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

37–443 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–978

THE ROLES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND THE ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS AS THEY RELATE TO KATRINA

AND THE ONGOING RECOVERY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 6, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director 

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director

(II) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

OCTOBER 6, 2005

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 9

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 7

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 45

Chafee, Hon. Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 17

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1

Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 4

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 12

Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 46

Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota ...................... 18

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 13

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 16

WITNESSES 

Capka, J. Richard, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation .................................................................... 25

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 80

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 81

Senator Obama .......................................................................................... 79

Senator Thune ........................................................................................... 78

Peacock, Hon. Marcus, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 54

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 59

Senator Obama .......................................................................................... 53

Senator Thune ........................................................................................... 51

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 52

Strock, Lieutenant General Carl, Chief of Engineers, Commander, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers ............................................................................................... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 74

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 70

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 73

Senator Obama .......................................................................................... 69

Senator Thune ........................................................................................... 68

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 68

Woodley, Jr., Hon. Paul, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works ....... 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60
Page

IV

Woodley, Jr., Hon. Paul, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 

—Continued

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 65

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 64

Senator Obama .......................................................................................... 63

Senator Thune ........................................................................................... 62

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 62

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Hurricane Katrina Response: 

Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................. 94–145

Homeland Security............................................................................................ 83–93
(1)

THE ROLES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY 

ADMINISTRATION AND THE ARMY CORPS 

OF ENGINEERS AS THEY RELATE TO 

KATRINA AND THE ONGOING RECOVERY 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 406, 

Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Warner, Bond, Voinovich, Chafee, Murkowski, Thune, DeMint, Isakson, Vitter, Jeffords, Boxer, Carper, 

Lautenberg, Obama. 

Senator INHOFE. Our meeting will come to order. I know Senator 

Jeffords will be walking in momentarily. 

What we are going to do, right now we have five members, as 

soon as we have 10 members as a quorum, we will recess this hearing and go into a business meeting for the purpose of confirming 

five nominees. I think all of our members have the names of these 

nominees. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

We welcome our witnesses to this hearing. The EPW Committee 

has been very busy and very active since Katrina. We have held 

over 10 briefings, we have had closed hearings. We have had them 

with the Corps of Engineers, Highway, EPA and others. This committee just happens to have more jurisdiction over those entities 

that are keeping busy down in the New Orleans, Mississippi, Alabama area than any other committee of course. 

What we are going to talk about today is the EPA, the Corps and 

the Federal Highway Administration are all playing key roles in 

the cleanup, recovery and rebuilding effort in the Gulf States. The 

Corps continues to de-water the city of New Orleans, pumping the 

water into Lake Pontchartrain. I was pleased to learn that the 

level of contamination in Pontchartrain may not be as bad as we 

once feared it was, when we were down there. 

The Corps is also in charge of debris removal. Senator Vitter and 

I have written to both the Corps and the EPA, asking that they ensure this waste is managed properly and that existing permitted 
2

landfill capacity is utilized before even considering opening up old, 

less desirable landfills. 

I know the States are very involved in this issue, but as long as 

we are spending Federal dollars, we should be certain that the 

money is spent both wisely and in a manner that does not create 

future problems. In fact, I intend to watch very closely all dollars 

spent on Katrina to make sure that they are spent wisely in the 

cleanup, recovery and reconstruction. We simply can’t afford to 

waste money or spend money on projects with little or no oversight. 

We also are here to discuss the future of the vital infrastructure 

in the Gulf States. Katrina did unprecedented damage to highways 

and highway bridges in the Gulf States. I look forward to hearing 

from the Federal Highway Administration about what they are 

doing to respond to this disaster. The most recent estimate I have 

heard about the cost of repairs to highways and highway bridges 

damaged by Katrina has been lowered from $2.4 billion to $1.6 billion. That is good news. I understand that these are initial estimates, but I am interested in when these estimates will be more 

stable. 

There was also substantial damage done in the Gulf States 

through water and the treatment work systems. While EPA is still 

assessing how bad the damage is, we look forward to working with 

them to ensure drinking water supplies. 

Without doubt, the largest infrastructure project is going to be 

the flood control system in New Orleans. The levee system in place 

did not work. We still don’t know if it failed or was breached. But 

it did not protect the city. 

We need to understand why it didn’t work and what we can do 

to avoid the problems and delays that were faced in the past. We 

all know that in 1977, lawsuits by environmental groups not only 

delayed the flood control solution for New Orleans, but forced the 

Corps to abandon its preferred solution. Those facts are simply not 

in dispute. 

Many experts who were involved the process nearly 30 years ago 

are convinced that the project the Corps abandoned because of the 

environmental lawsuits in all likelihood would have saved New Orleans. Let me quote from three former well respected career Corps 

employees who were there 30 years ago, back at the time that they 

were enjoined by this lawsuit. 

Rob Vining, a former chief of the Civil Works Program Management Division, Army Corps of Engineers said, ‘‘There is no question 

that environmental activists, through their aggressively pursued 

litigation, forced the Corps and local sponsors to compromise the 

level of protection that otherwise would have been available to the 

residents of New Orleans.’’

Joseph Towers, former chief counsel for the Army Corps of Engineers, said, ‘‘If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not 

have flooded. I told my staff at the time that this judge had condemned the city. Some people said I was being a little dramatic.’’

Fred Caver, former deputy director of Civil Works, Army Corps 

of Engineers said, ‘‘The essential outcome of the 1977 lawsuit was 

that it caused the Army Corps to revert away from the hurricane 

protection barriers to a secondary plan that the Corps knew was 

inferior to the protection of New Orleans. The levees that broke 
3

during Hurricane Katrina were in place because the Corps was 

prevented from building the hurricane protection barriers as a result of the lawsuit and the Corps had to revert to a secondary, inferior plan.’’

Those outside the Corps came to the same conclusions. Greg 

Stone, who is professor and director of the Coastal Studies for LSU 

said, ‘‘The abandoned plan would have likely reduced storm surge 

from coming from the Gulf to Lake Pontchartrain. These floodgates 

would have alleviated the flooding of New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina.’’

We can sit here and talk about what should have happened and 

what didn’t happen. This was projected. We knew that there were 

consequences out there. There are consequences every time someone is enjoined from doing something that logic demands that they 

do. In this case, we knew. 

At that time, in 1977, Senator Vitter, as you well know, we didn’t 

use the category system to measure hurricanes. We know how in 

retrospect that what they were planning to do in 1977 would have 

at least taken care of the disaster that took place a month ago. So 

there are consequences to these things, and things we have to be 

aware of. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Good morning and welcome to this committee’s oversight hearing on activities in 

response to Hurricane Katrina. The EPW Committee has been actively engaged 

since the hurricane struck land over 1 month ago. Since Katrina hit, we have held 

nearly 10 briefings for members and staff, including 2 closed door briefings. In fact, 

this is the third time in the past month that both EPA and the Corps have come 

before us for either a briefing or hearing on Katrina it is the second time for the 

Federal Highway Administration. I want to thank all of you for your cooperation 

with this committee. 

We have much to talk about today as the EPA, the Corps and Federal Highway 

Administration are all playing key roles in the cleanup, recovery and rebuilding effort in the Gulf States. The Corps continues to dewater the city of New Orleans, 

pumping the water into Lake Ponchartrain. I was pleased to learn that the level 

of contamination in Ponchartrain may not be as bad as was once feared. The Corps 

is also in charge of debris removal. Senator Vitter and I have written to both the 

Corps and EPA asking that they ensure this waste is managed properly and that 

existing permitted landfill capacity is utilized before we even consider opening up 

old, less desirable landfills. I know the State is very involved in this issue, but as 

long as we are spending Federal dollars, we should be certain that the money is 

spent both wisely and in a manner that does not create future problems. In fact, 

I intend to watch very closely ALL dollars spent on Katrina to make sure they are 

spent wisely—in the cleanup, recovery and reconstruction. We simply can’t afford 

to waste money or to spend money on projects with little or no oversight. 

We also are here to discuss the future of the vital infrastructure in the Gulf 

States. Katrina did unprecedented damage to highways and highway bridges in the 

Gulf States. I look forward to hearing from the Federal Highway Administration 

about what they are doing to respond to this disaster. The most recent estimate I’ve 

heard about the cost of repairs to highways and highway bridges damaged by 

Katrina has been lowered from $2.4 billion to $1.6 billion. This is good news. I understand these are initial estimates, but I’m interested in when these estimates will 

be more stable. There was also substantial damage done to Gulf States’ water treatment and works systems. While EPA is still assessing how bad the damage is, we 

look forward to working with them to ensure drinking water supplies. 

Without doubt the largest infrastructure project is going to be the flood control 

system in New Orleans. The levee system in place did not work—we still don’t know 

if it failed or was breached—but it did not protect the city. We need to understand 

why it didn’t work and what we can do to avoid the problems and delays that were 

faced in the past. We all know that in 1977, lawsuits by environmental groups not 
4

only delayed the flood control solution for New Orleans, but forced the Corps to 

abandon its preferred solution. Those facts are simply not in dispute. Many experts 

who were involved in that process nearly 30 years ago are convinced that the project 

the Corps abandoned because of the environmentalist lawsuit, in all likelihood, 

would have saved New Orleans. Let me quote three former, well respected, career 

Corps employees who were there 30 years ago: 

Rob Vining, Former Chief of Civil Works Program Management Division, Army 

Corps of Engineers: ‘‘There is no question that environmental activists, through 

their aggressively pursued litigation, forced the Corps and the local sponsors to compromise the level of protection that otherwise would have been available to residents 

of New Orleans.’’ 

Joseph Towers, Former Chief Counsel of the Army Corps of Engineers: ‘‘If we had 

built the barriers, New Orleans would not have flooded. I told my staff at the time 

that this judge had condemned the city. Some people said I was being a little dramatic.’’ 

Fred Caver, Former Deputy Director of Civil Works, Army Corps of Engineers: 

‘‘The essential outcome of the 1977 lawsuit was that it caused the Army Corps to 

revert away from the Hurricane Protection Barriers to a secondary plan . . . that 

the Corps knew was inferior for the protection of New Orleans. The levees that 

broke during Hurricane Katrina were in place because the Corps was prevented 

from building the Hurricane Protection Barrier as a result of the lawsuit, and the 

Corps had to revert to the secondary, inferior plan . . . .’’ 

Those outside the Corps came to similar conclusions: 

Gregory Stone, Professor and Director of the Coastal Studies Institute of Louisiana State University: 

The abandoned plan ‘‘would have likely reduced storm surge coming from the Gulf 

and into Lake Ponchartrain. These floodgates would have alleviated the flooding of 

New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina.’’ 

While there is nothing we can do about the past, we can learn from our mistakes. 

We need to make sure that these extremist environmental groups do not delay or 

prevent the most effective flood protection system from being built. It is my intention to work with Senator Vitter and members of this committee and with the Corps 

to authorize a flood control system that will protect the city of New Orleans. 

Let me again thank you all for coming today and I look forward to your testimony.

Senator INHOFE. Do we have our 10 people yet? 

All right, I announced to Senator Jeffords before you came in 

that as soon as we get 10 people here we will go ahead and recess 

this and go in for a confirmation at that time. 

Senator Jeffords is recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator JEFFORDS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank you for holding today’s hearing. 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have had a devastating impact on 

the Gulf Coast of this Nation. It is critical that we do everything 

that we can to improve the lives of our fellow Americans whose 

lives have been uprooted. 

Hurricane Katrina hit Florida as a category 1 hurricane, moved 

across the Gulf of Mexico and hit the Gulf Coast of the Nation as 

a strong category 4 hurricane. It passed within 10 to 15 miles of 

New Orleans, the winds, rains and storm surge caused a levee 

breach that flooded 80 percent of the city. Over 1,000 people lost 

their lives and thousands more lost their homes. There are 90,000 

square miles of declared disaster area. Some people have characterized the environmental damage in New Orleans as catastrophic. 

The agencies within this committee’s jurisdiction have a major 

role in both the response and the recovery operations of Hurricane 

Katrina. Today is the first in a series of hearings on Hurricane 

Katrina where we will review the roles of agencies in our jurisdic-
5

tion and hear from State and local governments and others on the 

response to and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. 

Mr. Chairman, before we begin to evaluate the disaster response 

we witnessed after Hurricane Katrina, and determine what needs 

to be changed, I think it is worthwhile to remember where we have 

been. Over the past 200 years, we have moved from an ad hoc approach to disaster response to a coordinated, orderly approach 

under the Stafford Act. On September 11, the Nation was struck 

by a terrorist attack. The effectiveness of the Stafford Act and 

FEMA helped reduce the impact of those events. 

After September 11, the Department of Homeland Security was 

formed in what I believe was an act of extremely poor judgment 

that failed to take into account the unique mission of FEMA in responding to natural disasters. FEMA was moved into that department. 

In 2002, I opposed the formation of the Department of Homeland 

Security in large part because of FEMA’s inclusion. At that time, 

‘‘I do not understand why we would jeopardize the Federal Government’s effective response to natural disasters by dissolving FEMA 

into this monolithic Homeland Security Department. I fear that 

FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to hurricanes, 

fires, floods, earthquakes. The question is, who will?’’

With Katrina, I believe that we sadly learned the answer to that 

question: No one. Unfortunately, we learned the hard way that we 

cannot, we must not neglect our natural disaster response capability. As Congress determines what the next steps are, we must 

ask ourselves, are we witnessing a performance failure by the Federal agencies to execute their authorities, or are we missing needed 

authority? I believe we have witnessed a performance failure, not 

a problem with existing authorities. 

In the wake of this performance failure, Congress is stepping in. 

There have been about 50 Katrina-related bills introduced. Some of 

them duplicate the authority that exists in the Stafford Act or elsewhere. Some of them go so far as to delegate the authority to the 

President to waive any Federal statute. 

So far, we have spent about $70 billion provided for hurricane relief. I am concerned that we are returning to the ad hoc response 

to a disaster the Stafford Act was designed to prevent. 

We need to return some order to our disaster response capability. 

Several weeks ago, I joined my colleague, Senator Clinton, as a 

sponsor of two bills which she introduced. The first establishes an 

independent commission to evaluate what happened after Hurricane Katrina and what steps needed to be taken. The second removes FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security and reestablishes it as a stand alone agency. These are two critical steps 

for long term. 

In the short term, we need to be sure that Katrina recovery proceeds in a sensible manner, given what has occurred to date. Today 

I will be joining my colleagues on the minority side of the EPW 

Committee in introducing legislation to respond to Hurricane 

Katrina. It is imperative that there is a process in place for rebuilding Katrina-impacted areas. Our bill focuses on the items in 

our jurisdiction, mainly, infrastructure redevelopment. 
6

Our legislation will provide direction to those agencies in our jurisdiction to ensure that Katrina recovery happens quickly, uses 

Federal funds wisely, and protects public health and the environment. I hope that we will move quickly to pass this legislation in 

this committee. 

My questions in today’s hearing will focus on two main themes. 

First, in the apparent chaos of the response to Hurricane Katrina, 

what have your agencies accomplished, what do you need to accomplish your missions? What are your plans for future recovery of the 

area, and do those plans make sense for the people of the Gulf 

Coast and the Nation? 

Second, as we evaluate the Federal response mechanism, what 

lessons have you learned from Katrina, and what do you need for 

your agencies to be more effective in the future? 

I look forward to hearing from each of you today, and I look forward to our second hearing in a few weeks, where we will hear 

from parties outside the Federal Government on these same issues. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF VERMONT

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have had a devastating impact on the Gulf Coast 

of this Nation. It is critical that we do everything that we can to improve the lives 

of our fellow Americans whose lives have been uprooted. 

Hurricane Katrina hit Florida as a Category One hurricane, moved across the 

Gulf of Mexico, and hit the Gulf Coast of the Nation as a strong Category Four hurricane. It passed within 10 to 15 miles of New Orleans. The winds, rain, and storm 

surge caused a levee breach that flooded 80 percent of the city. Over 1,000 people 

lost their lives and thousands more lost their homes. There are 90,000 square miles 

of declared disaster areas. Some people have characterized the environmental damage in New Orleans as catastrophic. 

The agencies within this Committee’s jurisdiction have a major role in both the 

response and the recovery operations for Hurricane Katrina. Today is the first in 

a series of hearings on Hurricane Katrina where we will review the roles of agencies 

in our jurisdiction and hear from State and local governments and others on the 

response to and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. 

Mr. Chairman, before we begin to evaluate the disaster response we witnessed 

after Hurricane Katrina and determine what needs to be changed, I think it is 

worthwhile to remember where we have been. Over the last 200 years, we have 

moved from an ad hoc approach to disaster response to a coordinated, orderly approach under the Stafford Act. On September 11th, the Nation was struck by a terrorist attack. The effectiveness of the Stafford Act and FEMA helped reduce the impact of those events. 

After September 11th, the Department of Homeland Security was formed. In what 

I believe is an example of extremely poor judgment that failed to take into account 

the unique mission of FEMA in responding to natural disasters, FEMA was moved 

into the Department. 

In 2002, I opposed the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, in 

large part because of FEMA’s inclusion. At the time, I said: ‘‘I cannot understand 

why we would jeopardize the Federal Government’s effective response to natural 

disasters by dissolving FEMA into this monolithic Homeland Security Department. 

I fear that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to hurricanes, fires, 

floods, and earthquakes, begging the question, who will? ’’ With Katrina, I believe 

that we sadly learned the answer to that question: No one. 

Unfortunately, we learned the hard way that we cannot, we must not, neglect our 

natural disaster response capability. As Congress determines what the next steps 

are, we must ask ourselves: Are we witnessing a performance failure by the Federal 

agencies to execute their authorities, or are we missing needed authority? I believe 

we have witnessed a performance failure, not a problem with existing authorities. 

In the wake of this performance failure, Congress is stepping in. 
7

There have been about 50 Katrina-related bills introduced. Some of them duplicate authority that exists in the Stafford Act or elsewhere. Some of them even go 

so far as to delegate the authority to the President to waive any Federal statute. 

So far, we have spent about $70 billion provided for hurricane relief. I am concerned 

that we are returning to the ‘‘ad hoc’’ response to disaster that the Stafford Act was 

designed to prevent. We need to return some order to our disaster response capabilities. 

Several weeks ago, I joined my colleague, Senator Clinton, as a sponsor of two 

bills she introduced. The first establishes an independent commission to evaluate 

what happened after Hurricane Katrina and what steps need to be taken. The second removes FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security and re-establishes 

it as a stand-alone agency. These are two critical steps for the long-term. 

In the short term, we need to be sure that Katrina recovery proceeds in a sensible 

manner, given what has occurred to date. Today, I will be joining my colleagues on 

the minority side of the EPW Committee in introducing legislation to respond to 

Hurricane Katrina. It is imperative that there is a process in place for rebuilding 

Katrina-impacted areas. Our bill focuses on the items in our jurisdiction mainly, infrastructure redevelopment. Our legislation will provide direction to those agencies 

in our jurisdiction to ensure that Katrina recovery happens quickly, uses Federal 

funds wisely, and protects public health and the environment. I hope that we will 

move quickly to pass this legislation in this Committee. 

My questions in today’s hearing will focus on two main themes: First, in the apparent chaos of the response to Hurricane Katrina, what have your agencies accomplished, what do you need to accomplish your missions? What are your plans for 

the future recovery of the area, and do those plans make sense for the people of 

the Gulf Coast and the nation? Second, as we evaluate the Federal response mechanism, what lessons have you learned from Katrina, and what do you need for your 

Agencies to be more effective in the future? 

I look forward to hearing from each of you today, and I also look forward to our 

second hearing in a few weeks where we will hear from parties outside the Federal 

Government on these same issues.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Jeffords. 

We will now recess this hearing and convene a business meeting 

for the purpose of reporting out five nominees. We have 11 here. 

[Recess.] 

Senator INHOFE. We are back into our meeting. All right, early 

bird rule. I would like to ask, to try to stay within our 5-minute 

limit on opening statements. Senator Boxer. I’m sorry, Senator 

Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. In the interest of getting to the hearing, because I am going to have to leave. I would like to waive mine and 

submit it for the record. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, that would be fine. 

Senator Boxer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just have to respond to 

your comments about how the environmentalists essentially were 

to blame for the flooding. I would like to put into the record a GAO 

study that was just completed September 2005. Here is the comment from the GAO. They don’t have any axe to grind. 

‘‘None of the changes made to the project are believed to have 

had any role in the levee breaches recently experienced as the alternative design selected was expected to provide the same level of 

protection. In fact, Corps officials believe that flooding would have 

been worse if the original proposed design had been built.’’

Mr. Chairman, this is the GAO. I think it is really sad that we 

attack a group of people who essentially didn’t support a project 
8

which wouldn’t have done one bit of good and the community opposed. So I put that in the record, with your permission. 

Mr. Chairman, our committee must help assure that the Gulf region is rebuilt in a safe and healthy manner. To find the right solutions, we have to have all the information we need to understand 

the scope of the problem. The EPA and the Louisiana Department 

of Environmental Quality have provided a first look at the unimaginable environmental devastation that must be remedied in 

the area. 

Louisiana’s Department of Environmental Quality estimates that 

as much as 70 million tons of hazardous waste must be disposed 

of as a result of the hurricane. EPA now says that 24 Superfund 

sites are located in the affected region, and at least one in New Orleans, the Agriculture Street landfill, was completely underwater. 

Katrina flooded New Orleans with up to 25 feet of water, creating 

a toxic soup filled with contamination. 

Two weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, the Centers for Disease Control 

(CDC), reported that six people have died, from contamination-related infections. As this polluted soup recedes, it leaves a thick 

layer of muck. Louisiana officials estimate they are dealing with an 

area of roughly 20 miles by 10 miles coated in a 1-foot-thick layer 

of sediment or sludge. As this sludge dries, each moving vehicle 

and each gust of wind can create a potentially toxic cloud that people returning to New Orleans as well as first responders will 

breathe into their lungs. 

Some are returning with their children, and we must make it 

safe for them. We must act decisively to safeguard our fellow citizens. I believe we should craft a health and safety Marshall plan 

as we reconstruct this ravaged area. We must arm people with information, accurate information, not information based on any of 

our ideologies or thoughts or guesses, but scientific information, I 

know you are very strong on that point, Mr. Chairman, so that 

they know if it’s safe to bring their children home. 

Now, I am concerned, and I am going to ask EPA about this, because my understanding is EPA may not be providing people with 

the clear information they need to safely participate in the recovery 

process. EPA characterizes air quality on its web site by saying, 

‘‘the screening results indicated that chemical concentrations in 

most areas are below ATSDR health standards of concern.’’ However, EPA is frequently referring to acute health standards. Acute 

means that exposure is safe over the course of 1 day. The acute 

standard for benzene, a cancer-causing chemical, is 50 parts per 

billion. 

However, Katrina hit this area more than 5 weeks ago. First responders have been down there for longer than 1 day. People who 

return to New Orleans will stay longer than 1 day. I believe EPA 

should use a longer term standard to assess the safety of exposures. For benzene, a 2-week safety exposure standard is 4 parts 

per billion, not 50. 

Fifteen air samples taken in New Orleans showed levels of benzene that exceeded the 4 parts per billion safety standard. EPA 

should be clear about the actual risks that may be faced when people return to the affected areas for more than 1 day. EPA should 

continue to use our Nation’s environmental laws to protect people. 
9

That’s what they’re designed for. We must not take away the safeguards the people in New Orleans need. If we do that, we are victimizing them twice. 

Now, I’m very happy to see Lieutenant General Carl Strock here. 

He and I had a great conversation about the need and the value 

of healthy wetlands for protecting life and property from storms 

and flooding. Wetlands are buffers against storm surges and soak 

excess water from the storms. Healthy wetlands result in hurricanes reaching land sooner and thus cutting the hurricane off from 

the warm waters of the ocean’s surface that feed the storm’s 

strength. 

We don’t need to debate global warming, whether we believe in 

it or not. We know the warm temperatures of the water, whatever 

the cause, caused that hurricane to gain tremendous strength and 

ferocity. So I hope our committee will further explore this issue and 

the ways we can protect and conserve our Nation’s wetlands. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would put into the record, with your 

permission, a quote from Dr. Beverly Wright, Director of the Deep 

South Center on Environmental Justice at Dillard University, a 

university that happens to be underwater at this time in the wake 

of Katrina. She said, ‘‘the public has a right to clean air and clean 

water, and those must be protected.’’

So Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of work to do. We talked early 

on about blame game and this and that. I think it’s better if we 

just work together to make sure that the people are safe when they 

come back and we do everything we can to rebuild this area. Thank 

you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, I have to depart to open up the 

Armed Services Committee hearing. May I ask unanimous consent 

to insert into today’s record questions to be responded to by the 

witnesses? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, certainly, and if there is any statement you 

would like to make? 

Senator WARNER. No, thank you. This is a very important hearing. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, that will be the case. 

Senator Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. We welcome the witnesses. 

We have heard a lot after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita about 

what needs to be done. Little has been said about how the Federal 

Government is going to pay for these efforts. As chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I worked with 

my colleagues for 2 years and 7 months to get SAFETEA passed. 

Now, some seem to be suggesting in time of broken roads and 

high fuel prices that the Government hijacked the fuel taxes our 

citizens pay at the pump to fix their roads to spend it on other Government programs. I have worked too long and too hard as mem-
10

bers of this committee have to put the trust back into the Highway 

Trust Fund to support this. SAFETEA provides $100 million in emergency relief funding aid 

out of the Highway Trust Fund. All excess funds are to come out 

of the general fund. Sine we could all estimate that transportation 

costs from hurricanes will substantially exceed $100 million, I trust 

that the Administration will not choose to raid the Highway Trust 

fund as a primary source of revenue for the emergency spending. 

I am supportive of waiving the cap on emergency relief funding, 

but I oppose raiding the Highway Trust Fund, paid by user fees, 

to keep people from being killed on the highways, to offset these 

costs. 

We look forward to the testimony of the Acting Administrator of 

FHWA and working with the Administration to rebuild and reconstruct the infrastructure network. 

I also look forward to the testimony of Mr. Woodley and General 

Strock. If we had debated flood protection for New Orleans before 

Katrina, I am sure when we reached the floor it would have been 

decried as pork barrel boondoggles that needed to be studied and 

reviewed and reviewed and studied and sued by EPA and Interior 

for years and decades, which would then be litigated by environmental groups, as the Chairman has indicated. 

