and I am proud to support the 2001 budget of the Army 

Civil Works program. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Now Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Madam Chair, Congressman Boozman, 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, this budget is a performance-based budget. It makes the best use of available funds 

through a focus on projects and activities that provide the highest 

economic and environmental returns or address significant risk to 

human safety. This budget funds 99 construction projects, four of 

those projects included in that 99 are from the Mississippi River 

and Tributaries account. There are 10 dam safety, 20 projects that 

address risk to human safety, and 69 other projects. 

The budget supports restoration of nationally and regionally significant aquatic ecosystems, with emphasis on the Florida Everglades, Louisiana Coastal Area, and the Hamilton Airfield in California in San Francisco Bay. The budget supports the Columbia 

River and Missouri River fish projects to support the continued operation of the Corps of Engineers multi-purpose projects by meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. 

As soon as the Corps constructs a project, as you might imagine, 

our attention immediately turns to the operation and maintenance 

of those projects. Generally with periodic maintenance, we can operate our facilities for many, many years. The average age of our 

241 locks incidentally is 58.3 years old. The budget supports our 

continued stewardship of this infrastructure by focusing funding on 

key infrastructure that is of central importance to the Nation. 

10 

The operation and maintenance program for the fiscal year 2011 budget includes $2.361 billion and an additional $153 million under 

the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. 

We support the President’s commitment to continue sound development of the Nation’s water resources. Domestically, the Corps of 

Engineers has been at work across the Nation as we continue to 

respond to the call during national emergencies. The critical work 

that our folks are doing reduces the risk of damage from future 

storms and helps out the people in communities of this Nation. 

Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to 

support the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan and in 32 other countries. In those two particular countries, to build foundations for democracy, and freedom, and prosperity. I especially want to recognize the many expeditionary Corps of Engineers civilians that have 

deployed to those theaters. Over the time frame, we have been in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, and if you include southeast Louisiana, we 

have deployed over 10,000 members of the Corps to places other 

than what their normal workplace is. We are very proud of that effort. 

In closing, the Corps of Engineers is committing to staying on 

the leading edge of service to our Nation. We are committed to 

change that ensures an open, transparent and performance based 

Civil Works program. 

Madam Chair, thanks for this opportunity and I look forward to 

your questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, first round of questions. I want the 

witnesses to know that this Committee feels that you are the most 

important agencies for the purposes of having clean water and good 

water infrastructure. I want to ask a little question about the coal 

ash spill in Kingston. We have had a number of hearings, but recently I received a letter from a resident in Tuscaloosa, Alabama 

expressing concern about the potential illegal discharges coming 

from the landfill in Perry County, Alabama and that is being used, 

of course, to store this coal ash that was removed from the Kingston spill. Most alarming is the concern that water quality samples 

taken near the landfill seem to show arsenic at unsafe levels, and 

may be emanating from the landfill. 

So I am wondering if the EPA took the leadership in getting 

something started there. I don’t know if you are familiar with that, 

if you are, I would like to hear from you. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I have to remember to push the button. 

Ms. JOHNSON. If not, we can get it later. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. Well, I think what you are talking about 

is where some of the coal ash, sludge that was——— 

Ms. JOHNSON. Tennessee Valley. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. In Kingston and where it is trying to be disposed of. And we are closely monitoring that situation there, and 

we, certainly in Alabama, and we can certainly set up a time for 

you to get a more detailed briefing on that. We share concerns on 

the financial, the financial status of the company there right now, 

we are reviewing that and we have looked at the other environmental issues there and would love to be able to get you a more 

detailed briefing on it. But we are very concerned and closely monitoring that situation. 

11 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. I notice that the national media has 

done a story on it in USA Today. 

I have a commitment fromt the EPA to follow up on this allegation and ensure that proper procedures are being followed. So I 

know that I will be back in touch with EPA on this issue very 

quickly. Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. EPA is proposing to substantially increase the funding for its enforcement programs, but it is also zeroing out the Agency’s compliance assistance program which seems— 

do you support zeroing out the compliance assistance program? Is 

that something that has been of benefit in the past or not? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, what we are doing is organizing so that 

whatever compliance assistance we provide through our regional offices at our national level are all part of one program and that is 

what transition is about. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So that——— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Of course, we want to be able to continue to 

provide assistance where it is appropriate on how to be in compliance with environmental laws, but the fact that we are organizing 

a different way doesn’t mean we are not going to be able to do that. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So it is just a reorganization, you are not going 

to—very good, that is helpful. 

