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

67–065 PDF 2011

REVIEW OF THE FY 2012 BUDGET AND 

PRIORITIES OF THE ARMY CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 

AND THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION 

SERVICE: FINDING WAYS TO DO 

MORE WITH LESS 

(112–13) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 8, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

TOM REED, New York 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

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 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

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 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

TOM REED, New York 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington, 

Vice Chair 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Christensen, Thomas, Regional Conservationist, Central Region, United 

States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 9 

Darcy, Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, United 

States Army .......................................................................................................... 9 

Thomas, John M., III, Chief Financial Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority ..... 9 

Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert, Chief of Engineers, United States 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................................... 9 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 71 

Reed, Hon. Tom, of New York ................................................................................ 76 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Christensen, Thomas ............................................................................................... 77 

Darcy, Jo-Ellen ......................................................................................................... 87 

Thomas, John M., III ............................................................................................... 97 

Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert ............................................................ 106 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Landry, Hon. Jeffrey M., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana, letter and exhibits to Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp 

stating that the sunken vessel, Rig HERCULES 61, poses a hazard to 

navigation of the Charenton Canal .................................................................... 41 

Thomas, John M., III, Chief Financial Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

responses to questions ......................................................................................... 113 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

American Society of Civil Engineers, statement ................................................... 123 

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, statement .......................................... 129 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 67065.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 67065.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 67065.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 67065.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 67065.005
(1) 

REVIEW OF THE FY 2012 BUDGET 

AND PRIORITIES OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, TENNESSEE 

VALLEY AUTHORITY, AND THE 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION 

SERVICE: FINDING WAYS TO DO MORE 

WITH LESS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. The Subcommittee of Water Resources and the Environment will come to order. Good afternoon. Good to see everybody 

here. I will start with an opening statement. 

This is a hearing today to ‘‘Review the FY 2012 Budget and Priorities of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service: Finding 

Ways to do More with Less.’’ 

I am a strong supporter of efforts by Congress and the President 

to control Federal spending. Many of these agency programs that 

we are examining today are true investments in America. While I 

believe we must be diligent in our oversight of these agencies to be 

sure that programs run effectively, I believe we must also be supportive of programs that have a proven record of providing economic benefits. 

For nearly two centuries, the civil works missions of the Corps 

have contributed to the economic vitality of the Nation, and have 

improved our quality of 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 

natural disaster. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request by the administration for the Corps of Engineers is $4.6 billion. This request is six percent less 

than what Congress enacted in fiscal year 2011, and is the lowest 

request since fiscal year 2006. Given the fact that the navigation 

projects and the flood damage reduction projects provided economic 

2 

benefits to the Nation, I would like to see the administration place 

a higher priority in water resources investment. 

All of the Corps’ projects put people to work, which is another 

reason to put these investments high on the priority list. 

In May 2010, the President proposed an export initiative that 

aims to double the Nation’s exports over the next 5 years. However, 

with the Corps of Engineers navigation budget slashed by 22 percent over the previous 5 years, and the President only requesting 

$691 million from the harbor maintenance trust fund, the export 

initiative will not be a success. Only if our ports and waterways are 

at their authorized depths and widths will products be able to 

move to their overseas destinations in an efficient and economical 

manner. 

Since only 2 of the Nation’s 10 largest ports are at their authorized depths and widths, the President’s budget does nothing to ensure our competitiveness in world markets. I share the frustration 

of many of my constituents who find the Corps to be too slow and 

too expensive to work with. It will be a huge loss to the Nation if 

this agency collapses under its own weight of burdensome process. 

We need to streamline feasibility studies, and focus the funding on 

areas that provide an economic return on investment. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority does not rely on appropriations, 

since it is self-financing. TVA derives all of its funding from the 

revenues from the eight million people and the seven States that 

it supplies with electricity. I, like many others in Congress, am concerned about TVA’s long-term financial health, and I am looking to 

the board to provide some assurances that they can reduce the 

Authority’s debt while continuing to strengthen the economy in the 

Tennessee Valley. Again, it is estimated that their revenues will 

exceed their expenses, yet their debt continues to rise. 

The small watershed program in the Natural Resources Conservation Service provides small, cost-efficient projects that protect 

our water and our land in rural America. These projects also provide an economic return on investment. Sadly, under this President’s budget, this program will receive no funding. 

I look forward to the testimony from the witnesses, and I recognize Ranking Member Mr. Bishop for any statements that you 

would like to make. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much for holding this hearing. And I thank in advance the witnesses who are appearing before us. 

This hearing is important, because we are assessing the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for three agencies: the Army 

Corps of Engineers; the Tennessee Valley Authority; and the Natural Resources Conservation Services. Each of these three agencies 

before us today is responsible for supporting and maintaining our 

national and regional economies in a variety of ways. 

These agencies literally allow our ports to stay open for shipping, 

allow commercial navigation to continue to utilize our waterways, 

protect countless families and property from the threat of flooding, 

provide energy to small and large communities, assist our small 

family farmers, and restore and protect our environmental resources. If nothing else, I hope we can all agree that the services 

3 

that these agencies provide are critical to the well-being of this 

country. 

Mr. Chairman, a running theme of the new Majority is that Federal agencies need to do more with less. Unfortunately, this sound 

byte is not always grounded in reality. And, in realty, it puts many 

people in this country at great risk. When it comes to constructing, 

operating, and maintaining the critical navigation, flood control, 

power supply, and water supply programs that our Nation relies 

upon, the bottom line is that, with reduced funding, Federal agencies will be forced to do less with less. 

As we look at the proposed 2012 budget of the Corps of Engineers, they are being forced to make tough choices and prioritize 

between priority tasks, tasks that may mean the difference between keeping our economy moving forward, and falling backward 

again. 

For example, as noted in the Corps’ 2012 fiscal year budget, the 

reality for operation and maintenance projects is that they are only 

being allocated 75 percent of what is necessary for day-to-day activities. Collectively, for the hundreds of Corps of Engineer projects 

around the country, reductions in budget will result in a growing 

deficiency and maintenance that will continue to expand until it 

becomes an emergency, or fails at a critical moment. The risk of 

failure increases each and every day, and ultimately, the breaking 

point will be reached. 

As we conduct this ongoing budget debate, let us be clear that, 

at least for the agencies here today, less funding means that fewer 

projects are constructed, fewer jobs will be maintained and created, 

more critical maintenance is deferred to another day, and more 

American families are placed in harm’s way, due to the risk of 

flooding and infrastructure failure. Cutting back on funding these 

agencies may seem the easiest way to address budget concerns. 

But leave no doubt. We are placing the American public increasingly at risk. In my view, this is antithetical to why we were elected to Congress. Our job is to be good stewards and leaders of the 

Nation, and to make the policy and funding choices that get our 

country back on the path of prosperity for today and for the future. 

In my view, reckless cuts to infrastructure investment programs 

such as the civil works mission of the Corps of Engineers simply 

passes the buck on our responsibilities to maintain and provide a 

workable water infrastructure for future generations. 

We have all seen the statistics that much of our Nation’s water 

infrastructure is inadequate or failing. Pick up any newspaper and 

you will find a reference to flooding, failing levees, or loss of land, 

due to erosion. The statistics are staggering, and yet we continue 

to put off until tomorrow addressing the needs of our Nation. With 

most of our water infrastructure in this Nation at 50 years and 

older, we cannot afford to keep kicking this can down the road. I 

am very concerned that we are setting up a potential failure of infrastructure through incomplete maintenance and delay in critical 

oversight and safety responsibilities. 

If this is the path that we are now on, then let’s be honest with 

the American people, and let’s tell them the real risks that they are 

facing. I believe that we should be asking all three of the agencies 

in front of us today what the reduced funds will mean in real terms 

4 

to the safety and well-being of our citizens. We need to know who 

is going to be at risk, and to what level. We need to know what 

projects are going to have to be cut or delayed, as a result of the 

short-term continuing resolution. 

Let’s stop trying to convince the Nation that, for agencies like the 

Corps of Engineers, that they can somehow adequately maintain 

the inventory and safety of critical projects with reduced funding. 

The real question is: how badly are we adding to the problem by 

cutting these agencies even further? 

Shouldn’t businesses that depend on the free-flow of goods 

through our Nation’s ports have a clear understanding with respect 

to exactly which ports will be silting up and reducing commerce 

and transportation? 

Furthermore, I’m sure communities located below dams or behind levees have an acute interest in knowing which among them 

are most at risk of an impending infrastructure failure. We need 

to be honest with the American people, and tell them about the 

true story of the potential impacts and costs they are facing. It is 

my hope that this hearing will address these concerns. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Any Members on our side that would like 

to be recognized for any statements? Representative Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, and Ranking Member Bishop, for holding this important meeting. And I would like 

to welcome the witnesses on our panel today, and I look forward 

to hearing your testimony regarding the President’s fiscal year 

2012 budget request. 

Given the aging state of our Nation’s infrastructure and the current fiscal troubles, I will be very interested to hear how the administration intends to do more with less. I look forward to hearing 

the efforts to reduce the waste and improve government efficiency. 

As a representative from the Great Lakes State, I would be particularly interested in how the President’s budget request will impact the Great Lakes’ commerce and prosperity. Annually, 173 tons 

of commodities are transported between the Great Lakes ports and 

waterways. Great Lakes transportation directly impacts hundreds 

of thousands of American jobs. And I look forward to discussing 

how the President’s budget reflects on this reality. 

Make no mistake. Proper maintenance of our locks, breakwaters, 

channels, and dams is imperative to our Nation’s ability to grow 

ourselves out of a difficult recessionary fiscal time. 

Thank you again. I look forward to hearing your testimonies. 

Mr. GIBBS. Go ahead. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member 

Bishop, for calling this hearing today. And I want to thank all of 

our witnesses, in particular the people from the Army Corps and 

the National Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, for the good 

work that you do in all of our communities and, in particular, of 

course, in Hawaii. 

And while we are asking all of the agencies to do more with less, 

from my experience and my meetings with the Army Corps and 

NRCS in my community, you are already doing more with less. 

And as the Ranking Member Bishop said, at some point with these 

kinds of cuts that we are contemplating, you can only do less with 

5 

less. And that would be a real tragedy for all of our communities, 

particularly in the rural areas of our country, in Hawaii. 

Given the fiscal challenges we face, we must work to ensure that, 

yes, every Federal dollar is being used effectively to the benefit of 

the people. And this will require difficult choices. But we must 

view these choices through the prism of the most severe economic 

crisis since the Great Depression, which means that we must focus 

our energies and dollars on preserving programs that create jobs 

and protect public health and safety. 

In Hawaii, both the Army Corps and NRCS have played a vital 

role in helping to protect the health and safety of our people, while 

also helping to build infrastructure that has helped to foment economic growth. 

For example, the NRCS’s watershed and flood prevention operation program have been instrumental in helping the small, rural 

communities in Hawaii. That’s most of my district. One of the best 

examples of where this program has been a success is on the Big 

Island, on a project known as a Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed. 

The Lower Hamakua Ditch was originally built in 1910 to help 

sugar plantations transport cane to the mill sites for processing. 

And, as most of you know—or some of you know—sugar cane and 

the sugar plantations and pineapple plantations were a major part 

of Hawaii’s economic life. This ditch was later converted into an irrigation system, which carried water to the seasonally dry fields of 

the lower elevations, the only source of potable water for the communities along its route. 

And the last sugar plantation on Hawaii Island closed in 1994. 

And the economic and social displacement that ensued was something to behold. I was a Member of the State legislature when that 

happened. And the communities that were dependent upon the 

plantations to help maintain this vital lifeline called the Hamakua 

Ditch were left with very little, and a tremendous challenge. 

But with strong community support and assistance from the National Resources Conservation Service, today small family farmers, 

many of whom were former sugar plantation workers, have access 

to the necessary water resources that have allowed them to rebound from the loss of a key industry. 

And, as some of you probably know, Hawaii is also the most fooddependent State in the country, where over 90 percent of the food 

that we need is imported from outside of Hawaii. So it’s even more 

important for our small farmers to be able to produce more of the 

goods that we use. And small farmers in our area produce a wide 

variety of products: papaya, the famous coffee, lettuce, tomatoes, 

orchids, and grass-fed beef and dairy products. 

And this is just one example of how the resources made available 

through this program is being put to use by people and communities throughout the islands. And this is a type of community revitalization that we should be working to support, nationwide. And 

I have to say that the money that goes into these programs 

through the efforts of NCRS are really minimal, compared to the 

benefits that we are garnering from these programs. 

So, to recognize that we are zeroing out NRCS’s watershed and 

flood prevention and operations program is dire news, indeed. And 

I hope that, as we continue to review our budget priorities for this 

6 

year, that we will preserve assistance to small rural communities 

like the ones along the Lower Hamakua Ditch, where Federal 

funds truly, truly makes a difference in the lives of our people. 

I look forward to hearing from you, and once again I thank you 

so much for the commitment that you have to the rural communities and to the people of Hawaii and to our country. Mahalo. I 

yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Herrera Beutler? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

you allowing me to make a brief statement. 

It’s a pleasure to have you here. I represent southwest Washington State, so it’s basically the seven southwest counties. We 

abut the Columbia River, and we go out to the Pacific Ocean with 

many streams and rivers and lakes and flood plains in between— 

wetlands and flood plains. It’s like a perfect storm. 

In every community that I visit, I ask them their important 

issues. And, without fail, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comes 

up. You play a very critical role throughout my entire region. And 

so, my message to you today is I am here to work with you. You 

have earned and deserve praise for a tremendous amount of work 

you have done throughout the region, whether it’s channel deepening, whether it’s dredging at the mouth, you know, projects that 

span in between. And it’s made a big difference in our ability, as 

the region, economically, to transport goods and services, to build, 

and to grow, and to develop. 

I have also heard some really important concerns. And some of 

those I’m going to just do a brief outline on them. The cost of 

projects, the cost of projects and what local communities or cities 

are asked to pay for. And I would like to explore some ways with 

you—I would like to learn what your cost drivers are with some of 

these, and see if there is things that we can do to help ease some 

of that cost. 