With respect to the comments on the GAO study, this is a paper 

study, not done with any of the officials, the experts in the region. 

The Chairman has already quoted some comments from the former 

deputy directors and the chief of civil works of the Corps of Engineers, as well as a professor at the Louisiana State University who 

said that the plan abandoned as a result of the lawsuit would have 

likely reduced storm surge coming from the Gulf and into Lake 

Pontchartrain. 

After Katrina, we know that adequate flood control would have 

been a bargain, saving lives and money. I hope we learned a lesson, 

that Congress should lead the effort to prevent crises rather than 

rushing to respond to crises. We must follow the regular order in 

authorizing work that needs to be done. We must hear from the experts and not dump a bunch of money without knowing where it’s 

going. 

The WRDA bill that we passed out of this committee can and will 

be amended to take into account the considered opinions of our experts on this rebuilding in the Gulf region. I will insist that we follow the regular order before putting money into this tremendous 

tragedy. 

Finally, I commend the work of the Corps of Engineers in their 

highly heroic involvement in the global war on terror. Right now, 

there are over 500 civilian and military personnel serving in Iraq 

and 120 in Afghanistan, while others are holding the fort shorthanded here at home. It’s a critical mission and obviously dangerous, but it must be satisfying to the Corps to know that they 

are over there, rather than simply studying and wrestling with red 

tape, as we often require here, that we’re getting things done. 

In the Middle East, they build bases, hospitals, training facilities, barracks, powerplants, water and wastewater treatment. More 

than 2,700 projects are underway in Iraq. Faced with a highly neglected power system under Saddam, which allocated power to cro-
11

nies, the Corps has helped add to the grid enough capacity to serve 

more than 5 million additional Iraqi homes. Some of the Corps’ 

work is in the majority of provinces where there is little violence. 

They are also operating in very dangerous areas and for that, we 

express our thanks. 

When one wonders why America is the world’s economic, military 

and democratic leader, fundamentally that question is answered 

regularly by the enduring quality known as the American spirit, as 

witnessed both by our private citizens and these fine public servants. General Strock, I congratulate you and the members of the 

Corps, and we thank you for your good work. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MISSOURI

Welcome to this morning’s hearings to receive testimony on the actions of EPA, 

the Army Corps of Engineers and the FHWA as they relate to Katrina. I would like 

to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. 

Following hurricanes Katrina and Rita, much has been said about what needs to 

be done with regard to relief efforts, but little has been said about how the Federal 

Government is going to pay for these efforts. As the Subcommittee Chairman of 

Transportation and Infrastructure, I had the pleasure of working for over 2 years 

on the newly signed law SAFETEA–LU. Some seem to be suggesting, in a time of 

broken roads and high fuel prices, that the government hijacked the fuel taxes our 

citizens pay at the pump to fix their roads so they can spend it on other government 

programs. I have worked too long to keep the ‘‘trust’’ in the trust fund to support 

this. 

SAFETEA–LU provides for $100 million in emergency relief funding per State out 

of the Highway Trust Fund, and all excess funds are to come out of the General 

Fund. Since we can all estimate that the transportation costs from the hurricanes 

will substantially exceed $100 million, I am hopeful that the Administration will not 

choose to raid the Highway Trust Fund as the primary source of revenue for the 

emergency spending in the Gulf Region. While I am supportive of waiving the cap 

on emergency relief funding, I am very opposed to the raiding the Trust Fund to 

offset costs. 

I look forward to the testimony of the Acting Administrator of the Federal Highway Administrator Richard Capka, and working with the Administration to rebuild 

and reconstruct the infrastructure networks of the Gulf Coast. 

I also look forward to the testimony of Mr. Woodley and General Strock. If we 

had debated adequate flood protection for New Orleans before Katrina, it would 

have been decried as a pork-barreled boondoggle that needed to be studied and reviewed by EPA and Interior for years and decades, which it would then be litigated. 

After Katrina, we know that adequate flood control would have been a bargain saving lives and money. I hope the lesson we learn is that Congress should lead the 

effort to prevent crisis rather than rushing to respond to crisis. That’s why we must 

follow regular order and pass a robust WRDA that takes care of reasonable needs 

in the Gulf Coast Region. 

Finally, I note the valuable missions the Corps of Engineers perform for this Nation, another mission of the Corps I like to touch upon is the Corps’ highly and heroically involvement with the Global War on Terror. 

Over 500 civilian and military personnel from the Corps are currently serving in 

Iraq and 120 in Afghanistan while others are holding up the fort short-handed here 

at home. While it is a critical mission and obviously dangerous, it must be satisfying 

that the Corps can spend more time building infrastructure over there than simply 

studying and wrestling with red tape compliance as we often require here. In the 

Middle East, they are building bases, hospitals, training facilities, barracks, powerplants, water, and wastewater treatment plants. Currently, more than 2,700 

projects are underway in Iraq. Faced with a highly neglected power system under 

Saddam which allocated power to his cronies, the Corps has helped add to the grid 

enough capacity to service more than 5 million additional Iraqi homes. 

Again, while the Corps is operating in the majority of provinces where there is 

very little violence, they are also operating in dangerous locations. 

When one wonders why America is the world’s economic, military, and democratic 

leader, fundamentally, that question is answered regularly by this enduring quality 
12

known as the American spirit as witnessed by both our private citizens and these 

fine public servants. 

I thank you and congratulate you.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Bond. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks again for calling this hearing and giving us an opportunity 

to talk about Katrina recovery efforts by the EPA, the Corps and 

Federal Highway Administration. 

The first head of EPA in this Administration was a former Governor from my State of New Jersey. She tried to do some good 

things to protect the environment, which is supposed to be the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency. She was undermined 

and undercut by the Administration. I believe that she finally realized that protecting the environment was not a high priority and 

that she became the first cabinet officer to resign from the present 

Administration. I hope that we are not seeing history repeat itself. 

Two weeks ago on September 22, in a closed-door briefing for this 

committee, Administrator Steve Johnson was asked whether EPA 

needed any additional legal authority to perform its cleanup role in 

the Gulf States. He said that EPA already had sufficient legal authority and no new powers were needed. 

The very next day, EPA reversed its position and announced support for a sweeping proposal that would allow it to waive virtually 

any environmental law anywhere in the country. Almost since that 

moment that this storm struck the Gulf Coast, some have been 

planning to use the tragedy as an excuse to dismantle decades of 

environmental protection. In fact, waiving environmental protection was on a list of a Republican post-Katrina agenda as reported 

in the Wall Street Journal September 15. It was a week before Administrator Johnson briefed this committee. 

So I want to be clear. Everybody supports the goal of expediting 

the emergency needs of Katrina’s victims. They need the basic elements: food, clothing, shelter, and they need it without delay. 

It is also critical that EPA fulfills its mission to protect the environment, not add insult to injury, not ask people to go back and 

have their families drinking polluted water, raising the possibility 

that air quality is going to be substantially deteriorated. Gutting 

environmental standards won’t help the victims of Katrina or any 

other American family. 

The people of New Orleans want to return home and get on with 

their lives. They don’t want to do it without it being safe. So as Administrator Johnson told us, we can balance the needs in the Gulf 

with the environmental protection currently on the books. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a good moment, and a very distinguished 

panel of witnesses. I look forward to hearing from them and an opportunity to ask them some questions. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Vitter. 
13

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. 

Thank you, Ranking Member Jeffords, and I would like to thank 

the witnesses as well. 

Certainly the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway 

Administration and EPA are playing a critical role in response and 

cleanup efforts as we begin to rebuild the greater New Orleans 

area. I want to thank them for this work. 

Mr. Chairman, first I want to stress that this hearing and these 

issues are extremely important as national issues and priorities. 

Because Hurricane Katrina is an unprecedented disaster. As such, 

it is not some parochial Louisiana or Mississippi issue, but it is a 

national issue which involves national concerns and national priorities. Never before has a major, modern American metropolitan 

area been fully evacuated and a whole region of the country effectively economically shut down. 

I think that is important to understand, particularly as we under 

the impact this has on our national economy. I think folks are beginning to understand that. Anyone who fills up their gas tank, 

pays their utility bill, purchases products or services with an energy surcharge, purchases food products, will feel the impact of this 

disaster. 

So it’s important that we rebuild this area even better than it 

was before, more secure than it was before, not just for Louisiana 

reasons or Mississippi reasons, which of course I care about, but for 

national reasons and because of national priorities. 

Again, what am I talking about? Energy, 20 percent of our Nation’s energy needs come from or through Louisiana. A storm like 

this, which can happen again unless the area is better protected, 

will cause this significant disruption to our energy supply again in 

the future. 

What about trade and commerce? Up to 70 percent of the crops 

from our midwestern farmers are dependent on south Louisiana 

ports to get those to market. So that is a very important national 

priority, which again we need to focus on. 

Finally, seafood. Our area is the second largest producer of domestic seafood. Between the two recent hurricanes, it has been estimated that up to one-third of our domestic fishing fleet is damaged or destroyed. 

So there are plenty of national reasons we need to have this 

focus that you have been a leader on. Certainly as I said, these 

three agencies before us have played a critical role in the weeks 

since Katrina and are continuing to play a critical role. 

First, the Army Corps of Engineers, clearly the lead Agency in 

terms of our hurricane and flood protection. We need to move forward, rebuild our area, but rebuild it in a way to make sure we 

are safe and the country and the national economy are safe from 

future hurricanes. We need to rebuild protection to category 3, 

which is what we were supposed to have before the storm, and 

then we immediately need to understand and immediately need to 

have a blueprint about how we move up to category 5 hurricane 

protection. 
14

I can’t stress enough how the people of Louisiana need to feel 

safe, need to feel like there is a plan before they are going to be 

able to move back home and before our economy is going to be able 

to get up and running. I have already talked to Mr. Woodley and 

others about this. It seems to me the first order of business as we 

walk down this path is to fully understand what happened with 

our present hurricane and flood protection system. 

So Mr. Chairman, for that reason today, right now but also 

through a formal letter to you, I am going to ask for a specific follow-up hearing, focused exclusively on the key threshold question 

which needs to be answered before we take any other action. That 

key threshold question is, whether the present levee system, the 

present hurricane and flood protection system in greater New Orleans lived up to its design standards, which were category 3, or in 

fact failed in several important respects to those design standards. 

I think that’s the first question we need to answer honestly before 

we understand what we need to do next week, next month and in 

the years ahead as we buildup to category 5 protection. 

Transportation, of course Federal Highway Administration is 

crucial in that. Vital transportation infrastructure is heavily relied 

on all through the region and has been greatly damaged. Maybe 

the best example of that is part of I–10, the twin span bridges between New Orleans and Slidell, which were completely damaged 

and put out of operation by Hurricane Katrina. To rebuild the twin 

span bridges, the Louisiana Department of Transportation needs 

Federal emergency transportation relief assistance. 

That is why I join with you, Mr. Chairman, and other committee members in introducing S. 1714, to provide $2.9 billion in emergency transportation relief to Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. 

I thank you for your leadership on that. 

Finally, EPA, a very important agency in terms of monitoring environmental issues so that we can move forward effectively and 

safely. I thank them for that work. It is very important work, but 

I also want to make a comment in direct response to some of Senator Boxer’s comments. It is important that we do this work and 

it is important that we do it right and do it based on science and 

communicate that fully to the American people. 

I can’t count the number of times, including this morning, I have 

heard the expression ‘‘toxic soup.’’ That is a completely unscientific, 

undefined term that doesn’t represent in any meaningful way 

what’s going on in the greater New Orleans area. Are there environmental issues that we need to monitor and be concerned about? 

Absolutely. Is there toxicity there, widespread and anything that 

would be adequately described by that term? Absolutely not. 

The problem is, when we use undefined, unscientific terms like 

that, it is an enormous impediment to residents, tourists, commerce 

coming back to the metropolitan area. So I welcome EPA being at 

the table and I welcome them bringing some focus and precision to 

the reality on the ground, which involves environmental issues but 

doesn’t involve some 2-foot thick sludge of toxic soup throughout 

the entire metropolitan area. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I very much look forward to the continuing work of this committee. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:]
15

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords, thank you for having this hearing today on Hurricane Katrina. I appreciate the witnesses for being here too. The 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal 

Highway Administration play a critical role in not only the response and clean-up 

efforts but also in rebuilding New Orleans and the surrounding affected parishes 

after Hurricane Katrina. 

Hurricane Katrina is an unprecedented disaster. Never before has a major, modern American city been fully evacuated and a major region of the country shut 

down—including all sources of revenue. 

Some Americans view Katrina as a parochial disaster—a problem for Louisiana. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who has filled their gas tank, paid 

their utility bill or purchased products or services with an ‘‘energy surcharge’’ knows 

that this is not just a natural disaster, but a national disaster. 

Rebuilding Louisiana even better than it was before will truly benefit our entire 

U.S. economy. Louisiana is home to the largest port system in the world. Thirtysix States rely upon our ports for maritime commerce. Up to 70 percent of the crops 

from our mid-western farmers are dependent upon our ports to get their products 

to market. Louisiana is the second largest producer of domestic seafood. Between 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it has been estimated that up to one-third of our domestic fishing fleet is damaged or destroyed. Energy prices have spiked; our domestic fishermen have been devastated and our farmers have no way to get their crops 

to foreign markets. 

The Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, and Federal 

Highway Administration play key roles in ensuring the environment of New Orleans 

and Southeastern Louisiana are safe to return to, a secure level of hurricane protection is in place, and roads and infrastructure are in place to move people safely in 

and out of the area. It is important that the agencies work this process quickly and 

efficiently so that we do not risk this devastation happening again during future 

hurricanes. 

We need to rebuild Louisiana so people are safe from future hurricanes. We need 

hurricane protection and levees that will sustain a category five hurricane. I cannot 

stress enough how the people of Louisiana need to feel safe before they move back 

home—drastically improved hurricane protection and flood prevention is mandatory. 

We are at a crucial point and the Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps 

of Engineers, and Federal Highway Administration need to continue to take action 

to ensure New Orleans and the surrounding parishes are safe for people to move 

back. 

Lake Pontchartrain is one of America’s significant bodies of water. As a freshman 

in Congress, one of the first pieces of legislation I introduced and passed was the 

Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act of 1999 to establish this program within 

the Environmental Protection Agency. The purpose was to give Lake Pontchartrain 

the same status as other nationally significant restoration efforts. Over the past 4 

years, I have secured nearly $18 million for work in the basin. I am very concerned 

about the possible effects the returned discharged water will have on Lake Pontchartrain. I look forward to hearing from the Deputy Administrator about the precautions taken by the EPA to ensure the pollution level is kept at a minimum. 

Vital transportation infrastructure which is heavily relied upon by the residents 

of the North and South shore of Lake Pontchartrain—the I–10 ‘‘Twin-Span’’ 

Bridges—were damaged by the full force of Hurricane Katrina. To rebuild the TwinSpan Bridges the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development needs 

Federal emergency transportation relief assistance. 

That is why I, along with Chairman Inhofe, and other Environment and Public 

Works Committee members introduced S. 1714. This piece of legislation will provide 

$2.9 billion in emergency transportation relief to Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. It is critical that our States receive this funding to rebuild our transportation infrastructure. I look forward to hearing from Acting Administrator Richard 

Capka on the response taken by the Federal Highway Administration after Hurricane Katrina. 

We all need to work together and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses 

today about where the agencies are with the response and where they are going 

from here to continue their progress in an expedited fashion to rebuild Louisiana.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

Senator Voinovich. 
16

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I applaud your 

initiative and leadership in considering the next stage of this recovery effort. I thank the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the Federal Highway Administration for 

being here today. 

I know there have been some concerns about how the Federal 

Government responded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, so it is 

vital to hear from these agencies what we did right and more importantly, what must be done to respond to the aftermath of 

Katrina and future natural terrorist disasters in the United States 

of America. I hope that the emphasis of this hearing is not on what 

happened, but more on what we need to do to deal with the aftermath and what we need to do to make sure that we don’t have the 

same kind of situation in the future. 

The Congress of the United States, in my opinion, spends too 

much time looking at the past instead of looking at the present and 

what we need to do in terms of the future challenges that we have. 

The hurricane has shown that we have serious needs for the repair 

and improvement of our Nation’s aging infrastructure and waterway systems. The desperate conditions these systems currently endure are impacting our economy, the environment and the welfare 

of the American people. 

Currently, the backlog of unfunded Army Corps of Engineers op- eration and maintenance projects authorized by Congress is $1.2 

billion. This is up from $250 million when I arrived in the Senate 

in 1999. In 2001, there was a $38 billion backlog in active water 

resource projects. Today it is at $41 billion. 

Annual appropriations for the Corps’ construction account fell 

from $4 billion average in the mid–1960’s, this is the 1960’s, $4 billion to $1.37 billion average for 1995 to 2004. I am deeply concerned that the level of appropriations for the Corps of Engineers 

civil works program is not sufficient to provide for the efficient development of worthy and needed projects this committee authorizes. 

National investment in water resources has not kept pace with 

our level of economic expansion. If this steep decline in Federal investment persists, our continued economic expansion and environmental improvements will be threatened. Mr. Peacock, you have 

the same problem in the Environmental Protection Agency. You 

have never come by this committee. Maybe you could stop by OMB 

to deal with the sewer and water problems that we have in this 

country today. They are enormous. 

The economic benefits of infrastructure projects speak for themselves. The Corps’ current efforts for Katrina will cost taxpayers at 

least $3 billion. While I am a fiscal conservative, it is clear there 

are certain areas the Federal Government has an appropriate role, 

and there are two specific areas, navigation and flood control, 

where the Federal Government must have a role. 

If Congress and the Administration had been willing to provide 

adequate funding for these infrastructure projects for the Gulf 

Coast, perhaps the Army Corps of Engineers would not be here 

today requesting additional money. We had better respond to Sen-
17

ator Vitter’s complaints constantly that, what is it, a football field 

a day you are losing in terms of your coast line? 

Senator VITTER. Unfortunately, it is a football field every 38 minutes. Of course, that doesn’t count what Katrina did in one fell 

swoop, which accelerates that significantly. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

In August 2002, the Corps completed a reconnaissance study of 

whether to strengthen coastal Louisiana’s hurricane damage reduction projects to protect against category 4 and 5 storms. In September 2004, the Army Corps of Engineers stated the feasibility 

study would cost $8 million. The study only received $100,000 in 

fiscal year 2005 appropriations. It was not included in the President’s fiscal year 2006 request, even though the Corps stated that 

$500,000 was needed for fiscal year 2006 to initiate work on the 

feasibility study. 

Today, the Corps estimates that the cost of the study is $12 million and will need to be fully funded by the Federal Government, 

expedited. I know there are some members of this committee that 

say, we are not going to do anything about the levees in New Orleans until we get the WRDA bill passed. 

Well, I think we ought to go to the leader and find out what 

chance we have to get the WRDA bill up, and if we can’t get the 

WRDA bill on the floor, we ought to move forward and decide 

whether we are going forward to bring this levee to a level 5, how 

much it will cost, allocate the money, let the people know how long 

it’s going to take so they can make plans to determine how they 

are going to develop New Orleans. 

That is the first question. Is it going to be level 5, and then how 

long is it going to take? Because that will have a dramatic impact, 

Mr. Chairman, on what is going to happen in New Orleans. 

Finally, it has been 5 years since we passed the Water Resources. The last two Resource bills were when I was chairman of 

the Infrastructure Transportation Committee, when I came in here 

as freshman, 5 years ago. I just can’t believe it. 

We know there were mistakes made before and after Hurricane 

Katrina, but I believe the Senate, and particularly this committee, 

is committed to improving the Federal Government’s role during a 

disaster. Today is just the first step we are going to take and I am 

confident that we can make certain that Federal agencies involved 

in responding to the aftermath of Katrina are going to have the resources they need, but just as important, have the resources we 

need to contend with future natural disasters. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

Senator Chafee. 

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Chairman, can I submit my statement for 

the record? 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Chafee. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Chafee follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

I am troubled by the tragic events and loss of life that occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina. My heartfelt sympathies go out to the victims and the families affected by this disaster. In this time of crisis, we must come together as a Nation 

to assist those whose lives have been devastated. 
18

Today, we will be receiving testimony from three Federal agencies under the jurisdiction of this Committee that are responsible for implementing specific aspects of 

the National Response System. 

Protecting and responding to hazardous substance releases, the restoration of 

public wastewater and drinking water systems, and conducting environmental assessments of natural and manmade disasters are a few of the emergency responsibilities under the charge of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I understand EPA has worked closely with FEMA and other Federal agencies, the States, 

and local governments to ensure public health and the environment are protected 

and restored after this devastating crisis. 

EPA is charged with another important role for dealing with the aftermath of a 

disasters such as Katrina—Congress has provided the agency with various authorities to issue temporary emergency waivers of the nation’s environmental laws in 

order to address critical needs. As each waiver has been issued in the Katrina situation, this Committee has closely reviewed the purpose and background for providing 

relief in relation to such laws as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. 

I understand the importance of waivers of this nature for addressing immediate 

needs and alleviating problems directly associated with Hurricane Katrina. The request to move contaminated flood waters out of the city of New Orleans and back 

into Lake Pontchartrain required a Clean Water Act waiver. This was well documented and understood—the flood waters were contaminated and had to be quickly 

moved out of the low-lying areas of the city. Similarly, EPA has issued a number 

of waivers under the Clean Air Act in relation to the storm to ensure a constant 

fuel supply across the Nation. I have supported these efforts, but take serious pause 

at the request to provide blanket waivers of the nation’s environmental laws in response to this type of catastrophe. In order to agree to something of this nature, 

I would need to review documented examples of ways in which each of our Federal 

and State environmental laws do not adequately provide the authorities necessary 

for EPA to issue emergency waivers in response to a disaster. 

The Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Highway Administration have also 

been heavily involved in the Katrina response, and I look forward to learning more 

about their efforts. Thank you.

Senator INHOFE. Senator Thune. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Excuse me, Senator Thune. I understand that, 

Senator Vitter, you may have someone you want to introduce. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t realize these 

folks were in the audience when I gave my opening statement. I 

do want to recognize Junior Rodriguez. He is the Parish President 

of St. Bernard Parish and he is accompanied by his special assistant, Charlie Rappell. 

Mr. Chairman, St. Bernard Parish was one of the absolutely 

most decimated areas hit by Hurricane Katrina. Eighty percent of 

the homes have been destroyed or will be condemned. There is one 

functioning home in the parish right now, and of course, because 

of all of that, it has virtually no incoming revenue to address payroll and other government needs. So these leaders are working valiantly through that situation and I want to recognize them. 

Senator INHOFE. We appreciate that very much. I had an opportunity to meet them when I was with you in New Orleans right 

after Katrina. 

Excuse us, Senator Thune, you are recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, and 

I want to thank the panel for being here as well. Thank you for 

organizing today’s important hearing regarding the Federal Government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. 
19

I do want to say on sort of an unrelated note, express my appreciation to the Corps, Mr. Woodley and General Strock for your good 

work in helping us address a situation up in upper reaches of the 

Missouri River with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe water supply 

issue that was a very serious matter earlier this year, could have 

created enormous water supply issues for literally thousands of 

people who live on the reservation and surrounding area. You were 

extremely responsive on that, and I appreciate your assistance. 

We have obviously a massive Federal response underway in the 

Gulf region, and I appreciate the good work that each of the agencies that is represented here today is doing, and look forward to 

hearing more about the scope of the damage as well as what each 

of the agencies have done this far pursuant to the National Response Plan. 

I won’t be able to stay for the entire hearing due to a conflict 

with the Armed Services Committee, but I am interested in hearing the witnesses’ response to a piece of legislation I introduced 

last month along with a handful of my colleagues on this committee, Senate bill 1761, the Gulf Coast Recovery Act. Senator 

Vitter and others who hail from that region know all too well that 

Hurricane Katrina caused untold devastation that will take years 

to recover from. 

The bill that I introduced, along with Senator Vitter, seeks to expedite the cleanup and recovery process by ensuring that Federal 

contractors who are involved in State and Federal cleanup efforts 

there are shielded from burdensome and unjust litigation as they 

assist the Government in carrying out the cleanup in the Gulf 

Coast region. 

I do want to point out to my fellow colleagues that Senate bill 

1761 is modeled after the Safety Act that Congress passed following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and is something I hope we can 

pass in the near future. While I am not obviously asking our witnesses today to endorse the legislation, I would appreciate hearing 

from each of you about how your respective agencies, as well as 

your private sector partners, are impacted by the threat of post-disaster cleanup efforts. 

So as I said, Mr. Chairman, I will not be able to stay for the entire hearing today, but I do have some questions as well with respect to a couple of other issues that pertain to Katrina and river 

management issues that I would like to submit to the record for 

our witnesses to respond to in writing. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, that will be included. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Thune follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for organizing today’s important hearing regarding the Federal Government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. While a massive 

Federal response is underway in the Gulf Coast Region, I look forward to hearing 

from each of our witnesses today to get a fuller understanding of the scope of the 

damage as well as the work the Army Corps, EPA and DOT have done thus far pursuant to the National Response Plan. 

Even though I won’t be able to stay for today’s entire hearing due to a conflicting 

hearing on the Armed Services Committee, I am interested in hearing from each 
20

of our witnesses concerning a bill I introduced last month along with a handful of 

my colleagues on this committee S. 1761, the ‘‘Gulf Coast Recovery Act.’’

As Senator Vitter and others who hail from the Gulf Coast Region know all too 

well, Hurricane Katrina caused untold devastation that will take years to recover 

from. The bill I introduced, along with Senator Vitter seeks to expedite the cleanup and recovery process by ensuring that Federal contractors who are involved in 

state and Federal clean-up efforts are shielded from burdensome and unjust litigation as they assist the government in carrying out the clean-up of the Gulf Coast 

Region. 

I want to point to my fellow colleagues that S. 1761 is modeled after the SAFETY 

Act that Congress passed following the 9/11 Terrorist attacks and is something that 

I hope we can pass in the near future. 