Tell me about the situation that we talked about yesterday, we 

have a situation where we have a nearly completed rewinding 

project, it is $115 million project, we spent $80 million, it will cost 

$20 million to discontinue the project. So for another $15 million, we could get it completed. I think the 

cost benefit would be 1.2. So if we discontinue it, it will cost the 

taxpayers $100 million. If we spend an additional $15 million with 

a 1.2, then I think we get $138 million in return. The other problem is that we had a system that was working, probably about twothirds of capacity, now it is dismantled and not working at all. 

So we have a problem that we are losing the electricity that we 

had, rates will go up and you might comment on that, you might 

comment also about the number of jobs that will be lost. 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, the project I believe you are referring 

to is the Ozark-Jetta project in Arkansas. That project for purposes 

of this fiscal year’s budget did not meet the criteria of having a 2.5 

benefit to cost ratio which was the cut off for that kind of project 

in this budget. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So your policy is you change the rules in the middle stream so to speak. I really don’t understand that. 

Now, I guess the other problem we have with this is that last 

year this administration spent another $15 million on the project, 

so are we even changing from year to year now. Maybe next year 

the cost benefit ratio is going to change and you are going to discontinue projects. 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, this project was not budgeted for in 

the 2010 budget or the 2011 budget. The $15 million you are referring to is from ARRA funding, the criteria for funding ARRA 

projects was different from that criteria we used in budgeting in 

2011. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. You know, 2 plus 2 equals 4, and this is 2 plus 

2 equals 5. And it just makes no sense at all. I guess this is why 

12 

to me the public loses faith in government. Again, do you disagree 

with the facts in the sense you spend an extra $15 million, you get 

$138 million get back, you get hydropower, clean power that we are 

all talking that we need, which I agree with very much and if you 

don’t do it the taxpayers lose $100 million. I mean, is that—do you 

agree with those facts? 

Ms. DARCY. I am familiar with many of the facts you just cited, 

sir, but again, in our consideration of all of the worthy projects 

within the Corps’ realm of capabilities, this project was not considered to meet the criteria of benefit to cost ratio for the purpose of 

this year’s budget. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So the taxpayers are just out? 

Ms. DARCY. In some sense. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. And the people that depend on this energy that 

was being delivered before you went in—it is kind of like taking 

your car in for a tune-up and taking it all to pieces an then not 

having anything left. So will there be job loss as a result of this? 

Ms. DARCY. I—I don’t know that answer. I can find out for you. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Will you support an IG investigation regarding it? 

We have $100 million loss to the taxpayers. Is anybody responsible 

for that? 

Ms. DARCY. The cost to the taxpayers is our responsibility, sir. 

And I would—if an IG investigation is underway, we would be 

happy to cooperate with it. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. OK. Also will you give us—we would like, I think, 

all the documents, all of the e-mails. Again, I guess the problem 

is this is 2 plus 2 equals 5, so it is very hard to imagine the administration’s thinking in regard to this, it makes no sense. And so I 

would very much like all of the documents, all of the e-mails, all 

of the thinking process so that we can better understand how you 

arrived at your opinion. 

General, are you on the same page, do you think this is wise use 

of taxpayers money? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Congressman Boozman, I would say the 

five turbines, which you are very familiar with, the money that is 

in the budget, it isn’t that the $100 million is totally lost, because 

the first two turbines will be completed with the dollars that we 

have. And actually, the dollars that we have will take us in 

through the beginning of fiscal year 2011. That is when the crunch 

point comes, either in this continuing contract there is more dollars 

or the Southwest Power Administration bridges a gap for us or we 

have to terminate the contractor. 

What the contractor has done is enough to repair two and buy 

the parts for the other three. And then that is where it would be— 

but there has been work done, and two of those turbines will be 

up so that is kind of just more additional facts as we look at the 

entire project. But what you are weighing is the sum cost versus 

the termination cost, and that is a valid discussion and challenging 

always to say we are going to stop right here and have three turbines that will not be operation unless we find other funding for 

them. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. We have some other questions that we would like to submit for the record. And again, we 

13 

will move forward on the documentation and things like that, so 

thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 

the distinguished Member from California Congresswoman 

Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to direct my questioning, first of all, to Ms. Darcy, thank you very much 

for the response to my November letter, thank you. 

Ms. DARCY. Sorry it was so late. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And part of it is you refer in almost the last 

paragraph the funding was allocated in 2010, it was not fully funded, so I want to be sure there is no question later on that this 

project the raising of the levees on that dam, the study is fully 

funded because it was almost 300, and I think the appropriation 

was 134. I want to be sure there is no question in the actual 

amount to be able to be infused into that. 

Ms. DARCY. I think it is funded at $300,000 if I am not correct. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I want to be sure, you will check for me. Secondly, the fact that you indicate that you won’t be able to approve 

the safety portion of the study until later in the year, even though 

water replenishment district is willing to pay for the raising of the 

levees on their own with their money which would help be able 

to—how would I say, take care of some of the burden on the taxpayer costs. 