Secondly, the timeliness of permits. In many cases I have heard 

that permits take much longer than are expected. And I want to 

work with you to see what causes these permitting delays, and 

hopefully find solutions that speed up the process. A caveat there 

is it’s not in every region that these challenges happen, it’s in certain regions. And in my mind, we should have a standardized process. It shouldn’t take substantially long in certain regions, and a 

more reasonable timeframe in other regions. So I’d like to work on 

that. 

And most importantly is predictability and certainty. The overarching theme around what residents and small businesses and 

municipalities and counties communicate to me is unpredictability. 

Just last week I had a gentleman in my office who was looking 

to develop a piece of land that his family has owned in our community for decades. We have double-digit unemployment in six of my 

seven counties, and we have been there for multiple years. So it 

was music to my ears when one of these land owners said, ‘‘We’ve 

got an idea. We know what we can develop. The city is involved, 

the city has already gone out for the bonds, it is done. They are 

excited, they are ready.’’ 

And he comes to me and he said, ‘‘You know, the only reason I 

almost didn’t put this money up, and that the city didn’t, was beVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:52 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\3-8-11~1\67065.TXT JEAN
7 

cause we weren’t sure we could get a permit from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers in 2 years.’’ And he said it was so highly unlikely that it literally almost stayed what could be an 800-job development in a perfect location. I mean they’ve even got the State DoT 

to work with them on the whole deal. 

And their big concern—it was more a big question mark—was 

whether or not the Army Corps would tell them yes or no. And 

that’s what he said to me. He said, ‘‘You know, I can handle a no. 

What I cannot handle is getting into the process and the rules 

change, the goal post changes on me. And it’s almost as if, you 

know, I’m fighting an ideological, rather than a process, an ideological barrier that I can’t move.’’ And that is something that I think 

we need to address, especially considering our economic situation 

throughout the country. 

So those are some of the things that I have heard, and I would 

like to work on. So you will probably hear more from me. I look 

forward to working with you and your staff as we move forward on 

specific issues and projects in the region. 

But, overall, this is something we hear across the board. We hear 

it from business all the time: predictability and certainty. I am 

hearing from people who want to play by the rules, who want to 

do it right, who want their applications to have every possible bit 

of information that you could ever imagine, and that was one of the 

things that he expressed to me was, ‘‘They wouldn’t tell me if they 

didn’t get the right amount of information. We just check in every 

so often, you know, six months into the process, and they say, ‘Oh, 

we didn’t have this bit of information,’ ’’ and he is going, ‘‘I will get 

it to you,’’ but it elongates the timeframe. 

So, those are some of the challenges we hear, and we look forward to fixing those. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Napolitano, do you have 

an opening statement? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, and thank you, 

Mr. Bishop, for holding this hearing. Before I start, I would like to 

recognize Steve Stockton, director of civil works. We have had an 

opportunity to meet in my office in regard to foreign assistance, 

which the subcommittee on water and power deals with, also. 

So, just to let you know that your gentlemen represent the Corps 

excellently in my area. Colonel Magnus, now Colonel Toy, we work 

with them extensively. We are working, hopefully, to be able to increase the number of catch basins in the LA area to be able to take 

care of the floods. And, as you well know, that’s an endangerment 

of life, limb, and property in California. 

With the State of California working with the Bay Delta, it’s crit- ical for us. It’s a $58 million Army Corps budget for the restoration. 

If those levees ever give way, we lose billions of dollars in property, 

and probably a life in the mix. Many of those levees are private, 

and so it’s a big deal to be able to sort through and find out how 

we get it done. Certainly support the Corps’ involvement with the 

Bay Delta conservation plan. 

Then we look at the replenishment of ground water aquifers. And 

hopefully we will be able to identify in the future how to increase 

the conservation pools for storage of water run-off, recycled, et 

cetera. It’s going to be critical if Mother Nature continues to throw 

8 

drought curves at us, which will happen. And how do we prepare 

our communities? And not only in the west, but the rest of the 

country. 

Moving on to Whittier Narrows Dam, we have been working on 

that one now for years to increase the water capacity for 1,100 acre 

feet annually. We have been able to get the funding, and now we’re 

waiting for certain other—how would I say—stumbling blocks. 

We’re waiting for that. Hopefully it will be put together, because 

we don’t want to lose all that water to the ocean; we need to be 

able to store it and put it into the settling ponds. 

With the county, we support the Army Corps’ Great Outdoors initiative. That is key for a lot of us. Pico Rivera and La Puente, both 

my cities, use Whittier Narrows for recreation purposes, including 

the LA County supporting and being able to put funding—not 

matching, but more than enough funding—in that. 

We were very supportive, and will continue to be supportive, of 

putting more park space for residential use. In LA—I think none 

of the California cities meet the mandate of park land. 

Thank you again, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member Bishop, 

for this hearing. It is critical to let people know that the Corps does 

great work, but they can’t continue to do the great work they do 

if we continue to cut their budgets. There is many backlogs that 

we have, not only in our communities but in other communities, 

and we trust that while they’re making do more with less, that we 

don’t continue to cut them so that they are handicapped in being 

able to deliver the great work they do. And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Any other Members on this side that 

want to be recognized? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Go ahead, Representative. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me 

congratulate you and the ranking member for being new in this capacity. I had the pleasure of chairing this subcommittee the last 4 

years. 

It’s very difficult for me to talk about this, the President’s fiscal 

year 2012 budget. But for the priorities of the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Tennessee 

Valley Authority, I am committed to continued oversight of the 

budget request for the agencies under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. 

I thank Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member Bishop for calling 

the hearing. I am pleased that we will hear testimony from these 

Federal programs that service important public services, ranging 

from restoration of our Nation’s water resources, flood protection, 

to electricity production. The administration should be commended 

for producing an adequate budget in difficult but improving economic times. 

However, there are certain budget areas that could undergo improvement. For one, I have concerns regarding the $56 million reduction from the appropriated amount of fiscal year 2010, an investigation fund for the U.S. Corps of Engineers. This funding goes toward studying the national need, engineering feasibility, as well as 

economic and environmental return on Federal investment and 

water resource problems across the country. 

9 

I have similar concerns with the 551 reduction in investigations fiscal year 2010, as well as the $86 million reduction from fiscal 

year 2010 in operations and maintenance programs under the U.S. 

Corps of Engineers. I fear that at the present requested amount, 

the Corps of Engineers will be unable to plan and design the next 

generation of projects within its core mission of environmental restoration, flood damage reduction, and navigation. Now is not the 

time to reduce the Corps’ capability to maintain and improve our 

Nation’s ports, harbors, and inland waterways that are crucial to 

job creation, interstate commerce, international trade, and improving our economy. 

I welcome each of the witnesses here today, and thank you for 

your testimony. I look forward to you telling me exactly what you 

can do at the level of the appropriations that you are requesting 

in your budget. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. At this time I would like to welcome our 

distinguished panel, and we will start off with The Honorable 

Darcy, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Army of Civil Works. 

Welcome. Good to see you. 

TESTIMONY OF JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, UNITED STATES ARMY; LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT VAN ANTWERP, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; JOHN 

M. THOMAS III, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, TENNESSEE 

VALLEY AUTHORITY; AND THOMAS CHRISTENSEN, REGIONAL CONSERVATIONIST, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION 

SERVICE 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget for the 

Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers. I will summarize my statement and ask that my complete statement be part 

of the hearing record. 

The 2012 budget reflects the administration’s priorities through 

targeted investments that help restore the environment and revitalize the economy. The budget requires new appropriations of 

$4.631 billion. In keeping with the administration’s program to put 

the Nation on a sustainable fiscal path, this is $836 million, or 

about 15 percent below the 2010-enacted amount of $5.445 billion. 

It is about 6 percent below the 2011 budget for Civil Works. 

The 2012 funding level reflects effective and sound use of available resources, focusing on those investments that are in the best 

interests of the Nation. The budget concentrates funding primarily 

in the three main Civil Works program areas: commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

The 2012 budget continues the Army’s commitment to a performance-based approach to budgeting in order to provide the best overall return from available funds and achieving economic, environmental, and public safety objectives. Competing investment opportunities were evaluated using multiple metrics, and objective performance criteria guided the allocation of the funds. The budget foVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:52 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\3-8-11~1\67065.TXT JEAN
10 

cuses on continuing and completing ongoing projects and studies. 

The budget also includes funding for two new construction starts 

and four new studies. 

The budget provides $50 million for a comprehensive levee safety initiative. The initiative includes $46 million to help insure that 

the Federal levees are safe, and to assist non-Federal entities as 

they address safety issues with their own levees. The levee safety 

initiative also includes $4 million for Corps participation in the expansion of interagency teams, known as Silver Jackets, to include 

every State, and to provide unified Federal assistance in implementing flood risk management solutions. 

The Operation and Maintenance Program also includes a new environmental and energy sustainability program to reduce energy 

consumption at Corps projects and buildings. The 2012 budget 

places priority on collaboration with other Federal agencies in the 

development of funding allocations for aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

For 2012, this collaboration is reflected in five major ecosystems: 

the California Bay-Delta, Chesapeake Bay, the Everglades, the 

Great Lakes, and the Gulf Coast. The administration plans to work 

with Congress and stakeholders to explore ways to support recapitalization of the Corps’ aging infrastructure, modification of its operations, or deauthorization as appropriate, consistent with modern-day water resources principles and priorities. 

Direct beneficiaries would be asked to pay a significant share of 

the cost to rehabilitate, expand, or replace projects, just as they 

would for a new project, commensurate with the benefits that they 

receive. Options such as direct financing will be considered as part 

of this effort, where appropriate. The budget provides for use of $758 million from the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain coastal commercial navigation channels in harbors. Despite the overall Civil Works reduction 

of 15 percent below the enacted 2010 level, the amount recommended in the 2012 budget for harbor maintenance and related 

work is essentially unchanged from 2 years ago. 

The administration also plans to develop legislation to expand 

the authorized uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund so that 

its receipts are available to finance the Federal share of other efforts in support of commercial navigation through the Nation’s 

ports. No decisions have been made yet on what additional costs 

would be proposed to be paid from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund. Development of proposed legislation will proceed in the coming months. 

Inland waterways capital investments are funded in the budget 

at $166 million, of which $77 million is financed from the Inland 

Waterways Trust Fund. This is the total amount that is affordable 

in 2012 with the current level of revenue coming into the Inland 

Waterways Trust Fund. The administration will work with Congress and stakeholders to authorize a new mechanism to increase 

the revenue paid by commercial navigation users on the inland waterways. 

Last year, President Obama established the America’s Great 

Outdoors initiative to promote innovative community-level efforts 

to conserve outdoor spaces and to reconnect Americans to the outVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:52 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\3-8-11~1\67065.TXT JEAN
11 

doors. This initiative was celebrated at several events around the 

country, including a public hearing event, or listening event, that 

the Secretary of the Interior and I held in August at a Civil Works 

project near St. Louis, Missouri. The Civil Works Recreation Program is closely aligned with the goals of the America’s Great Outdoors initiative and includes a variety of activities to reconnect 

Americans, especially our young people, with the Nation’s outdoor 

resources. 

We continue to strengthen the Corps’ planning expertise, including through greater support for planning centers of expertise, and 

continued support for the development of revised water project 

planning Principles and Guidelines. Also, the Army has initiated a 

pilot program to identify means of enabling studies to reach decisions more efficiently. 

A number of low-priority programs and activities receive reduced 

or no funding in our 2012 budget. For example, funding for maintenance of navigation harbors and waterways segments that support 

little or no commercial use is reduced by about half. Also, no funding is provided for small projects in several of the Continuing Authorities Programs. 

The budget proposes to reprogram $23 million of prior-year funds 

from these lower priority programs to finance ongoing phases of 

projects and higher priority Continuing Authority Programs that 

mitigate shoreline damages caused by navigation projects. Also, to 

carry out beneficial uses of dredged materials and to restore the 

environment. Development of small flood damage reduction projects 

also will continue with funds carried over from prior years. 

The Corps continues the work funded by the 2009-era program, 

which provided $4.6 billion for the Civil Works Program. As of last 

month, more than $3.1 billion of the total had been spent, primarily in payments to contractors for work already completed, and 

400 projects have been completed, and about 400 more remain to 

be completed. These investments create jobs and carry out important infrastructure work. 

Small business awards account for about 51 percent of the funds 

obligated. The budget includes funding to continue the veteran 

project, which provides vocational rehabilitation and innovative 

training for wounded and disabled veterans, while achieving historical preservation responsibilities for archeological collections administered by the Corps. The project supports work by veterans at 

curation laboratories in Georgia, St. Louis, Missouri, and here in 

Washington, DC. 

In summary, the President’s 2012 Budget for the Army Civil 

Works Program is a performance-based budget. It supports water 

resources investments that will yield long-term returns for the Nation. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I look forward 

to working with you in support of the President’s budget. And, in 

closing, before General Van Antwerp talks, I want to make one 

point about the Army Corps of Engineers. Recently the Chief and 

I—and I think he is going to talk about this—had the opportunity 

to travel to Afghanistan to visit with over 1,000 volunteers from 

the Army Civil Works Program who are helping with the war effort 

12 

in Afghanistan. And it was truly a privilege for me to visit with 

them. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

I would like to next welcome Lieutenant General Robert Van 

Antwerp. He is the chief of engineers, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Welcome. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. 

Bishop, distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am honored 

to testify before your subcommittee, along with Ms. Darcy today. 

The fiscal year 2012 Civil Works budget is a performance-based 

budget focusing on projects and activities that provide the highest 

net economic and environmental returns, or address significant 

risk to human safety. The budget funds 92 construction projects, 

including 55 flood and storm damage reduction projects—3 of 

which, by the way, are budgeted for completion—16 commercial 

navigation projects, and 19 aquatic ecosystem restoration projects. 

Two of these construction projects, as Ms. Darcy mentioned, are 

new starts. The budget supports restoration of nationally and regionally significant aquatic ecosystems with emphasis on the Florida Everglades, Gulf Coast, California Bay-Delta, Great Lakes, and 

Chesapeake Bay. The budget includes $104 million for activities in the Investigations account. It funds 58 continuing studies and 4 new studies. 