While I am not asking today’s witnesses to endorse this common sense legislation, 

I would appreciate hearing from each of you about how your respective agencies (as 

well as your private sector partners) are impacted by the threat of litigation in postdisaster clean-up efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, because I will not be able to stay for today’s entire hearing, I ask 

unanimous consent that I be allowed to submit the following questions for the 

record.

Senator INHOFE. We thank you very much. 

Let me say before we start with our witnesses, we had occasion 

to be down there with Senator Vitter right after this happened. I 

know there have been a lot of hits that have been taken by EPA, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, FEMA. It was our experience in talking to the people on the ground, they were actually there 1 and 2 

days before landfall. I want to make that observation, because I 

think Senator Boxer is correct when she says, there’s always a 

blame game going on. You folks, I think the performance was much 

better than was reported. 

Why don’t we start with opening statements. We will go ahead 

and start with you, Mr. Peacock, and we will just try to keep them 

somewhere around 5 minutes, 6 minutes, then we will open up for 

a round of questioning. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARCUS PEACOCK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. PEACOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, members of the committee. My name is Marcus Peacock, I serve as the 

Deputy Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I appreciate the opportunity to provide you today with an update of EPA’s response in relationship to Hurricane Katrina. 

I request that my written statement be submitted for the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

Mr. PEACOCK. Our hearts go out to the people of the Gulf region. 

Our continuing response will require a sustained, long term coordination across all Federal agencies, as well as with the affected 

State and local governments. My testimony today on Hurricane 

Katrina will update you on a number of areas of interest. 

First, I would like to briefly touch on EPA’s early response to 

Hurricane Katrina, which the Chairman was just alluding to. EPA 

readied or pre-deployed personnel to the National Response Coordination Center and sent on-scene coordinators to Florida, Louisiana, 

Alabama and Mississippi before Hurricane Katrina made landfall. 

Then after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, EPA joined other organizations in urgent rescue needs. In fact, we used 60 watercraft, 

and these are watercraft that are typically used for environmental 

monitoring, as search and rescue vessels. 
21

As soon as possible, EPA then turned its attention to its primary 

responsibilities under the National Response Plan. These responsibilities include providing guidance for debris issues, assisting 

with the restoration of drinking water and wastewater facilities 

and addressing hazardous releases and oil spills. 

I’d like to now mention some of the issues of greatest concern 

that we have had and are continuing to deal with. These include 

debris management, the status of the drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, and sediment, air and flood water monitoring 

results. 

First, let me discuss debris. Working very closely with the Corps 

of Engineers, we have provided guidance on the safe disposal of debris that may contain PCBs and asbestos and continue to provide 

site specific technical assistance in the disposal of hazardous and 

nonhazardous waste. 

Regarding drinking water and wastewater facilities, and I have 

charts here which should be helpful. Senator Vitter, I hope you can 

see that. These pie charts for each State show the population that 

was affected in terms of receiving drinking water. As of October 4, 

the States report that approximately 84 percent of drinking water 

systems in the affected region were operational. That’s the blue 

areas. Those populations have drinking water now available to 

them. 

Senator INHOFE. Pardon me for interrupting. What is the date of 

what we are seeing right now? 

Mr. PEACOCK. This is through October 4. So this represents the 

water, the population that was being served by water systems affected by Hurricane Katrina. So 84 percent of the systems, a majority of the people, now have operating water systems. They are getting potable water. In the non-blue sections, over a million people 

are currently being served by facilities that we know are not operating or we don’t have complete information on the status of them. 

Wastewater facilities were also affected. This information I am 

showing now is also through October 4. This shows the number of 

facilities in the affected region for the three States. As of October 

4, 96 percent of these facilities were operational. As you can see, 

there are some facilities, particularly in the red, 4 percent of the 

systems, 16 of them, serving a population of over half a million 

people, are not operating right now. That includes, for instance, 

one of the facilities in New Orleans. Getting 100 percent of these 

drinking water and wastewater facilities up and running is a very 

high priority for us. 

Let me talk about oil spills and hazard releases very briefly. EPA 

and the Coast Guard are working together to conduct more than 

130 emergency response actions as a result of over 600 reported incidents during this period. I know Superfund sites are of great interest to the committee. There is a map here of the Superfund sites 

in the affected area for Katrina. As Senator Boxer mentioned, there 

are 24 of them. These are National Priority List sites. 

We were able to conduct initial assessments, both the States and 

EPA, as soon as these sites were accessible to us. Of course, these 

tended to be ‘‘first looks’’ and recognizing that, we are continuing 

assessments and, where necessary, conducting water or soil samples at the sites of greatest concern. 
22

Regarding floodwaters, here is a map of New Orleans showing 

the sites where we have done tests with the State. We have tested 

for over 100 chemical priority pollutants. The yellow dots show the 

sites that were tested before Hurricane Rita, because there was, of 

course, re-flooding. The orange dots indicate where we have tested 

post-Hurricane Rita. 

The results to date indicate that the flood water does have high 

levels of bacterial contamination, including e. coli, and some locations do have some elevated levels of chemical contaminants including lead and arsenic levels which exceed EPA drinking water 

levels. 

Let’s discuss sediment briefly. These are similar maps showing 

yellow dots for where we tested prior to Rita and orange for postRita testing. These were again collected by EPA and the State. As 

you would suspect, the sediments contain what we found in the 

water, elevated levels of bacteria. They also contain levels of fuel 

oils. Levels of metals detected thus far have been below levels that 

would be expected to produce immediate adverse health effects, but 

just the contamination and the bacteria alone suggest people 

should not be handling this material without some protection. 

Let’s discuss air monitoring. This is becoming of increasing concern. There are a number of tools we have for air monitoring, everything from the ASPECT aircraft and the TAGA bus, which is 

shown here, which stands for Trace Atmospheric Gas Analyzer. 

They take snapshots, screening data, to help us identify where 

problems may exist. Then we have other methods, such as the 

DataRam 400 monitors, and stationary monitors that we have set 

up and are setting up that can provide more data over a longer period of time. 

In conclusion, and looking ahead, much remains to be done to address public health and the environmental impacts of Hurricane 

Katrina, as well as Hurricane Rita. Some of you know I have not 

been at the agency very long. The way I have seen the EPA employees respond with determination and a sense of mission in this 

crisis, just in the past few weeks, makes me very proud to be 

counted among them. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Peacock. 

I would ask Secretary Woodley and General Strock, you might divide the time between the two of you as you wish. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have a very brief summary, and I would like leave to add 

written comments to the record. 

I am John Paul Woodley, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Civil Works. Lieutenant General Carl Strock, Chief of Engineers 

and I, are here to discuss the Army Corps of Engineers relief effort 

in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, as well as the role the Corps of 

Engineers will play in the reconstruction efforts that lie ahead. 

I visited the Hurricane Katrina disaster area September 16 and 

17, and the devastation was immense. I saw the recovery process 

already underway and after my visit, I am assured that the Corps 

is successfully postured to continue its support to FEMA and the 
23

Department of Defense and their response to the disaster, as well 

as to continue our ongoing civil works mission throughout the Nation. 

While the Corps is focused on disaster relief, recovery and de-watering New Orleans and surrounding areas, we stand ready to work 

with local and State officials as they plan for the rebuilding of New 

Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast. The Corps has completed 

a reconnaissance study assessing the general engineering feasibility, economic justification and potential environmental implications of providing a higher level of hurricane protection to New Orleans. More analysis will be required to determine the most efficient way to strengthen the protection level for the city. 

We are especially mindful that the coastal wetlands ecosystem is 

the literal, figurative and conceptual foundation upon which all of 

these protection and restoration projects will be constructed. The 

Administration is working with Congress and the State of Louisiana to improve the implementation process for the Louisiana 

Coastal Area Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Program to include additional authorities for greater programmatic funding and 

increased opportunities for application of adaptive management decisionmaking. 

These same kinds of authorities need to be provided to the Corps 

and the Secretary of the Army for effective integration of wetlands 

ecosystem projects with other kinds of protection and restoration 

efforts, all consistent with the Administration’s longstanding commitment to watershed based approaches, to sustainable water resource development. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to 

present today. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, sir. General Strock. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL STROCK, CHIEF 

OF ENGINEERS, COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

General STROCK. Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords and members 

of the committee, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify before you. 

I am Lieutenant General Carl Strock. I am the Chief of Engineers and the Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responding to the terrible 

aftermath of Katrina and Rita in the States of Florida, Alabama, 

Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas in three ways. First, in support 

of FEMA and the National Response Plan; second, under the support to Federal military response; and third, within our own authorities and responsibility. 

Our support to FEMA consists of execution of Emergency Support Function 3, which deals with the provision of ice and water, 

temporary power, temporary roofing, technical assistance and debris removal. We normally do temporary housing under this Emergency Support Function, but given the magnitude of the effort in 

this event, that was taken over by FEMA through a special task 

force. 

Through standing planning and response teams, supported by 

pre-competed contractors, we actually deployed before landfall. 
24

Then following landfall, we expanded our presence as mission assignments came in from FEMA. To date, we have over 3,000 people 

deployed from across the Corps of Engineers, and we are carrying 

out mission assignments in excess of $3.2 billion. 

Given the magnitude of this disaster, we are assisted by other 

Federal agencies, notably the Department of Interior through the 

Bureau of Reclamation. In terms of our support to Federal response, we provided JTF, Joint Task Force Katrina and Rita, Generals Honore and Clark, an experienced staff of military and civil 

engineers to help them in the coordination and planning of the 

military effort. They coordinate the activities of Air Force, Marine, 

Navy and Army units in their response and support of the recovery. 

Within our own authorities, we are operating under P.L. 84–99, 

and within our navigation missions, we are conducting project condition surveys, we are conducting emergency repairs of flood and 

hurricane protection systems, we are restoring shallow and deep 

draft navigation in cooperation with NOAA and the U.S. Coast 

Guard. This is a critical function that will restore the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the Mississippi River and its tributaries. 

We are also planning the restoration of projects to pre-Katrina 

condition. This will include an assessment of the performance of 

the system during the hurricanes. 

To date, we have transferred $64 million of our own funding to 

the effort and we have allocated $200 million of supplemental funding to both our O&M account and to our Flood Control and Coastal 

Emergency account. This has been a remarkable effort. Three of 

our divisions, South Atlantic Division under Brigadier General 

Mike Walsh, Mississippi Valley Division under Brigadier General 

Bob Crear, and our Southwestern Division under Brigadier General 

Jeff Dorko have led the effort. They have been supported by four 

other general officers from the Corps of Engineers in the response 

and recovery. Forty of our forty-five worldwide districts have been 

engaged. Three of them are in Iraq and Afghanistan and were not 

able to contribute, but all the rest have. 

In a situation like this, the New Orleans District was felt to be 

a victim district. Pre-landfall, we had a plan in which the Memphis 

district would come in and assume the emergency support functions to the New Orleans area. They have done that very effectively. 

We also brought in the Rock Island district to handle the de-watering of New Orleans. This was a pre-planned effort that we knew 

someday we might have to accomplish. The St. Louis District has 

Task Force Guardian, which is restoring the levees. So the entire 

Mississippi Valley Division is engaged in the effort. As always, we 

rely on our industry partners and the private sector to provide support to us as we carry out our missions. 

In summary, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers understands the 

urgency of this effort, and we are committed to doing everything 

within our authority to assist our fellow citizens put their lives 

back together and to set the conditions for recovery of this critical 

area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, General. 
25

Mr. Capka, you and I were talking, it seems as if FHWA is always a quick responder. Remembering very well when Mary Peters 

was the Secretary after the interstate disaster we had in Oklahoma, she beat me to the scene. So you are keeping up that tradition. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF J. RICHARD CAPKA, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. CAPKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, and 

members of the committee, for the opportunity to discuss the Federal Highway response to Hurricane Katrina. 

I am Richard Capka, the Acting Administrator for Federal Highways. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my full statement be made part 

of the record of the hearing. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

Mr. CAPKA. First, we in Federal Highways want to express our 

sympathies to all those affected by the recent hurricanes and assure all that we are committed to expediting recovery in the devastated areas. We worked closely with other Federal, State, and 

local officials before and during the hurricane, and we continue to 

do so. 

In discussing our response, it is important to note that through 

our day-to-day mission activities, our permanent Federal Highway 

Division Office staffs have developed both excellent first-hand 

knowledge of their respective States, and strong professional and 

personal relationships with State and local highway officials. These 

factors have provided an excellent foundation for an effective, coordinated, and rapid highway disaster response. 

As soon as we could re-enter the affected areas, Federal Highway 

sent in personnel, including staff from outside the affected region, 

to work alongside other Federal, State, and local officials to help 

assess the damage, and to facilitate response and recovery efforts. 

I personally visited the affected areas with Louisiana’s Secretary of 

Transportation and Development, Johnny Bradbury; Mississippi 

Department of Transportation’s Executive Director, Butch Brown; 

and the Mississippi Highway Commission Chairman, Wayne 

Brown. While TV coverage, aerial surveys of the bridge and road 

damage along Interstate 10 and U.S. Highway 90 and other roads 

certainly tell a compelling story, they really couldn’t convey the full 

impact of the devastation that I witnessed. 

I must express my admiration for the State and local highway 

department and road crews. Despite the fact that many of them 

suffered great personal loss alongside their community neighbors, 

those dedicated and undeterred crews began clearing debris, including downed trees and power lines, from highways and bridges 

as soon as it was safe to do so. Consequently, in less than a day, 

except in flooded areas and areas of damaged structures, the States 

had debris removed from the Federal-aid highways to enable ready 

access for the first responders. 

Federal Highway employees worked shoulder to shoulder with 

the State highway officials to rapidly assess the damage and to 

shape strategies that would provide the most efficient response. We 

facilitated in getting Mississippi and Louisiana officials together 
26

with those officials from Florida who had experienced Hurricane 

Ivan’s impacts last year to shape the strategies to address the 

bridge damages along Interstate 10 and U.S. 90 in Mississippi. 

We also worked with the States to expedite procedures to get 

contractors underway with repairs. Incentives have been effectively 

employed to ensure quick restoration of lost essential services. For 

example, Mississippi awarded a $5.2 million contract to repair the 

I–10 bridge over the Pascagoula River that had become a traffic 

choke point on one of the highest priority corridors across the 

south. The contract included not only an incentive if work was completed in less than 31 days, but also a corresponding penalty for 

finishing late. 

I am very pleased to report this bridge opened early, on October 

1, very similar to the experience on Interstate 40 in Oklahoma, almost 10 days ahead of the contract completion date. Senator Vitter, 

Louisiana is using very similar techniques to restore the bridge at 

Slidell going into New Orleans. 

We strongly support these incentivized contracts, and we are out 

in the field working closely with States to exercise all appropriate 

options and tools available during the rebuilding effort. We are 

working with the Corps and other agencies to ensure that our infrastructure work is coordinated, and requirements are met in 

ways that will not impede rapid recovery. We are coordinating with 

the CEQ, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Corps, and 

other Federal agencies to help streamline the environmental analysis process that must precede long term recovery projects, that 

will prepare the transportation foundation for long-term rebuilding 

effort. We will continue to work with the State and local governments to help restore the Gulf Coast as quickly as possible. 

Finally, I would like to note that the Federal Highway Administration administers the Emergency Relief Program, which provides 

reimbursement for States for expenses related to highway infrastructure damage associated with natural disasters and other 

emergency situations. To date, Federal Highways has provided $10 

million in quick release Emergency Relief funds to Louisiana and 

Mississippi. 

Mr. Chairman, we agree with your interest in financial controls. 

While quick response is important, we also are very mindful that 

financial accountability is important, too. Federal Highways has 

taken specific steps to effectively manage expenditures related to 

Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. We will ensure that these 

funds are spent wisely and that emergency relief projects comply 

with the Federal requirements. 

Mr. Chairman, members, thank you again for this opportunity to 

be with you here today. I will be pleased to answer any questions 

that you might have. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Capka. 

We will proceed now to two rounds of questioning. I would ask 

our members not to exceed 5 minutes. I will comply with that myself, so that others will have an opportunity to be heard and to ask 

their questions. 

First I would say, Secretary Woodley and/or General Strock, I 

know we have a difference of opinion up here at this table in terms 

of what might have happened in 1977. I just can’t let it go by the 
27

wayside when we know in advance that something is going to happen and we don’t take the proper action. I would like to ask you 

if either one of you, it would probably be you, Secretary Woodley, 

know Fred Caver, Rob Vining, and Joseph Towers, all former career Corps employees. 

I understand that today’s Corps has not gone back to see, to look 

at the project that was abandoned in 1977 to see if it could have 

been better. When a former Deputy of Civil Works and Former 

Chief of Civil Works Program Management Division makes these 

assertions, do you believe we should put a significant amount of 

weight behind their opinion? 

Secretary Woodley? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Mr. Chairman, certainly I personally know the 

first two gentlemen you mentioned. The third I know by reputation. 

Senator INHOFE. That would be Fred Caver and Rob Vining. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I can tell you they are exceptionally distinguished 

public servants whose service to the Corps over almost a generation would lead me to certainly take any of their views very seriously. 

Senator INHOFE. As you look forward, can you think of something 

that can be done to avoid a situation like this occurring again, any 

thoughts like that? I think maybe that’s more our job than your 

job, but to see what thoughts you had. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I would say, I think it would be very important 

for us as a Nation to review the process that led to the level of protection that was decided upon and the design that was done and 

to learn whatever lessons we can from that inquiry. I think it 

would be very instructive. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Peacock, I am always concerned about people going back to 

the scene. We know from experience that after 9/11, now in retrospect, many people did return before it was safe to make that return. The Mayor of New Orleans has begun allowing people back 

into the city. Do you think he has adequately informed the residents and those who will be coming back of the threat that might 

be there or the dangers that might be there? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Yes, for instance, he has put out, among other 

things, a two-page list of concerns including environmental concerns. In fact, the second page deals almost exclusively with environmental concerns, providing advice and cautions to people who 

may be returning. 

Of course, he has also limited who may return to particular 

areas, whether it’s daylight hours or healthy adult individuals, for 

instance. That information is really put together by not only the 

Mayor, but with the advice of State officials, including environmental officials, as well as EPA and HHS and other Federal officials. 

Senator INHOFE. It bothers me a little bit when you say that the 

Mayor has a report out. How many people will see the report? 

What other means of communication are being used? I think a lot 
28

of people go back, it’s an emotional thing, and they are not going 

to pay an awful lot of attention to a report. 

Mr. PEACOCK. That’s right. In fact what I’m referring to is a twopage handout of which thousands and thousands of copies were 

made and handed out at various places. 

You need a panoply of actions to take place. We have used AM 

and FM radio, television, newspapers, people have gone door to 

door. The pamphlets have been handed out not only at the relief 

centers but also, for instance, EPA officials yesterday took brochures regarding mold to the Small Business Administration centers where people can apply for assistance from the Small Business 

Administration, to make sure it gets in their hands. We are always 

open to any suggestions for how to get this information out. 

Senator INHOFE. The media has been cooperative in conveying 

these messages? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Yes, that’s correct. Once again, I think there is 

room for improvement here, and any suggestions people have, we’re 

all ears. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Mr. Capka, the amount of money we are looking at now in rebuilding infrastructure and roads is unprecedented. As you look at 

FHWA, do you think we have the resources, do you have the resources to give adequate oversight? There is a lot of discussion 

about oversight. You heard it in opening statements up here and 

that reflects my opinion also. What do you think, in terms of resources, what are your capabilities? 

Mr. CAPKA. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you, there is an unprecedented amount of resources that will be invested through the highway recovery. We have anticipated the requirement, the oversight 

requirement, and we have controls in place to ensure that the expenditures of these resources are wise. 

Senator INHOFE. You will keep us informed as this might change. 

Mr. CAPKA. I certainly will, yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Jeffords. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Mr. Peacock, on September 17, EPA and CDC 

issued an environmental health needs and habitability assessment. 

Most of the recommendations in that report were for actions that 

should be taken. 

How many of these recommendations have been implemented? 

For example, what is the status of developing short term and long 

term criteria for return? Do you feel that the EPA recommendations are being followed as re-entry plans are being put into place? 

Mr. PEACOCK. That’s right, on September 17, there was a task 

force report which was put together by CDC and EPA. It was not 

an operational plan, it was a framework for not only the Federal 

Government but also the State Government and the local government to work within in re-inhabiting New Orleans. That’s made 

clear, I think, in the first paragraph of the report. 

Most of those, if not all those recommendations, have been followed. Some of them have been overcome by events. One issue, in 

particular, is providing information regarding site-specific assessments of the environmental conditions of various parts of the city. 

The Mayor decided that portioning the city into zip codes was a 

logical way of doing that, so EPA and CDC, along with the State, 
29

have provided information through the principal Federal officer, 

Thad Allen, to the mayor based on zip codes. That’s been updated 

a number of times, I think the last time that was done was late 

in the day on September 28. If you would like a copy of that assessment, that can certainly be provided to you. 

Senator JEFFORDS. I appreciate that, thank you. 

General Strock, what process did the Corps have in place prior 

to Katrina for providing notice and warning to Federal, State and 

local officials about the status of the levees before the storm arrived and after the levees failed? Did you provide notice of levee 

failure when it occurred? Was your notice process used effectively, 

and have you made any changes in the process as a result of 

Katrina? 

General STROCK. Sir, pre-disaster, we have an agreement with 

the local levee and drainage boards that actually operate and maintain the system. It’s their responsibility to maintain its design configuration. We inspect those works annually and work with the 

locals to bring those up to standard where we find challenges. 

So we do understand what the condition was prior to landfall. 

The local authorities also understood that condition. I think it was 

very clear to everyone from the beginning that we could not guarantee anything beyond a category 3 level of protection. 

After the event, sir, we have conducted extensive project condition surveys. In fact, that is one of the criteria that Mayor Nagin 

is using to determine when to go back in. There are two hazards 

that really remain right now. One is the pumping system of New 

Orleans, it is severely degraded, especially in the Orleans East Parish where about 40 percent of the pumping capacity is available. 

So they are vulnerable to heavy rain events that could put as much 

as 6-feet of water back into the city. The other is vulnerability to 

any kind of storm activity. Even a tropical storm could present a 

problem. 

As we saw in Hurricane Rita, we expected a 3- or 4-foot storm 

surge and we got about an 8-foot storm surge. We have now put 

10-foot protection into all the repairs in the vicinity of New Orleans. So we are working very closely with the local authorities so 

they do understand the risks. In terms of reporting the breach in 

the levee, like everyone else in New Orleans, we conducted a mandatory evacuation. We had a very small staff in our district office. 

They made attempts to get out and follow up on a reported levee 

breach at 17th Street Canal, but were unable to get to it by land, 

and eventually once the weather cleared, were able to assess the 

situation from the air. By that time, it was very difficult, probably 

impossible to reverse that particular breach. 

I don’t know for sure, sir, I could find out for the record exactly 

when and who we notified of that breach condition. We later 

learned there were breaches, of course, in other parts of the levee 

system that we had followed up on and worked with the locals to 

assess and repair. 

Senator JEFFORDS. I would appreciate that, if you would follow 

up on that. 

General STROCK. Yes, sir. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Mr. Peacock, how is EPA documenting the air 

quality effects of the fuel waivers granted? 
30

Mr. PEACOCK. As you are aware, a number of fuel waivers have 

been granted. Most of them, I believe, have sunsetted, although a 

low sulfur diesel waiver was extended, I think, to October 25 for 

some States in PADD III. 

We are continuing to look at what the air quality effects may be. 

As I think has been mentioned before, as long as these are short 

term in nature, there should be minimal effect on air quality. The 

one concern with the diesel waiver would be over a period of time 

you might start having mechanical problems with the engines but 

as long as these are kept short term in nature, that should not be 

an issue. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask Secretary Woodley and General Strock some 

questions about the levee system, which is an obvious focus. What 

is the current state of your understanding about the actual 

strength of Hurricane Katrina when it reached those areas where 

we had problems and breaches? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Sir, it is my understanding the National Weather 

Service characterized Katrina as a category 4 when it hit landfall 

at Head of Passes, the lower part of the basin, category 3 when it 

hit Mississippi. So between a category 3 and 4. The question, is 

what sort of storm surge you had in Lake Pontchartrain. Because 

that storm surge builds as the hurricane approaches. So the real 

question is, what was the storm surge in Lake Pontchartrain. We 

lost a lot of gauges in this process, and I don’t know that we know 

the full answer to that. That will be an important element in our 

forensics on assessing the performance of the system. 

Senator VITTER. In terms of the overall strength, category 4 at 

Head of Passes, why don’t you explain for the committee where 

that is. That is basically the outer tip of the outer mouth of the 

Mississippi, right? 

General STROCK. Yes, sir, it is the mouth of the Mississippi River 

where it enters the Gulf of Mexico. It is 116 miles by river from 

New Orleans. That is one of the challenges. New Orleans is 116 

miles on the riverside from the sea. It is on the sea, essentially, on 

Lake Pontchartrain. 

So here is Head of Passes, down here, sir. Category 4 there, category 3 here. It is the storm surge in Lake Borgne and Lake Pontchartrain that really put the stresses on the levee system. 

Senator VITTER. That storm surge was created closer to the time 

you are describing it hitting Mississippi than closer to the time it 

hit Head of Passes, isn’t that correct? 

General STROCK. Sir, I would have to defer to the weather folks 

to answer that properly. Yes, the surge builds as the hurricane approaches. Hurricane Rita passed 200 miles, over 200 miles from 

New Orleans, but we have an 8-foot surge in Lake Pontchartrain 

just from Hurricane Rita—I’m sorry, in the Inner Harbor Canal, 

sir. 

Senator VITTER. The design standard for the overall system is 

category 3, right? 

General STROCK. That’s correct, sir. I might add, it’s understood 

that the categorization of hurricanes occurred in 1975 with the 
31

Safer-Simpson scale. These projects were actually designed for 

what is called a standard probable hurricane, a set of wind, barometric pressure and storm surge that describes the kind of storm 

we might expect in this area, provided to us by the National 

Weather Service some 40 years ago. 

Senator VITTER. Has it been updated in 40 years in terms of the 

sort of storm surge in particular you might expect? 

General STROCK. To my knowledge, sir, I don’t know that the expectation of frequency has been updated. The standards to which 

we designed against have not been changed since the early part. 

Senator VITTER. Is there a specific storm surge standard to which 

this was designed to? 