So if they are willing to do it, would there be a way to expedite 

it, instead of waiting, we are going to lose a lot of water. 1,100 acre 

feet a year that can be put into an aquifer by raising that levee 

and having that be more beneficial to the whole area of 15 million 

people around that area. 

Ms. DARCY. I think your question is whether we can expedite the 

study to determine the safety of the dam? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Correct. 

Ms. DARCY. I will check to see if there is any way we can expedite it with the funds available. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It is level 2. 

Ms. DARCY. Two. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That would be beneficial so I would appreciate 

anything you could do. 

The other question is for Mr. Perciasepe that has to do with the 

2004 IGs identifying the 10 special Superfund sites. Well, during 

the last administration, they went from 80 per year approval to a 

low of 20 because it was lack of resources. If Congress were successful in reauthorizing the revenue sources, would it be able to accelerate the cleanup of the Superfund sites? And if you wouldn’t 

mind telling us how that would happen, how would you speed up 

that pace with a robust trust fund. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We are already trying to use for instance we 

had an influx of $600 million under the Recovery Act funding that 

helped us start to accelerate a little bit. We are anticipating in our 

fiscal year 2011 that we will start going up a little bit on the traditional measures of the completion, but one of the other things that 

is really important that we are starting to implement at EPA and 

have started to look at how to build this more level of transparency 

and accountability, start looking at every piece of a project, not just 

14 

the whole project, which that is very important to look at. But the 

whole project doesn’t get done until the pieces get done, sometimes 

we are losing track of the pieces and not for want of a whole. 

So we are going to start tracking every part and every step of 

the project, making that a publicly available information so that 

people can see exactly what the status——— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Will you able to do that, the question is? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you be able to expedite, to speed up 

that pace of that cleanup? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We think with that kind of management structure and with additional funds, there can be an acceleration of 

parts and whole projects completed. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, most of what I have been involved with 

in Superfund site cleanup in San Gabriel Valley has been the 

PRP’s identification. Have you managed to be able to go around 

that and be able to come back and pick those up rather than delay 

the projects that are affecting the health of the people in the area? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, if there are health issues, we will act 

quickly as we can on that. If there is long-term collection of money 

or after the effect collection of money through enforcement programs or identifying the responsibility parties, we will continue to 

do that aggressively as well. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It would be nice to have a report to the Subcommittee, Madam Chair, on whether or not this would be feasible 

and how you feel that that might be implemented and what time 

frame. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I would suggest at your suggestion here that we 

present an overview of the banishment structure we are trying to 

put in place now. We are calling it the Integrated Cleanup Initiative that would look at the sites more holistically. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That would be very helpful, sir. Madam Chair 

for the Committee I would like to have it entered into the report 

when they report it. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

15 


Insert offset folio 17 here 55275.017
16 


Insert offset folio 18 here 55275.018
17 

Ms. JOHNSON. Representative Cao, do you have questions? 

Mr. CAO. Yes, I do, thank you Madam Chair. My first question 

is to the EPA Secretary. You stated in your statements and I quote, 

‘‘all families have access to clean air, water and land.’’ There is an 

issue in Norcross, Georgia that I would like your institution to look 

into. There is a church in Norcross that supports about 1,100 families. And there is a waste transfer station that is being built right 

next to the church. I am not sure whether or not legal steps were 

being carried out in order to get the permits or whether or not 

other issues are involved, but it seems to me just on its face the 

project seems to endangers the ability of the people who are parishioners of the church as well as the surrounding areas to have access to clean land at least. If you can look into that issue, I would 

really appreciate it. That is one issue. 

The other issue that I would like to ask you concerning the number of employees with respect to the rural water technical assistance program. I believe that in my district there is only one employee, while in an adjacent district comprised of Metairie, Kenner, 

St. Tammany, there are 59 employees. And as you examine these 

program for cross-cuts have you considered whether or not personnel are allocated in a more efficient manner. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I am just going to say I don’t really think that 

these are EPA employees. I think that this is a grant that is provided, but I hear what you are saying on that and I will make sure 

that we look into it and let you know what factors are involved in 

that grant program. 

Mr. CAO. OK. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. But I don’t know the specifics of how that grant 

program is allocating the employees on the ground. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Darcy, I just want to continue with our conversation 

and General Van Antwerp from yesterday, there are about 15 nearterm projects designs to redistribute freshwater, nutrient and sediment resources in an effort to abate land loss. All 15 of the nearterm projects were authorized for construction in 2007. However, to 

date, none of the projects have been constructed. My first question 

to you is, is it possible to complete the 15 projects with the intended near term next 6 years or so? 

Ms. DARCY. Are you referring to the Louisiana Coastal Area 

projects? 