Funding is also included for the Water Resource Priority study, 

which is an evaluation of the Nation’s vulnerability to inland and 

coastal flooding. 

The budget supports our continuing stewardship of water-related 

infrastructure. The Operation and Maintenance Program for the 

fiscal year 2012 budget includes $2.314 billion, and an additional 

$131 million under the Mississippi Rivers and Tributaries Program. The focus is on the maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and hydropower facilities. 

Corps teammates continue to respond wherever needed, and 

whenever needed, to help during major floods and other national 

emergencies. This budget provides $27 million for preparedness for 

floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, including $4 million 

in support of the levee safety initiative in States known as the Silver Jackets. 

A quick update on the Corps’ preparation as we move toward the 

spring flood events, of which there will be flood events. We are 

working with FEMA and the National Weather Service to monitor 

the high probability of spring flooding in the great northwest, the 

north central U.S., specifically the Red River of the north, the 

upper Mississippi River, and the Minnesota River. 

Based on these projections, our commanders have already requested advance planning funds, and are taking advanced measures. They verified availability of key flood-fighting materials. They 

are also encouraging State, local, and Federal authorities to discuss 

and review preparations for flood response. In a few words, we are 

ready for this year. But we know it’s going to be high adventure. 

On the international front, I am proud of our work on missions 

in Afghanistan and Iraq. Men and women from across the Corps, 

all volunteers, and many of whom who have served multiple tours, 

13 

continue to provide critical support to our military and humanitarian missions. Currently, 1,168 Corps employees, both civilian 

and military, are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they 

have completed over 6,000 infrastructure and water-related 

projects. 

As Ms. Darcy mentioned, we did have the opportunity last month 

to travel over to Afghanistan and witness not only the amazing employees, but the amazing work that they are doing. In Afghanistan, 

the Corps is spearheading a comprehensive infrastructure program 

for the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, and is 

also aiding in critical public infrastructure projects. 

The Corps of Engineers is committed to staying at the leading 

edge of service to our Nation. We welcome comments from you in 

areas we might improve. We are committed to changing all that we 

do to ensure an open, transparent, and performance-based Civil 

Works program. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify. I 

look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, and thank you for your service to our 

country. 

Next panelist is Mr. John Thomas III. He is chief financial officer 

for the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

Welcome. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Bishop, and distinguished Members. It is an honor to be with you 

this afternoon to discuss the Tennessee Valley Authority’s budget 

for fiscal year 2012. TVA appreciates the oversight this committee 

provides, and we are pleased to inform you of our progress. 

For background, TVA is a corporation wholly owned by the Federal Government, and it is the Nation’s largest public power producer. TVA provides wholesale electricity to 155 distributors and 

56 large industries and Federal installations, serving a population 

of about 8 million. TVA also has a broad stewardship role, which 

includes managing the Tennessee River for flood control, commercial navigation, water quality, and recreation. 

In fulfilling its mission to serve the region, TVA’s power, environmental, economic development, and related activities are funded 

entirely by the sale of electricity. TVA funds new projects to keep 

up with electricity demand through the sale of bonds, which are 

not obligations of the United States Government. 

Despite receiving no Federal revenues, TVA appreciates its responsibility as a Federal agency and, in that spirit, has voluntarily 

applied the freeze on Federal salaries to our managers and specialists. 

Our preliminary budget for fiscal year 2012 reflects a continued 

modest economic recovery in the TVA region. We currently project 

revenue of $12.1 billion from the sale of electricity, fuel and operating expenses of $10.3 billion, and capital expenditures of $2.6 billion. 

Our capital expenditures include $219 million for clean air 

projects, and about $1.5 billion for new generating projects, including the completion of a second reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 

in Spring City, Tennessee. We also anticipate spending about $175 

14 

million on energy efficiency initiatives, and $91 million to encourage economic development. TVA’s statutory debt is estimated to be at $26 billion by the end of 2012, and we expect to pay down $2.6 billion on existing debt. 

One of the fundamental changes the TVA board has established 

is basing financial decisions on a set of sound guiding principles. 

Those principles include issuing new debt strictly to finance new 

assets, retiring debt over the useful life of assets, using regulatory 

treatment for specific and unusual events, increasing rates where 

necessary to fund operational spending, and aligning rate actions 

with TVA’s renewed vision and strategy. These guiding principles 

are improving TVA’s decisionmaking, and will ensure continued financial health. 

Last August, the TVA board adopted a renewed vision to address 

many of the challenges the TVA region is facing now and will likely 

face in the future. The vision strengthens TVA’s mission to provide 

low-cost electricity, economic development, and environmental 

stewardship to the region, and calls for cleaner energy by 2020. 

Briefly, TVA is focused on six key areas: low electricity rates, 

high reliability, responsibility to our customers in the region we 

serve, cleaner air, more nuclear generation, and greater energy efficiency. Our recently completed integrated resource plan is one example of how we are meeting our responsibilities to solicit a wide 

range of stakeholder views on our energy future. The integrated resource plan supports our vision of a balanced portfolio, and we expect to formally present this to our board later this spring. 

In conclusion, for fiscal year 2012, TVA’s supply of electricity balances well with our expected demand. We are addressing the future needs of our region with plans to expand the power system in 

an environmentally responsible way. We would be pleased to invite 

you or members of your staffs to visit and see for yourselves how 

we are progressing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Our next and final panelist is Mr. Thomas Christensen, who is 

the regional conservationist of the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 

Welcome. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of 

the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the watershed program activities of the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. In my remarks today I am pleased to describe both our ongoing work and the fiscal year 2012 budget request for NRCS’s watershed programs under both Public Laws 534 and 566. 

The NRCS watershed programs offer communities and landowners technical expertise and financial assistance for watershed 

projects, including planning, implementation, and the rehabilitation of aging dams. These programs are designed to help solve local 

natural resource problems. The watershed programs have given 

NRCS the authority to complete work on over 2,000 watershed 

projects, nationwide. 

Before providing the committee a summary of the fiscal year 

2012 budget request, I would like to share a few of our accomplishVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:52 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\3-8-11~1\67065.TXT JEAN
15 

ments related to the watershed programs under funding from the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Using these programs, 

NRCS successfully entered into 1,400 contracts, grants, and agreements, awarding $340 million in Recovery Act funding to rebuild 

America’s infrastructure and improve its natural resources. This 

represents 100 percent of the Recovery Act funding the Agency received. 

The Agency’s Recovery Act projects are being implemented 

through flood plain easements, watershed structures, land treatment, and the rehabilitation of aging dams. To date we have expended almost 60 percent of the Recovery Act funds. By the end 

of this fiscal year, these funds will have been used to install over 

300 flood prevention measures, restore more than 38,000 acres of 

flood plain lands, and rehabilitate or remove 16 unsafe dams. 

The President’s 2012 budget was developed after closely examining all of NRCS’s programs and our operations for the coming 

years. The budget prioritizes limited resources to ensure NRCS’s 

position to meet the needs of America’s farmers and ranchers, 

while doing its share to help reduce the budget deficit. 

It also makes a number of difficult decisions that were necessary 

to support the President’s goals of restoring fiscal responsibility, 

and providing efficient and effective conservation programs to the 

American people. Among those difficult choices was a decision in 

the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget to eliminate funding for 

NRCS’s watershed programs. Mr. Chairman, while these programs 

have been tremendously successful for more than 50 years, we believe that sponsoring organizations can now assume a more active 

leadership role in identifying watershed problems and their solutions. 

Public Laws 534 and 566 authorize the Secretary of Agriculture 

to provide technical and financial assistance to project sponsors for 

planning and installing watershed projects. The Public Law 566 

program has been available nationwide to protect and improve watersheds up to 250,000 acres in size. Public Law 535 authorized a 

program that is available only in areas designated by Congress, 

which encompasses about 38 million acres in 11 States. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request does not include funding for 

the Public Laws 534 and 566 watershed programs. This reduction 

is in keeping with the administration’s efforts to reduce spending. 

In addition, recent funding for these programs has not been fully 

prioritized, based on anticipated project outcomes or measurable 

impacts. 

Also authorized under Public Law 566, the watershed rehabilitation program serves to extend the life of dams and bring them into 

compliance with applicable safety and performance standards, or to 

decommission dams so they do not pose a threat to life or property. 

NRCS may provide technical and financial assistance for the planning, design, and implementation of rehabilitation projects. 

However, the continuing operation and maintenance of dams 

built under NRCS watershed programs is the responsibility of local 

project sponsors; 11 dam rehabilitations were completed in fiscal 

year 2010, and there are 23 dam rehabilitation projects currently 

under construction. 

16 

Additionally, there were 650 assessments of high-hazard dams 

that provided communities with technical assistance about the condition of their dams and alternatives for rehabilitation of dams that 

do not meet Federal dam safety standards. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget does not include funding for the watershed rehabilitation program, again reflecting the many difficult 

choices that were made in order to ensure fiscal responsibility with 

our current economic climate. 

In summary, NRCS has accomplished much through the watershed programs over the past 50 years. However, because the benefits from these programs primarily accrue to local communities, 

and the projects are owned and operated by the local sponsors, we 

recommend that local communities take a larger role in funding 

such projects. 

I thank the committee, and we would be happy to respond to any 

questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I’ll start off the questions to Secretary 

Darcy. 

In the President’s State of the Union Address back in January, 

he shared a vision for winning the future, and he said, ‘‘To help 

businesses sell more products abroad, we set a goal of doubling our 

exports by 2014, because the more we export, the more jobs we create at home.’’ 

Ninety-nine percent of our world trade is oceanborne and must 

pass through one of our U.S. ports. It is fairly obvious that lowering ocean transportation costs makes our exports more competitive. Yet the administration’s budget would invest less than five 

percent of the Corps’ construction budget on modernizing, deepening, or widening two ports. 

The budget also dramatically reduces the use of the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Funds to maintain our ports to keep them efficient and keep costs for exporting goods low. Increasing exports is 

a key element of the President’s vision for winning the future. Can 

you please explain how the goal of doubling the exports has been 

reflected in your budget for port modernization and maintenance? 

Ms. DARCY. Mr. Chairman, doubling the exports is a goal we 

believel that, under this budget, we will be able to meet. In looking 

at the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and funding our ports for 

the future, we are looking at taking the monies from the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund and looking at more national investment 

in ports beyond just the original purposes of navigation. So we are 

looking at being able to fund the ports using that Federal investment on a larger scale. 

And as I said earlier in my opening statement, we are looking 

forward to working with this committee and others to try to develop how that Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund should be allocated. 

Mr. GIBBS. So are you saying that widening and deepening the 

ports is not a top priority? You’re maybe siphoning some of the 

money off to do other things? I am a little confused by your answer. 

Ms. DARCY. No, sir. It is a priority. But within the funds in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, in the $783 million, I think it is, 

that we’re using this year to maintain the ports, there is also a balance in the trust fund that—we are going to develop a proposal on 

17 

how we can use that to improve and pay the Federal share in port 

development. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. It’s also my understanding in this budget that 

it’s really targeted toward two ports. Is that correct? And can you 

tell the committee which widening and deepening projects were excluded in this construction budget, which ports were excluded? 

Ms. DARCY. We currently have widening and deepening ongoing 

at the Port of New York, New Jersey, and I’m going to have to 

defer to the Chief for the second one. The deepening of New York/ 

New Jersey is ongoing. And the second port is Sacramento in California. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Also for you, Secretary—on January 18th the 

President signed an Executive order improving regulation and regulatory review. This order got some very favorable reviews for 

being balanced and rationale. For example, the major principle in 

developing water resources projects is that Federal agencies select, 

in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximum net benefits, including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages— 

impacts in equity. 

It is immediately compelling to apply the same idea to selecting 

among alternative plans for water project investments. Decisions 

would be balanced, and all the alternatives would be laid out. Yet 

for over 2 years the administration has been trying to do something 

completely different with the Principles and Guidelines. 

The National Academy of Sciences says the proposed revisions 

are incoherent. How will the administration ensure development of 

the new Principles and Guidelines be consistent with the President’s Executive order? 

Ms. DARCY. Mr. Chairman, we are currently working within the 

Federal family under the direction of the Council on Environmental 

Quality to propose the revisions to the Principles and Guidelines 

that were required in 2007. 

We are balancing all of the demands and considerations for national economic development, as well as environment and social impacts for all of those water resources programs. We have taken to 

heart the recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences, 

as well as all the public comments that were received on our initial 

draft, and we’re hoping that the Principles and Guidelines—the 

Principles and Standards portion of that revision—will be hopefully 

implemented and finalized in June of this year. 

Mr. GIBBS. I want to go to the Chief now, the general. Undoubtedly, the reduction in funding for the Corps will require contract 

cancellations. Can you supply the Committee with a list of project 

terminations proposed by the administration’s budget and their associated remaining—benefit to remaining cost ratios and their associated termination costs? 

Does the President’s budget just assume Congress will continue 

funding these projects? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Are you speaking as if the Continuing 

Resolution continues as it is right now? 

Mr. GIBBS. No, no, the—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. Or—no? 

18 

Mr. GIBBS. I think the President’s budget that he submitted—you 

know, obviously with the cuts that he submitted from previous expenditures by the Corps, he will have to cancel some projects. And 

I was wondering the rationale of how you’re going to move out the 

benefit, cost ratios, and how you’re going to analyze that, and—or 

do you just assume that Congress is just going to fund them anyway? 

General VAN ANTWERP. We have a very strict prioritization 

scheme for the projects that are in the budget. So those projects 

that are in the fiscal year 2012 budget were done on a very concerted effort to follow priorities. There are about 168 projects that 

were in the fiscal year 2010 budget that are not in subsequent 

budgets. So they were funded in the Fiscal Year 2010 Act. So, those 

were projects that were additional adds from the Congress. 

So, our first intent is to, in this budget, fund those projects that 

met our criteria. One of those criteria was the benefit cost ratio. 