General STROCK. Sir, I believe this was designed for an 111⁄2-foot 

storm surge. Hence, we had levee walls in some places that were 

as high as 17 feet to account for a factor of safety and wave action. 

Senator VITTER. What’s the best information you have as of now 

about whether any levee was in fact overtopped or not? 

General STROCK. Clearly, sir, we had significant overtopping of 

the St. Bernard’s levee up along the Mississippi River, Gulf Outlet. 

That was clearly overtopped. We have some debris fields that 

would indicate levees along Lake Pontchartrain were overtopped. 

I don’t know the answer to the question about the levees on the 

17th Street, London Avenue. I believe the Inner Harbor Canal, I 

think we’re fairly certain that that levee was overtopped as well. 

That will be a part of our study, sir, by looking at debris fields and 

high water mark and so forth, when we get into this. 

Senator VITTER. For that study, with regard to exactly what happened, was it overtopped? If so, where? Did it just fail in some 

places? What’s your time line for that study? 

General STROCK. Sir, we hope to get that done in a relatively 

short period of months to get that kind of initial forensics done. It 

is an urgent question, because as we try to restore to pre-Katrina 

conditions, we want to ensure that we are not putting in any kind 

of a flawed design. So we are very interested to see whether the 

system performed as designed or whether there was some problem 

with our design that caused these breaches to occur. 

Senator VITTER. Do you have a number of months in mind, in 

terms of a schedule? Do you have a number of months in mind? 

General STROCK. For the study, sir? 

Senator VITTER. Correct. 

General STROCK. No, sir, there are so many variables involved, 

I think we will take it sort of one step at a time. We are mobilizing 

the very best and brightest to do this. Our Engineering Research 

and Development Center from Vicksburg, MS is involved. We have 

hydraulic engineers, structural engineers and those sorts of folks. 

We have the American Society of Civil Engineers helping us with 

peer review and oversight. The National Science Foundation has 

been engaged and we are working with various academics around 

the country to enhance our efforts, sir. 

Senator VITTER. I’m a little concerned that there is no set schedule that this is going to be pushed and pushed. The announced 

schedule to even get back to pre-Katrina protection is next June, 

which is the beginning of the next hurricane season. 

General STROCK. That’s correct. 
32

Senator VITTER. So that means if it slips at all, it goes into the 

next hurricane season. 

General STROCK. That is correct, sir. 

Senator VITTER. That is a huge concern of mine. 

General STROCK. Yes, sir, and that’s one of the reasons we are 

really trying to limit the scope of this study not to evaluate alternatives and that sort of thing, but look at the performance of the 

actual system in place with the known stresses we had, limit that, 

so that we can make sure that we are doing things right as they 

are put back in place. 

The urgency is such that we must know that before we can begin 

letting contracts for the final repairs. That is in the next couple of 

months, we have to get these contracts moving to make a June 

2006 deadline. 

Senator VITTER. When you say by June get it up to pre-Katrina 

protection, what does that mean exactly? I hope it means correct 

any design deficiencies. 

General STROCK. Yes, sir. 

Senator VITTER. I hope it means take account of a more significant storm surge, if in fact a category 3, which is, I believe, what 

it was when it hit these levees, completely overwhelmed the system. 

General STROCK. Sir, I think we certainly need to understand if 

there is more likely frequency of that kind of a storm surge. The 

reality is, though, I think we will be working very hard just to put 

the system back in the way it was prior to Katrina. The business 

of even constructing levees is a difficult one because of the foundation soils and their sensitivity and our ability to, it is weather-dependent and all that sort of thing. I think that at best, we will be 

able to put it back to pre-Katrina conditions, subject to any design 

corrections we need to make. We will certainly make those. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, General Strock. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

In terms of the health issues, I wanted to talk to Mr. Peacock 

about this. When I look at the CDC report, they list the top 10 conditions that exist in the people who are exposed to some of these 

materials and it looks to me, and I will read what they are, 6 of 

the 10 appear to be symptoms from a possible toxic exposure 

whether it’s obstructed pulmonary disease, rash, flu-like illness like 

pneumonia and so on, diarrhea, other things that are listed here. 

Therefore, to me, what’s really important is this, that we be honest about it, because people are, in America, they expect that from 

us, and that we fix it. That’s what I’m about, fixing it. 

I want to know how we fix these problems. Instead of arguing 

whether what’s it called, is it a toxin, is it an infectious element, 

it doesn’t matter to me. Call it anything you want. People have 

these exposures, six people died. We want to make sure people are 

safe, kids are safe, everyone. We all agree with that. We might disagree with what’s causing it. That should be based on science. 

As the Ranking Member of the Superfund Subcommittee here, I 

have great concern about these Superfund sites. It’s my responsibility to the people in the affected areas, as well as to my own peo-
33

ple who care a lot about this. California was the biggest private donation State in the Union, I am proud to say to my colleague, how 

much the people care. So I am stepping up to the plate. 

Here’s the thing. When I spoke to Mr. Johnson about this matter, 

and it’s documented, he said, ‘‘all the Superfund sites would be 

tested.’’ When pressed, he said, ‘‘he could not give me a date’’. I’m 

a little alarmed at your testimony, because you said they will be 

tested as needed. What does that mean? Why aren’t we testing 

these Superfund sites yesterday, so we can clean them up and 

make sure that the people are safe? 

Mr. PEACOCK. First of all, because Rita also came through and 

affected some of these sites, let me put Katrina and Rita together. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I just want you to answer my question. I 

don’t need to go back. 

Mr. PEACOCK. There are 54 sites in the Katrina-Rita area. 

Senator BOXER. Will you be testing all of them? 

Mr. PEACOCK. No, we won’t. There have been initial assessments 

at all but two of these sites. One is still flooded, so we haven’t been 

able to get access to it. The other, which I believe is in Texas, we 

have not been able to get access to. 

Senator BOXER. So two sites you haven’t got access to, and you 

do not plan to test the Superfund sites, all of them? 

Mr. PEACOCK. There are 15 sites we have done the initial assessment of, which is a visual inspection, including, for instance, opening up groundwater piping. We will not be doing soil samples at 

15 sites in Texas. The experts, the engineers and the scientists, 

both the State and EPA who go out to these sites, and particularly 

the State people know these sites well, may make an initial determination that soil samples are not necessary on those 15 sites. In 

Texas they have already made such a determination. It’s simply because they are in an area that was not hit as hard by the storm 

as expected. They may be in a county that was declared a disaster, 

but their expert opinion is the site does not require——

Senator BOXER. How many Superfund sites will you be testing 

thoroughly in the region? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Of the 54, we will not be testing 15, but we will 

be testing all of the remaining sites. 

Senator BOXER. I’m confused. Are you testing the Superfund sites 

that were impacted by the hurricanes and when will that testing 

be completed? 

Mr. PEACOCK. There are 54 sites that were in the area of Katrina 

and Rita. All——

Senator BOXER. You have said that now three times. 

Mr. PEACOCK. Yes. All have been—I am trying to organize this 

so there is no misunderstanding. 

Senator BOXER. I get it. I understand that. 

Mr. PEACOCK. So you have the 54. All of the sites have been visited for an initial assessment. 

Senator BOXER. I didn’t ask about initial assessment. How many 

Superfund sites——

Mr. PEACOCK. Thirty-nine of the——

Senator BOXER. Excuse me, let me ask it again. How many 

Superfund sites in the area that was affected by Hurricane Katrina 

and/or Rita will be thoroughly tested by the EPA and when? 
34

Mr. PEACOCK. Thirty-nine of the fifty-four sites will have soil 

samples taken. 

Senator BOXER. OK, and when will that be? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Twenty-one of those sites have already had soil 

samples taken. Eighteen, that’s the remaining eighteen of the sites, 

will have soil samples taken and I will have to get back to you with 

the——

Senator BOXER. OK, of the sites that you’ve already tested, I believe you said 39? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Thirty-nine of the sites will have soil samples 

taken. 

Senator BOXER. Will have. When will that be? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Twenty-one of the thirty-nine have already had 

soil samples taken. In some cases that includes water samples, like 

at the Agriculture Street site. 

I believe of the remaining 18, we are continuing to take soil samples. I will look to see when we will have soil samples of all of 

those. But again—I will check. 

Senator BOXER. On the 21 sites that you have completed testing 

on, what do they show? 

Mr. PEACOCK. So far, we have shown no rupture of liners or caps. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Mr. PEACOCK. We have been to the Ag Street site at least four 

times now, I think it’s more than that. We’re not sure, but we 

haven’t seen any rupture thus far or any release. 

Senator BOXER. You’re not sure of——

Mr. PEACOCK. As we go back to these sites, we are going to continue to monitor whether or not there has been a release. Because 

you can go back and you can do a soil sample, but as the groundwater goes down, you’re not sure what may happen to what’s inside 

the contents of the site. So we’re going to stay on top of it. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I’m concluded. 

Senator INHOFE. We’re going to have another round. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I’m concluded. I just want to finish my 

thoughts, so I understand. 

So just so I understand, the 21 sites you’ve concluded, but you’re 

continuing to monitor and the 18 sites you don’t know when they’ll 

be done. 

Mr. PEACOCK. That’s correct. I’ll get back to you with a date on 

that. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. If you would rather take another 5 minutes——

Senator BOXER. That would be wonderful, can you spare another 

five? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. It’s a little problem for me. 

Senator BOXER. I’ll wait. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Peacock, I wanted to ask you a question. The handout that 

you gave, you talked about the status of municipal wastewater systems. The number of those that are operating is quite high. I have 

to ask you, now, are they operating with full secondary treatment? 
35

Mr. PEACOCK. No. If it shows as operating on there, it means 

that you are getting——

Senator LAUTENBERG. That the power is on and the——

Mr. PEACOCK. That’s correct, and you’re getting some treatment, 

but it may not be all the way through secondary treatment. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So do we know what the consequence of 

that is as a result of an evaluation of the quality of the drinking 

water? Because that’s the kind of water that feeds into the river 

and into the other sources. 

Mr. PEACOCK. Right. The other thing I want to point out, Senator, is even if it’s operating and looks great, it may have bandages 

and rubber bands and baling wire holding it together right now. So 

we, the Corps, EPA, the State, and, I believe, others, have assessment teams that are going through each of those plants to determine what specific problems they may have. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So there is not an assurance that we can 

take from that that people who have drinking water being supplied 

from the system are getting water that’s not contaminated? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Yes, I’m sorry, I thought you were talking about 

wastewater. The drinking water plants——

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK, but then that wastewater treatment 

then furnishes supplies the water through which further——

Mr. PEACOCK. I see what you’re saying. Yes, the drinking water 

plants, in this case, the data we show, if it’s operating, it is meeting all the drinking water standards. What’s going into the plant, 

I don’t know, but certainly what’s coming out of the plant is potable and can be consumed without, for instance, being boiled. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But the red area is that which is operating 

with boiled water? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Water advisory, that’s correct. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So that advisory is there because the 

water there is still of some concern? 

Mr. PEACOCK. That’s correct. That’s reason for concern. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. It’s over 700,000 people? 

Mr. PEACOCK. That’s correct. That includes a large portion of 

New Orleans. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. General Strock, the way we get information here sometimes has to go outside of conventional channels. We 

hold hearings and we try to stay on top of oversight responsibilities. But every now and then, we have someone who has the courage to come out and talk about problems as they see them, and you 

know where I’m going with this, General, and that has to do with 

Ms. Greenhouse. 

I think that it was your instruction that she be demoted, but 

there was an order by the Acting Secretary of the Army that asked 

for suspension of any action on her until the Inspector General had 

finished his inspection. Is that the case? 

General STROCK. That is the case, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK, then why did you move ahead with 

the demotion? 

General STROCK. Sir, the Secretary of the Army evaluated the 

case and rescinded that order and gave me the authority and instructed me to proceed with that process. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You’re familiar with her history of service? 
36

General STROCK. Yes, sir, I am. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That she’d been promoted a number of 

times for excellent service? 

General STROCK. Yes, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Did she suddenly turn less efficient, less 

qualified, when the inquiry came about with our expenditures in 

Iraq and so forth? 

General STROCK. Sir, I have to be very careful not to get into personnel matters on this thing. There was, and my association with 

the period of time you’re talking about, from approximately 2003 

when we went in to support the global war on terror, sir, I think 

the, I know that the action taken was unrelated to any allegations 

of wrongdoing or any concerns that have been expressed by our 

Principal Assistant for Contracting. It was unrelated to any allegations made in those confines. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So would you say she was performing satisfactorily in those areas? 

General STROCK. Sir, again, I have to be very careful about 

where I get in terms of personal information on an employee of the 

Government. She is still an employee of the Government. I would 

rather not answer that question unless I have to. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I would imagine, I would think so, because 

it’s hard, if you look at the profile, the history, to see that suddenly 

this loyal and trusted staff person suddenly turned out to be someone that we had to punish. I mean, because there is a punishment, 

obviously. 

General STROCK. Sir, if I could just respond in a more direct way 

here, I think I owe this to you. I won’t talk about the individual, 

but I can talk about the process. The process is that if a member 

of the Senior Executive Service gets a less than satisfactory performance evaluation in any 2 of a 3-year period by statute that individual must be removed from the position. That is the condition, 

that’s the process and how it works. 

Senator INHOFE. Time has expired, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, just a second more for clarification, please. 

Senator INHOFE. I’m not going to let you do that. I think it’s inappropriate to talk about personnel issues in an opening hearing 

like this, and I don’t think it’s appropriate. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Chairman, it’s a source of information. The 

fact is that if we approve recrimination to be visited upon someone 

who wants to tell us what they know, I think that closes down 

sources and intimidates people, which is exactly what took place. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Good morning, gentlemen. Good to see you. Secretary Woodley, especially good to see you. I will always remember 

the time you came to Delaware, stood with us on those beaches. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. More pleasant times than what we’ve been 

through of late. 

I apologize for just arriving. We just wrapped up a hearing with 

David Paulson, who is the acting FEMA Administrator, who was 
37

in to testify before our Committee on Homeland Security. So I’ve 

missed your statements. 

I think what I’d really like to ask each of you, just to help me 

the most, is, and I’ll just start with you, Mr. Peacock, takeaway, 

give me a good takeaway from this hearing that you would really 

want me to take to heart and to remember. Then I’ll come back 

and ask some more specific questions. 

Mr. PEACOCK. I will make it specific to EPA. I don’t know how 

much you know about track, but there are sprints and there is long 

distance. This is a case for——

Senator CARPER. I’m a long distance runner. Never that good in 

a sprint. 

Mr. PEACOCK. Well, I was a 440 yard runner, but now 400 meters, I guess. We’ve been through a sprint and now we’re starting 

a marathon. We had an initial response where we have collected 

information on flood waters and sediment, particularly in New Orleans and looking at, for instance, Superfund sites in a broader 

context. But now we’re getting down to the point where, particularly in the city of New Orleans, we are going to have to do some 

careful environmental monitoring. In Lake Pontchartrain, Mississippi River and the Gulf, we are going to have to do some environmental monitoring to make sure the long term effects of what 

has happened are known and can be responded to as necessary. 

We are now in this conversion, I think, from sprint to marathon. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. 

Secretary Woodley. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Senator, I would like you to remember that the 

work of protecting this community and any other community in 

America against the scourge of flood is ongoing work. A never-ending task, a monumental task. That’s the task that we were engaged 

in at Rehoboth, protecting that community against a very similar 

threat, in many ways. We protected it in a different way because 

of the difference in the hydrology, the difference in the threat. We 

protect St. Louis, MO in a different way, Kansas City, MO in a different way, Grand Forks, ND, in a different way. 

But it is something that the Nation has to recommit itself to at 

this time and in response to this crisis, to this tragedy. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. General Stock, how are you? 

General STROCK. Fine, sir. 

Senator CARPER. A good takeaway for us, please. 

General STROCK. Sir, I believe that the National Response Plan 

that has evolved from the Federal Response Plan is a good, solid 

plan. It’s proven itself as late as the hurricanes of last year in Florida. I have full confidence that we can, not only did we respond in 

an adequate way to this, but that we will in the future. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Please, sir. 

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, Senator. Two points. In terms of the recovery 

from a Federal Highway perspective, the first is the pre-existing 

knowledge that our in-State staff had of the State and the infrastructure, plus the relationships that had been established over 

time, were essential to the quick response that we had. Second, 

being able to apply the lessons learned that we had captured in 

previous hurricane seasons, most notably Hurricane Ivan in Florida, but also the recovery of the I–40 bridge in Oklahoma, were key 
38

in assisting Mississippi and Louisiana to shape their strategies for 

recovery. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

Mr. Woodley, when we were together at Rehoboth Beach, and in 

our State, we worry probably as much about nor’easters as we do 

about hurricanes. They come in and they tend to have winds almost as strong as hurricanes. They destroy our beaches, destroy 

the dunes, waters roll into the communities, destroy homes, businesses and that sort of thing. 

We’ve worked with the Army Corps of Engineers to replenish the 

beach, to pour in a lot of sand off the coast, and replenished the 

beaches to create dunes, and to grow grass on those dunes in an 

effort to try to make sure that when the next storm hits we will 

be ready to fight it. We have a much different approach down in 

Louisiana, in New Orleans. 

Here’s my question. I’ve earlier thought of the levees that are 

around New Orleans, in that part of their State, that the levees 

were the key to protecting New Orleans. I think of them as the 

first line of defense. The more I learn about it and I learn about 

the wetlands that have been eroded and gone away and how they 

might be restored, I’m not so sure that the levees are the first line 

of defense. 

Are they the first line or really maybe the second or third line? 

This could be for you or others as well. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Protection of New Orleans from storm surge due 

to hurricanes is very complex. This event itself, one of the things 

I learned when I was there is it was itself a very complex event. 

Some of the generalizations that have been heard and been reported are true only as to a portion of the area. 

A hurricane like Katrina in which the path of the hurricane 

came up through Plaquemines Parish and then made a second 

landfall in southern Mississippi presents an entirely different challenge that one that would come up through either Morgan City or 

Houma, across the wetlands that we are losing. So there is no single answer, and both have to be addressed. 

The question of the surge that comes across from the Gulf 

through Lake Borgne into Lake Pontchartrain and strikes the city 

from the north is obviously dangerous, and that’s what happened. 

The surge that might come across these wetlands, if they are sufficiently degraded, that they no longer protect against that kind of 

surge, from the south and west, must also be addressed. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me interrupt just a minute. Why don’t you 

just go ahead and take your second round at the same time, so you 

won’t lose your train of thought? Would you like to do that? 

Senator CARPER. That would be great, thanks very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Let me be more specific in my question. I’m trying to understand 

the role of the levees around New Orleans. Were they a primary 

defense or a secondary defense as it turns out? 

Mr. WOODLEY. With respect to the surge, I should defer to the 

engineers. 

Senator CARPER. Feel free. Jump in. 
39

Mr. WOODLEY. My understanding is they were the primary defense with respect to the surge that was experienced, they were the 

primary defense. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Others, General Strock? 

General STROCK. That’s correct, the Secretary got it right. That’s 

correct for the levees on the Lake Pontchartrain hurricane protection side. They are the first line of defense. 

Senator CARPER. Talk about the other lines of defense, if you 

will. 

General STROCK. Well, sir, there’s the natural line, as the Secretary indicated, for a storm that tracks west of New Orleans, you 

have a different dynamic on that storm. The loss, the coastal erosion that we’re experiencing down there, look at it graphically 

there, this storm tracked up through here, sir. I don’t believe that 

the loss of the wetlands down here would have influenced the performance of the levee system or the storm in this case. 

But a storm that tracks this way, because the hurricane winds 

go in a counter-clockwise way, causes the storm surge out of the 

Gulf straight into those wetlands, and they act as a buffer to dissipate the energy of the storm. They would serve as a portion of 

the protection of New Orleans from that side. But you still need a 

series of levees in here to protect New Orleans and the lower parishes there. 

Senator CARPER. Do I understand that some of the levees held, 

some didn’t, the earthen levees did a better job of holding than 

maybe the concrete levees? Just take a moment and share that 

with us. 

General STROCK. Sir, that’s hard to really talk about. Each situation is a little bit different based on the nature of the stresses these 

levees underwent. 

As you can see here, the large levee on the north side of Lake 

Ponchartrain had significant overtopping. So that’s how the water 

got into that particular cell there. In the Inner Harbor here, we 

had failures of flood walls. I should say breaches of flood walls. I 

draw that distinction because a failure is when something doesn’t 

perform as designed and we don’t know that yet. We know we had 

breaches. We don’t know the mechanisms of those breaches there. 

Then in the canals, we also had, which are different situations, we 

had some breaches. 

So each one is a little different situation we will have to analyze. 

Clearly there was overtopping. There was especially overtopping 

down in Plaquemines Parish where we got a significant storm 

surge out of Breton Sound here, that overtopped these levees down 

in Plaquemines. 

Senator CARPER. Many of the Corps’ calculations, as I understand it, regarding how to build levees to protect New Orleans from 

a category 3 hurricane were done, I think in the 1960’s, is that correct? 

General STROCK. Sir, the initial plans were developed in the 

1960’s. These actual projects were designed and built in the 1970’s 

onward and are still under construction. 

Senator CARPER. Since then, a fair amount of additional wetlands have been lost? 
40

General STROCK. Yes, sir, certainly since the 1960’s, there has 

been a loss of wetlands, as was stated before, about a football field 

every 38 minutes. But again, that’s the south and west of the city. 

Senator CARPER. I think there was a report done, I want to say 

by the Times Picayune a couple of years ago, and their report 

called Washington Away, which I think you may have just alluded, 

showed that the risk might now be twice as large as the Corps estimated several decades ago. Let me just ask what you might have 

done, if anything, to update your assumptions in that regard. Has 

there been some attempt to review or update similar assumptions 

regarding the design of other flood control systems around the 

country? 

General STROCK. Sir, I don’t know whether we can draw any conclusions from this relative to other flood control systems around the 

country. Specifically, where southern Louisiana is concerned, there 

is the Louisiana Coastal Area project, which includes not only environmental restoration but also additional flood protection. There 

are a number of flood protection projects that are proposed and underway, New Orleans to Venice, Morganza to the Gulf and some 

others down in that area, that are informed on the loss of coastal 

wetlands. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Boxer, in your absence, when you had to step out, Senator Carper elected to take his two consecutive times, so we will 

start our second round of questioning now. Let me ask you, Mr. 

Capka, when we passed SAFTEA, we had a provision in there for 

emergency relief and reconstruction, it was a limit of $100 million. 

Obviously that’s not going to do it. The bill specifically states that 

anything over $100 million will not be taken from the Highway 

Trust Fund, but will come out of the general fund. 

Do you have anything you want to share with us as to how the 

Administration is preparing to pay for your part of this in Highways? 

Mr. CAPKA. Well, sir, the source of funding for the emergency response requirement that we’re going to have has really not been 

determined. I do know that I can say that the Administration looks 

forward to working with Congress in sorting that out. 

Senator INHOFE. I bring that up, I think Senator Bond made it 

very clear that there is an issue here when we’re dealing with the 

Highway Trust Fund. I even call it sometimes a moral issue, we 

talked about that. So it’s going to be a problem. 

Senator Thune had to leave, and in his opening statement, all of 

you might recall, he was talking about S. 1761, the Gulf Coast Recovery Act. I am a co-sponsor, Senator Vitter is, and some of the 

others are. I would like to ask if you have any comments to make 

regarding that legislation, any one of you. 

Mr. PEACOCK. As you know, Senator, it deals with contractor liability, particularly with the cleanup of debris. This is an issue the 

EPA has run into in the past in Superfund and RCRA context. As 

we have and continue to look at whether or not there is any legislative authority that may help us and remove barriers in responding 

to this tragedy, it is one of the bills we’re looking at. We will cer-
41

tainly let you know if it’s something that we think should be pursued. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, we would like to know that. We would like 

to have input from all of those dealing with any part of this disaster concerning the plethora of legislation that’s been introduced. 

You are on the ground and we need to have your opinion on it. I 

will forego the remainder of my time, since we are running close, 

and recognize Senator Jeffords. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Mr. Peacock, I’d like to talk about waivers. I 

would like to submit for the record a 13-page list from FEMA’s web 

site of Government waivers and discretions that have been authorized post-Katrina. Can you describe why you believe that the EPA 

may need additional authority to waive environmental statutes to 

recover from this disaster, when you have not needed additional 

authority to recover from any of the other over 100,000 disasters 

that have occurred since the Stafford Act passed in 1974, including 

Hurricane Andrew, September 11 and the trio of hurricanes that 

hit Florida last year? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Thank you, Senator, that actually helps clear up 

what may be a misunderstanding that Senator Lautenberg mentioned before. The Administration has not proposed any additional 

authority, legislative authority or otherwise, up to this point, regarding waivers of environmental statutes. Once again, it is something we have been considering since the beginning of this, both 

Hurricane Katrina and then Hurricane Rita. 

We have not proposed anything to the Congress regarding waivers or discretion regarding environmental statutes. That doesn’t 

mean we won’t continue to look at whether or not there are any 

barriers that need to be overcome. But we have not proposed anything along those lines. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Mr. Capka, a question on evacuation routes. 

Mr. Capka, after Hurricane Ivan in 2004, and more recently Hurricane Katrina, it is clear that much more work remains to improve 

the evacuation procedures in the Gulf region. What, if anything, is 

the Federal Highway Administration doing to aid in the facilitation 

and coordination of interstate evacuation plans? 

Mr. CAPKA. Thank you, Senator. There has been a lot of work 

done, particularly since Hurricane Floyd a number of years ago, 

with respect to evacuations. Federal Highways, in particular, is a 

leading member of the Evacuation Liaison Team that operates 

within the FEMA structure. 

This team has been put together primarily as an information facilitating group that not only passes on information regarding 

weather and impacts that might stimulate an evacuation, but also 

communicates between States so that evacuations, as an example, 

the contra-flow in Louisiana was coordinated with Mississippi, to 

ensure that from a regional perspective those evacuations would 

work. 

There is certainly a lot more that needs to be done in terms of 

evacuation, and certainly we, as well as a number of other agencies, have learned from the two events, Rita and Katrina. I would 

also say that the decisions to evacuate are local decisions. Each 

State is a little bit different, whether it’s the Governor or whether 

it’s at a more local level that evacuations are called. 
42

So it is an interagency effort, a number of different levels of government and decisionmaking would need to be pulled into that 

process. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Mr. Peacock, people returning to the New Orleans area will be facing health risks within their own homes and 

mold and materials that were left there when the flood water receded. What is EPA doing to determine whether it is safe for people to re-occupy their houses? 