Mr. CAO. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. Currently underway, we have, I think, six of the 

studies are underway. We expect, I think, to complete those this 

fiscal year. And we also have one of our new starts within our construction budget for LCA related programs at $19 million. 

Mr. CAO. Now, would that be sufficient to meet the intended 

deadline since the Corps has missed deadline after deadline? I am 

just wondering. 

Ms. DARCY. The funding in this year’s budget for the six studies 

in LCA is sufficient to complete those studies, sir. 

Mr. CAO. The State of Louisiana loses between 20 to 40 square 

miles of coast every single year. And I have addressed this issue 

with the Corps before in that it is somewhat baffling to me that 

some of the dredging materials from the Mississippi River that 

18 

could have been used to restore a coastline are simply being 

dumped into the ocean. Can you explain to me how this policy in 

our State, does it differ from the application in other States? 

Ms. DARCY. No, Congressman, it doesn’t. The beneficial use of 

dredge materials is driven in many ways by the kind of project, the 

kind of materials that the dredging comes up with, whether it is 

silt or fine silt, what the condition of that material is as to whether 

it needs to be treated before it can be disposed of, whether it needs 

to go to a confined disposal facility, or whether it is in a condition 

to be used for beneficial use in another circumstance. 

The current policy for beneficial use of dredge material is that 

dredge material should be the least cost alternative in disposal. 

However, we have found in many instances right here close to 

home in Maryland and other states that the use of the material can 

be beneficially used in something other than open water disposal. 

Much of that depends on the kind of material that we are using 

in the current waterway where it would be disposed of. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Mr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you Madam Chairman, and thank you all for 

your testimony here today. I have the great honor of representing 

Green Bay, Wisconsin, we have a harbor that is in peril and in 

need of dredging its channel. We need more than one lane of traffic, we need two lanes, it should be a sufficient step to allow our 

cargo to come in without having light loads. You are well aware of 

this both at the EPA as well as the Army Corps. I thank you for 

your past attention. And certainly Congress has stepped up in 

terms of providing the necessary funds to dredge our harbor to 

guarantee the economic opportunities for our region. 

For those of you who don’t know it, the Fox River is one of two 

of our rivers in North America that run north and it drains into 

the Great Lakes. This is important because we also have the largest concentration of papermaking in the world in northeast Wisconsin along that river where we have hydroelectric power and 

greatest use of PCBs anywhere other than the Hudson River. 

Currently the responsible parties are in the process of effectively 

remediating the PCBs and removing them and dredging them and 

in an environmentally safe manner. And also recently, after we 

achieved the successful funding of the dredging of our harbor, the 

EPA issued two letters, first in September of 2009 and then December of 2009. The first letter saying that the Army Corps could 

dredge the harbor; and the second saying they had to stop unless 

they would be using a technique of dredging that would collect all 

the resuspended PCBs and any other particulate matter that would 

be harmful to our environment. 

So I am hopeful that the somewhat troubled marriage between 

the Army Corps and EPA could work out this problem. As I understand it the EPA suspended dredging of the economically necessary 

harbor. And I would like to see you move forward to resolve that 

conflict as rapidly as possible. 

So my question is to Lieutenant General Van Antwerp, do you 

have the necessary technology and funding and capability to dredge 

the harbor in an environmentally safe manner as requested by the 

EPA, and if not, can you obtain it? And finally, is it already too 

19 

late in the season to let out contracts that could get this job done 

as rapidly as possible and on schedule? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I am going to ask that we recess. We have three 

votes. We have less than 5 minutes. And if you will—you will have 

time to get your answer for him. We will be back as soon as we 

can. 

Mr. KAGEN. You get time to think this one over. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. JOHNSON. The meeting will come to order, and I will recognize Mr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, again, Madam Chairwoman. 

And thank you again for coming to testify before the Water Resources Subcommittee. Before we were breaking for votes, we were 

having a conversation about the harbor in Green Bay, and perhaps 

Lieutenant General Van Antwerp, which in Dutch means from Antwerp, maybe you can continue. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Congressman, thank you. 

As I heard, there were three issues. One, do you have the technology to do the dredging in the Superfund area? The answer to 

that is yes. Now, whether the dredges that are currently dredging 

have that or it has to be different, we are going to find that out. 

That is still a due out to you. What are the incremental costs from 

doing the maintenance dredging to doing this dredging? We give a 

rough estimate of about $6 million to do that other part, $5 million 

to $6 million. We have $6 million already for the maintenance 

dredging. So it about doubles the cost to do the handling, because 

you also got to handle the disposal of the material. And then the 

final thing is the window, the when. And we owe you an answer 

on that when. And it will depend on, what is the most efficient way 

to do this dredging? So we owe that back to you. 