As Ms. Darcy said, we also have environmental considerations and 

social considerations. So we can lay those priorities out, if you 

would like to go to that next step. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, and also I would assume economic—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. Economic is a big part of it. Life, health, 

safety—if it’s a dam, safety, for instance. If it’s a biological opinion 

that, by law, states that we will do it, then we have to work those 

priorities. But those are the priorities that we go through to arrive 

at the budget. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I am going to turn it over to Ranking Member 

Bishop for his questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I am 

going to pick up on where you left off, because I think it’s a very, 

very important area. And let me thank all of the panelists for your 

testimony. And let me particularly thank the Army Corps for the 

service that you provide to my district. I am very grateful. 

The issue that the chairman is raising is one that I think all of 

us either are concerned about or ought to be concerned about. We 

have two sets of numbers. We have what was passed in H.R. 1, the 

continuing resolution, the fate of which is unknown, that, as I understand it, cuts funding for fiscal year 2011, cuts it by about $500 

million from fiscal year 2010, and then the President’s budget, 

round numbers cuts by an additional $300 million. Am I about 

right on those numbers? OK. 

Now, as we sit here, the Army Corps has a set of projects: A, that 

have already started; and B, that are authorized but have not yet 

been started. And I believe the chairman asked, ‘‘Can you submit 

to us a list of those projects that have already been started, if any, 

that will now lie incomplete for some period of time?’’ Are there 

any projects that fall into that category? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes, there are projects that fall in that 

category, and we can provide that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And can you also provide us with a list 

of those projects that are authorized, but for which construction 

has not yet started? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes, we can do that. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. And can I further ask, with the chairman’s indulgence, can you provide us with some assessment of the health 

19 

and safety impact of not going forward with those projects, and the 

economic impact to the communities affected by not going forward 

with those projects? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Absolutely. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I think that’s very important information for all of us to have. 

And what I would like to—here is a point that I just think is so 

important. I want to read from a report prepared by the Republican staff of this committee in October of 2010 that was signed off 

on by now-Chairman Mica. I am quoting now from page 54 of the 

report. 

‘‘The Corps of Engineers budget remains relatively constant from 

year to year. Projects are rarely funded at their full capability, resulting in drawn-out construction schedules. This leads to an inefficient schedule and higher costs, with taxpayers footing the bill. In 

addition, further economic loss is experienced when this slower 

pace of project construction causes a delay in realizing the economic benefits the project can achieve only once it is constructed 

and operational. Projects are rarely completed on time and, due to 

the inflated schedule, regularly cost more than initially estimated.’’ 

Now, this, as I say, is a report entitled, ‘‘Sitting on our Assets: 

the Federal Government’s Misuse of Taxpayer-Owned Assets,’’ prepared for then-Ranking Member Mica October 2010, signed off on 

by then-Ranking Member Mica and the ranking members of each 

of the six subcommittees of this full committee. 

Aren’t we right at that point? Aren’t we now at the point where 

we are going to not undertake projects because of a short-term 

budgetary constraint, but we will be buying for ourselves a much 

greater expense, in terms of going forward, once we ultimately complete those projects? Are we not at that point right now? Secretary 

Darcy? General Van Antwerp? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I would say we are at that point now. 

There is a time factor involved as you look at the cost of projects 

as they are extended over a longer period of time, and that’s part 

of what that report indicated. 

We are at the point now that it’s very possible that some of the 

projects that have been started—that we’ll have to conclude those 

projects, or button those projects up, depending on the funding levels. 

We did, in this budget, though, try to look at those projects that 

could be completed, and we do have three that are budgeted for 

completion. So that is also a factor. If we can complete them and 

budget them and close them out, we would like to do that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Right now—I’m sorry, Secretary Darcy, did you 

want to—— 

Ms. DARCY. No, I concur with what the Chief said. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Historically, the Army Corps budget has been 

comprised of approximately three-quarters of projects that result 

from an internal review of the Army—through the Army Corps 

process, makes recommendations that then find their way into the 

executive budget. And about a quarter of the projects that the 

Army Corps undertakes are congressional adds. Is that about 

right? OK. 

20 

The projects that we are going to leave on the table and not complete, what proportion of them represent congressional adds, and 

what proportion of them represent projects that, in the view of 

Army Corps professional staff, have emerged from this very careful 

process that you undertake, in terms of the cost benefit of undertaking a project? 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t know what that would be, but I think we can 

provide that information to you, because I would be guessing at 

what the number would be. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. If I could ask that you provide that, in addition 

to the information that Chairman Gibbs and I have asked, that 

would be very helpful. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Landry, do you have a 

question? 

Mr. LANDRY. General, you would agree that a group is only as 

good as its leader. And I am sure they don’t give you those stars 

without being a good leader. 

And everyone comes before Congress in these budget committees 

to tell us how they have cut and how they have made tough decisions which justify their budget. But at the end of the day, we have 

got to satisfy the taxpayers. And I’ve got a problem with the way 

the Corps—of course, you know, we’ve got problems getting the 

Mississippi dredged, moving our commerce—but particularly in my 

district, what I believe is a microcosm of the problem and some 

dysfunctionality with the Corps. 

Are you aware that I have a—that there is a 2,000-ton barge 

that sunk in a navigational canal in my district? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes, Representative, I am aware of it. 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. And it’s been there for almost a year now. And 

I made some suggestions to your legal department, because they 

filed suit. And there is specific legislation—33 U.S.C.—that allows 

you all to seize and remove that vessel. And as long as that vessel 

sits in that canal, the asset deteriorates. And the cost of removing 

it increases. And at the end of the day, the taxpayer pays more. 

Any idea how we’re going to get that thing out? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, first of all, I would say it’s not the 

taxpayers’ responsibility, it’s the owner of the vessel’s responsibility. It is not a Federal project or a Federal—— 

Mr. LANDRY. Oh, hold on. Hold on, sir. See, the problem—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. We have thousands of vessels—— 

Mr. LANDRY. But, sir, the problem is that when the Corps wants 

to use its authority over navigational waters, it does so. But this 

is a navigational canal. I have letters from my sugar refineries that 

it’s impeding commerce. In fact, we’re trying to create jobs in this 

country, and I have a shipyard who is spending millions of dollars 

refitting this piece of property north of this structure. And if we 

don’t get it out, they won’t be able to open their shop. 

And I hate to disagree with you, but I can show you very clearly 

where the law certainly gives you the right and the responsibility 

to remove that, sir. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I would agree that we are authorized to 

remove it. But it doesn’t say that we are responsible to move it. 

21 

The first responsibility is—and the law requires—the owner and 

operators of the vessel. It is their responsibility to remove it. So the 

Department of Justice right now is pressing that with the owners 

and operators. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, but I hate to beg to differ with you again. It 

certainly says that it is our responsibility, that there is a provision 

within the statute after 30 days—which you all have done—which 

is a presumption that it’s been abandoned, and it is your responsibility to remove it. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, I would say the estimates that we got, that it would be in the neighborhood of $1.5 million or more 

to remove it, now the constrained budget that we’re talking about 

here, it’s not a Federal channel—— 

Mr. LANDRY. I’m certainly glad you brought that up. Because I 

have contractors. In fact, our local and State agencies have been 

negotiating with salvage companies who would remove it for the 

salvage of the vessel and $100,000. You see, that’s the problem we 

have here. That’s why I say this is a microcosm. We’ve got to kind 

of think outside the box. Every time there is a problem, you say, 

‘‘Well, just throw me a million here and a million there, and we 

will get rid of the problem.’’ But it doesn’t solve the problem. 

We can actually save the taxpayers millions of dollars, if you 

would simply use the tools that are available to you all. Can we 

agree that maybe we can look into that? 

General VAN ANTWERP. We will agree to look into it, but we’ve 

looked into the issue to quite an extent here. And at this point it 

is with the Department of Justice, and they are going after the 

owner and operators to remove the vessel. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, but the law clearly allows you to seize the 

vessel. I don’t understand why you are involving DoJ. Why are we 

spending thousands upon thousands—maybe tens of thousands of 

dollars of taxpayer money in litigation? I am not a big fan of spending the money with the lawyers. I would like to create jobs. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We will commit to further looking into it 

with you. We will. 

Mr. LANDRY. OK, thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Hirono to question. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I focused my initial remarks on the work of the NRCS in my district, I do want 

to thank the Army Corps for all the tremendous support and the 

work that you do for—in Hawaii. 

I wanted to take this opportunity, Madam Secretary, to—in reading your testimony, to bring out to you that, as you focus on funding on water research and infrastructure projects that ‘‘produce 

high economic and environmental returns to the Nation,’’ and those 

that address public safety needs, that’s well and good, except that 

when you’re in a State like Hawaii, which is non-contiguous, it becomes a lot tougher for us to show that any project that you’re embarking on in Hawaii has economic and environmental returns to 

the Nation. 

So, we have had these concerns. And the language that we employ for what constitutes a project that the Army Corps can engage 

in, I think when applied to a State like Hawaii—and also Alaska, 

a non-contiguous State—I just wanted to bring that out to you. We 

22 

face very special challenges, and I want to make sure that whatever language is being applied is fairly applied. 

And I know that there are provisions such as if a port is within 

50 miles of each other, you can’t do certain things, or you can’t provide certain kinds of support. Again, sounds reasonable, except that 

if ports are on totally different islands in Hawaii, and there is not 

much you can do, right, except to do that which helps these ports 

on the islands. So I wanted to take this opportunity to raise those 

issues. 

And also, you know that, you know, providing priority funding to 

the maintenance of high-performance projects, that’s, again, one of 

your core areas of emphasis. And again, you know, what would be 

the definition of high-performing projects? Is it those projects that 

have a national impact? And again, that would make it really 

tough for any Hawaii projects to qualify. I just raise that. 

And then, for Mr. Christensen, I am glad you noted that the watershed projects that NRCS engages in have been very successful. 

And yet you mention that the primary benefit of these have been 

to local communities. And I say that’s what is supposed to be happening. And for us to take the position that somehow in these 

tough economic times the local communities, as you say, should 

now be able to step forward and do that which they used to do with 

the support of NRCS, I think is really not addressing the economic 

realities being faced by our local communities. 

And that is why I am so concerned, knowing firsthand, meeting 

with the farmers in my district, and the kind of support and work 

that they have done with NRCS, that I think that that’s harsh. It’s 

harsh. And I should think that a relatively small program like your 

watershed program that has that kind of, in many ways, a disproportionately beneficial impact on the small communities is a 

program that ought to be kept. 

So, that’s why a plea to you. I hope that if we can revisit this 

situation, that we will be able to do better by these programs. If 

you want to make a comment, please feel free. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Well, thank you for your sentiments, Congresswoman. We appreciate that. And the project you mention certainly was a very valuable project. I think the total project cost was 

around $11 million. So very significant to that local community. 

I think it’s a challenge for us, because we’re balancing the need 

for those projects against many other competing needs. We also 

have a host of farm bill programs at our access that can do some 

of the same things—not all of the same things—that were available 

under the watershed operations. And certainly I think we would 

have a long-term interest in working with you, working with the 

Army Corps, in regards to our water resources programs, taking a 

step back, looking at them more holistically, and seeing what the 

future might be. 

But right now it is a challenge, because historically, in the watershed operations piece, those projects in recent years have all been 

through congressional directive, and we don’t get the opportunity 

to prioritize perhaps for the greatest public benefit. Thank you. 

Ms. HIRONO. Oh, I see. The congressionally directed spending 

very much reflects the needs of a community that we are in a best 

position to identify. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

23 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Cravaack, do you have a 

question? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the 

witnesses here today. 

I come from Minnesota, the northeastern portion of Minnesota, 

border of Lake Superior. And the Great Lakes navigation system 

is extremely vital for us. It brings about vast quantities of coal 

from Montana and Wyoming and Lake Superior ports and power 

generation through a lot of the metropolitan areas. Also, it transports over 80 percent of our iron ore that goes to our U.S. steel. 

It saves about approximately $3.6 billion per year than the next 

least expensive mode of transportation. 

The indirect benefits are approximately $3.4 billion in revenue, 

and approximately $1.3 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes, 

as well. It also provides a positive economic impact to the U.S. 

economy. It’s a huge job provider, obviously. There are 44,000 jobs 

directly related to the maritime transportation of—shippers, longshoremen; 54,000 in the mining industry are dependant upon this 

great waterway, as well as 138,000 jobs in the steel industry, including miners, as well. 

My question is, in relation to all this, the President’s budget requests $691 million of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for harbor dredging and related disposal of dredging materials. It’s expected the balance of—the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund balance right now is $6.12 billion to increase to $6.93 billion. Only 

one-third of the Nation’s Federal navigation projects are currently 

at their authorized depths and widths. Eight out of ten of the Nation’s largest ten ports are not at their authorized depths or 

widths, as well. 

I have the Federal harbor—two harbors up in the Great Lakes— 

and it has not been dredged since 1976. My question is, in lieu of 

this great commerce that’s on the Great Lakes, why is this—do you 

know why this administration has requested such a small amount 

from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund? 

And, General, I am basically directing that question at you, sir. 

General VAN ANTWERP. On any given year about $1.4 billion 

comes into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This year it’s 

budgeted at about $750 million. The way that we do the programming of that is that we focus on those harbors that are high use. 

A low-use harbor, if I could define it, would be one that has less 

than a million tons of commerce within the harbor, or an inland 

waterway that has less than about a billion ton-miles. So, we have 

some criteria for how we allocate the dredging funds. 

As Ms. Darcy said, what the administration’s proposal is, with 

the additional money that comes into the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund that is not used for the dredging portion, is to significantly expand the use of that, and even by other agencies, but all 

to support the coastal navigation business. So that’s kind of where 

we are in the prioritization of that—of the use of that money. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Can you tell me, is the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund bringing in a sufficient amount of revenue at this time? 

General VAN ANTWERP. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

does have sufficient revenue. 

24 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. So my question would go back again. Why do you think the President’s administration just brought out $691 

million of the—right now—correct me if I’m wrong—isn’t there 

$6.93 billion in the trust fund? Is that correct, sir? 