Mr. PEACOCK. That’s a good question, it goes to Senator Boxer’s 

point before regarding some fact that we have some people that 

may be showing some response to environmental conditions or 

other conditions. Once again, EPA’s role, along with CDC, and 

other Federal entities is to provide assessments and information regarding conditions in the city. We have been doing this by zip code 

area to the principal Federal officer, Thad Allen, as well as the 

Governor and State officials, and then also the city. 

It is always important to keep in mind these are not just conditions regarding environment as well as health, but, for instance, 

the conditions of the levees in the city, the conditions of hospitals 

in the city, because if people start having accidents, such as traffic 

accidents, they will need to be taken care of. So there are a number 

of conditions which the Federal Government broadly has been advising the city on. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Jeffords. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to thank Senator Carper for raising that issue of the 

wetlands, and again, Lieutenant General Strock for his comments. 

As we look for efficient ways to prevent these hurricanes, we know 

that wetlands, just God’s way of helping us out. Unfortunately, we 

didn’t pay much attention to that in this country, we’ve lost so 

much of our wetlands in my home State and across the country. 

So I think that’s something this committee needs to focus on. 

Mr. Peacock, thank you for being patient with my questions. I’m 

just a bit confused still on the Superfund testing and I want to 

make sure I understand it. In your testimony, indeed, you said, 

sampling has been conducted at 9 sites in Louisiana and 12 sites 

in Texas, and the data is currently being evaluated. Is that on 

those sites the data is currently being evaluated? Or has the data 

already been evaluated? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Well, the data, for instance, I know that for the 

data on the soil samples on the Ag Street site, we have preliminary 

results back. So to some extent, particularly the soil samples on the 

Ag Street site, we do have results back. I believe the other soil 

samples are still being looked at. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So we are not yet done in terms of evaluating these 21 sites, plus we have another 18 sites. 

Mr. PEACOCK. That’s exactly right. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Would you be willing to send to this committee the results of your work on a timely basis? 

Mr. PEACOCK. From day one, our policy is to——

Senator BOXER. Yes is good enough. 
43

Mr. PEACOCK. Yes. Quality assured data should be released to 

the public, of course, as well as to you. 

Senator BOXER. Yes is good enough. Because we need to know 

this information. 

Mr. PEACOCK. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. I want to talk to you about something I raised 

in my opening remarks that deal with the information to the public. It is a little disturbing to me again, you would agree that benzene is a known carcinogen, would you not? 

Mr. PEACOCK. I know benzene is not something you necessarily 

want to be around at high doses for any period of time. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, just so you know, the Agency for Toxic 

Substances says it can cause leukemia, that’s cancer, and anemia, 

drowsiness, dizziness, unconsciousness, bone marrow effects, very 

dangerous. What you’re doing on your site is, you’re showing what 

the dangerous amount of exposure is for a 24-hour period. Yet people are going back there for longer. The only people who are there 

for 24 hours are members of the Senate, except from the Senators 

from Louisiana, Mississippi and the others, the President, the Vice 

President and the VIPs. 

But your workers who are there, your workers who are there, 

Lieutenant General Strock’s and the Honorable John Paul 

Woodley’s folks are there, and probably your folks are there. They 

are there for more than 24 hours. 

So my concern is that the numbers you’re showing are in violation, or shall we say, of the standard, because they’re at seven and 

the 2-week exposure is four for benzene. So I’m concerned and I am 

going to ask you, would you revise this or do another table to say, 

on the 2-week exposure level, this is what is safe, and show what 

the exposure level is? Because it is exceeding on benzene the 2 

week exposure. 

Mr. PEACOCK. Right. Eric Olson brought this to my attention a 

few days ago. As you pointed out, we have 1,200 EPA contractors 

and EPA personnel in the field. It doesn’t make sense if you have 

a level from an air monitoring bus that says you’re over the 2-week 

level, isn’t that of concern? So we went back to the scientists at 

CDC and EPA. They are the folks that determine the appropriate 

standard. 

The answer is, there are two things going on——

Senator BOXER. There’s already a standard. It’s not a question of 

what is the appropriate standard. 

Mr. PEACOCK. There are two standards——

Senator BOXER. The question is, why aren’t you listing the 2-

week exposure level that is safe, rather than the 24-hour exposure, 

which only protects us when we go down there for a photo op or 

a press conference? We think we’re experts too. 

Mr. PEACOCK. There are two reasons for that. One is, the data 

is from the TAGA bus, that’s the bus you saw earlier, which takes 

snapshots, it is not a continuous monitor. 

The second is, the levels of benzene are transient. What happens 

is the TAGA bus goes back when it sees an elevated level, takes 

another snapshot, and what you essentially get are blips. There is 

not a consistent level of benzene in the air. 
44

Senator BOXER. Are you telling me that you cannot get for us the 

2-week exposure? Because my understanding from your people that 

I’ve talked to is that it is possible. 

Mr. PEACOCK. No. What I’m telling you is, when this was 

brought to my attention, I went back to the scientists and said, 

‘‘Why did you choose the 24-hour level to use as the measure of 

risk, acceptable risk, or as the measure of risk against the 2-week 

standard?’’ They believe the 24-hour standard is more appropriate. 

That’s on a scientific basis. 

Senator BOXER. Well, you haven’t sampled for the 2 weeks. I’m 

asking you, will you sample for the 2 weeks? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Yes, I understand what you’re asking now. 

Senator BOXER. Will you change it on the Web site, so people 

know if they are there for 2 weeks, perhaps there is too much benzene? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Yes, we are going to put continuous monitors up 

throughout the city. 

Senator BOXER. So you will make the change on your Web site 

when you have the information, or you will add that to your Web 

site? 

Mr. PEACOCK. We already have some continuous monitors up. 

That data will be put on the Web site, and the additional monitoring data will also be put on the Web site. 

Senator BOXER. For the 2-week level. I would appreciate it if you 

would let this committee know when you are about to do that. Because I think, look, I want to see this area rebuild, and I am ready 

to do whatever it takes to do it, support my colleagues from the region. We have to make sure people are safe. 

So we need to solve the problem, which leads me to my last question, and that deals with this sludge that’s left behind. I guess you 

would agree there’s sludge left behind, is that correct? 

Mr. PEACOCK. It’s sediments, there’s actually a——

Senator BOXER. Well, sediments, that’s fine, we can call it sediments. I would ask unanimous consent to place in the record a 

statement by the Director of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice at this point. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced document not available at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. She points out what’s in all this call it sediments 

instead of sludge, I don’t care what you call it. 

Mr. PEACOCK. It’s a term of art. 

Senator BOXER. It’s a term of art, I’ll say sediments. Massive 

amounts of toxics were used and stored along the Gulf Coast before 

the storm. Literally thousands of sites in the storm’s path used or 

stored hazardous chemical, from the local dry cleaner and auto repair shops to Superfund sites and oil refineries. She goes on and 

lists ultra-hazardous hydrochloric acid and all of the issues that 

are there. 

Now, my concern is, as these sediments, the sludge that contains 

the sediment, dries out, there are reports that there are street 

cleaners in the street, and these substances are going into the air. 

My question to you is, how can we clean this up? What do you need 

to clean this up quickly, so that we don’t have these substances flying into the air and people ingesting them and getting sick? 
45

Mr. PEACOCK. That’s a great question. First of all, this is one of 

the reasons for getting those monitors in place as quickly as possible, is to see what is actually happening in the air. 

We are working with the Corps of Engineers and the city and the 

State to try and limit how much, for instance, that debris gets 

moved and gets airborne. That may mean trying to dispose of it in 

a nearby area or using particular kinds of trucks to move it. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, we are going to have to——

Senator BOXER. Could I ask the General just to answer that 

question? 

Senator INHOFE. Short answer, General. 

Senator BOXER. Short answer, can you solve this problem, do you 

need more resources from us to solve this problem? 

General STROCK. We really defer to the EPA for the specifics of 

how, the technologies associated with that. We are very concerned 

about this for our workers’ own exposure. In fact, in New Orleans, 

and dealing with these sediments we require our workers to wear 

N95 respirators, to wear waterproof, water-resistant gloves, disposal suits and that sort of thing when they are working around 

these areas where they have a level of hazard. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Mr. Chairman, they’re protecting themselves. We have to worry about these little kids coming back in and 

we need to get rid of this sludge. So can we work together on that, 

Mr. Peacock? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. Since the Corps says they’re waiting for direction 

from you. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Let me thank our witnesses for the 

time that they spent today. I would observe along the lines of that 

last question, Mr. Peacock, that the early reports, as I recall, indicated that the sediment was not as contaminated as they had 

thought before. 

Mr. PEACOCK. There were two primary problems found, bacteria 

in the sediment, which as it dries, of course, the bacteria issue will 

diminish. The second is in particular areas high levels of fuel oil. 

There were elevated levels of some metals found, but they were 

below levels of concern for acute exposure. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you very much, and we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

I am pleased that the Committee has called this hearing. The Corps of Engineers, 

Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Highway Administration are at the 

heart of the recovery effort along the Gulf Coast. Guidance from these agencies will 

be essential to us in Congress as to how best to rebuild. 

Of particular interest to me is the New Orleans levee system. Clearly, it was not 

strong enough to handle a major hurricane. Many of us want to know why. 

Was it caused by the way the Corps prioritizes projects or conducts their cost-benefit analysis? Was it the way the Administration or Congress funded the Corps over 

the past couple of decades? And in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, how can we protect this valuable port, energy producer and cultural asset from increasingly busy 

and fierce hurricane seasons? 

There are further concerns that the levees did not even perform as they were designed to. If that is the case, we are going to need to figure out how that occurred. 
46

But even more, we will need to review flood control projects across the Nation to 

ensure we have the protection we expect. 

As we consider ways to improve the flood control system in New Orleans, we need 

to make sure that any such project will work with efforts to restore Louisiana’s wetlands. The Corps has historically considered such projects as environmental restoration projects, not flood control. But wetlands are essential to reducing storm surge 

and soaking up floodwater, reducing the vulnerability of communities in places like 

southern Louisiana. 

Separating wetlands restoration and levee projects could result in billions being 

spent on a new levee system that would merely subside and stand increasingly vulnerable to storm surges from the Gulf, due to continued coastal erosion. Thankfully, 

the Corps has been open to making changes in the way priorities are set and needs 

identified, and I look forward to working with you all as the recovery effort moves 

forward. 

It is also good that we have someone here from the Environmental Protection 

Agency, as there continues to be confusion as to whether the EPA has the waiver 

authority it needs to help the Gulf Coast recover. We have heard from Administrator Johnson that the EPA has all the authority it needs. Further, the EPA’s role 

in the recovery effort is to ensure that the affected areas are cleaned up and safe 

for people to come back to their homes. That being the case, it is worrisome that 

some are talking about waiving more environmental standards. Yet, efforts continue 

in the Senate to do just this. I certainly hope the EPA can clear up this issue today. 

Finally, the Department of Transportation generally has a huge task ahead of it, 

certainly in terms of fixing damaged transportation infrastructure. But also in providing displaced workers with access to their jobs. 

Some businesses in New Orleans and the surrounding area are reopening, while 

their employees are still unable to return to their homes (200,000 in Baton Rouge 

alone). Further, some businesses have temporarily located in Baton Rouge, but 

many of their employees have returned to their homes in Algiers and Uptown. 

Ensuring that people have access to their jobs is essential in speeding the recovery in this area. Further, providing this mobility in spite of an estimated 200,000 

lost personal automobiles will require creativity. But recent news of the consideration of intercity buses and commuter rail shows that such creativity is being employed, and I look forward to hearing more about this. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. Many members of this 

Committee have personally surveyed the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina. 

Obviously, no one is more aware of this than Senator Vitter, and I commend him 

for the leadership he has shown over the past month. 

A week after the hurricane hit, I traveled to Houston with former Presidents 

Bush and Clinton to meet with some of the evacuees. Despite the terrible tragedy 

that had befallen these brave men, women, and children, many were committed to 

returning to the Gulf Coast. The U.S. Government should ensure that these people 

are able to do that. 

The communities affected by Katrina will need to recreate the very fabric of their 

communities. While the emotional wounds may always be near the surface, stitch 

by stitch citizens will repair and rebuild their homes, their places of worship, their 

schools, and their places of business. They will, however, have to rely on their government to oversee the re-creation of the critical infrastructures needed to underpin 

their rebuilding efforts. 

Without roads and bridges, there is no commerce. Without clean drinking water 

and sewage treatment, public health is compromised. And without the Army Corps’ 

efforts, there are no protections against future storm surges. 

I am interested in hearing how the three agencies testifying before the Committee 

plan to aid in the recovery efforts. I am also interested in what steps they will take 

to ensure that the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast is accomplished with transparency and accountability. 

Senator Coburn and I have introduced a bill to create a chief financial officer to 

oversee the reconstruction efforts. I am heartened that the bill has passed the 

Homeland Security Committee and is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. But time 

is of the essence. Each day, Federal agencies are making multi-million dollar contracting and procurement decisions with relatively little oversight. If we truly want 

to help the people of the Gulf Coast, we need to ensure that Federal dollars are 

being well spent and are being used to help people and communities most in need. 
47

The CFO bill is needed. So too are the Water Resources Development Act and the 

Water Infrastructure Financing Act. These two bills are needed to rebuild these 

communities and to enable other communities to secure their infrastructure against 

future disasters. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARCUS PEACOCK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is 

Marcus Peacock and I serve as the Deputy Administrator at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). On September 6th, the Administrator formally appointed 

me to lead the coordination of the Agency’s response activities for Hurricane Katrina 

and I appreciate the opportunity to provide you today with an update on EPA’s response. 

Our hearts go out to the people of the Gulf region, and we share with you an urgent sense of duty to help restore the communities affected by Hurricane Katrina 

and most recently by Hurricane Rita. Over the past month, natural disasters have 

left their mark on the Gulf region; the loss of life and destruction is staggering. The 

magnitude of Hurricane Katrina will require sustained, long-term coordination 

across all Federal agencies and with the affected State and local governments. My 

testimony today will provide you with an overview of EPA’s role and activities in 

the affected Gulf region, our impressive coordination with Federal, State and local 

partners and a snapshot of our primary environmental concerns. 

EARLY RESPONSE FOR HURRICANE KATRINA

First, I want to briefly touch on EPA’s early response to Hurricane Katrina. Beginning on August 25th, EPA pre-deployed personnel to the FEMA National Response Coordination Center and sent On-Scene Coordinators to the Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi Emergency Operations Centers before Hurricane 

Katrina made landfall. The On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) is the Federal official responsible for monitoring or directing responses to all oil spills and hazardous substance releases reported to the Federal Government. We sent additional personnel 

to the affected areas as soon as travel into the region was possible. In anticipation 

of Hurricane Rita, EPA also deployed response experts to the multi-agency Regional 

Response Coordination Center in Austin, TX on September 20th. The number of 

EPA staff and contractors currently assisting with recovery efforts is more than 

1,100 in the affected Gulf region. 

When EPA personnel arrived in New Orleans, it was clear that saving lives was 

the first priority, and EPA joined other Federal, State, and local responders in urgent rescue needs, putting over sixty EPA watercraft otherwise used for environmental monitoring to work as search and rescue vessels. Our field staff and contractors—mostly environmental experts equipped to address oil and hazardous substances releases—joined the fire fighters, police, and other first responders and rescued nearly 800 people in Louisiana. 

EPA ROLE IN FEDERAL RESPONSE

After helping with urgent rescue needs, EPA turned its attention to its primary 

responsibilities under FEMA’s National Response Plan. EPA is the lead Federal 

agency for Emergency Support Function (ESF) #10, which addresses oil and hazardous materials, and works with other agencies to provide support for a number 

of other Emergency Support Functions, including ESF #3, which addresses Public 

Works and Engineering. Specifically, our responsibilities include preventing, minimizing, or mitigating threats to public health, welfare, or the environment caused 

by the actual or potential releases of hazardous materials; testing the quality of 

flood waters, sediments, and air; and assisting with the restoration of the drinking 

and waste water infrastructure. Also under ESF #3, the Agency anticipates a growing role working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to address final 

disposition of the large volumes of debris from homes, buildings and other structures damaged by Hurricane Katrina. EPA, in coordination with the States, is providing information to both workers and the public about test results, as well as assisting communities with debris disposal and hazardous waste issues. 

Debris Management and Disposal 

The volume of debris left behind by Hurricane Katrina is huge. EPA is working 

closely with other Federal agencies (particularly the US Army Corps of Engineers), 
48

State agencies, and local governments to facilitate the collection, segregation, and 

management of household hazardous waste, containers, and the larger debris. 

To date, we have provided guidance on: identifying electrical equipment that may 

contain PCBs; marking and storage of electrical equipment that may contain PCBs; 

disposal of electrical equipment that may contain PCBs; and handling and disposal 

of debris containing asbestos. EPA has also provided the affected States with guidance on burning debris. EPA personnel continue to provide site-specific technical assistance in the disposal of hazardous waste and a wide array of waste management 

debris left behind by the storm. 

DRINKING WATER AND WASTE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

Many drinking water and wastewater systems in the three States were adversely 

affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It is a high priority of the States and EPA 

to re-establish operations at these facilities. 

Information received by EPA from State drinking water programs as of October 

4th, indicated that 84 percent of the 3,200 water utilities in affected areas of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi are operating. Another 8 percent, were operational, 

but under a boil water advisory. Four percent of the utilities, or 131 systems, were 

not operating and we estimate that those systems served about 122,000 people prior 

to the hurricane. Louisiana is still trying to assess the status of an additional 153 

systems which have been unreachable and are probably not operating. 

The States also indicated that as of October 4th, about 96 percent of the 730 

wastewater facilities in the affected areas of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama 

were operational. Of the remaining 4 percent of systems, 16 systems normally serving approximately 530,000 people were not operating and we are awaiting further 

information on the status of 11 more systems. 

In addition to these public systems, there are many people living in areas served 

by private wells and septic/decentralized systems. The Louisiana Department of 

Health and Hospitals has begun to distribute water testing kits in affected parishes 

in Louisiana. EPA’s mobile laboratories and regional labs in Mississippi and Louisiana are also available to provide on-going water testing capabilities. To date, 

EPA’s mobile lab located in Biloxi, MS has supported over 300 private drinking 

water well samples for local residences. 

OIL SPILLS AND HAZARDOUS RELEASES

There are hundreds of chemical and petrochemical facilities as well as other sites 

of potential concern that are being inventoried and assessed. EPA and the United 

States Coast Guard (USCG) are working together to address oil and hazardous material releases reported to the National Response Center or otherwise observed by 

our emergency responders. As of October 3d, EPA and the USCG have conducted 

more than 130 emergency response actions as a request of reported incidents. Of 

these, there were five major oil spills in the New Orleans area resulting in releases 

of over 8 million gallons. 

SUPERFUND SITES

There are 24 Superfund sites located in the region affected by Hurricane Katrina. 

As indicated on the map of the impacted areas, there are 15 National Priority List 

(NPL) sites in Louisiana, three in Mississippi, and six in Alabama that were potentially affected. Also, Hurricane Rita potentially affected an additional two sites in 

Louisiana and 28 sites in Texas for a total of 54 NPL sites. 

Working together with State health and environmental agencies, EPA has conducted initial assessments of each of these sites. In many cases, these sites were 

not flooded and did not sustain significant damage. However, we are continuing our 

assessments and, where necessary, are conducting environmental sampling to determine any impacts. To date, sampling has been conducted at 9 sites in Louisiana and 

12 sites in Texas and is ongoing at other sites. The data is currently being evaluated. 

SEDIMENT IN NEW ORLEANS

As flood waters in New Orleans again recede, we are analyzing the sediment left 

behind. We are conducting biological and chemical testing, specifically for volatile 

organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, metals, PCBs, pesticides, and 

total petroleum hydrocarbons. Sediment samples collected by EPA indicate that 

most sediments are contaminated with bacteria and fuel oils. Human health risks 

may therefore exist from unprotected contact with sediment deposited from receding 

flood waters and exposure to sediment should therefore be avoided if possible. E. 
49

coli was detected in sediment samples, which implies the presence of fecal contamination. Some of the semi-volatile organic compounds, common to diesel and fuel oils, 

were also detected at very elevated levels. The levels of metals detected thus far 

have been below levels that would be expected to produce immediate adverse health 

effects. Sediment sampling occurred in the flooded areas of New Orleans and is near 

completion. 

FLOOD WATER

In the immediate aftermath of Katrina, the potential exposure or contact by residents and emergency response personnel to contaminated flood waters was among 

our leading concerns. EPA’s initial plans to collect water samples in the New Orleans flood zone were set aside to assist in rescue operations, and were further delayed by limited access due to security concerns. Nonetheless, EPA, in close coordination with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, began water sampling on September 3d, and while we continue to conduct biological and chemical 

testing of the flood waters, sampling is near completion. 

The flood waters continue to be analyzed for over 100 chemical priority pollutants 

as well as for bacteria. Results to date indicate that the flood water has high levels 

of E. coli, and that some locations tested had lead levels exceeding the EPA drinking 

water action levels. Arsenic, Barium, Thalium, Chromium, Benzene, Selenium, and 

Cadmium were detected in some samples at levels that exceeded EPA drinking 

water maximum contaminant levels. Although other contaminants were detected, 

none have been at levels that would pose an immediate risk to human health. 

Throughout this process, EPA has taken great steps to ensure scientific accuracy. 

EPA solicited the assistance the Science Advisory Board to review the flood water 

sampling plan, and EPA and CDC have routinely conducted a thorough data review, 

and interpreted the data for potential human health affects. 

WATER QUALITY

EPA is working closely with its Federal and State partners to mitigate environmental impacts to Lake Pontchartrain caused by the flood waters. As of October 3d, 

the Corps continues un-watering operations and skimming booms are deployed to 

remove oil and debris from water prior to pumping. After pumping, additional 

booms are being deployed in the canals leading to the Lake to further reduce oil, 

debris, and solids. Aerators are also being used in the canals to raise the dissolved 

oxygen levels in the water prior to outfall to Lake Pontchartrain. 

Contaminated flood waters and sediment may adversely impact coastal aquatic resources. As such, EPA and USACE are actively evaluating options for directing the 

floodwaters. In addition, EPA is coordinating water quality monitoring efforts with 

USGS, NOAA and our State partners in the Mississippi Sound and the Gulf of Mexico. The poster behind me reflects the coordinated post-Hurricane plans to monitor 

water quality in the Gulf of Mexico. 

AIR MONITORING

Air monitoring networks normally in place for monitoring particulate matter, 

ozone, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide under the Clean Air 

Act were mostly destroyed in New Orleans and damaged and disrupted in coastal 

Mississippi. EPA is working to restore monitoring systems in those regions, as well 

as to deploy new monitors designed specifically to address potential air quality impacts during the recovery from Hurricane Katrina. For instance, as sediments from 

the floodwaters dry, EPA has conducted air screening sampling with special monitors to assess potential inhalation risks from particulates. 

Specific to New Orleans, EPA, in coordination with our government partners in 

Louisiana, makes daily tactical decisions regarding air monitoring needs and works 

with an agency-wide team of air monitoring professionals to address both emerging 

and source or location specific issues as well as longer term regional air quality 

issues. 

EPA has a number of tools to measure air quality. These include DataRam 400, 

personal air monitoring devices, as well as use of a remote sensing aircraft known 

as ASPECT to locate chemical spills that needed emergency response to protect both 

water and air quality. EPA’s environmental surveillance aircraft was in operation 

during the early days of the emergency, and again after Hurricane Rita passed 

through the region. 

EPA’s real-time mobile laboratory—the Trace Atmospheric Gas Analyzer 

(TAGA)—is sampling air quality in the New Orleans area. Initial screening results 

from the TAGA represent the beginning of extensive sampling efforts. As this is a 
50

dynamic situation, general conclusions should not be made regarding air safety 

based on results from snapshots of data. 

EPA and the affected States will continue to monitor for potential inhalation risks 

and have plans to enhance their temporary monitoring networks in the coming 

weeks to monitor and evaluate the air impacts of recovery activities including the 

burning of debris. 

REOCCUPATION OF NEW ORLEANS

EPA and CDC formed a joint task force to advise local and State officials of the 

potential health and environmental risks associated with returning to the city of 

New Orleans. Their report, titled Environmental Health Needs and Habitability Assessment, was issued on September 17th and identifies a number of challenges and 

critical issues for consideration prior to the reoccupation of New Orleans. The task 

force is now incorporated into the Federal New Orleans Reoccupation Zip Code Assessment Group (Zip Code Assessment Group), which will provide information on a 

broad range of issues, ranging from infrastructure to health issues. Their recommendations will assist State and Local officials in their decisions regarding when 

to allow residents to reoccupy the city. As part of this larger group, EPA will continue to work to identify potential health and environmental risks associated with 

returning to the city based on the Agency’s ongoing efforts to assess the quality of 

the air, water and sediment. 

FUEL WAIVERS

EPA, in conjunction with the Department of Energy, responded quickly to address 

disruptions to the fuel supply that have occurred due to the damage to refinery and 

pipeline infrastructure in the Gulf Region. To increase the supply of fuel and minimize potential supply disruptions, the Agency has issued emergency waivers of certain Federal and State fuel standards. On August 30th, EPA granted waivers applying to low sulfur diesel fuel requirements, Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standards 

that control the volatility of gasoline during the summer months, State gasoline sulfur limits, or reformulated gas (RFG) requirements. On September 21st, EPA expanded this effort in order to minimize potential fuel supply disruptions caused by 

Hurricane Rita. To address each fuel supply situation, waivers have been granted 

for various periods of time and have been applicable at the national, State or local 

level, to the extent necessary to alleviate the fuel supply disruption. 

In taking these actions, EPA used a Clean Air Act waiver provision recently 

signed into law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 signed into law this year. 