Mr. KAGEN. Do you have a date when you can tell me when? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I will commit to getting back with your 

office within a week to give you either an update or hopefully the 

when we could do that. Would that be acceptable? 

Mr. KAGEN. That would be great. Thank you very much. 

And how many jobs are associated with that dredging, and do 

you subcontract that out? 

General VAN ANTWERP. The dredging is subcontracted. We have 

a couple of Corps dredges, but they are reserve fleet. Most of our 

dredging is done by contract, and so there are jobs associated with 

that. 

Mr. KAGEN. And notwithstanding any other Congressman or 

woman’s districts or their needs, would you agree to move the harbor of Green Bay up to one of your top priorities to get them on 

the job and dredging as rapidly as possible? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I would say we already are doing—I have 

got to find out if we started it or when we are going to do it, the 

outer harbor. But we are already committed to doing that part. 

And had we not had this little stoppage, we would have been doing 

the Turning Basin, too. So our commitment is to get there as quickly as we can with what we have. The dredges are used always, because that is how they make the best use of them, is if they are 

working all the time. 

20 

Mr. KAGEN. And do I have confirmation from the EPA as well 

along these lines that you will agree? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. You have my commitment we will put the resources necessary into this process to make sure we get the decisions that are needed to get this taken care of. We have these dual 

needs here. One is to get the navigation going and get it upgraded, 

and. The other one is, now that we know about PCBs in some of 

the material, to make sure that we handle it properly for the citizens that live near the harbor, and the fish, of course, and the fish 

that they eat. So we are ready to go. We will put the resources into 

it. 

Mr. KAGEN. So we have an agreement that you are going to get 

her done as quickly as possible. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. 

Mr. KAGEN. And we will have a healthy economy and healthy 

people as a result. 

Let me ask you about the health of the budget that you are recommending. As I understand it, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is at $300 million, and there might be a carryover of $75 

million that might also be available. Is that sufficient to meet the 

needs of the responsibilities you have in front of you? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, you know, the long-term needs, obviously, are much greater than $300 million. But looking at the start-up of 

the programs we have underway, the RFP process that is out there 

and sort of the lag that we will have going down the road is we 

want to make sure we pick the right projects and get results on the 

ground, we think that that is a comfortable number to work within. 

Mr. KAGEN. Very good. I yield back my time. 

Thank you Madam Chairman. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Cao. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much Madam Chair. 

Mr. Perciasepe, is that correct? 

I was visiting a tugboat company down in New Orleans, maybe 

a month ago, and they were conveying to me a concern that they 

have. At the present moment, the EPA regulations require that 

rainwater falling on these boats must be collected. Is that correct? 

And what is the economic impact of such a requirement? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I am sorry, Congressman, I am not familiar 

with an EPA requirement to collect rainwater on ships. I am not 

saying that there isn’t one; I just am not personally familiar with 

it. 

I am sorry, I don’t know that we have any regulation like that. 

Mr. CAO. Because that was a concern that was conveyed to me 

by the operators of the ships. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We definitely have requirements on the diesel 

engines for emissions, particularly in harbor areas where a lot of 

people live, just like we do with trucks and other vehicles that use 

diesel engines. But in terms of rainwater falling on a tugboat, I am 

hesitant to say that we don’t have any, but I do not know of any 

that we would have. 

Mr. CAO. What about spraying and washing? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. That is possible, washing. I don’t like to do this, 

but I am going to have to tell you, I am going to have to find out 

21 

the details on this and get back to you, but I do not know of any 

on rainwater. Now, maybe there is something with washing. 

Mr. CAO. I know that there have been reports of eight deaths 

that might have contributed to Chinese drywall. Are you familiar 

with the issue at all? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, Congressman, I am generally familiar with 

the issue. And the Consumer Product Safety Commission is obviously looking into this in a detailed way. EPA has done some testing of some of this drywall for them, both in Louisiana and in Florida. I heard this morning actually in a meeting with the Florida 

delegation that there is some new information that the Centers for 

Disease Control, I think, or some other health organization, has 

prepared. And we told the Florida delegation this morning that we 

would get that information and see if it has any bearing on how 

EPA interacts with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who 

currently has the lead on dealing with this issue. So I am going to 

get that information along with the administrator as soon as we 

can. I think it was the Centers for Disease Control that was mentioned. And that may be where that information about the perhaps 

deaths attributed to issues that might be attributed to the drywall. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Darcy and General Van Antwerp, I know that after 

speaking with the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration, 

they were telling me that, with respect to the PPA they would sign 

the agreement if some of these issues are addressed. And one, is 

there must be some opportunity for the State to concur or approve 

the design of the permanent solution for an outfall canal as determined by their design build contractor. That is one. Two, an agreement to perform peer review on the designs for all three outfall 

canal solutions, the 17th Street canal, London Avenue and Orleans. 