Ms. DARCY. I’m not sure of that exact number, but I know it’s 

close to $6 billion. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. And the President is just requesting $691 

million. Is that correct, ma’am? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe—actually, I think it’s $783 million out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Is that right? It’s $783 million. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Isn’t that quite a small amount, compared to the 

amount of money that is actually within the Harbor Trust Fund? 

And, due to our recent infrastructure challenges that we have— 

for example, the Soo Locks, as well—don’t you think that we should 

start allocating these funds, to make sure we have these vital waterways ready to go? 

We’re just—you know, as I understand the Corps is basically a 

fix-it-as-it-goes kind of mentality right now, in regards to locks. 

Why are we not investing $6.93 billion into our vitally needed infrastructure in these areas? And I only have eight seconds left. 

Ms. DARCY. Well, Congressman, what we are doing is looking at 

the entire balance in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for the 

harbor maintenance as a whole, including navigation, dredging, but 

in addition, other needs, Federal interests, investment needs in 

ports, in national ports, including things like security. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield back, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, thank you. Representative Napolitano. A question? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, certainly. I 

am going to take a different track. 

We have levees located on Indian Reservations. And how is the 

Agency handling safety and remedial activities related to these levees found on Indian Reservations? 

And, as a follow-up, are there any programs that the tribes can 

utilize or access that would allow them the ability to protect their 

citizens? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Thank you, Congresswoman. We have 

about 70 levee systems that are on tribal lands. Those are basically 

operated and maintained by the tribes there. 

First of all, we have a lot of data, because a lot of those were 

built by the Corps of Engineers at an earlier time. So we are providing—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. A percentage of how many of them were built 

by the Corps? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Are they still maintained by the Corps? 

General VAN ANTWERP. They aren’t maintained by the Corps. 

They—the ones even that were built by the Corps have been 

turned over for operation and maintenance by the tribes. But we 

do have data on those, and we are providing data to the tribes on 

those levees. 

The other part is we’re going to begin to reach out to the tribes 

this year to try and help them, if there is other information that 

25 

needs to be gathered that has to do with the condition and that of 

those levees. And we have experts in that area. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would that reaching out—will be able to identify which are the more salient, in prioritizing? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Absolutely. It will help them prioritize, 

and it will also really discuss the risk and life safety aspects of 

those levees. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Any of those programs going to include any 

retrofitting to be able to have some of those pumps run, hopefully 

with sunshine? 

General VAN ANTWERP. That’s a great idea. We will try and 

throw that into the mix there, but trying to make the system selfreliant and not require power generation and other things. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, the Corps visited the electrical contractors in my area a couple of years back, and they were able to find 

that they are utilizing about 85 percent of their own created energy. And I would hope that we start looking at innovative ways 

of being able to save money, and be able to produce more energy 

with—especially if you have levees that can be utilized. 

Why is there a delay in the implementation of the Folsom Dam 

joint Federal project for the city of Sacramento flood control? Is 

there a funding issue, or some other impediment? And what is that 

impediment? 

[No response.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It’s not in my area, but it’s a California issue. 

[No response.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Sorry, I threw a curve. 

General VAN ANTWERP. A little bit of a curve. You didn’t. But we 

need to get back with you. But it’s a contractor congestion issue, 

which is causing delay in that project, as I understand. There is 

so much work that needs to be done in the amount of space allocated to do it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Well, it would—I would hope that, because of the economy, contractors are willing to do it for less than 

the original—how would I say—estimate, guesstimate. So I am 

hoping that one will—well, if you would, I would very much like 

to have an answer. 

The last one is the watershed programs. Could you explain the 

efforts the Agency is making in working with local entities in California to capture rainwater? I’m ranking member in the subcommittee of water and power. That’s a great issue that we have 

been working on. Capturing of rainwater in small settling basins 

seems to be cost effective to augment local water supplies in reducing flood risk. And does the Agency have a definitive business and 

project task associated with developing these programs in the west? 

General VAN ANTWERP. It is a great idea, and it is something 

that needs to be done, and we do—and we are working. I’ve got a— 

as soon as I find it here—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You can get that info to me. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We’ve got the activities on Prado, Hansom, Whittier. And one of the issues that we have to look at is the 

ability to hold more water in these features. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. 

26 

General VAN ANTWERP. And so, we have to look at the integrity 

of the dams. But the idea of the more conservation to help the 

groundwater recharge and all that is excellent. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. Well, talk to me about the Whittier 

Narrows, because we’ve been working on that for about 3, 4 years. 

And we were able to get the funding, and yet this was to do an 

update of a study that was completed, and it’s still not being done. 

And that would help be able to capture more water and help protect the communities below it from potential flood risk. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will look forward to working with 

you again. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Harris, you have a question? 

Dr. HARRIS. Yes, thank you very much. And thank you for the 

witnesses coming before us today. Let me just ask a question of the 

secretary and the general. 

Your prepared remarks that were handed out says that the administration’s priorities with regards here to the matters before us 

today—I think Assistant Secretary Darcy’s says that it is ‘‘to help 

restore the environment and revitalize the economy, while also reflecting the need to put the country on a fiscally sustainable path.’’ 

And interestingly, you say, ‘‘restore the environment before revitalizing the economy,’’ which I think is very interesting, given the financial condition we’re in. 

Whereas, the general says the priorities are ‘‘to reduce the deficit, revitalize the economy, and restore the environment.’’ Could 

you just very briefly—which is it? What do you view the purpose 

of the Army Corps to do? Is it to restore the environment? Or is 

it to actually create jobs and revitalize the economy? 

Assistant Secretary, you can have first at it. 

Ms. DARCY. It’s all of those things. 

Dr. HARRIS. Well, Madam Secretary, you cannot have all of those 

things. Priority means one is number one and one is number two. 

Is it revitalizing the economy, or is it restoring the environment? 

That’s what priorities are all about. I’m sorry, it’s just a plain 

meaning of the English language. 

Ms. DARCY. I think that by restoring the environment you can 

revitalize the economy. 

Dr. HARRIS. Well, Madam Secretary, I’m going to disagree, and 

we are going to talk a little bit about that today. 

Now, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This seems to be a 

little secret going on here, because I know I’m new to Washington, 

but when someone puts the number $6.9 billion in front of my eyes 

when we’re borrowing money from the Chinese to pay our debts, 

I wonder a little bit. 

And there was these nebulous things, ‘‘Well, we’re going to expand things,’’ and, ‘‘We’re going to have other agencies involved.’’ 

Why aren’t you just using it to dredge harbors, like it’s supposed 

to be used for? 

I mean I’ve got a shipping harbor, I’ve got people coming into my 

office saying, ‘‘You know, they’re taking taxes from me to do this, 

and they’re not dredging harbors.’’ What’s the big secret? What is 

it, this $7 billion which could reduce all the backlogs of all the 

dredging? 

27 

I’ve got a little commercial harbor in my district. Army Corps 

comes in in 1980, builds a breakwater that then causes silting into 

the main channel, and now can’t dredge the main channel anymore. We got $7 billion sitting around we could—all the backlogs 

could be gone. 

What’s the dirty little secret here? What is that slush fund going 

to be used for? 

Ms. DARCY. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, as I had mentioned earlier—I want to just correct the record—what is in the 

President’s budget this year for the Corps of Engineers’ use of the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is $758 million. I had said—it’s 

$758 million of that—— 

Dr. HARRIS. I am interested in the $6.9 billion. What is it going 

to be used for? And be brief, I only have two more minutes, and 

I’ve got another couple of questions. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, OK—— 

Dr. HARRIS. It should be a very simple question. It’s $7 billion. 

I hope there is a simple answer to what it’s going to be used for. 

Ms. DARCY. What it’s going to be used for is for other Federal interests in the harbors—— 

Dr. HARRIS. Why not dredging? 

Ms. DARCY. Partially it’s going to be used—— 

Dr. HARRIS. Why not use every dollar of it to maintain the ports? 

Because that’s what the people paying that tax think it’s going for. 

Ms. DARCY. Well, there are other Federal interests in those ports 

that the administration feels this money can be used for. 

Dr. HARRIS. I understand that. But the people who actually pay 

that tax feel they’re paying for it to dredge a harbor. I know the 

administration feels that once tax money comes to Washington, it’s 

theirs to keep. This is $7 billion. All the backlog of every dredging 

project in the country could be paid for if we spent those $7 billion 

on dredging. 

Ms. DARCY. Well—— 

Dr. HARRIS. Is it the administration—does the administration— 

do they not feel that that is important enough to remove that backlog? 

Ms. DARCY. It is important. However, the receipts that we have 

in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund all need to be appropriated. 

Dr. HARRIS. General, the Davis-Bacon Act, are the Army Corps 

projects subject to Davis-Bacon Acts, if they exceed a certain 

amount of money? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes, we are. 

Dr. HARRIS. Could we save a great deal of money by removing 

that constraint, or—and just funding more projects? 

General VAN ANTWERP. If you did away with the Davis-Bacon 

Act? 

Dr. HARRIS. If we stipulated that funds used in the appropriation 

this year, just like we attempted to do in the CR, could not go for— 

could not be—Davis-Bacon Act constraints would not be utilized in 

those projects. 

General VAN ANTWERP. It would allow you to do more 

projects—— 

Dr. HARRIS. That’s what I thought. Thank you. And, finally, 

there is a half-a-billion dollars for environmental aquatic ecosystem 

28 

restoration. If we delayed that, and spent that money to creating 

jobs by enhancing our water-borne economy, such as the gentleman 

from Louisiana suggested—who has left—wouldn’t that be a help 

to our economy right now, if instead of doing something which 

could be delayed, because these projects are not critical in terms 

of getting a ship to the harbor—and I understand you want to use 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for security, but I’ve got to 

tell you, if you don’t dredge the channel, you don’t have to worry 

about harbor security. No ships are coming in. 

So, why don’t we move some of those monies from where it’s not 

urgent, and move them into areas where we have real ongoing 

needs that would enhance the economy? General? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I guess, first of all, in the amount of 

money from our budget that goes into the ecosystems is about 18 

percent. In those five significant ecosystems there are other agencies whose budgets go to those. 

A lot of those issues have to do with our Nation’s future. I think, 

that—they have to do with the Everglades, and have to do with the 

Bay-Delta, and these are huge drivers for our ecosystem, as a country. So I think that’s why they are significant ecosystems, and we 

are putting those dollars there. 

Dr. HARRIS. OK, thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

you, Mr. Van Antwerp, for the work you do for the country, and 

especially here, in the District of Columbia. 

You will recall in the last water bill, 2007, included the Anacostia watershed initiative. This was a landmark bill, because it 

was the first bill, comprehensive bill, to clean up America’s forgotten river, the Anacostia River. In 2010 you rolled out a 10-year 

plan for carrying out the Anacostia watershed initiative. And I understand that there is a Sligo Creek demonstration project, as well. 

I would like to know the status of the 10-year plan. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Congresswoman, I am going to have to 

get the staff to get back with you on the status of the plan, unless 

you have it, Ms. Secretary. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. The plan is currently under review at the Office 

of Management and Budget. 

Ms. NORTON. It’s under review with specific next steps for the 

plan? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe so. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the status of the Sligo Creek demonstration project? 

Ms. DARCY. That I don’t know. I would have to get back to you 

on that. 

Ms. NORTON. Thirty days, please. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Get back to us on that. Mr. Van Antwerp, the levee 

project on the National Mall was begun a few years—a few months 

ago, and I understand was to be completed this year, 2010. That 

is very important. It protects all the monuments on the mall from 

floods and that part of downtown Washington where all the Federal buildings are, and the like. 

29 

What is the status of the levee building going on on the National 

Mall now? 

General VAN ANTWERP. On the 16th of September, a construction 

contract was awarded to build the 17th Street closure, and that is 

progressing on schedule. 

Ms. NORTON. When do you expect the levee—Potomac Levee, I 

believe it is called—to be completed? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I believe the completion date is September 2011. 

Ms. NORTON. And you’re on time? 

General VAN ANTWERP. And we’re on schedule. 

Ms. NORTON. Finally, you are also aware that in part of the District of Columbia where American University is located also was located a chemical munitions site, perhaps the only chemical munitions site located in a residential neighborhood in the United 

States. We are pleased that much has been done to clean that site. 

I toured the destruction of some munitions only a few months ago. 

Suppose more munitions are discovered, just as those were accidentally discovered. Would the Corps be prepared to move right in? 

Would it have the funds to move right in to handle such a discovery in this residential neighborhood? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Those funds aren’t out of Civil Works 

funds. But past history would say we would be prepared and we 

would take the appropriate action, if that was discovered. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, I understand that those funds simply come out 

of funds that are already authorized to deal with such things. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right, for those purposes, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. So you are saying today that, were we to find somebody to uncover in her backyard yet another mound of munitions, 

the Corps would be ready to move right back in to remove those 

munitions? 

General VAN ANTWERP. We would work with DoD to move back 

in and take care of those munitions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Van Antwerp, and 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Herrera Beutler? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of specific questions, but one that’s a little more process-driven. 

I’m going to start with that. 

I mentioned, you know, three main things in my opening. And 

one of the ones—more specifically, we are starting to explore, legislatively, ways to do this. But I wanted to get your feedback on 

timelines for permitting and the process for appeals. It’s my understanding that if a permit is denied, basically, the only place that 

a permit seeker can go for an appeal is the Corps. Is that correct? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Through the Corps or the courts? I 

didn’t—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Corps, excuse me, Army Corps. 

General VAN ANTWERP. The Corps. Yes. And basically, what we 

try and do is work with the applicant. If there are issues—and all 

along, issues are resolved, and we’re looking for the least damaging, practicable alternative. That’s what we’re looking for. And 

so, most times, things can be worked out. But it is a give-and-take 

30 

and sometimes a compromise on what they would originally have 

liked to do. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So, I have had a couple folks who have 

come to me, and they have been seeking funds that were—that are 

appropriated that are available, but they have 2 years to use them, 

starting January. And it had to do with two types of permits. And 

forgive me if I don’t remember this right. I think it was the national—there is, like, a national permit and an individual. And the 

individual is a little bit easier—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. We have a nationwide, and then we have 

an individual permit. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yes. 