This provision authorizes the Administrator of EPA to temporarily waive fuel standards due to ‘‘extreme and unusual’’ circumstances ‘‘that are the result of a natural 

disaster, an Act of God, pipeline or refinery equipment failure, or another event that 

could not reasonably have been foreseen or prevented and not the lack of prudent 

planning’’ on the part of fuel suppliers. 

INFORMING THE PUBLIC

We view communication to the public, workers, and other agencies to be a critical 

component of our response effort. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) was on-scene early in the response effort, distributing over 3,500 fact 

sheets by hand in the first 2 weeks and conducting interventions that removed more 

than 850 workers from serious or life threatening hazards. OSHA continues these 

activities and on a daily basis, EPA response personnel and contractors receive 

health and safety instructions regarding field conditions and safe work practices. 

EPA’s preliminary sampling results are also provided to On-Scene Coordinators to 

facilitate field decisions and ensure health and safety of workers. 

EPA posts advisories on our website and also distributes them through the Incident Command Post in Baton Rouge. We also have been alerting communities 

through AM and FM radio broadcasts, particularly on aerial mosquito spraying and 

how to avoid vector borne illnesses such as the West Nile Virus. 

FUTURE CHALLENGES

Looking ahead, much remains to be done to help address the public health and 

environmental impacts of Hurricane Katrina. The safe management of debris remains a high immediate priority, and the Agency will assist our Federal, State and 

local partners as they move forward on debris removal. For its part, the Agency will 

strive to provide sound and practical advice, participate in hazardous waste removal 

where appropriate, and monitor air quality where open burning is occurring. EPA 

will also continue to work with the USACE and others to support the States and 
51

local governments in their efforts to repair and restore public facilities including 

drinking water, waste water, and waste treatment facilities. We will also continue 

to monitor air, water, and sediment quality in the region and make sure that this 

information is readily available to Federal, State and local officials, other responders, and the public. 

CONCLUSION

The Nation faces an enormous task in restoring and rebuilding the affected areas. 

Simply meeting many basic needs of people in the region including shelter, safe 

drinking water, sanitation, and protection from disease and hazards will require a 

broad partnership across government agencies, the private sector and nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s). We expect that citizens and government agencies will 

look to EPA and our Federal partners for technical expertise, scientifically sound 

data, and practical advice on environmental and public health conditions in the region for some time to come. We are focused on meeting that challenge. 

Finally, as local communities undertake the task of reviving their economies and 

helping businesses restart their operations, EPA, in partnership with other Federal, 

State, and local agencies, will provide technical expertise and guidance to assist in 

the recovery. Some of you may know that I’m quite new to the EPA, but what I’ve 

seen in the past month makes me proud to be counted among them. 

At this time I welcome any questions you may have. 

RESPONSES BY MARCUS PEACOCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THUNE

Question 1. Please provide me with more information regarding the site assessments that have been conducted to date at the NPL sites in Alabama, Louisiana 

and Mississippi. 

Response. EPA performed initial visual assessments at the 24 National Priority 

List (NPL) sites in the areas of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama that were in 

the path of Hurricane Katrina. Initial assessments were conducted to determine if 

these sites had sustained damage that warranted immediate action. EPA then completed a second round of site visits and conducted confirmatory sampling at these 

sites. When the results of the sampling have been analyzed, validated and interpreted, the information will be posted on the EPA website. A status report on EPA 

assessment of these NPL sites can be found on the EPA website at http://

www.epa.gov/katrina/superfund.html

Question 2. What is the current status of Underground Storage Tanks in the Gulf 

Coast region? In particular, has there been any reported leaks, ruptures or spills? 

Response. EPA is currently working with the States to assess the condition of underground storage tank (UST) facilities in the Gulf Coast Region. Approximately 

1700 UST facilities are estimated to have been in the hurricane impact areas. The 

affected States identified approximately 800 facilities that may have had hurricane 

related damage and are in need of preliminary site assessments. Through FEMA’s 

mission assignments, EPA and State inspectors have conducted preliminary inspections to determine facility operability at these facilities. A relatively small number 

of facilities have had site assessments to test for subsurface contamination, though 

EPA does not have a specific accounting of the number of sites. In addition to the 

actively operating facilities, approximately 350 facilities in the impacted area were 

undergoing remediation at the time of the hurricanes. EPA does not have an accounting of the number of these facilities that have been identified for damage to 

corrective action equipment, nor of the number of facilities that have undergone additional assessment to determine the affect of the storm on the existing contamination. Louisiana’s ‘‘Plan for Evaluating Underground Storage Tank Sites Impacted by 

Hurricane Katrina’’ requires all impacted UST systems to be evaluated to determine 

if they are suitable for returning to operation, and to have tightness tests within 

6 months of returning a system to operation.

Question 3. What is the current status of Chemical facilities in the Gulf Coast Region? 

Response. Relying upon the lists of regulated facilities that manage hazardous 

chemicals maintained by the States and EPA, EPA began gathering information on 

chemical facilities in the potentially affected areas immediately after the hurricane 

made landfall. Low level helicopter flyovers, known as Rapid Needs Assessments 

(RNAs), were conducted to do initial assessments of the status of facilities and determine any major environmental releases. The RNAs revealed no major environmental chemical releases from any facility. Concurrently, detailed facility information such as geographic location, chemicals stored or manufactured onsite, and facil-
52

ity contact information from EPA’s regulatory reporting data bases (TRI, RMP, FRP, 

RCRA) was provided to field response teams to both ensure safety and prioritize facilities for ground reconnaissance actions. EPA is coordinating with Federal partners and States in conducting these more detailed facility evaluations and has used 

many methods to determine status such as aerial flyovers, field team evaluations, 

and telephone communications with facility personnel. The detailed facility evaluations are continuing, and are confirming the RNA conclusions.

Question 4. As the author of S. 1761, the ‘‘Gulf Coast Recovery Act’’ I would appreciate knowing more about how the Environmental Protection Agency (as well as 

your private sector partners) are impacted by the threat of litigation in post-disaster 

clean-up efforts. 

Response. EPA is not currently impacted by the threat of litigation in its postdisaster clean-up efforts. The Agency’s approach has been and will be to act within 

its statutory authorities when responding to the disaster. EPA is not in a position 

to speak on behalf of its private sector contractors regarding how the threat of litigation may affect their actions. 

RESPONSES BY MARCUS PEACOCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR VOINOVICH

Question 1. Many of the complaints after Hurricane Katrina have focused on the 

lack of coordination among Federal, State, and local agencies. In what ways can we 

improve this level of coordination and cooperation to ensure future disasters are 

handled in an efficient manner? 

Response. EPA has not encountered coordination problems to date. We continue 

to work with Federal, State and local officials as directed by the National Response 

Plan. In most cases, EPA is assisting State cleanup efforts based on requests from 

the States. These State assistance requests are conveyed to FEMA and subsequently 

issued as mission assignments to EPA. EPA is also in frequent contact with local 

officials (Parish, County and Municipal officials) to coordinate and tailor EPA actions to the needs of individual municipalities. At the Federal level, EPA is participating at the Joint Field Offices established by FEMA and is in frequent contact 

with other Federal partners, including the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Health and Human Services. 

In the future, EPA believes that the full implementation of the National Incident 

Management System, through the Department of Homeland Security, will provide 

continuous coordination improvement at all levels during a major incident. Once implemented, this system will ensure a consistent management structure under the 

National Response Plan for State, local and Federal response personnel and will 

provide a common operating framework for all involved.

Question 2. In your testimony, you mentioned that the recovery efforts enlisted 

the help of more than 1,100 EPA staff and contractors. Do you believe the EPA has 

the resources to handle multiple disasters that could possibly confront the United 

States? 

Response. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, EPA developed a plan 

to strengthen its emergency response capability to address the possibility of multiple, large-scale incidents. This plan, called EPA’s National Approach to Response, 

further improved consistency across EPA Regional response programs and advanced 

the Agency’s ability to draw on its national assets to respond to multiple incidents. 

While it is not be possible to predict every potential disaster, EPA has specifically 

developed and practiced its ability to deal with multiple disaster scenarios. For this 

hurricane response, EPA has been able to adequately handle resource needs.

Question 3. Was there a written plan at EPA for responding to a major natural 

disaster? 

Response. EPA has substantial experience responding to natural disasters, including hurricanes. The National Response Plan (NRP) is the primary guiding document 

for the Federal Government’s response to natural disasters and other Incidents of 

National Significance. The NRP lists EPA as the primary agency for Emergency 

Support Function #10, which addresses the Federal response to releases or potential 

releases of oil and hazardous materials. The NRP also assigns EPA support roles 

to numerous other Emergency Support Functions lead by other agencies. EPA’s National Contingency Plan serves as guiding document for our responses under the 

NRP.

Question 4. What lessons did EPA learn as a result of 9/11? 
53

Response. Following the events of 9/11, EPA implemented a new Agency-wide National Approach to Response for Incidents of National Significance (INS). To implement the national approach, EPA identified priority action plans that resulted in: 

• the preparation of a comprehensive roster of EPA employees (beyond the emergency response staff) who can be called upon to assist during an INS; 

• enhanced attention to health and safety protocols for responders; 

• an Incident Command System (ICS) training and exercise program for emergency response personnel and others; 

• purchase of appropriate field and telecommunication equipment and improvements for consistent contracting capacity and capability; and 

• policies and procedures to assure consistent use of information technology systems in the field for formatting, review and storage of laboratory data. 

These activities contributed significantly to the Agency’s overall ability to respond 

in an efficient and effective manner and have contributed greatly to our success in 

handling Hurricane Katrina. I would also like to note that our lessons learned reports from the events of 9/11 were quickly sent to EPA senior management after 

Katrina made landfall.

Question 5. I understand that in a recently released report, the CDC and EPA 

have identified 13 environmental health issues, including drinking water, wastewater, solid waste and debris, and sediments and soil contamination from toxic 

chemicals. Could you speak to the findings in the report, as they pertain to public 

safety and health concerns for our recovery workers? How important is it that we 

monitor the health concerns of both first responders and those exposed to these 

‘‘substances of concern?’’

Response. EPA and CDC jointly released a report entitled ‘‘Environmental Health 

Needs and Habitability Assessment’’ on September 17, 2005. This report lists 13 key 

areas affecting the rehabitation of New Orleans. A complex array of environmental 

health problems exist in New Orleans. The report specifically identified worker 

health and safety as an essential condition of rebuilding New Orleans. EPA has 

been working with OSHA to provide information on environmental health hazards 

so that responders can take the proper precautions to protect themselves. In addition, EPA has conducted a wide variety of environmental sampling activities to provide data on potential hazards. The results of this data analysis have been used to 

identify hazards and provide advice and guidance to both workers and the public 

in New Orleans. EPA has also widely disseminated materials that provide information on environmental health hazards in the hurricane affected areas to Federal, 

State and local officials, as well as directly to returning residents. With regard to 

monitoring of health concerns, all EPA response personnel must have appropriate 

health and safety training and participate in a medical monitoring program before 

being deployed for field work. 

RESPONSES BY MARCUS PEACOCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR OBAMA

Question 1. Senator Coburn and I introduced a bill recently to appoint a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the President to oversee hurricane reconstruction efforts. The bill is meant to ensure that there is oversight on the front end 

before money is spent, instead of after the money has gone out the door. 

Already, we’ve seen some disturbing examples of poorly spent money. A few weeks 

ago, Senator Coburn and I highlighted a $200 million contract that FEMA signed 

with Carnival Cruise Lines to house evacuees and rescue workers. Under this contract, taxpayers are paying $2,500 a week per person housed on the ship—four 

times the cost of a 7-day Caribbean cruise, which includes entertainment. 

Please describe how your agency is ensuring that reconstruction funds are being 

well spent. 

Response. EPA’s work under Emergency Support Function (ESF) #10 of the National Response Plan is funded through Mission Assignments from FEMA using the 

authority of the Stafford Act. Shortly after the Hurricane Katrina emergency, EPA 

developed the Katrina Stewardship. The purpose of this plan is to ensure the prudent stewardship of taxpayer funds for current and future cleanup and recovery activities resulting from Hurricane Katrina and other recent hurricanes. EPA periodically reviews and monitors established controls governing utilization of agency resources and transaction activity supporting hurricane relief efforts. The majority of 

EPA expenditures have used competitive contracts with pre-negotiated rates that 

are used in support of the Agency’s removal actions.
54

Question 2. Are there instances when multiple agencies are involved in contracting and procurement decisions? When that happens, who coordinates oversight 

over these financial decisions? 

Response. There may be times when multiple agencies would collaborate on contracting and procurement decisions. Generally, one of the agencies’ procurement offices would be designated as the lead, and would be responsible for executing the 

required procurement steps using its own oversight functions. The lead agency coordinates the effort from requirement definition to final award.

Question 3. In your testimony, you mention that 84 percent of the drinking water 

systems in the Gulf Coast are fully operational and an additional 8 percent of the 

systems are producing water that must be boiled. 

How long will it take before all the people of the Gulf Coast have safe drinking 

water? Will it be weeks or months? 

Response. Over 4,000 public water systems serving over 15 million people in the 

Gulf Coast were affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Significant progress has 

been made since the hurricanes struck to bring systems back on line. As of early 

January, 2006, all but 71 of these systems have returned to safe operations. These 

remaining 71 systems are located in Louisiana (41) and Mississippi (30). 

In Mississippi, all municipally owned community water systems are back in operation. The 30 remaining systems are either community water systems that are not 

municipally owned (9) or are not considered community water systems (21). These 

systems are either not operating (12), operating under a boil water notice (13), or 

completely destroyed (4). 

In Louisiana, the 41 systems that are not fully operational have either been inactivated and are no longer operating (35), tied into another water system (4), or are 

under boil water advisory for some portion of the distribution system (2). The vast 

majority of the inactivated systems were non-community water systems serving 

such places as schools, factories, office buildings, and campgrounds, many of which 

may not be open for business. 

For these non-community water systems and non-municipal community water systems, the decision to come back into service as a water supply is a decision made 

by the business owner. It is therefore difficult to determine a timeframe for when 

they might be back in service.

Question 4. What can we proactively do to ensure that other natural disasters do 

not cause the same damage to our drinking water systems? 

Response. Over the past several years, EPA has developed several tools for utilities to prepare for emergencies. The Agency works closely with the Association of 

State Drinking Water Administrators, the American Water Works Association, the 

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, and the National Rural Water Association to develop and disseminate materials on protecting critical water infrastructure. With respect to hurricanes, EPA has posted 43 activities on its website that 

drinking water and wastewater systems can take to protect their facilities from 

damage in anticipation of a hurricane. We are still in the mode of collecting and 

analyzing information on the effects of the hurricanes on water systems in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. EPA expects that evaluations by EPA, State staff 

and industry experts will identify ‘‘lessons learned’’ that we will be able to use to 

develop new information and guidance for utilities. 

RESPONSES BY MARCUS PEACOCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. In July 2004, emergency officials conducted a planning scenario in 

Louisiana to address a Category 3 hurricane. The debris team for this exercise estimated that the storm would result in 30 million cubic yards of debris and 237,000 

cubic yards of household hazardous waste. How are EPA and the Corps working together to manage this large quantity of debris, including hazardous materials and 

the potential air quality impacts of any open burning? 

Response. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been tasked by FEMA 

under ESF–3 with debris removal. EPA’s role addresses recovery and disposal of 

hazardous materials, including industrial containers and household hazardous 

waste. EPA is also overseeing segregation of hazardous materials from general debris and distributing information to the public. Each of the affected States has developed an overall Debris Management Plan. EPA and USACE are working closely 

together in coordination with State and local authorities to provide assistance on the 

management of Hurricane debris and hazardous waste. EPA and USACE activities 

may vary among counties, parishes and municipalities to accommodate their needs. 
55

EPA is also consulting with State, local and Federal officials on a number of debris disposal option. In some cases, EPA will conduct air monitoring during test 

burns or at burn sites.

Question 2. Mr. Peacock, one of the lessons learned from September 11th was that 

first responders must be provided with good information about health precautions 

they should take while they are participating in rescue operations. What steps is 

the Agency taking to ensure that first responders and the public are aware of the 

magnitude of the hazards facing those who choose to return to New Orleans? 

Response. EPA has been disseminating information and recommendations on potential hazards to first responders and the public through a variety of venues. EPA 

has posted data and health recommendations from samples of floodwater, floodwater 

sediment and air on the Agency website and has issued several health advisories. 

EPA officials have been actively providing information to the print press and broadcast media, both in the Hurricane affected areas and with national organizations, 

including Public Service Announcements for radio. On the ground, EPA has distributed more than 1,000,000 flyers in Louisiana on health hazards, debris management 

and hazards associated with building reentry. As part of our incident command 

structure, health and safety officers provide guidance to EPA field responders on a 

daily basis on the hazards they may encounter and what protection is required.

Question 3. Mr. Peacock, after the Galveston Hurricane struck that city in 1900, 

drinking water services were restored a week after the hurricane hit. According to 

your October 4th update, there are 95 drinking water systems out of operations in 

Louisiana, 36 in Mississippi, and 124 in Texas. What needs to be done to get these 

systems up to speed faster? Specifically, are people, money, or authority limiting factors for the EPA? 

Response. Over 4,000 public water systems serving over 15 million people in the 

Gulf Coast were affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Significant progress has 

been made since the hurricanes struck to bring systems back on line. As of early 

January, 2006, all but 71 of these systems have returned to safe operations. These 

remaining 71 systems are located in Louisiana (41) and Mississippi (30). 

In Mississippi, all municipally owned community water systems are back in operation. The 30 remaining systems are either community water systems that are not 

municipally owned (9) or are not considered community water systems (21). These 

systems are either not operating (12), operating under a boil water notice (13), or 

completely destroyed (4). 

In Louisiana, the 41 systems that are not fully operational have either been inactivated and are no longer operating (35), tied into another water system (4), or are 

under boil water advisory for some portion of the distribution system (2). The vast 

majority of the inactivated systems were non-community water systems serving 

such places as schools, factories, office buildings, and campgrounds, many of which 

may not be open for business. 

For these non-community water systems and non-municipal community water systems, the decision to come back into service as a water supply is a decision made 

by the business owner. It is therefore difficult to determine a timeframe for when 

they might be back in service. 

We cannot yet accurately estimate the time it will take to bring all systems back 

up to full operation because the recovery is dependent on the speed with which their 

surrounding areas are being restored. This is more a matter of time than people or 

money and will involve the Public Assistance Program led by FEMA. To date, EPA’s 

efforts have not been hampered by limited authority.

Question 4. Mr. Peacock, people returning to the New Orleans area will be facing 

health risks within their own homes from mold and materials that were left when 

the floodwaters receded. What is EPA doing to determine whether it is safe for people to reoccupy their homes? 

Response. Local officials have the authority and are in the best position to make 

decisions regarding the safety of home re-occupancy. EPA has been working closely 

with CDC and the States to ensure that the latest public health information regarding mold and environmental contaminants is available to the citizens in the Gulf 

region. For example, as early as September 14, EPA, in conjunction with HHS, 

OSHA, and FEMA, issued a press statement and advisory titled ‘‘Potential Environmental Health Hazards When Returning to Homes and Businesses’’. Since that time 

EPA has been sharing its sampling data and advisories with Federal, State and 

local authorities so that they are well aware of and can take appropriate action to 

mitigate the threats people may face.

Question 5. Do you anticipate any long-term delays in getting drinking water and 

wastewater plants back on line, what financial role do you anticipate EPA will play 
56

in that process, and do you expect that any plants will have to suspend operations 

due to lack of customers and lack of a rate base? 

Response. Several drinking water and wastewater plants were heavily damaged. 

The communities and the State are still evaluating the extent of the damage and 

have yet to determine how long it will take to rebuild. The most heavily damaged 

plants are in areas that have currently lost many of their customers and therefore 

their rate base. Considerations about rebuilding the treatment facilities must go 

hand in hand with considerations about rebuilding housing and other aspects of the 

communities. The State Revolving Funds are EPA’s primary funding source; however, we expect that insurance and FEMA public assistance funds will cover most 

of the costs. The States implement the SRF fund but EPA will work with the States 

if there are any barriers to making low interest loans available for rebuilding.

Question 6. How are you tracking health impacts due to exposure to flood waters, 

contaminated sediments, and other health hazards? 

Response. The State and local health authorities have the lead in tracking health 

impacts. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has the Federal 

lead for assisting these local authorities track these health impacts. EPA is assisting 

in this effort by providing data analysis and interpretation of environmental media 

samples.

Question 7. In recent press reports, Louisiana and EPA officials were quoted as 

saying that based on the approach being taken to debris handling, it is unlikely that 

dust or contaminants resulting from debris removal and structure demolition will 

wind up in rainwater. Can you articulate exactly what steps EPA and the Corps 

is taking and what assurances you have made, if any, to the State of Louisiana that 

there will not be a concern with stormwater runoff in the future? 

Response. Hurricane Katrina created an enormous amount of vegetative, building 

and demolition debris. How communities have managed debris generated from Hurricane Katrina depends on the debris generated and the management options available. The fate and transport of pollutants from debris removal and structure demolition depends on the nature of the waste and the management option used. 

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality’s (LDEQ) general approach 

to debris management is outlined in the ‘‘Hurricane Katrina Debris Management 

Plan’’ (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Revised October 14, 2005). 

The LDEQ Debris Management Plan gives guidance to local governments. In addition, the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), Debris Teams operate in compliance 

with the Plan. LDEQ’s plan provides specific guidance to prevent stormwater runoff 

contamination by dust or other contaminants resulting from debris removal. The 

plan requires debris to be staged at temporary sites and transported to permitted 

Type III facilities or to emergency disposal sites. Under the Plan, the LDEQ must 

inspect and approve any emergency site proposed for debris management, subject 

to restrictions and operating conditions, such as best management practices. 

EPA and the Corp of Engineers continue to work with Louisiana as it implements 

its debris management plan. Where appropriate, EPA will recommend best management practices and other measures to address the quality of stormwater runoff and 

other wastewater from these debris management activities.

Question 8. EPA has advised us that the flooding has affected significant numbers 

of drinking water and wastewater facilities, petrochemical, and other industrial facilities in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Is the Agency evaluating the storage 

and handling of potentially hazardous chemicals, such as chlorine, at these facilities? What steps is the Agency taking to ensure the security and safe handling of 

chemicals at these facilities? 

Response. As required under the Bioterrorism Act, a drinking water utility serving more than 3,300 persons must conduct a vulnerability assessment and certify 

to EPA that the assessment has been completed. Vulnerability assessments help 

water utilities to evaluate their susceptibility to potential threats and identify corrective actions to reduce or mitigate the risk. The systems must also show that they 

have updated or completed an emergency response plan outlining response measures if an incident occurs. 

EPA has helped water utilities and others facilities that manage hazardous 

chemicals take action to protect their infrastructure and potentially hazardous 

chemicals by providing tools, trainings, and technical assistance. These tools help 

utility managers, operators, and local officials improve security and plan for emergency situations such as experienced during Hurricane Katrina. Many smaller facilities do not use hazardous chemicals. Facilities that use chemicals at certain threshold levels are required to comply with Risk Management Program requirements 
57

under the Clean Air Act. These requirements address process safety management 

and accident prevention.

Question 9. EPA testing found bacteria concentrations up to 19 times the EPA 

limits for recreational contact and lead levels 56 times the EPA limits for drinking 

water. This water is being pumped directly into the Lake, a recreational resource 

for the area, with the only protection being surface booms and aerators. EPA has 

said that sampling data shows little pollution in the Lake. Can you describe why 

you believe that the sampling plan you have in place is adequate to determine the 

level of pollution throughout the Lake? 

Response. EPA has designed a statistically robust sampling plan that will produce 

scientifically credible results about possible risks to human health or the environment in Lake Pontchartrain. We have confidence that our combination of probability-based and targeted sampling and our broad array of potential contaminants 

being tested shall provide us credible evidence of pollution levels throughout the 

Lake. Probability-based sampling is a widely accepted statistical technique for using 

samples to represent conditions throughout an entire area, such as all of the Lake, 

at a desired level of certainty. Targeted sampling is a second technique that involves 

monitoring specific areas that are, for example, of higher human exposure or of 

higher risk for pollution. Further, it should be noted that the bacteria and lead detections cited above were in floodwaters, at concentrations that were diluted significantly by the large volume of the Lake as the pumping occurred over a period of 

many days. Floodwaters were analyzed using drinking water standards, while waters in the lake are being analyzed using ambient water quality criteria and fish 

tissue concentrations. EPA and its State and Federal partners will continue to analyze water, sediment and fish tissue samples and resample as needed until the magnitude of risks to human health and the environment in the Lake are understood 

and verified with confidence.

Question 10. I understand that the EPA is developing a 5-year sampling plan for 

Lake Pontchartrain in coordination with the State. What is your timeframe for completion of that plan, how do you intend to pay for its implementation, and what will 

you be sampling for? 

Response. EPA is unaware of an effort to develop a 5-year sampling plan for Lake 

Pontchartrain in coordination with the State of Louisiana. Sampling to date has 

been part of a broader interagency monitoring plan that involved EPA, USGS, 

USFWS, LDEQ, and FDA. Initial testing has been completed and subsequent sampling efforts may be needed to monitor longer term impacts, but that determination 

has not yet been made.

Question 11. One of the items in the September 17 EPA–CDC strategy is to engage and communicate with the displaced population. How is this being accomplished, and what steps are the agencies taking to ensure that average citizens 

watching the news are aware of the magnitude of the potential health threats facing 

those who return to the city? 

Response. In our efforts to help the New Orleans area recover, EPA is using a 

variety of existing networks to reach individuals. Working closely with State and 

local officials, EPA’s approach relies heavily on local networks such as the news 

media, Parish government institutions, local retailers, and faith-based and environmental-based organizations to reach evacuees. 

• EPA will continue to issue news advisories/press releases, post Web site information, and hold media briefings to disseminate information about the potential environmental and health risks returning residents may face. EPA’s first such release 

was issued on September 4, 2005 and was entitled ‘‘EPA Urges Caution When Reentering Hurricane Damaged Homes and Buildings.’’

• EPA has provided FEMA pre-recorded interviews with senior EPA managers 

about reentry hazards for broadcast over XM radio and TV to evacuee shelters. In 

addition, EPA personnel fluent in Vietnamese have conducted outreach on Vietnamese radio stations in Dallas and Houston where there are many displaced Vietnamese residents. 