And three, a provision that requires that option-neutral features be 

constructed while concurrently addressing the next criteria, which 

is an agreement to evaluate all options on the outfall canals, as 

identified in the reports to Congress pursuant to Section 4303 of 

the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill. 

So those are some of the conditions that they presented to me to 

present to you for your discussions with the State. I would ask that 

your staff look into that, and hopefully, an agreement can be 

reached with the State so that we can build these permanent 

pumps, something that, General Van Antwerp, you alluded to yesterday as being desperately needed in preparation for the coming 

hurricane season. 

And my next question to you is concerning the comprehensive 

plan for a Category 5 hurricane protection for south Louisiana. According to the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations 

Bill and the Third Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill, 

Congress required the Corps to development a multi-approach plan 

to provide up to Category 5 hurricane protection for south Louisiana. 

The final report was to be submitted to Congress within 2 years 

of enactment, which was December of 2007. Section 7014 of order 

2007 directs the Corps to provide specific project recommendations 

as part of the report. This report has not yet been presented to 

22 

Congress. Can you tell us as to when you are going to provide this 

report? 

Ms. DARCY. I think you are referring to the LA CPR Report, Congressman. 

Mr. CAO. Oh, this is a report concerning the comprehensive plan 

to provide south Louisiana with Category 5 protection. 

Ms. DARCY. We are currently—we have asked the state to comment on this report, the LA CPR report, and we are waiting their 

comments on it. We submitted it to them I think in the fall when 

I first got in the job, so I think it was in the fall. So we are waiting 

to hear back from the state on their comments on the report. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. I see that I am out of time. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Congresswoman Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate this 

hearing to clarify the budget matters before us. I would like to ask 

a question. I suppose it should go to Lieutenant General Van Antwerp. We work very closely, of course, with the Corps and have a 

very good relationship with the Corps. I would like to ask you a 

few matters having to do with your work here in the Nation’s Capital. 

You are aware that one of the few, if only, residential sites was 

a Formerly Used Defense site where there was, toxic emissions unbeknownst to the community in one of our neighborhoods is now 

being cleaned up. It is the Spring Valley neighborhood in Northwest, Washington. Each time the Corps is before me, given the 

clear danger to residents, given that this would never have been 

done if the District, it seems to me, at the time it had home rule, 

it was a Federal city with nobody who was a mayor or city council 

to even respond to the Federal Government, we were just used as 

a FUD site, as if we were someways way out in the desert. 

The community has been very cooperative because the Corps has 

worked closely with my office and with the community. Army—I 

am sorry, Colonel Anderson, the commander of this district, has indicated to me that whatever happens to your funds, the money for 

the clean-up will be there for Spring Valley; that it is a top, top 

priority because of the nature and the circumstances. And I would 

like to have that assurance from you as well. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Congresswoman, you have my assurance. 

I have spoken to Colonel Dave Anderson, our commander of the 

Baltimore district. I have been to the site myself and seen the 

great pains being taken to do this right and am aware of the public 

meetings and things to go to try and keep the community informed. 

It is really tough when this is in your backyard. So you have my 

commitment. 

Ms. NORTON. I so appreciate that. And I very much appreciate 

that you are going to the site. I am going to the site in a few weeks 

to see the place where they will destroy the munitions, and appreciate the transparency that we now have that you worked with us 

to achieve. I also appreciate that, as I understand it now, the 

money that the District put in for the Potomac levy having nothing 

to do or very little to do with the District of Columbia, but with 

23 

the required levy covering mostly with the Mall, Federal Triangle 

and other Federal properties. That full funding will be available to 

complete that work, is that true, sir? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Ma’am, the answer to that is yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. That is all I need to know on that one. 

Yes is the best answer before this Committee. 

Finally, I had the bill that passed in 2007, the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Initiative. The Corps has been working on the 

Anacostia River long before I came to Congress, and almost everything that is done on it has been because the Corps was working 

on what we call the forgotten river, unlike the Potomac. Of course, 

it extends well beyond the District, but we are the bottom of it and 

get all the worst trash. 

My bill is the first comprehensive clean-up plan for the Anacostia 

River, once called the dirtiest river in America. You are to issue a 

10-year comprehensive plan. We have already seen a first draft. In 

April, I will come to that kick-off of the plan. And I would like to 

inquire about what happens next. The Corps is essentially the coordinating mechanism. We do expect, of course, that, and there are 

other agencies involved, the EPA Administrator, Secretary of the 

Interior, and of course the mayors and the Governors of the affected jurisdictions here in Maryland, Virginia and the District of 

Columbia. Now, together they are supposed to develop a plan. 