General VAN ANTWERP. So—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And so, when I had some folks locally 

looking to move forward on a project to receive those funds in concert with the community—a tremendous project, jobs, jobs, jobs— 

they communicated to me that the office that they were working 

with—and I’m a little split, anything to do with the Columbia 

River, we get—we deal with Portland, and anything north of that 

we deal with Seattle. 

Their comments to me were, ‘‘We don’t even know’’—we were 

told—and they attempted to push us into an individual, but because of the amount of space that they’re looking at, and the mitigation, and everything else, they’re going to need a nationwide, national—I’m going to say that wrong, but you know which one I’m 

talking about. 

Is there a way—one of the concerns I have heard is they won’t 

be told if there are problems in this whole process until they get 

to the end. And they’ve got 2 years. They have a running time 

clock. And the only impediment we have run up against so far are 

people dealing with that permit in this timeframe. Is that something you can help us with? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, I have the division commander sitting in the room today, and he is hearing what you’re saying, and 

we’re going to look into this permit. We will get with your staff. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Great. 

General VAN ANTWERP. And we will look at it, and we will get 

our regulatory people, and we will see where we can come to. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Great. That would be perfect. 

General VAN ANTWERP. OK. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And let me step back, too, since we have 

got the gentleman in the room. Capital Lake. In my district we 

have the State capital. There is a specific lake right there that the 

State and the localities are working on, how to manage that. And 

my concern is that the Corps may have begun to study this lake 

without any invitation from the State authorities managing the 

lake. Our governor is involved. No one has said, ‘‘U.S. Army Corps, 

we need you here,’’ yet that study has begun. And, as far as I 

know, none of the members of the State capital committee have put 

out any requests. And there is a lot of concern because, once you 

all get involved, things change. 

And at this time of major tightening belts, right, we were all 

talking about projects that we want, and ‘‘Your budget is cut,’’ and 

this is a nightmare. In my mind, I think that streamlining the perVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:52 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\3-8-11~1\67065.TXT JEAN
31 

mit process and then not getting involved where there is no request 

seems like a great way to manage your budget. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We will have to look into that particular 

project. But generally, we wouldn’t—if we go to the next step in the 

study, the feasibility stage, we actually have to have a cost-sharing 

partner, a local sponsor, if you will. But if it’s a life/health/safety, 

we may be looking at something that’s life/health/safety-related. 

But again, we can work with your staff, we can look at that particular project, tell you exactly what we are doing, if we are doing 

something there. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Great, great. And I am just going to 

lodge this one, because I don’t have time to ask—get into the details of it. But another area where we’re looking at is the Twin Cities Project in Lewis County, and the flooding that takes place 

there, and what your plan is to fix it, and what the community is 

asking for. That’s another area where we’re going to need to work 

together. 

General VAN ANTWERP. OK. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Capuano, do you have a 

question? 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, Davis-Bacon. 

I am just curious. How would you be able to save money if DavisBacon were gone? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I think it really is just from some of the 

costs that are associated with Davis-Bacon wages. 

Mr. CAPUANO. So wages. So you’re basically—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. It’s people. 

Mr. CAPUANO. You would pay workers less. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I am not sure where the question was 

originated, what that is. I mean there is—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. Well, if—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. There is a reason the Corps uses DavisBacon. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Well, I understand that. But I mean if the DavisBacon law were gone—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes. 

Mr. CAPUANO [continuing]. You would basically pay people doing 

work on your projects lower wages. That’s the way you save money 

if Davis-Bacon is gone, is it not? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I would—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. If you would pay less wages, who would get those 

lower wages? Would it be the people who owned the companies, or 

would it be the bricklayers and the steel workers and the laborers 

on those projects? Who gets impacted by Davis-Bacon, people who 

own the company, or the people who actually do the work? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I would say you’re making excellent 

points. This was the first I had heard of this discussion, so—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. No, I understand. But as I understand it—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. I guess that would be the case. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I just want to make sure I understand the law correctly. 

General VAN ANTWERP. That would be the case. 

32 

Mr. CAPUANO. As I understand the law, it requires you to pay 

the people doing the work, the bricklayers—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right. 

Mr. CAPUANO [continuing]. The carpenters—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right. 

Mr. CAPUANO [continuing]. Wages that are conducive to the area 

they live in. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right. 

Mr. CAPUANO. So, by saving money, if Davis-Bacon were gone, 

you would be basically—not you, but if it were gone and we didn’t 

live by that, working people would get lower wages. I just wanted 

to make sure that we were clear on that, because that’s my understanding of it. I didn’t think you were wasting money, I thought 

you were helping to maintain the middle class—not you; the whole 

county—and that’s what the Davis-Bacon law is all about. 

Just as a point of history, do you know who Mr. Davis and Mr. 

Bacon were? They were two Republican Members of this House. 

And do you know who signed that law in 1931? The noted crazy 

Leftie, President Herbert Hoover. Those are the people that decided 

to build the middle class. So it’s not where I intended to go. 

I want to talk a little bit about the Harbor Maintenance tax myself. I—my problem with the Harbor Maintenance tax is not necessary how you use it, though, like anything else, I’m sure I could 

disagree with some things. But my problem is the competitive advantage that you give to neighboring ports that don’t get hit with 

that tax at a later time, which is a different issue for a different 

discussion. 

And, by the way, I think the Corps does a great job keeping Boston Harbor open on a regular basis, and dredging. 

But what I really want to talk about was I wanted to make sure 

that I understand the Corps’ desires and goals. And I’m sure that 

I know the answers, but I wanted to ask them anyway. When the 

Corps gets into a project, if you were going to, say, do some dredging, and widen a channel, the—you’re not widening a channel in 

order to reduce the size of the vessels passing through that channel, are you? That’s not the goal. You’re trying to keep it open for 

bigger vessels, to meet modern requirements. 

And when we do a bridge-over that the Corps is involved in, if 

we widen the span of that bridge, again, you’re not trying to do it 

so we can get smaller ships through that bridge, is that correct? 

And if you were to have a project that somehow inadvertently, 

after you have dredged the channel, and after the bridge has been 

built, that the result of that, because of some changes in the situation, were to be that smaller ships had to go through that, that bigger ships could not longer pass, that would be something I would 

assume the Corps would want to be involved in addressing and fixing. Is that a fair statement? 

General VAN ANTWERP. That’s a fair statement. We have an authorized width and depth of our projects. And that would be the optimum to maintain it to that level. Very few of them are maintained to the optimum, or to the authorized—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. But the purpose of that is to allow modern-day, 

bigger ships—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. To pass, absolutely. 

33 

Mr. CAPUANO [continuing]. To service our commercial needs. Is 

that—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. Absolutely. 

Mr. CAPUANO. So that if somehow, by widening a channel, by 

changing radiuses and the like, that something happened that that 

channel was no longer available to be used by not just wider ships, 

but the ships that are currently using it, I would think that the 

Corps would want to help address that issue. Is that a fair statement? Thank you. We will be talking again soon. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Reed, do you have a question? 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you to the witnesses for your testimony today. 

General, I want to start by saying it’s refreshing to hear a direct 

response to a question from a congressional committee. You gave 

us a direct answer, and that doesn’t happen all the time. I’ve been 

here two months, and it’s amazing to me the number of witnesses 

who come in here and dance around the questions and don’t give 

us their honest assessment and opinion. So I respect your answers, 

sir, and I appreciate you dealing with us candidly. 

Now, moving forward, I want to get into a little bit of some 

issues that I am facing back in my district, and not specifically on 

any specific projects. But one issue that came to my attention recently is in the areas of the flood insurance mapping revisions that 

are occurring. And we have had a lot of debate back in—western 

New York is where I’m from—about the maps, and who is going 

to certify the levees. 

And the roundabout discussion that has occurred is I’m getting 

fingers pointed all over the place. And my understanding, talking 

to my staff, is that what’s happening is a lot of the agencies—whatever agency it may be: FEMA, the Corps—are saying, ‘‘We’re not 

going to certify the levees because of what happened in Hurricane 

Katrina, et cetera. We don’t want to be on the hook for making 

those determinations.’’ 

So now what’s happened, the proposed maps I see are being 

rolled out without those levees being designated on the maps, 

which obviously changes the flood plain, which obviously changes 

the requirements to get flood insurance for homeowners and people 

purchasing a home, which lacks common sense. I walk on those 

levees. I go down the rivers and fish on those rivers walking over 

the levees. I know they’re there. 

My question to you: are you familiar with this issue, either one 

of you? And who is best to answer the question? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes. 

Mr. REED. OK. 

General VAN ANTWERP. And I can answer the question. 

Mr. REED. Please do. 

General VAN ANTWERP. It’s the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Mr. REED. Correct. 

General VAN ANTWERP. It is the FEMA program. 

Mr. REED. Correct. 

General VAN ANTWERP. And it is the responsibility of the local 

community to provide the documentation that the levee meets the 

34 

requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. And basically, it’s what we call a 100-year event, meaning that it’s a 1 percent chance of possibility of happening. That is the standard for the 

National Flood Insurance Program. 

The Corps of Engineers, we have projects that are much greater 

than 100-year and much less. Our inspections basically are to determine if it meets its design criteria. 

Mr. REED. OK. 

General VAN ANTWERP. And so, if it’s an 800-year levee, we expect that it needs to meet an 800-year event. 

So, basically, it is the local community’s responsibility for the National Flood Insurance Program, to provide that documentation. 

What documentation the Corps has—and we have it on a lot of levees that are now owned and operated by a local entity, we provide 

that data. And a lot of times it’s most of the data that they might 

need for the FEMA piece. 

Mr. REED. OK. Because my concern is it still doesn’t address the 

practical problem we have, in that we got to get these levees located on these maps, so that people who are protected by these levees don’t have to go out and buy flood insurance. It’s a very practical problem. 

Do you see any solution to it that you could offer us here 

today—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, if—— 

Mr. REED [continuing]. In getting over that hurdle, at least to get 

these maps updated—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right. 

Mr. REED [continuing]. And make sure that people don’t have to 

purchase flood insurance when they really don’t need to buy it? 

General VAN ANTWERP. We—if the documentation is provided to 

FEMA, that levee will be on the map. I guess so—— 

Mr. REED. OK. 

General VAN ANTWERP [continuing]. What they have to do is they 

have to get that documentation. 

Now, we are trying—we’re working with FEMA—— 

Mr. REED. What happens if the documentation doesn’t exist? Because a lot of these levees have been constructed, and nobody has 

the documentation. 

General VAN ANTWERP. They need to hire an engineer to do the 

certification. 

Mr. REED. OK. So the local community has to pick up that—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. That’s—— 

Mr. REED [continuing]. And go out and get the engineer, and—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. That’s right. 

Mr. REED [continuing]. Come in and document. 

General VAN ANTWERP. That’s right. 

Mr. REED. OK. My local communities won’t be happy with that 

answer, but I will be the messenger on that. 

One area that I wanted to talk on, Mr. Christensen, we have a 

lot of farmers in our district that are impacted by the Chesapeake 

Bay initiatives and the TMDLs that are coming down. What is your 

role in trying to help and assist the agricultural community comply 

with those implementations, if they do occur? 

35 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you for the question, sir. We are very 

actively involved. We have a special program called the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, given to us in the 2008 farm bill. 

So we have special funding on top of our normal programmatic 

funding to help farmers with nutrient management plans, cover 

crops, all the types of practices that would be helpful to the nutrient management issue. So we are working with them on a voluntary basis, cost-sharing on those practices. 

At the same time, we are collaborating with EPA on the larger 

issues. But the bottom line for us is we are actively involved with 

the individual producers on the landscape with the conservation efforts. 

Mr. REED. So, if those—I guess I’m out of time. I will have a conversation with you offline. 

All right. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Lankford, have you got a question? 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. Let me run a couple of questions past 

you, as well, and a larger context, and specific to my area. I’m in 

central Oklahoma. Let me start with that one. 

We are in one of those areas around the Port of Catoosa, which 

is the Mississippi River area, one of the tributaries. We have talked 

before already, and met, and discussed the locks and the dams and 

everything to be able to work your way up and down the tributaries. 

Tell me on the priority list where that seems to fall, and just the 

movement, because again, you are moving all the cargo in and out 

of the central part of the United States when you’re moving up and 

down the Mississippi and through the tributaries. I see on your list 

lower priority items and such like that. Where do those tributaries 

begin to fall? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, they fit as a navigation system, 

and it’s a lock. We have 241 locks in the Corps. They are about 

58.3 years old. They take a lot of operation and maintenance funds. 

We look at each lock. We have done inventories and inspections to 

know which are the ones that are of the most risk. We also hear 

from our navigation partners that are running bulk cargo and 

other things, because it’s a very efficient way to do it. And so that’s 

how we manage the priorities of what we work on in any given 

year, using our operation and maintenance funds. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So it’s basically whichever lock is in the worst 

shape possible, then you just target from that spot? 

General VAN ANTWERP. A lot of it is fix the worst first, but it also 

has to do with the risk of failure and the impact of the failure of 

that lock. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. Well, you have this list of lower priority 

items. I am kind of wondering the metrics on that, how you get to 

that spot, and who makes the decision on which items nationally 

end up on lower priority and which ones rise up to higher priority 

items. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Again, we look for those projects that 

have large ton-miles, and carry a lot of commercial navigation 

cargo. And we prioritize those. The risk of failure is part of it. 

So, we can—we could come lay out how we do the priorities, but 

that’s basically how we laid that out. 

36 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. Let me ask a general question, just for you 

to be able to process. And anyone can answer this, and may be familiar. 

With every Federal agency there is going to be a lot of conversation with other Federal agencies. You deal with a lot of agencies, 

just in your day-to-day operation. Is there any one agency you can 

make us aware of to say, ‘‘Projects are driven up in cost and slow 

down in time because of our interaction with this agency?’’ I know 

this is going to make you the favorite of that agency once you answer this, but there is bound to be an issue that you’re dealing 

with several agencies saying, ‘‘You know what? This tends to slow 

down projects and drive up costs when we’re dealing with this 

agency and getting things done.’’ 

[No response.] 