• EPA has produced public service announcements (PSAs) and informational 

handouts about a host of cleanup activities that can pose potential environmental 

and health hazards for returning residents. The PSAs and handouts are available 

in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. EPA and FEMA are working to cross promote 

PSAs, and EPA is aggressively sending the PSAs to radio stations and has distributed more than one million handouts to date. 

• Also, in outreach activities, EPA provides a daily 5 minute report on the major 

Louisiana AM radio station, WWL, about the agency’s local activities and EPA personnel provide weekly updates on Eyewitness Morning News on WWL-TV. 
58

• Finally, as the population is returning, EPA is using Community Involvement 

Coordinators to re-engage the citizens and to participate in Welcome Home events 

in Parishes by providing information on environmental issues.

Question 12. The breadth and magnitude of Hurricane Katrina is larger than 

most EPA disaster response work. The recovery from this storm will be long-term, 

and it is likely to be complicated by environmental hazards in the area. Is the EPA’s 

existing management structure, personnel, and resources equipped to handle a recovery of this magnitude? 

Response. EPA has the personnel and resources from the Agency Headquarters, 

all of its 10 Regional Offices, and from our specialized response teams to assist in 

one or more large-scale responses. EPA believes that we are well prepared to assist 

in the recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

Question 13. You have described EPA’s role in the days preceding and the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Knowing what you know today, would you 

have done anything differently? 

Response. To date, EPA’s response efforts have shown themselves to be effective. 

This is due in large part to actions that the Agency took following the events of September 11, 2001. These actions included the implementation of a new Agency wide 

National Approach to Response and priority action plans that resulted in improvements to health and safety protocols for emergency response personnel, ICS training, purchase of appropriate field and telecommunications equipment, improvements 

for consistent contracting capability and policies and procedures to improve consistent use of information technology systems in the field for formatting, review and 

storage of laboratory data. EPA has established a process for collecting lessons 

learned from the recent hurricane response and will pursue improvements as needs 

are identified.

Question 14. Did EPA plan and/or take any steps planned to secure or remove 

hazardous substances in the area in the event of a catastrophic flood, which was 

a known risk for the area? If not, do you intend to re-evaluate the Agency’s role 

in this type of disaster preparedness to determine if changes are appropriate? 

Response. EPA has a number of regulations in place that require industry to address the handling and storage of hazardous substances as well as emergency planning and preparedness. We will, however, be evaluating lessons learned from this 

event and will consider any needed changes in our regulations as a result of this 

process.

Question 15. Does the EPA have adequate lab capacity to handle the large number of water quality samples that are being taken? 

Response. EPA has found adequate lab capacity for analysis of the water quality 

samples that are being taken.

Question 16. Has the EPA used, or do you have plans to use, the Drinking Water 

Emergency Assistance authority in the Safe Drinking Water Act? 

Response. EPA can use its Safe Drinking Water Act (‘‘SDWA’’) Section 1431 authority to authorize use of water which does not meet Federal drinking water standards where such use of water is necessary to avoid imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health, such as the lack of an operational public water system. On September 14, 2005, EPA Region 4 issued a letter under Section 1431 authorizing the General Electric Company to temporarily use nonpotable water for 

personal hygiene under certain restrictions for its contractors working on projects 

in Mississippi in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. 

SDWA Section 1442(b) covers emergency grant-making authority. It allows the 

Administrator to provide technical assistance and to make grants to States or publicly owned water systems to assist in responding to and alleviating any emergency 

situation affecting public water systems. EPA has not used this grant authority.

Question 17. Has the Agency considered establishing an advisory group to assist 

the Administration and the State in dealing with environmental issues during the 

recovery process? 

Response. EPA currently has two Federal Advisory Committees in place that assist in this effort. During the Hurricane Katrina response, the Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) was asked by the Agency to review environmental sampling plans to 

ensure that they were scientifically sound and appropriate for this situation. The 

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) is 

an existing Advisory Committee that can be used by the Agency to provide advice 

and council on any number of environmental issues. This Committee has been recently briefed on the Agency’s Hurricane Katrina response and is available for consultation as needed.
59

Question 18. How is EPA participating in Emergency Support Function 14, administered by FEMA, Long Term Community Recovery operations? 

Response. To date, EPA has participated in several conference calls/meetings led 

by FEMA in both Washington, DC and in New Orleans to discuss ESF–14 activities. 

These meetings have focused on the identification of existing Federal programs that 

can contribute to the recovery effort.

Question 19. Do you have a comprehensive plan to test soil, water, and air in affected communities prior to reoccupancy, and will you include testing of private 

drinking water wells in that plan? 

Response. Since early in September, EPA has been conducting environmental 

sampling of flood water, residual sediment, and air quality to determine impacts to 

the city and to advise workers and the public on appropriate precautions to take. 

A comprehensive sampling plan was developed for each of these media and reviewed 

by EPA’s Science Advisory Board. These sampling efforts will continue as necessary 

to assist State and local authorities in making decisions on re-occupancy. EPA has 

also been working with State drinking water programs to help support testing of 

private wells to ensure that homeowners have safe drinking water. The Agency’s 

mobile labs in Louisiana and Mississippi have tested hundreds of samples from 

homeowner wells. EPA also provided assistance to the States by making available 

copies of pamphlets that inform homeowners how to manage a flooded well. At the 

request of States, EPA translated the documents into Spanish and Vietnamese.

Question 20. Will the Agency require or encourage the use of clean diesel fuel for 

the recovery and reconstruction operations? 

Response. Yes, EPA has a national program to encourage the use of cleaner fuels, 

including biodiesel, as well as the use of advanced after-treatment ‘‘retrofit’’ technologies on non-road equipment. The application of retrofit technologies can significantly reduce the pollution emitted from this equipment. Non-road construction and 

demolition equipment has been critical to the recovery and reconstruction effort. In 

addition, the trucks that are involved in these operations cannot only utilize the 

cleaner fuel but also participate in EPA’s national reduced idling program as they 

wait to be loaded with debris or off-loaded with construction materials.

Question 21. It has been reported that some involved in the water quality testing 

in Lake Pontchartrain have said that contaminants found in Lake Pontchartrain 

would either evaporate within days or settle into lake bottom sediment. This assessment seems to dismiss the environmental and health impacts of contaminated sediments, and give an overly optimistic review of the water quality in the Lake. Does 

EPA share the view that contaminated sediments in the Lake do not pose a water 

quality or health threat? Can you describe the Agency’s plan to determine the degree of contamination in lake sediments? 

Response. Our sediment samples are undergoing laboratory analysis at this time, 

and the tests conducted during this analysis follow strict quality assurance and validation requirements to ensure that our findings are correct. EPA will not predict 

what the results may show while we await this analysis. The multi-agency plan for 

testing Lake sediments involved gathering both probability-based and targeted samples, and testing the sediment for metals, PAHs, PBDEs, PCBs, pesticides, and 

other contaminants that might have been released by the storm’s impacts on nearby 

communities. EPA has included substantial sediment sampling and testing in our 

monitoring design throughout the affected region. Although it is routine and helpful 

for scientists to offer professional opinions as to where and why contaminants may 

move and eventually settle, such opinions are not conclusive until they are paired 

with and plausibly explain actual monitoring results. 

RESPONSES BY MARCUS PEACOCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question 1. A story in the October 2 New York Times headlined ‘‘Blanket of Mold 

Threatens Health and Homes’’ reported that trillions of mold spores are reproducing 

inside tens of thousands of buildings. The mold ‘‘could sicken the 20 percent of the 

population that has allergy problems, experts say, and could also be dangerous for 

older residents, children and people with weakened immune systems.’’ The story 

had conflicting views on whether mold could also cause birth defects and cancer. 

The story went on to say that ‘‘Officials at the state Department of Health, and 

Hospitals, the agency primarily responsible for mold mitigation, said the department was so overwhelmed with other flood-related work that it could not inspect 

homes or analyze the potential health risks of mold, beyond disseminating information on its Web site.’’
60

What is the administration (EPA or otherwise) doing specifically to assess the 

mold problem in New Orleans (and elsewhere), address whatever risks it poses, and 

communicate those risks to citizens? 

Response. EPA has coordinated with CDC, OSHA, FEMA and other Federal, 

State, and local agencies to provide information and guidance to the public on moldrelated issues. EPA has been aggressive in distributing mold information and developing additional information that will allow homeowners to take appropriate action 

to address mold contamination.

Question 2. Is the threat posed by mold great enough that it should be influencing 

people’s decisions to return to New Orleans, (or elsewhere in the Gulf)? 

Response. Household mold can be a health hazard if not properly addressed. Since 

mold conditions and cleanup challenges in homes and buildings in New Orleans will 

vary depending on exposure to floodwaters and construction materials, residents 

should consult with local officials to inquire about conditions in their neighborhood. 

CDC, with input from EPA and OSHA, has issued ‘‘Mold, Prevention Strategies 

and Possible Health Effects in the Aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita’’. The 

report says that people should limit their exposure to mold and that some people 

may be affected to a greater extent than most healthy adults by exposure to mold—

they include infants and children, elderly people, pregnant women, people with respiratory conditions, and people with weakened immune systems.

Question 3. Katrina has resulted in widespread spills of oil, industrial chemicals, 

household hazardous waste, and other toxins. Contaminants in the floodwaters such 

as chemicals, bacteria, and viruses, once they have dried, could become airborne 

dust that may pose a serious health risk to citizens. 

EPA has generally deferred to the State and local authorities as far as communicating potential health risks to the public, and for deciding whether or not it is 

safe for citizens to return to a particular area, given the risks of exposure to these 

and other contaminants. 

What specifically is EPA doing to assess the risks posed by the various dried contaminants? 

Response. EPA is conducting air monitoring for Particulate Matter, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, metals, asbestos, and volatile organic compounds in Orleans, 

St. Charles, St. Tammany, and Jefferson Parishes.

Question 4. What steps is EPA taking to ensure that the public has a full understanding of the health risks they may face in returning to their neighborhoods, such 

as land contaminated with oil and chemicals or airborne dust comprised of dried 

bacteria, viruses, metals or chemicals? 

Response. EPA disseminates information and recommendations on potential hazards to first responders and the public through a variety of venues. EPA has posted 

data and health recommendations from samples of floodwater, floodwater sediment 

and air on the Agency website and has issued several health advisories. EPA officials provide information to the print press and broadcast media, both in the Hurricane affected areas and with national organizations, including Public Service Announcements for radio. On the ground, EPA has distributed more than 1,000,000 

flyers in Louisiana on health hazards, debris management and hazards associated 

with building reentry. As part of our incident command structure, health and safety 

officers provide guidance to EPA field responders on a daily basis on the hazards 

they may encounter and what protection is required. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL

WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF ARMY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

INTRODUCTION

I am John Paul Woodley, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

Lieutenant General Carl Strock, Chief of Engineers and I are here to discuss the 

Corps of Engineers relief and recovery efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. 

BACKGROUND

The Corps of Engineers responds to natural disasters under the direction of the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, is engaged in disaster response as part of 

its own flood and storm damage reduction and commercial navigation mission responsibilities, and acts in support of military missions as part of the Department 

of Defense. The Corps plays a major role in rescue efforts, provides water and shel-
61

ter, and is setting the stage for recovery through its mission for debris removal and 

restoration of critical infrastructure and navigation. This work is done largely by civilians. There are 34,000 people in the Corps of Engineers including both the civil 

works and military programs, but only about 600 of them soldiers like Lieutenant 

General Strock. When we talk about the Corps of Engineers on the ground in the 

disaster area, it is the Corps’ civilian public servants that come from all over the 

country to respond. I am proud of the more than 2,900 employees that the Corps 

currently has deployed in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina and those who 

are responding to Hurricane Rita. These good people are responsible for determining 

requirements and for engaging and supervising private contractors to carry out the 

work. The Corps’ working relationship with local authorities, private citizens and 

contractors, as well as with other Federal agencies is a very significant part of its 

mission. 

THE CORPS ON THE GROUND TODAY

I visited the Hurricane Katrina disaster area on September 16 and 17, prior to 

Hurricane Rita. I am proud to report the fine work being accomplished by Corps 

of Engineer personnel and other dedicated professionals throughout the region. The 

Coast Guard’s Vice Admiral Thad Allen, the Principle Federal Official, confirmed 

that Task Force Hope, the Corps of Engineers group, is an important part of the 

Federal response team. 

I also conferred with Chuck Brown, Assistant Secretary of Louisiana’s Office of 

Environmental Service about their success working with the Corps. 

When I flew over both the city of New Orleans and the Gulf coast to Biloxi on 

September 17, the devastation was immense. But, I saw a recovery process already 

well on its way: temporary roads built to enable access to critical work sites, the 

breaches in the 17th Street Canal and the London Street Canal closed and the majority of the city un-watered. 

In Gulfport, Mississippi, I met with the State Adjutant—General Major General 

Harold Cross who reported the seamless integration of the Corps of Engineers into 

the disaster response support to Mississippi. 

The New Orleans District is in the process of reconstituting its organization. 

These brave men and women are temporarily working at various locations between 

their headquarters building in New Orleans and the Engineer District headquarters 

in Vicksburg as they support the relief effort even after many of them have suffered 

the loss of homes and valued possessions. 

After my visit I am assured that the Corps is successfully postured to continue 

its support to both FEMA and the Department of Defense in their response to the 

disaster as well as continue with our ongoing civil works mission throughout the 

Nation. 

CORPS DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY EFFORTS

The Corps’ current efforts from FEMA (for Katrina) will cost about $3.2 billion. The Corps has transferred $64 million from other Corps accounts to the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies program since Hurricane Katrina and has also received $200 million in supplemental appropriations for this program. There is also 

an additional $200 million in supplemental appropriations for the operation and 

maintenance program, which will fund repairs to water resources projects owned 

and operated by the Corps that were damaged by Hurricane Katrina, both flood and 

storm damage reduction projects and Federal commercial navigation harbors and 

channels. 

Lieutenant General Strock will provide more specifics on the results of their efforts. 

THE CORPS’ FUTURE ROLE IN THE DISASTER AREA

While the Corps is focused on disaster relief and recovery, including un-watering 

New Orleans and surrounding areas, the Administration stands ready to work with 

local and State officials as they plan for the future of New Orleans and the rest of 

the Gulf Coast. As we know, New Orleans has a particular challenge because much 

of the city lies below sea level. The Corps of Engineers will work with the State, 

city, and parish officials to design and build a flood and storm damage reduction 

system that is better than before the storm; and these local officials will have a 

large part in the engineering decisions to come. 

The Corps has completed a reconnaissance study that assesses the general engineering feasibility, the economic justification, and the potential environmental implications of providing additional flood and storm protection to New Orleans and the 

surrounding area. More analysis is required to evaluate a range of options and de-
62

termine the best way to reduce the risk of future flood and storm damages, and I 

am looking to the Corps, local officials, and all interested persons to advance these 

investigations as expeditiously and cost-effectively as possible. 

We are especially mindful that the coastal wetlands ecosystem can provide a buffer against the impacts of some storms and thus serves as the foundation upon which 

projects to reduce the risk of storm damage to the urban areas of the Louisiana 

coast are constructed. The Administration is working with Congress and the State 

of Louisiana to develop an appropriate, generic authorization for the Louisiana 

Coastal Area Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Program that will expedite the 

approval process for projects and their implementation while providing greater flexibility in setting future priorities and increased opportunities for application of 

adaptive management decisionmaking. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I look forward to working with you 

on matters of mutual interest and concern. Following Lieutenant General Strock’s 

statement, I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the other Subcommittee members may have. 

RESPONSES BY HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR THUNE

Question 1. Could you please update me regarding the Army Corps’ position regarding water levels on the Missouri River? In particular, is the Corps in any way 

considering deviating from the Master Control Manual? 

Response. The Corps’ intent is to operate the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir 

System strictly in accordance with the Master Control Manual. At the present time, 

the Corps is carefully monitoring conditions on both the Missouri and Mississippi 

Rivers and we do not believe that an emergency situation exists at this time.

Question 2. As a result of Hurricane Katrina, is there anything that will slow or 

impede the Corps work regarding the Cheyenne River Sioux emergency water intake that is underway pursuant to P.L. 84–99? 

Response. The Cheyenne River Sioux emergency water intake work is not currently being impacted by Hurricane Katrina efforts. Potential funding impacts could 

arise if future Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Laws limit the funding to 

projects impacted by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ophelia. In that event, the 

Corps would need to identify an alternate source of funds for the project by January 

2006 to allow the project to continue on schedule.

Question 3. As the author of S. 1761, the ‘‘Gulf Coast Recovery Act’’ I would appreciate knowing more about how the Army Corps of Engineers (as well as your private sector partners) are impacted by the threat of litigation in post-disaster cleanup efforts. 

Response. The Corps of Engineers conducts its emergency recovery efforts in accordance with Federal law and Corps regulations and the threat of litigation does 

not influence the execution of our missions. 

RESPONSES BY HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR VOINOVICH

Question 1. If the funding was available for all of the Army Corps of Engineers 

projects in the area affected by Hurricane Katrina—at the Corps’ capability level—

would this have mitigated many of the problems faced in the disaster area? 

Response. The impacts of the funding levels are not known at this time. There 

is no single answer to the question as to why there were failures in the hurricane 

protection system, as there were multiple breaches of levees and floodwalls at a 

number of locations and the exact failure mechanism of each is likely to be different. 

The answer to this will follow from a thorough analysis of the data that the Corps 

of Engineers is now collecting. What we have to date is evidence of what happened; 

we can see the final result of the structural behavior, but we cannot yet determine 

why. That will require more understanding of the design intent of each structure, 

its condition prior to the storm, the forces to which it was subjected, and the ability 

to at least simulate how the structure would respond to those forces. This is the 

objective of the Corps’ current interagency analysis efforts.

Question 2. The Corps completed the reconnaissance study on whether to 

strengthen coastal Louisiana’s hurricane damage reduction projects to protect 
63

against Category 4 and 5 storms in August 2002. Funding for the feasibility study 

was included in the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill and the Senate 

Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, at the request of the Louisiana congressional delegation. The Administration’s budget request has never included funding for this project. Has the Corps ever recommended funding to be included in the Administration’s budget for the feasibility study? If the Corps has not 

requested funding for the feasibility study, why not? 

Response. The reconnaissance report for the Hurricane Protection, LA project was 

completed in August 2002. After the reconnaissance study was started with a congressional add in fiscal year 2001, the Administration requested funds for this 

project in each of its budget submittals for fiscal years 2002—2004 ($100,000, 

$125,000, and $100,000, respectively). The actual allocations received for the project 

for fiscal years 2001—2004 were $75,000, $215,000, $85,100, and $124,000, respectively. To date, a feasibility study cost sharing agreement has not been executed between the Government and a non-Federal sponsor. For fiscal years 2005 and 2006, 

the Administration did not request funding for this project. The Congress appropriated $100,000 for fiscal year 2005 ($79,000 was allocated) and $8 million for fiscal year 2006.

Question 3. What are your plans for expediting the Category 5 feasibility study? 

Response. The Conference Report to the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act directs me to submit a preliminary technical report for 

comprehensive Category 5 protection within 6 months of enactment of the Act and 

a final technical report for Category 5 protection within 24 months of enactment of 

this Act. In doing so, I am to consider providing protection for a storm surge equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane within the project area and may submit reports on 

component areas of the larger protection program for authorization as soon as practicable. 

RESPONSES BY HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR OBAMA

Question 1. Senator Coburn and I introduced a bill recently to appoint a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the President to oversee hurricane reconstruction efforts. The bill is meant to ensure that there is oversight on the front end 

before money is spent, instead of after the money has gone out the door. 

Already, we’ve seen some disturbing examples of poorly spent money. A few weeks ago, Senator Coburn and I highlighted a $200 million contract that FEMA signed 

with Carnival Cruise Lines to house evacuees and rescue workers. Under this contract, taxpayers are paying $2,500 a week per person housed on the ship—four 

times the cost of a 7-day Caribbean cruise, which includes entertainment. 

Please describe how your agency is ensuring that reconstruction funds are being 

well spent. 

Response. We are using our established procurement methods and existing emergency response procedures and procurement oversight procedures. The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers routinely manages emergency response operations. As a part of 

our planning process, based on the lessons learned from previous events, we establish procedures to cover all phases of our efforts to support FEMA. The Corps has 

teams that are trained and ready to move into impacted areas at FEMA’s request, 

to provide necessary support like ice, water, temporary power, roofing, and debris 

removal, or temporary housing. In cooperation with FEMA, we established preplaced contracts to enable quick reaction to emergencies like Hurricane Katrina. 

This gives us time to transition to a more long-term solution when that is necessitated by an event the magnitude of Katrina. We are using our established oversight procedures, with some augmentation. First—using our planned response techniques, we rely on existing contracting offices and technical staff for much of the 

work. We will also be using our normal approval chain for acquisition plans and 

Justifications & Approvals for exemptions to full and open competition. This would 

include Department of the Army approval for higher dollar value acquisitions. One 

of the greatest needs in a response of this magnitude is for Quality Assurance and 

Technical staff to oversee the work. We are working with many agencies that are 

supplying qualified staff members for tasks such as quality assurance operations. 

We are grateful to Federal Agencies such as the Bureau of Recreation, the Army 

Materiel Command, the Department of Agriculture, the Engineer School at Fort 

Leonard Wood and even retired USACE employees who are providing staff to augment our operations. Our Internal Review staff also teams with the Defense Contract Audit Agency and Army Criminal Investigative Division to oversee many 

Corps practices, to include contracting.
64

Question 2. Are there instances when multiple agencies are involved in contracting and procurement decisions? When that happens, who coordinates oversight 

over these financial decisions? 

Response. The standard practice for the recovery missions assigned to the Corps 

of Engineers is for the Corps to lead its contracting and procurement actions with 

funding provided by FEMA. If the Corps requires expertise from other agencies, 

funding is provided as necessary and those agencies would oversee any contracting 

and procurement actions that they deem necessary.

Question 3. In your testimony, you indicate that the Corps has completed a study 

on the economic justification for providing additional flood and storm protection to 

New Orleans and the surrounding area. 

What did that study conclude? Should additional protection be given to New Orleans and the surrounding area? 

Response. The reconnaissance study concluded Federal interest to proceed to a 

feasibility study based on the analyses conducted for category 4 protection for the 

East Jefferson Subasin.

Question 4. How much will this cost? 

Response. A comprehensive analysis for the entire study area was not addressed.

Question 5. I’ve heard concerns that the amount of flood protection that the Corps 

provides is related to the amount of the potential property damage. 

Is this true? If so, does this mean that working folks get less flood protection because their houses are worth less than the houses of millionaires? 

Response. Flood damage analyses include an assessment of physical damages, income loss, and emergency costs, and therefore the value of the structures being protected is only one of the benefit categories that are evaluated. It would be premature 

to venture an assessment as to the economic justification or level of protection for 

any of the alternatives for increased hurricane protection for the area.

Question 6. How are agricultural lands valued? Do you calculate the loss of future 

crops or just the value of the real estate? 

Response. The Corps policy in design of flood damage reduction projects is to provide an optimum degree of protection consistent with safety of life and property. The 

Corps seeks an economically efficient degree of protection and land use in agricultural areas, and acceptable reduction of risks and preservation of environmental values in protecting other rural and urban areas. Benefits are categorized according 

to their effect as inundation reduction benefits, intensification benefits, or location 

benefits. Inundation reduction benefit is the value of reducing or modifying the flood 

losses to the economic activity using the flood plain without any plan. Inundation 

reduction benefits are usually measured as the reduction in the amount of flood 

damages or related costs (those which would be voluntarily undertaken by economically rational individuals to reduce damages). Intensification benefit is the value of 

more intensive use of the land (e.g., a shift from lower to higher value crops or higher crop yields). Location benefit is the value of making flood plain land available 

for a new economic use (e.g., where a shift from agricultural to industrial use occurs). The evaluation of the future condition will depend on the project alternatives 

and their impacts on the value and use of the property. 

RESPONSE BY HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION

FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question. The breadth and magnitude of Hurricane Katrina is larger than most 

Corps disaster response work. The recovery from this storm will be long-term. The 

Corps’ mission is broader than usual given the Agency’s responsibilities for the flood 

protection measures in the region. Does the Corps have the money, people, and authority it needs to handle a recovery of this magnitude? 

Response. The Corps is the world’s largest public engineering, design, and construction management agency. Military and civilian engineers, scientists, and a 

range of other specialists work hand-in-hand—in division and district offices located 

throughout the world and at four major laboratories and research centers—to provide leadership in engineering and environmental matters. They are prepared to 

meet the demands of changing times and requirements, including emergencies. 

In addition, the private sector is an essential element of the engineer team. The 

Corps employs private architectural, engineering, and construction firms for a high 

percentage of its design and all of its construction work. The partnership between 

the Corps and the private sector represents an immediate force multiplier of several 
65

hundred thousand architects, engineers, and builders and is readily convertible to 

support the Nation in times of national emergency. 

RESPONSES BY HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. What is the status of efforts to repair the levee system to its preKatrina level? Is the Corps moving forward with the intent of simply replacing what 

was there? Or are you looking at other design options? 

Response. With our contractors, we are working around the clock on the levees 

and floodwalls to provide an interim level of protection to see the city through this 

hurricane season, which continues until the end of November, and the rainy season 

that the city normally experiences in December and January. The goal of this effort 

is to restore the pre-storm level of protection before the start of the next hurricane 

season, which begins in June 2006. The Corps has established an independent performance evaluation task force to provide credible, objective engineering and scientific answers to fundamental questions about the operation and performance of 

the hurricane protection projects in the New Orleans metropolitan area that were 

flooded by Hurricane Katrina. As we learn we will immediately act to incorporate 

those findings into the interim and long term work in which we are engaged.

Question 2. What kind of interactions with other agencies, the city or the state 

taking place to ensure that decisions as to when and where people will return are 

coordinated with the Corps’ decisions on rebuilding the levee system? 