Will the master plan have a road map for funding since nobody 

is going to do this for free, and we expect that the local jurisdictions will have to have a part in this ongoing work as well? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes, ma’am. 

The master plan will have not only the plan for what needs to 

be done but also a relative sketch of the timing and the costs associated with that. And then we will include whether there is additional authorization or appropriation required; what is the local 

cost share? All that will be in the comprehensive master plan. 

Ms. NORTON. That could not be more important. We are not 

going to be able to hold everybody accountable, and they all are responsible unless we go forward and don’t shirk at the cost so that 

everybody knows that they are in this together. 

Thank you very much for your work and thank you for appearing 

here today. 

Thank you Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I think Mr. Kagen has asked to have more time for questions. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Now off the subject of dredging, which should be an uplifting conversation, to the idea of directing some of the Great Lakes Initiative funds towards the PCB removal, both in Green Bay Harbor region, in the mouth of the Fox River, and also in the Fox River 

itself. And I would like to entertain your answers to that request. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The approach that we are taking with a large 

amount of the funds that were provided to EPA is actually to put 

out requests for proposals to deal with some of the problems. And 

it will be a process where we will review the proposals probably 

this April and make awards. I will look into whether or not—and 

I am pretty positive—I am positive that a restoration of harbors 

would be part of the eligibility there. 

24 

Mr. KAGEN. I appreciate the eligibility, and you are already 

aware of the complicated situation. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Certainly. 

Mr. KAGEN. And the legal matters that may tie up the removal 

of PCB for quite some time. But I would like to get your commitment to the idea that both Senator Kohl and I have, and also Senator Feingold, that we would appreciate it if you would direct some 

of those revenues towards the immediate and urgent removal of the 

PCBs. And as a physician, I can just remind everybody that PCBs 

are a known and proven carcinogen, in particular for breast cancer. 

And if you look across the State of Wisconsin, the single hotspot 

for breast cancer incidence and mortality is the very hotspot where 

the PCBs are located in the Fox River. 

So I think for the health of our people and the health of our economy, I think you would agree with me how important it is to receive the appropriate remedies and funding for it as rapidly as possible. 

Lieutenant General, do you have any thoughts on this? Want to 

help the EPA out here? 

General VAN ANTWERP. We would be glad to give them strong 

support. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. It is definitely a priority to clean up those 

hotspots throughout the Great Lakes. And your district is no different. We definitely want to move ahead there. 

Mr. KAGEN. I look forward to our staff working with you to appropriate the necessary funding to get the job done, and thank you 

very much. 

I yield back my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I have one final question, Mr. Perciasepe. 

In February of this year, the EPA Office of the Inspector General 

implemented one of the programs dealing with green reserves on 

the Recovery Act as they pertain to the clean water, the State’s revolving fund. In that report the IG recommended that the agents 

develop a clear and comprehensive guide to States on how to determine the eligibility of green reserve projects. If you don’t want to 

comment fully, we can get the response later. I know you are here 

for the budget. Can you tell me whether or not the EPA agrees 

with it, and if they have started to work on it? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Just to clarify, this was under the Recovery Act 

funds that went into the SRF. Well, it turns out that we recognize 

and didn’t disagree with some of the issues that the Inspector General definitely identified. But as we got to the end of having all the 

funds get under contract by February 17th, all $6 billion that was 

provided to EPA through these SRF funds is now under contract. 

And we had a goal there established by Congress to achieve about 

a 20 percent usage of those funds in each State for green infrastructure. And it looks like all States are able to meet that goal, 

and some have gone as high as 25 percent. And there are a number 

of really good and innovative projects around the country that have 

been funded through that initiative that Congress put in the Recovery Act. So while we definitely did agree with some of the findings 

that the IG had we were obviously also on a fast track to get funds 

out. But as it turns out, at the end, we had a successful conclusion 

25 

with a good result and more than 20 percent of the funds going to 

green infrastructure nationally. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I don’t have any more questions. We might have a couple that 

we might submit in writing if that is OK. We do appreciate you 

being here, and we do appreciate your hard work. I know that you 

all are underfunded and you have got lots of different things going 

on and are doing your very best to really deal with a lot of significant problems. And we have an oversight role, but we also have a 

role of trying to help you do your mission, and we do appreciate 

you very, very much. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. And let me express my appreciation for you coming, for the work that you do, and the work 

that you have planned to do. Thank you. 