Mr. LANKFORD. You are welcome, by the way, for this question. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. DARCY. We work great with the agencies represented at this 

table, as well as our other Federal agencies. Quite frankly, in the 

year-and-a-half that I have been in this job, I have found the collaboration between the Federal family to be better than I had 

hoped. So I am not giving anybody up here. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. 

Ms. DARCY. Because we have had a great experience so far. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. Everybody good with that? 

[No response.] 

Mr. LANKFORD. Let me walk through a couple things. By the 

way, I would hope that part of our role here would be to help resolve issues. So if issues come up, we want to be able to step in 

and resolve, and see if we can’t—for the good of the country. This 

is not a partisan issue; we’ve got to get things done. And so, as 

issues come up, we would like to know on those, so we can help 

engage with that. 

The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget suggests legislation for a 

user fee for technical assistance cost for the conservation plan. Do 

you have any idea who is going to be charged that user fee, and 

what the service is we’re going to be provided in exchange for that? 

Are you familiar with that? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Sir, I am not too familiar with it. I know it’s 

an issue being worked on. Conservation planning is one of the core 

functions that we have historically provided. And I guess the view 

is that there is some opportunity to recoup some of that cost. But 

I am not familiar with the specifics—— 

Mr. LANKFORD. Who is actually going to be tagged with that fee, 

and what they’re going to get for it. That hasn’t come out? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I would have to come back to you on that. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. That will be an interesting one to be able 

to see. They are looking to fee—as we have already discussed with 

the harbor fees and such, there is a perception that they get a return for that in dredging. And sometimes there is a frustration on 

that in any location. 

Let me just run one other question real quickly past you. In the 

design of any project, you have outside contractors that do the design on many of these, is that correct? So you will hire in a company to actually do that design? 

37 

General VAN ANTWERP. We do it two ways, if you’re referring to 

the Corps projects. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Yes. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We can do an in-house design, we do 

have our own architects. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We try and keep enough to keep the competency in the Corps—— 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. 

General VAN ANTWERP [continuing]. Because when you’re writing 

a contract, you need that competency. Or, we contract those out. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Typically, when it’s contracted out, do you also 

allow the architect that did the design work to then supervise the 

construction? Or is that then taken over by a Corps person, and the 

architect only does the design and a Corps person supervises? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Generally, the project—if it’s a design bid 

build, then the contractor builds the design that the architect did, 

and the Corps of Engineers supervises the construction. But we always have that architect on a string to—for a request for information. ‘‘Why did that go like that?’’ 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. 

General VAN ANTWERP. And things are resolved. We also have a 

design build. We do those, which—— 

Mr. LANKFORD. I’m out of time. I would just recommend, obviously, looking close at having that architect on hand. There is a 

reason—they know their plans best—to having them on hand during part of that construction. I think that would save us some 

value, long-term. So thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. General, I have another question. I understand—you know, we talk about cost, and we need to streamline 

the process on—and your performance reviews, I think that’s great, 

we’re going to look at that. 

It’s my understanding on the Ohio River there are some hydropower projects that—I know one at the Robert Byrd facility, it’s 

getting up and running, starting in the planning process and the 

permitting process with FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, and the Corps. But I also understand there isn’t a lot 

of coordination between these two agencies regarding licensing and 

permitting. What can be done to address that issue to move this 

forward in a more expedited fashion? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, you have 

captured it. Absolutely there has got to be partnering between the 

agencies, because we are looking for such things as cooling water 

and environmental impacts of this. So, we will look into that specifically and make sure that that partnering is being done, and we 

are expeditiously moving that forward. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. That would be helpful. I think, you know, run 

some of this concurrently—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right, absolutely. 

Mr. GIBBS. I would appreciate it. Secretary Darcy, as you know, 

recently the EPA retroactively revoked a permit from a mining operation in West Virginia. And, you know, I think this causes problems across the whole economy, because people put capital together 

38 

to put projects together and get the permit, do the environmental 

impact studies and everything. 

And maybe this is for the general, too, since, you know, the 

Corps approved the permit and the EPA revoked it 3 years after 

the fact, and if their investment—what kind of security or 

‘‘assurety’’ can we give to any operation that is putting a project 

together and gets the permit that they’re just not going to get it 

revoked after it is approved? Because this is unprecedented. 

Ms. DARCY. Well, I think, as you say, the Corps of Engineers did 

issue this permit in 2007. I think you’re referring to the mine permit that was vetoed by the EPA. We were in collaboration in developing the permit. But under 404 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA 

does have the veto authority to veto any permit that—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, wasn’t the EPA working with the Corps in concert during the environmental impact study and all of the permitting process? Weren’t you guys working together? 

Ms. DARCY. We were in consultation during the development of 

the permit. Yes, sir. 

General VAN ANTWERP. With all of our permits we consult with 

the EPA. So it was consulted on initially, and then other things 

have changed. But they do have the authorization under 404 to do 

what they did. 

Mr. GIBBS. It appears to me under 404—and I know the guidance 

that they’re going to be coming out with to expand their jurisdiction on the Clean Water Act—they’re kind of driving. It looks to me 

they’re driving the train, and you guys are getting run over. So I 

have serious concerns about what’s happening. And whatever we 

can do to help the Corps on this issue—because I think the EPA 

is driving the train here. Do you feel like you have been run over 

by the EPA and the permitting process? 

Ms. DARCY. No, sir. We are currently developing Clean Water Act 

guidance with the EPA and anything that is being reviewed within 

the administration, and that would be—it would be a joint guidance. 

Mr. GIBBS. So to just follow up on that, you support the expanded jurisdiction with the Nexus provision and everything that 

would go beyond navigable waters? 

Ms. DARCY. We are currently developing the guidance, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, OK. Well, we will probably have some hearings 

on that in the future, when you put your guidance out. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. 

Mr. GIBBS. Also, General, you know the Nation’s water resources 

structure averages about 60 years old, and we have discussed that. 

What in the administration’s plan is there to recapitalize the infrastructure, so we can continue to provide economical and reliable, 

environmentally superior inland navigation, and reduce the flood 

risks to the public? You know, do you have a plan to actually capitalize, so we can get these projects up and running, repaired, and 

modernized? 

General VAN ANTWERP. We do have a plan. It’s—of course the 

flexible part of it is: how long does it take to execute that plan? But 

the first part of that plan is know what you have, and know its 

condition. We know that. 

39 

And so, we also know the risks of failure, because we’ve got a lot 

of history with these different features. But on dams, and on our 

hydropower facilities, we have a good plan for the recapitalization 

of those projects. It is dependent on funding for how long it takes 

to recapitalize. 

Mr. GIBBS. I would be interested in working with you on that 

plan, help you prioritize it and work through Congress here to get 

the job done and clean up the balance sheet, so to speak. 

General VAN ANTWERP. OK. 

Mr. GIBBS. Do you—— 

Ms. DARCY. Could I just add to that? In particular, we most particularly want to work with this committee in order to develop this 

plan because the recapitalization of all of our infrastructure, and 

particularly in the inland waterways, is just something that we 

have to look to, to be able to share the cost. And some kind of recapitalization and evaluation of the projects that we have, are they 

still necessary, they still needed to perform, you know, or are they 

not needed anymore? 

So, also for us to look at the assets we have, and whether we— 

they’re worth another additional Federal investment, and how 

we’re going to share that cost. 

Mr. GIBBS. I concur with that. We need to do that. Representative Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to pick up on the 

issue of environmental benefit versus economic benefit. And I made 

this point at our last hearing. I represent a district where we recognize that the environment is the economy, the economy is the environment. We have a resort economy that needs a pristine environment. 

Isn’t it fair to recognize that the—two of the biggest projects the 

Corps has ever undertaken, the Everglades project and the Louisiana coastal project, are projects that have enormous economic 

benefit and environmental benefit? 

Ms. DARCY. I agree, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. So the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. 

Ms. DARCY. No. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you. I want to go to the issue of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. I want to make sure I understand 

the issue. Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund was first created in 

1986, signed into law by President Reagan. 

Ms. DARCY. Correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. My understanding is that there is a long bipartisan 

history of Presidents requesting an annual expenditure from the 

trust fund in an amount significantly lower than the balance in the 

trust fund. Is that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. For example, in the last budget that President 

Bush submitted to the Congress, the balance in the trust fund was, 

at the time he submitted the budget, $5.4 billion. And he requested 

an expenditure of $729 million. 

Ms. DARCY. I am going to trust your facts there, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Trust them. They’re right. And isn’t it also true that 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund operates in a fashion very 

similar to how the Social Security trust fund operates? That is to 

40 

say that revenue comes into the trust fund, an amount of money 

less than that revenue in a given year is spent on the purpose of 

the fund. And then, whatever amount is not spent, in effect, reverts 

to the bottom line and serves to reduce our deficit if we do not fully 

expend it. 

And if we were to fully expend it, we would be increasing our 

outlays, and therefore, increasing our deficit. Is that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe so. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. So, one of the reasons that Presidents have a 

long bipartisan history of spending less than what’s in the trust 

fund has been an effort at curtailing our total expenditures, and 

therefore, reducing our total deficit. Is that not correct? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you. I think it’s important that we all 

have that set of facts. 

I want to go—I have a little bit of time left—I want to go to an 

issue that is concerning to me. One of the great debates—that’s a 

hyperbole, it’s not a great debate—we are now in an earmark-free 

environment. 

My understanding is that there are four chiefs reports that were 

undertaken by the Corps for which the Corps has spent $34 million 

to construct the report. Pardon me, to undertake the reports. But 

there is no authorization pending to allow the Corps to move from 

study to construction, and that the authorization of such construction would be considered an earmark. Is that correct, sir? 

General VAN ANTWERP. We have four reports with OMB. I have 

signed the chief reports. 

Mr. BISHOP. Right. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We have another six that I have signed, 

the reports that are in the process of moving that direction. And 

probably another 16 by the end of this calendar year will be in the 

queue. 

Mr. BISHOP. All of which—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. Have projects associated—— 

Mr. BISHOP. But all of which lack authorization to proceed to 

construction. Is that correct? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right. It’s pre-authorization at this point. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. So we are significantly at risk of having made 

a commitment of taxpayer dollars to undertake studies of projects 

that may well never be constructed if, in fact, we remain in this 

environment in which the authorization of such construction would 

be considered an earmark. Is that correct? 

General VAN ANTWERP. If those projects never went to the next 

stage of being authorized and then ultimately appropriated, then 

yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you. I think I will yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Landry, do you have any 

other questions? 

Mr. LANDRY. General, I just want to ask unanimous consent to 

enter into the record a correspondence to you with some exhibits 

supporting that commerce is being impeded in that canal. 

[The information follows:] 

41 


Insert offset folio 6 here 67065.006
42 


Insert offset folio 7 here 67065.007
43 


Insert offset folio 8 here 67065.008
44 


Insert offset folio 9 here 67065.009
45 


Insert offset folio 10 here 67065.010
46 


Insert offset folio 11 here 67065.011
47 


Insert offset folio 12 here 67065.012
48 


Insert offset folio 13 here 67065.013
49 


Insert offset folio 14 here 67065.014
50 


Insert offset folio 15 here 67065.015
51 


Insert offset folio 16 here 67065.016
52 


Insert offset folio 17 here 67065.017
53 


Insert offset folio 18 here 67065.018
54 


Insert offset folio 19 here 67065.019
55 


Insert offset folio 20 here 67065.020
56 


Insert offset folio 21 here 67065.021
57 


Insert offset folio 22 here 67065.022
58 


Insert offset folio 23 here 67065.023
59 


Insert offset folio 24 here 67065.024
60 


Insert offset folio 25 here 67065.025
61 


Insert offset folio 26 here 67065.026
62 


Insert offset folio 27 here 67065.027
63 


Insert offset folio 28 here 67065.028
64 


Insert offset folio 29 here 67065.029
65 

Mr. LANDRY. I also, just real quickly, want to clear up a couple 

of matters. Who is your chief legal counsel, General? I mean who 

do you—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. We have our own legal counsel. His 

name is Earl Stockdale. He is the chief legal counsel for the Corps. 

Mr. LANDRY. And I guess my only question—so that you understand a bit of my rub—is that as I try to work through the Corps’ 

legal strategy, I ask them for correspondence between you all and 

the Department of Justice, because you mentioned you all are in 

litigation. I’m guessing the Plaintiff in the case is the Federal Government. Wouldn’t you agree? 

[No response.] 

Mr. LANDRY. I mean you all are representing the Federal Government? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, it probably is. Department of Justice has the case. It was remanded to them from the New Orleans 

District, so—— 

Mr. LANDRY. I guess—they told me I wasn’t allowed to see the 

correspondence between the Corps and DoJ because it was a matter of client-attorney privilege, and I am trying to understand what 

exactly my position as a Congressman is in this litigation. 

Could you just visit with Earl on that, and see—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. I will, I—— 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I will do that. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you so much. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Cravaack, do you have any—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you. I wish Mr. Reed was here, and so I 

could explain to him that he got straight answers because you did 

come from West Point. So that’s probably why he got the straight 

answers he wanted. 

Also, being in the military myself, I understand about doing 

more with less, and we always seem to never get what we need to 

accomplish the mission. And if I can, sir, give a shout out to Colonel Price and Tamara from the St. Louis District, who have been 

very responsive to our requests trying to get a mine open in the 

Eighth District of Minnesota. 

With that, ma’am, I would like to ask you a question. And I ran 

out of time, so I will try to be a little bit—I have a couple of questions that hopefully won’t go into a third round here. But regarding 

the $7 billion that are in reserve—and the ranking member kind 

of gave me a segue into this—basically, there is no real $7 billion, 

is there? 

Ms. DARCY. I’m not sure what your question is. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Is there $7 billion in a bank account somewhere 

for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund? 

Ms. DARCY. The trust fund collects the revenues and, I believe 

that there is—I think it’s $6.9 billion in the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. So there is $7 billion of cash in a trust fund 

somewhere. Is that correct? Is that what you’re trying to tell me? 

Ms. DARCY. No. I’m told no. 

66 

Mr. CRAVAACK. In essence, what I am telling you is Congress has 

raided that through the years and, in essence, not being able to 

give the Army Corps the amount of money they need to make sure 

that our infrastructure is up to speed in our locks and our dams 

and our waterways. 