The Committee is now terminated. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

26 


Insert offset folio 19 here 55275.019
27 


Insert offset folio 20 here 55275.020
28 


Insert offset folio 21 here 55275.021
29 


Insert offset folio 22 here 55275.022
30 


Insert offset folio 23 here 55275.023
31 


Insert offset folio 24 here 55275.024
32 


Insert offset folio 25 here 55275.025
33 


Insert offset folio 26 here 55275.026
34 


Insert offset folio 27 here 55275.027
35 


Insert offset folio 28 here 55275.028
36 


Insert offset folio 29 here 55275.029
37 


Insert offset folio 30 here 55275.030
38 


Insert offset folio 31 here 55275.031
39 


Insert offset folio 32 here 55275.032
40 


Insert offset folio 33 here 55275.033
41 


Insert offset folio 34 here 55275.034
42 


Insert offset folio 35 here 55275.035
43 


Insert offset folio 36 here 55275.036
44 


Insert offset folio 37 here 55275.037
45 


Insert offset folio 38 here 55275.038
46 


Insert offset folio 39 here 55275.039
47 


Insert offset folio 40 here 55275.040
48 


Insert offset folio 41 here 55275.041
49 


Insert offset folio 42 here 55275.042
50 


Insert offset folio 43 here 55275.043
51 


Insert offset folio 44 here 55275.044
52 


Insert offset folio 45 here 55275.045
53 


Insert offset folio 46 here 55275.046
54 


Insert offset folio 47 here 55275.047
55 


Insert offset folio 48 here 55275.048
56 


Insert offset folio 49 here 55275.049
57 


Insert offset folio 50 here 55275.050
58 


Insert offset folio 51 here 55275.051
59 


Insert offset folio 52 here 55275.052
60 


Insert offset folio 53 here 55275.053
61 


Insert offset folio 54 here 55275.054
62 


Insert offset folio 55 here 55275.055
63 


Insert offset folio 56 here 55275.056
64 


Insert offset folio 57 here 55275.057
65 


Insert offset folio 58 here 55275.058
66 


Insert offset folio 59 here 55275.059
67 


Insert offset folio 60 here 55275.060
68 


Insert offset folio 61 here 55275.061
69 


Insert offset folio 62 here 55275.062
70 


Insert offset folio 63 here 55275.063
71 


Insert offset folio 64 here 55275.064
72 


Insert offset folio 65 here 55275.065
73 


Insert offset folio 66 here 55275.066
74 


Insert offset folio 67 here 55275.067
75 


Insert offset folio 68 here 55275.068
76 


Insert offset folio 69 here 55275.069
77 


Insert offset folio 70 here 55275.070
78 


Insert offset folio 71 here 55275.071
79 


Insert offset folio 72 here 55275.072
80 


Insert offset folio 73 here 55275.073
81 


Insert offset folio 74 here 55275.074
82 


Insert offset folio 75 here 55275.075
83 


Insert offset folio 76 here 55275.076
84 


Insert offset folio 77 here 55275.077
85 


Insert offset folio 78 here 55275.078
86 


Insert offset folio 79 here 55275.079
87 


Insert offset folio 80 here 55275.080
88 


Insert offset folio 81 here 55275.081
89 


Insert offset folio 82 here 55275.082
90 


Insert offset folio 83 here 55275.083
91 


Insert offset folio 84 here 55275.084
92 


Insert offset folio 85 here 55275.085
93 


Insert offset folio 86 here 55275.086
94 


Insert offset folio 87 here 55275.087
95 


Insert offset folio 88 here 55275.088
96 


Insert offset folio 89 here 55275.089
97 


Insert offset folio 90 here 55275.090
98 


Insert offset folio 91 here 55275.091
99 


Insert offset folio 92 here 55275.092
100 


Insert offset folio 93 here 55275.093
101 


Insert offset folio 94 here 55275.094
102 


Insert offset folio 95 here 55275.095
103 


Insert offset folio 96 here 55275.096
104 


Insert offset folio 97 here 55275.097
105 


Insert offset folio 98 here 55275.098
106 


Insert offset folio 99 here 55275.099
107 


Insert offset folio 100 here 55275.100
108 


Insert offset folio 101 here 55275.101
109 


Insert offset folio 102 here 55275.102
110 


Insert offset folio 103 here 55275.103
111 


Insert offset folio 104 here 55275.104
112 


Insert offset folio 105 here 55275.105
113 


Insert offset folio 106 here 55275.106
114 


Insert offset folio 107 here 55275.107
115 


Insert offset folio 108 here 55275.108
116 


Insert offset folio 109 here 55275.109
117 


Insert offset folio 110 here 55275.110
118 


Insert offset folio 111 here 55275.111
119 


Insert offset folio 112 here 55275.112
120 


Insert offset folio 113 here 55275.113
121 


Insert offset folio 114 here 55275.114
122 


Insert offset folio 115 here 55275.115
123 


Insert offset folio 116 here 55275.116
124 


Insert offset folio 117 here 55275.117
125 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 118 here 55275.118