So, in essence, it’s Congress’ fault—previous Congresses’ fault— 

making sure that, by raiding this fund, and depleting—using these 

funds for something else. So that is the point I want to make. 

That’s the dirty little secret about this, is that correct? There is 

really no $7 billion sitting in cash somewhere in this trust fund, 

is that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t know that answer, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. And it has been raided. That’s why you’re 

only getting $690 million, when you could have $7 billion to get the 

infrastructure we need to complete making sure the commerce of 

this country is working successfully. And we hand this information 

to the Corps and say, ‘‘Do more with less,’’ when there is plenty 

that should be available to them. But, unfortunately, previous Congresses have raided it. 

Real quick, if I can go on, EPA. I’m very concerned about what’s 

happening in a mine—especially coming from a mining region— 

where the President has basically said that he has refused, or basically taken back a permit for a West Virginia mine. Could you comment on that? And where does the President get that kind of authority? And are you fighting back? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe what you’re referring to is the Spruce Mine 

permit that was vetoed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Is 

that correct, sir? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. That’s correct. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. As was stated earlier, the Corps of Engineers 

issued that permit in 2007. And under 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to veto a 

Corps-issued permit. And it’s not the Corps of Engineers’ veto, it’s 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s veto. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Have you fought back on this at all? Have 

you—— 

Ms. DARCY. We don’t—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK [continuing]. Pushed back on the President and 

said, ‘‘Mr. President, where do you get such authority? Where do 

you—what’s next?’’ What else is the President going to—is he going 

to take one of my mines and attack a mine in Minnesota’s Eighth 

District, and decide he’s going to shut that one down, too? Do we 

give the President authority? 

Ms. DARCY. The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to veto a Corps-issued permit, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. And that’s very interesting about the EPA, the 

Environmental Protection Agency. I was very curious about what 

you were saying in regards to the Clean Water Act. 

Tell me. Do you think that the Clean Water Act is also reaching 

out to—for navigable waters? Obviously, this is a very important 

concept. Do you believe navigable waters would include a seasonal 

slough or a wet meadow? 

Ms. DARCY. Sir, I think you may have stepped out of the room 

earlier when we talked about the Clean Water Act guidance that 

67 

the Corps of Engineers is jointly developing with the Environmental Protection Agency to look at the definition of navigable waters and isolated waters. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Yes, ma’am. That’s why I’m asking. I was here, 

and I am asking your opinion. 

Ms. DARCY. Oh, sorry. I apologize. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Yes, ma’am. What is your opinion? What are you 

going to tell the EPA? 

Ms. DARCY. We are currently in discussions with EPA on defining what the reach of that definition would be. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. I understand that, ma’am. And just let me 

express to you at least this Congressman from Minnesota will fight 

vehemently for the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, that waters remain within the States rights. If it’s a great big lake out in 

the middle of Minnesota called Mille Lacs, those are States waters. 

So I just wanted to make that comment. 

And I have one second. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. I would just like to make one comment on your questions. Ms. Secretary, when you talk about veto of the EPA, its authority to veto, and I think it’s pretty clear that this permit was 

issued, and it’s veto versus revocation. It was revoked 3 years after 

you guys approved it. That’s not a veto anymore, that’s revoking 

that permit, and that sets a new, dangerous precedent. We are 

going to have hearings on that in the future, I can guarantee it. 

Representative Harris, you have a question? 

Dr. HARRIS. Yes. Thank you very much. You know, normally, as 

these go on you actually become more enlightened about an answer. But I am actually a little less enlightened about an answer. Assistant Secretary, where are those $7 billion? I mean the ranking member suggests that it’s just like Social Security, which would 

mean there is actually an IOU you hold, and you hope that it will 

be repaid one day. Or, actually, for those young people in the audience, maybe it won’t in Social Security. But is there an IOU, or is 

there actually cash sitting around, as is suggested by the representative here on my right? Or is the answer that you really 

don’t know where $7 billion is, which is a little disconcerting to me, 

but that is a legitimate answer, I guess. 

Ms. DARCY. My answer would have to be I don’t know, and I am 

going to get back to you. 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I am just getting used to 

Washington, because I guess $7 billion is not a whole lot of money, 

because we just don’t know where it is. 

Let’s pretend that actually it was gone to deficit reduction in 

past years, but in this year it isn’t. And I think the testimony was 

that we’re going to collect about $1.4 billion in these taxes. Is that 

right? 

Ms. DARCY. That’s—— 

Dr. HARRIS. That’s on the order. OK. So we—where is the $700 

million budgeted for that does not—is not budgeted for in those 

funds? Where is it? I mean on paper you’ve got a balance sheet. I 

mean you’re taking in $1.4 billion and you’re only spending $700 

million. So is it going to deficit reduction, or is it going to this other 

nebulous program, you know, security or something else that supports harbors? Where is it on the balance sheet for this year? 

68 

Ms. DARCY. Currently, I believe it’s going to deficit reduction. 

But again, I want to make certain of that before I answer. 

Dr. HARRIS. OK. And if it goes to deficit—is there just, like the 

Social Security fund, as the ranking member suggested, an IOU 

that will be there in order for a future transfer to occur so that, 

you know my little harbor might get dredged one day from these 

taxes that are charged on shippers? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, if there is a change in the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund, it has to be a legislative change. 

Dr. HARRIS. Well, I’m just talking about the balance. So, in other 

words, if you could get back to me not only on what exists, but actually are IOUs—I mean is there an intragovernmental bonding 

process, which is my understanding of what happens with Social 

Security and with things like our retirement pay and things like 

that? That’s just, you know, of great concern to me. 

The last thing I want to ask is that I think, General and Assistant Secretary, I think both of you used the term ‘‘social considerations,’’ or something like that. Now I’ve got to tell you. When it 

comes to taking care of a harbor, you know, I think about dredging, 

keeping things secure, things like that. Could you elaborate on 

what ‘‘social considerations’’ might be for the expenditure of monies 

that most people think about going to actually mechanical things, 

you know, keeping a port open? Could you just expand on that? 

General VAN ANTWERP. That’s a great question. I will start off 

on it, at least. Under the Principles and Guidelines, and the Principles and Standards, which is the concept, the notion is that you 

would go beyond just the benefit cost ratio, which is an economic 

piece, and you would look at the environmental considerations and 

the social considerations. The social considerations can be the number of people affected, the risk of not doing this on the economy in 

a local area. What it means—it really expands it to take a look and 

say, ‘‘What is this doing to the community by not doing this?’’ 

Whereas before, it would just be an economic and what’s the benefit cost ratio, and if you didn’t have a lot of goods and services 

being dealt with there, it didn’t matter that you had 100 people or 

1,000 people that were disadvantaged. So—— 

Dr. HARRIS. Well, General, that’s pretty subjective, wouldn’t you 

say? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I think that’s what is the challenge of 

the Principles and Guidelines is when you have environmental, 

which doesn’t have a number, and you have social, which doesn’t 

have a number, how do you account for that? But that’s our challenge. 

Dr. HARRIS. And that’s exactly to my point, you see. This little 

harbor, Rock Hall here, was told they didn’t have a cost benefit 

ratio that was adequate. Well, is that because maybe you didn’t 

consider that the residents of Rock Hall had as much social importance as other residents in another location? 

I mean how am I going to get my handle on how to help this little jurisdiction if we have got things like, well, we’ve got someone 

in the agency making an environmental judgment or a social judgment, instead of the economic benefit of not dredging a harbor so 

that ships actually can come into a port? 

69 

General VAN ANTWERP. Up to this point, it has been strictly on 

the national economic benefit. So that ratio has been while that 

project—— 

Dr. HARRIS. So I can expect, in my dealings with the Corps, that 

they will not use that as an excuse anymore for not doing something, a strict economic benefit ratio? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, I think under the new Principles 

and Guidelines, there will be other factors. But up until this point 

it has been we can tell you where your project is stacked with its 

benefit cost ratio. 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Just very quickly, I would say to my colleagues from Maryland and Minnesota I would be happy to join you 

in filing bipartisan legislation that would build a firewall around 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and that we would do so with 

the full recognition that if we were to fully spend down the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund, it would either—if we’re still in a zero 

deficit environment, it would either require an additional $6 billion 

worth of cuts, or we would be increasing our deficit by $6 billion. 

But in all sincerity, many of us on this committee have long felt 

that that Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund should be spent for harbor maintenance, and I would join you in filing this legislation to 

build a firewall around it, in the same way that we used to have 

a firewall around the highway trust fund. 

Mr. GIBBS. And I would concur with that, too. These are essentially user fees, and they ought to go for what they’re supposed to 

go for. 

I wanted to ask the last question to Mr. Thomas, because I don’t 

believe he had a question today. And I don’t want you to go back 

to Tennessee feeling left out. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. We’re really concerned about the debt that the TVA 

has accrued. And according to the reports I’ve gotten, your staff, 

the TVA staff, has said they would take action if the debt were to 

exceed $28 billion. 

According to your own budget analysis, you exceed $28 billion by 

the end of fiscal year 2013. And I guess the question is, why isn’t 

the TVA taking action today? Why are we waiting to get up to a 

certain level when we know it’s coming? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, thank you for that question. It is true that 

TVA does have a limit on its borrowing authority of $30 billion. It 

hasn’t changed since 1979. And as TVA’s assets have grown, we 

have taken on debt to fund those assets. And I mentioned that our 

financial guiding principles have—we use that, in terms of borrowing money only for new assets. And over the next several years, 

as we meet the needs of the demand for electricity in Tennessee 

Valley, we believe that it’s prudent to finance those assets, and 

that’s in the best interest of the rate payers. 

And so, we are, as we look out in our planning horizon, ap- proaching that $30 billion borrowing authority limit. And we are 

currently developing plans. We are not waiting until 2013. Today 

we are working on developing what potential options we could have 

to continue to provide low-cost electricity in the Tennessee Valley, 

70 

and still meet the demand for electricity. So we are not waiting 

until 2013. 

Mr. GIBBS. Would any of those options include partners, other 

utilities to work with to supply power on a partnership-type arrangement, or not? 

Mr. THOMAS. As a matter of fact, we are looking at—one of the 

potential options would be that we would have a project financing 

special purpose entity to be able to have partners, in terms of financing assets. 

Mr. GIBBS. Because I guess my concern is—I’m on a sharp learning curve here on this issue, but I think a word of caution, and 

maybe to bring capital in for new asset development, to make sure 

that you can have the adequate base generation to meet the needs 

of your customers, that you might need some partners to be involved in that. 

If you look at your balance sheet probably—but it’s a thought. 

Mr. THOMAS. The one thing I would like to add to that is certainly utilizing Tennessee—the TVA’s borrowing authority is the 

most economical way. And bringing in partners will require higher 

financing costs than it would if Tennessee Valley were to do it. But 

if we do not have other options, then we would pursue all other 

means. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. Well, I want to thank everybody for coming to 

the committee today, and to our esteemed panelists, for your input. 

And I know that we look forward to working with you in the challenges that we face here in the future. Thank you very much. 

This concludes the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

71 


Insert offset folio 30 here 67065.030
72 


Insert offset folio 31 here 67065.031
73 


Insert offset folio 32 here 67065.032
74 


Insert offset folio 33 here 67065.033
75 


Insert offset folio 34 here 67065.034
76 


Insert offset folio 35 here 67065.035
77 


Insert offset folio 36 here 67065.036
78 


Insert offset folio 37 here 67065.037
79 


Insert offset folio 38 here 67065.038
80 


Insert offset folio 39 here 67065.039
81 


Insert offset folio 40 here 67065.040
82 


Insert offset folio 41 here 67065.041
83 


Insert offset folio 42 here 67065.042
84 


Insert offset folio 43 here 67065.043
85 


Insert offset folio 44 here 67065.044
86 


Insert offset folio 45 here 67065.045
87 


Insert offset folio 46 here 67065.046
88 


Insert offset folio 47 here 67065.047
89 


Insert offset folio 48 here 67065.048
90 


Insert offset folio 49 here 67065.049
91 


Insert offset folio 50 here 67065.050
92 


Insert offset folio 51 here 67065.051
93 


Insert offset folio 52 here 67065.052
94 


Insert offset folio 53 here 67065.053
95 


Insert offset folio 54 here 67065.054
96 


Insert offset folio 55 here 67065.055
97 


Insert offset folio 56 here 67065.056
98 


Insert offset folio 57 here 67065.057
99 


Insert offset folio 58 here 67065.058
100 


Insert offset folio 59 here 67065.059
101 


Insert offset folio 60 here 67065.060
102 


Insert offset folio 61 here 67065.061
103 


Insert offset folio 62 here 67065.062
104 


Insert offset folio 63 here 67065.063
105 


Insert offset folio 64 here 67065.064
106 


Insert offset folio 65 here 67065.065
107 


Insert offset folio 66 here 67065.066
108 


Insert offset folio 67 here 67065.067
109 


Insert offset folio 68 here 67065.068
110 


Insert offset folio 69 here 67065.069
111 


Insert offset folio 70 here 67065.070
112 


Insert offset folio 71 here 67065.071
113 


Insert offset folio 72 here 67065.072
114 


Insert offset folio 73 here 67065.073
115 


Insert offset folio 74 here 67065.074
116 


Insert offset folio 75 here 67065.075
117 


Insert offset folio 76 here 67065.076
118 


Insert offset folio 77 here 67065.077
119 


Insert offset folio 78 here 67065.078
120 


Insert offset folio 79 here 67065.079
121 


Insert offset folio 80 here 67065.080
122 


Insert offset folio 81 here 67065.081
123 


Insert offset folio 82 here 67065.082
124 


Insert offset folio 83 here 67065.083
125 


Insert offset folio 84 here 67065.084
126 


Insert offset folio 85 here 67065.085
127 


Insert offset folio 86 here 67065.086
128 


Insert offset folio 87 here 67065.087
129 


Insert offset folio 88 here 67065.088
130 


Insert offset folio 89 here 67065.089
131 


Insert offset folio 90 here 67065.090
132 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 91 here 67065.091