Response. The Corps will work in close partnership with the states of Louisiana 

and Mississippi, the city of New Orleans, and other Gulf Coast cities, so they can 

rebuild in a thoughtful, well-considered way. The Corps is likely to have an active 

role in the restoration of public infrastructure in the disaster zone. We will be fully 

engaged in the effort to further strengthen Federal support for the region affected 

by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita through the Gulf Coast Recovery and Rebuilding Council. In accordance with President Bush’s executive order of November 

1, 2005, the Corps will be not only be responsive to, but also proactive in, providing 

effective, integrated, and fiscally responsible support to State, local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and faith-based and other community humanitarian 

relief organizations in the recovery and rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region affected 

by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita.

Question 3. I believe it would be a mistake to move forward with the various 

projects in the affected area independently, without taking a comprehensive look at 

how these missions can be integrated. For instance, rebuilding or expanding a levee 

that we’ll need to breach in a couple years as part of our wetlands restoration efforts 

may not make the most sense. What is the Corps doing now or preparing to propose 

doing to ensure this comprehensive integration of activities? 

Response. Our assessment of rebuilding existing projects or potential new projects 

for higher levels of protection includes an awareness of the relationship of the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) project and hurricane protection proposals. Coastal restoration provides numerous environmental and ecosystem benefits. These measures 

can also provide elements that will benefit hurricane protection in southeast Louisiana. Significant restoration of coastal wetlands and barrier islands could offer 

surge reduction benefits to hurricane protection projects. Proposals for hurricane 

protection and coastal restoration will be compatible and complementary.

Question 4. Earlier this year, this Committee passed a WRDA bill that authorizes 

a program for restoring the coastal wetlands. Where are we in assessing the affect 

of the hurricane on the coastline? Do we know yet whether the projects described 

in the LCA report are still feasible and advisable? If not, do we have an approximate timeframe for having the necessary assessments and determinations completed? Do you need anything from Congress in order to do that? 

Response. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has indicated that Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita impacted at least 100 square miles of marshland along Louisiana’s 

coastline. Wetlands east of the Mississippi River suffered the most severe damage, 

including 39 square miles lost from Breton Sound, 14 square miles from the mouth 

of the Mississippi River, and 6 square miles from the lower Pearl River basin. In 

some areas, the USGS stated that the losses exceeded projections for coastal erosion 

over the next 50 years. The projects described in the LCA report are not only still 

feasible, but now even more essential. The President has recently requested that 

$250M of the Federal money already provided by Congress in the Emergency Sup-
66

plemental be ‘‘reallocated’’ for funding wetlands restoration projects that would enhance flood protection for the greater New Orleans area. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL A. STROCK, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I am Lieutenant 

General Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers. I am honored to be testifying before 

your Committee today, along with the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 

Works), the Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr., on the United States Army Corps 

of Engineers’ activities related to Hurricane Katrina. My testimony today will provide a brief background and update the Committee on progress made to date on relief efforts by the Corps of Engineers in support of FEMA’s response and recovery 

mission, as well as an update on the status of the levees around the greater New 

Orleans area and the principal commercial navigation channels. 

BACKGROUND

The Corps of Engineers responds in three ways to natural disasters. First, we act 

as part of the Federal response under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Second, we act under our own civil works authorities, which in the 

area impacted by Katrina involve principally our flood and storm damage reduction 

and commercial navigation missions. Finally, we provide engineering assistance as 

needed in support of the Department of Defense military forces who are responding 

to the disaster. In all cases, our priorities are to support efforts to save lives and 

find people, to sustain lives through provision of water and shelter, and to set conditions for recovery, such as debris removal and cleanup, and restoring critical infrastructure and navigation. 

SUPPORT OF FEMA

In support of FEMA and the National Response Plan, we are responsible for 

Emergency Support Function 3 (ESF–3), one of 15 Emergency Support Functions 

that come together prior to, and during a disaster. Under ESF–3, we have a mission 

to provide ice, water, temporary power, and debris removal. For these pre-scripted 

missions, we have standing contracts and we move these capabilities forward to 

major mobilizationsites prior to landfall. From there, we have operational support 

areas that are throughout the disaster area, where commodities flow when they are 

needed. 

We also provide temporary roofing on damaged buildings. In the past, we have 

been requested and had responsibility for the temporary housing mission. In the 

case of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA has elected to stand up a task force, the Housing 

Area Command, which is under the direction of FEMA. We will continue to support 

this with technical expertise and execution, but FEMA is handling the temporary 

housing mission now. We also provide other technical assistance at the request of 

FEMA on an as-needed basis. 

Each of these missions is performed by groups of Corps of Engineers employees 

from around the globe who are trained and ready prior to the advent of a disaster 

and know that when a disaster occurs, they will be called in to respond. We have 

them standing by in various stages of readiness. 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS’ INHERENT MISSION RESPONSIBILITIES

In addition to our support of the broader response effort that FEMA coordinates, 

the Corps of Engineers has its own responsibilities in flood and storm damage reduction and commercial navigation. For example, we conduct surveys of all the 

structures in the area, both navigation and flood and storm damage reduction, and 

then begin to make repairs. We are also working under our PL 84–99 authority with 

the affected parishes to repair levee systems that were damaged during the event. 

Under the flood and storm damage reduction authorities that govern the civil works 

program, we repair Corps owned structures and some non-Corps owned structures. 

STATUS OF OUR ONGOING EFFORTS IN THE DISASTER AREA

Volunteers from several Federal agencies have joined the Corps team in providing 

support to FEMA. We are working closely with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Army Material Command. In addition, Germany and the Netherlands have provided equipment and 
67

personnel to assist in the hurricane recovery. Currently we have nearly 2,900 Corps 

employees deployed in the affected areas. We estimate that meeting our assignments to date for Katrina from FEMA will cost about $3.2 billion. We have transferred $64 million from other Corps accounts to our Flood Control and Coastal 

Emergencies program since Hurricane Katrina and also have received $200 million 

in supplemental appropriations for this program. We have also received an additional $200 million in supplemental appropriations for our operation and maintenance program, which will fund repairs to water resources projects owned and operated by the Corps that were damaged by Hurricane Katrina, both flood and storm 

damage reduction projects and Federal commercial navigation harbors and channels. 

To date, more than 4,000 truckloads of water and 2,100 truckloads of ice have 

been delivered. We have conducted pre-installation inspections on 875 generators, 

have installed 267 generators, and have de-installed 199 generators because they 

were no longer needed. We have installed more than 32,000 temporary roofs and 

nearly 67,000 Right of Entry forms have been submitted to the Corps by people affected by the disaster. We estimate that roughly 105,000 roofs will need temporary 

roofing installed. Finally, we have removed almost 6.9 million cubic yards of debris 

to date. 

The Corps of Engineers is performing a detailed assessment of the levee system. 

The 17th Street and London Canal levees have been closed and repaired. The levees 

in Plaquemines Parish are being repaired now. There were a total of twenty-seven 

levee breaks, including the eight deliberate levee breaks we made to assist in the 

un-watering of New Orleans. It is important that leaders and residents understand 

that there is risk to life and property in re-entering flooded areas until additional 

emergency levee repairs have been made. Pumps that are designed to remove water 

must also be returned to an operational status. State and local leaders are advised 

to ensure effective warning and evacuation plans are in place as long as protection 

levels are diminished. State and local leaders will be kept informed as assessments 

are complete and repairs are made. 

Prior to Hurricane Rita, we were making steady progress on pumping out floodwaters from the city of New Orleans. The arrival of Hurricane Rita and the subsequent flooding of parts of the New Orleans area has impacted the schedules for unwatering some areas. The un-watering is continuing as quickly as possible. The 

number of pumps that are operational at any given time is continually changing. 

It is expected that the 9th Ward and New Orleans East will be un-watered October 

5. Water removal in Plaquemines is expected to be completed October 18. St. Bernard’s Parish is essentially dry. 

The U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port of New Orleans has lifted all restrictions on the Lower Mississippi River. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) is 

also open. Industry and the Corps have worked out an operating plan for Calcasieu 

Lock to balance drainage, especially during scheduled bridge closures, and navigation safety. Shallow draft tows and light tug traffic are allowed 24 hours on the 

Calcasieu River. Deep draft vessels are restricted to 35 feet draft, and daylight only 

from the Lake Charles Interstate–10 bridge to the jetties. The gates are fixed on 

the Leland Bowman Lock, and the lock is open and barges are passing through 

without problems. Harvey Lock is also open. The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal 

(IHNC) Lock is operational, and the canal is restricted to vessels 110ft wide by 18ft 

draft due to a sunken dry-dock and other obstructions. The Mississippi River Gulf 

Outlet (MRGO) is closed to deep draft vessels. The inland portion will serve as an 

alternative route to the GIWW due to closure of IHNC for shallow draft vessels 

deeper than 18 feet. Critical aids to navigation are in place for this portion of the 

MRGO. Our preliminary surveys indicate a controlling depth of 23 feet and the Captain of the Port of New Orleans has declared MRGO available to draft of 23 feet. 

Port Fourchon sustained significant damage, but is operating to a limited extent. 

The U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port has opened the Atchafalaya River from 

Mile 0 to the Gulf. Tiger Pass is shoaled to less than 6 feet. This channel, authorized to 14 feet, provides a shorter route for vessels traveling to the west from the 

Mississippi River near the mouth and is primarily used by fishing and supply vessels. We are preparing a contract to dredge the channel. The Port of Morgan City 

has experienced some shoaling and dredging is being scheduled. 

We are working closely with local, State, and Federal experts on monitoring the 

water quality as the water is pumped out of the City. As we get to the final amounts 

of water, we may encounter more concentrated levels of contaminants that will require special attention and handling. It is important to note that the un-watering 

effort will remove most, but not all the water. The remaining isolated pockets of 

water should not hamper recovery efforts such as debris removal, structural assessments and restoration of critical services. 
68

OUR FUTURE ROLE IN THE DISASTER AREA

At this time, the Corps is focused on disaster relief and recovery, including unwatering New Orleans and surrounding areas. We are also currently implementing 

a plan to reconstitute our New Orleans District office, which has been closed since 

the Hurricane. I am happy to report that all 1,229 employees of the District have 

been accounted for. 

This concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

RESPONSES BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL STROCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR THUNE

Question 1. Could you please update me with respect to the Army Corps position 

regarding water levels on the Missouri River? In particular, is the Corps in any way 

considering deviating from the Master Control Manual? 

Response. The Corps’ intent is to operate the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir 

System strictly in accordance with the Master Control Manual. At the present time, 

the Corps is carefully monitoring conditions on both the Missouri and Mississippi 

Rivers and we do not believe that an emergency situation exists at this time.

Question 2. As a result of Hurricane Katrina, is there anything that will slow or 

impede the Corps work regarding the Cheyenne River Sioux emergency water intake that is underway pursuant to P.L. 84–99? 

Response. The Cheyenne River Sioux emergency water intake work is not currently being impacted by Hurricane Katrina efforts. Potential funding impacts could 

arise if future Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Laws limit the funding to 

projects impacted by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ophelia. In that event, the 

Corps would need to identify an alternate source of funds for the project by January 

2006 to allow the project to continue on schedule.

Question 3. As the author of S. 1761, the ‘‘Gulf Coast Recovery Act’’ I would appreciate knowing more about how the Army Corps of Engineers (as well as your private sector partners) are impacted by the threat of litigation in post-disaster cleanup efforts. 

Response. The Corps of Engineers conducts its emergency recovery efforts in accordance with Federal law and Corps regulations and the threat of litigation does 

not influence the execution of our missions. 

RESPONSES BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL STROCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR VOINOVICH

Question 1. noticed, in the fiscal year 2006 Budget Resolution, that the Corps and 

OMB prioritize construction funding for projects with the highest net economic and 

environmental return. Do you consider threat assessment as well? 

Response. While the Administration supports new and continuing construction 

that offers maximum returns to the Nation, it also emphasizes essential maintenance and security activities at key Corps facilities.

Question 2. Can you explain further how the Corps and the OMB select projects 

to receive funding in the President’s Budget request? 

Response. Funding is targeted to completing the best existing projects, and to a 

limited number of new projects whose benefits to the Nation greatly exceed their 

costs. Performance-based program development is development of only those programs, and only those parts of those programs, that can be justified by the results 

produced, or to be produced. Results may be in the form of outputs or outcomes. 

Performance based program development is designed not only to ensure prosecution 

of only clearly justified programs, but also, to ensure that business program increments are added such that the first-added increment provides the best results or 

returns, the second-added increment provides the second-best results or returns, etc. 

The increments are added in order of priority, both within and across business programs, to build total programs of whatever size, depending on available funding. 

In response to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the 

Corps established its business programs by program purpose, such as navigation, 

environment, and flood and coastal storm damage reduction, rather than by function 

(e.g., investigations, construction, operation and maintenance, etc.). Consistently, 

the Corps programs by program purpose, and, once Army finishes program development, assists Army in cross-walking results to appropriation accounts, set up by 
69

function, for use by OMB in developing the President’s program. Business programs 

include navigation, environment, flood control and coastal storm damages, hydropower, recreation, regulatory, emergency management, and water supply. 

RESPONSES BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL STROCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR OBAMA

Question 1. Senator Coburn and I introduced a bill recently to appoint a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the President to oversee hurricane reconstruction efforts. The bill is meant to ensure that there is oversight on the front end 

before money is spent, instead of after the money has gone out the door. 

Already, we’ve seen some disturbing examples of poorly spent money. A few weeks 

ago, Senator Coburn and I highlighted a $200 million contract that FEMA signed 

with Carnival Cruise Lines to house evacuees and rescue workers. Under this contract, taxpayers are paying $2,500 a week per person housed on the ship—four 

times the cost of a seven-day Caribbean cruise, which includes entertainment. 

Please describe how your agency is ensuring that reconstruction funds are being 

well spent. 

Response. We are using our established procurement methods and existing emergency response procedures and procurement oversight procedures. The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers routinely manages emergency response operations. As a part of 

our planning process, based on the lessons learned from previous events, we establish procedures to cover all phases of our efforts to support FEMA. The Corps has 

teams that are trained and ready to move into impacted areas at FEMA’s request, 

to provide necessary support like ice, water, temporary power, roofing, and debris 

removal, or temporary housing. In cooperation with FEMA, we established preplaced contracts to enable quick reaction to emergencies like Hurricane Katrina. 

This gives us time to transition to a more long-term solution when that is necessitated by an event the magnitude of Katrina. We are using our established oversight procedures, with some augmentation. First—using our planned response techniques, we rely on existing contracting offices and technical staff for much of the 

work. We will also be using our normal approval chain for acquisition plans and 

Justifications & Approvals for exemptions to full and open competition. This would 

include Department of the Army approval for higher dollar value acquisitions. One 

of the greatest needs in a response of this magnitude is for Quality Assurance and 

Technical staff to oversee the work. We are working with many agencies that are 

supplying qualified staff members for tasks such as quality assurance operations. 

We are grateful to Federal Agencies such as the Bureau of Recreation, the Army 

Materiel Command, the Department of Agriculture, the Engineer School at Fort 

Leonard Wood and even retired USACE employees who are providing staff to augment our operations. Our Internal Review staff also teams with the Defense Contract Audit Agency and Army Criminal Investigative Division to oversee many 

Corps practices, to include contracting.

Question 2. Are there instances when multiple agencies are involved in contracting and procurement decisions? When that happens, who coordinates oversight 

over these financial decisions? 

Response. The standard practice for the recovery missions assigned to the Corps 

of Engineers is for the Corps to lead its contracting and procurement actions with 

funding provided by FEMA. If the Corps requires expertise from other agencies, 

funding is provided as necessary and those agencies would oversee any contracting 

and procurement actions that they deem necessary.

Question 3. In your testimony, you explain that part of the Army Corps’ mission 

under the National Response Plan is to provide ice and water. Like many Americans, I found it disgraceful that folks in the Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center did not receive water for days after the hurricane, while at the same 

time trucks full of ice were apparently driving around the country at the taxpayer’s 

expense. 

Can you explain how this happened and what steps you’re taking to ensure that 

it doesn’t happen in any future natural disasters? 

Response. There is a ramp-up period built into the ice and water contracts to take 

into account the normal process time that is experienced by the contractor. The contract envisions an order being made for a multiple day quantity—not daily orders 

that only cover the next 24-hour period. Therefore, once a definite order is placed, 

the contractor has to provide 25 percent of the total order within 24 hours; 50 percent of the total order within 48 hours; 75 percent within 72 hours; and 100 percent 

within 96 hours. Given a 10 day somewhat steady state order, the first 2 days re-
70

quirements would be delivered within 24 hours, etc. When an order is made for a 

large amount for one day—such as a 450 truckload order for one day, followed the 

next day by another—the system doesn’t work because the contractor can’t see the 

ramp up into the future. While a one day requirement for a reasonable amount 

might be available, the second day amount may not be normally replenished that 

quickly—while a multiple day order allows the industry to begin to ramp up for increased production and delivery. 

The Corps has teams that are trained and ready to move into impacted areas at 

FEMA’s request, to provide necessary support like ice, water, temporary power, roofing, and debris removal, or temporary housing. In cooperation with FEMA, we established pre-placed contracts to enable quick reaction to emergencies like Hurricane Katrina. As the commodities were being prepared and shipped, the situation 

on the ground was very dynamic, and projections of needs changed frequently as 

mass evacuations took place and many people moved out of the disaster area. These 

changes led to changes, transmitted to the Corps from FEMA, rerouting commodities to different staging areas and eventually to storage facilities as supply began 

to exceed demand. As this situation developed, some truckers were rerouted while 

attempting to deliver their commodities, and some were put in holding patterns as 

storage facilities were readied to accept their deliveries. 

RESPONSES BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL STROCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. General Strock, who was the first Corps employee to report the levee 

breach, when did that report occur, and when were state and local officials notified? 

Response. Leaders of the New Orleans District first learned that levees and storm 

surge barriers had been compromised via phone calls from local first responders 

(firemen) and Corps employees on the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) navigation lock. At approximately 1:00 PM on 29 August 2005 after the strong winds 

had subsided, Corps personnel, including Colonel R. Wagenaar, who stayed at the 

district during the storm, attempted to drive to the 17th street canal to verify the 

reports of a breach in the hurricane protection system. Flooded roadways and darkness prevented the team from reaching the canal to confirm the reported breach. 

They were able to validate the levee breach on Tuesday, and they began implementing a plan to fix the breach. Personnel in the Corps Emergency Operations 

Center heard news reports of a possible breach on the London Avenue Canal but 

were not able to confirm the reports. On 31 August 2005, New Orleans district 

Corps personnel were able to confirm the breach in the vicinity of Robert E Lee Blvd 

and the breach at Mirabeau Ave. after getting assistance from a search and rescue 

boat crew. Employees at the Corps IHNC navigation locks noticed a breach in the 

hurricane protection system and notified their supervisory chain.

Question 2. In July 2004, emergency officials conducted a planning scenario in 

Louisiana to address a Category 3 hurricane. The debris team for this exercise estimated that the storm would result in 30 million cubic yards of debris and 237,000 

cubic yards of household hazardous waste. How are EPA and the Corps working together to manage this large quantity of debris, including hazardous materials and 

the potential air quality impacts of any open burning? 

Response. Through October, over 14 million cubic yards of debris has been removed in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. It is estimated that nearly the 

Corps will remove 40 million cubic yards during cleanup efforts. Some communities 

are allowing burning of debris; others have prohibited open air burn. As not all the 

communities have opted for Federal debris assistance, we can’t speak for reduction 

methods in those communities that have let their own contracts. The Corps complies 

with both state DEQ and city or county directives. If allowed to burn, the Corps generally conducts air-curtain incineration where there is greater debris reduction 

achieved with little to no smoke emitted. Air curtain burning is a process that includes a pit and a machine that injects about 2000 degree Fahrenheit heat into it 

and then circulates the air so that nothing leaves the pit. It is all re-circulated back 

into the flame until everything, including the smoke, is burned. The Louisiana DEQ 

and EPA sort out any hazardous material before it gets into the incineration pit. 

The EPA and the Coast Guard are guiding the disposal of hazardous material at 

certified waste landfills that are able to handle such material.

Question 3. General Strock, you have stated in the past that there were internal 

reforms that could be made to improve the performance of the Corps, such as independent peer review of Corps projects. Given your experiences with the Katrina relief efforts and the expected rebuilding the Corps will be involved in, what changes 
71

do you think the Corps needs to make to its project development and cost benefit 

analysis to ensure that Federal tax dollars are going to the most beneficial and necessary projects? 

Response. The Corps’ performance based program development is designed to ensure prosecution of only clearly justified programs. The Corps Flood and Coastal 

Storm Damage Reduction program is well established and valued. However, our 

ability to continue to reduce flood risks to meet the needs of current and future generations is dependent upon adequate investments. Such investments provide for the 

necessary investigations of problems and development of projects, timely implementation of authorized projects, proper inspections of Corps and local projects, preventative maintenance or facility modernization or improvement, improvements to ensure the reliability and safety of projects, adequate data collection or improvements 

to increase operational efficiencies. Accordingly, a nationwide perspective is maintained to assure that available funding provides the greatest public benefit for the 

investment. The safety and security of our existing infrastructure must be maintained, new investigations to address serious flood risks must be conducted and our 

uncompleted projects must be brought on line quickly so that benefits may be 

achieved as soon as possible. Prioritization of projects is based on many factors, such 

as the number of people at risk in 100 year floodplain, the total population in the 

100 year floodplain, estimated average annual damages (without project), the benefit to cost ratio, and the remaining benefits remaining costs ratio. If there is a 

change needed in the project development and cost benefit analysis for these types 

of projects, it could include investigating whether the National Economic Development analysis is the appropriate benchmark for project recommendation. Several of 

the communications that we have received following Hurricane Katrina suggest that 

the Corps base its project development on planning for a catastrophic event rather 

than the project that maximizes net economic development benefits.

Question 4. General Strock, does the Corps have the expertise to provide technical 

advice regarding redevelopment patterns that would reduce hurricane and flooding 

impacts and maximize opportunities for wetlands redevelopment, which is so important to the people of Louisiana? 

Response. Yes. Local and State officials will lead the future discussions for rebuilding New Orleans, but the Corps of Engineers can advise communities, industries, and property owners on protection measures they can take themselves, such 

as zoning regulations, warning systems and flood proofing, as well as means to 

maximize opportunities for wetlands redevelopment.

Question 5. General Strock, can you describe our current system is adequate for: 

establishment of levee safety standards, responsibility for operation and maintenance of levee systems once constructed, cost sharing for construction and for maintenance, and ongoing review of the safety of our Nation’s levees? 

Is that system adequate to ensure levee safety throughout the Nation? 

Response. The Corps has an Inspection of Completed Works program to assure 

sponsor compliance with existing agreements that the structures and facilities constructed by the United States for flood protection will be continuously maintained 

in such a manner and operated at such times and for such periods as may be necessary to obtain the maximum benefits. The Corps annually inspects projects that 

protect urban areas or ones where failure would be catastrophic and result in loss 

of life. Rural projects are initially scheduled for an inspection every second year. 

Out-of-cycle inspections may be performed, if necessary. Unfortunately, it is unlikely 

that any system will ensure levee safety throughout the Nation. The Corps stands 

ready, however, to work with other Federal, state, and local agencies and the public 

to improve our system and processes for evaluating levee safety.

Question 6. You have described the Corps’ role in the days preceding and the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Knowing what you know today, would you 

have done anything differently? 

Response. The Corps has established an independent performance evaluation task 

force to provide credible, objective engineering and scientific answers to fundamental questions about the operation and performance of the hurricane protection 

projects in the New Orleans metropolitan area that were flooded by Hurricane 

Katrina. An after-action review of the response will be conducted once our recovery 

operations are complete. We will learn from what went well, and identify areas 

needing improvements.

Question 7. During your performance of your duties under Emergency Support 

Function 3 to provide water and ice, did the Corps observe any problems in terms 

of delivery to those in need? 
72

Response. The Corps has followed its normal procedures, pre-positioning ice and 

water at staging areas prior to the storm. Following the storm, at FEMA’s direction, 

we ordered very large additional quantities of these commodities, about 170 million 

lbs of ice, and more than 5,500 truckloads of bottled water, to meet the anticipated 

need, especially in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama coastal counties. As the commodities were being prepared and shipped, mass evacuations took place and many 

people moved out of the immediate disaster impact area. The location of need became a moving target—or indeed multiple moving targets. This dynamic situation 

led FEMA to reroute water and ice to different staging areas. Many people evacuated to cities that did not need long-term supplies of water and ice because they 

had functioning utilities. Thus, supply began to exceed the demand estimated when 

Katrina’s magnitude became known. Truckers were again re-directed to storage facilities. Some truckers were rerouted while attempting to deliver their commodities 

and some sat on hold while storage facilities were made ready to accept their deliveries. The current situation is that available supply of ice and water exceeds the 

demand for Hurricane Katrina relief and emphasis is being placed on keeping commodities ready for future needs.

Question 8. Will the Corps re-evaluate new projects pending Congressional authorization such as the Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem restoration project to determine if the current project plans remain viable after the affects of Katrina and 

if so, what is your timeline? 

Response. On a case-by-case basis, and subject to the availability of funding and 

timing of project authorization, the Corps could re-evaluate projects pending Congressional authorization if it is expected that conditions have changed significantly 

enough to modify the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. The appropriate 

Congressional sub-committees will be notified in a timely manner of any potential 

authorization issues.

Question 9. Has the Corps already, or do you have plans to, evaluate the vulnerability of all Army Corps’ infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico region to determine 

its vulnerability to further intense hurricane activity in the coming years? 

Response. The Corps has established an independent performance evaluation task 

force to provide credible, objective engineering and scientific answers to fundamental questions about the operation and performance of the hurricane protection 

projects in the New Orleans metropolitan area that were flooded by Hurricane 

Katrina. At this time, the Corps lacks the authority and funding to evaluate other 

Corps infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico.

Question 10. What steps has the Corps taken across the Nation to cooperate with 

local communities to ensure that those located ‘‘downstream’’ of flood protection features, including dams, have adequate emergency response plans in the event of a 

catastrophic failure? 

Response. It is our policy that an emergency plan for each dam, including a notification procedure, be prepared and kept accurate, complete and current. Development of an evacuation plan is a non-Federal responsibility and the Corps strongly 

encourages the appropriate State or local officials to develop evacuation plans as 

part of the overall dam safety program.

Question 11. Will the Corps conduct a comprehensive, integrated review of Corps 

infrastructure and pending projects to determine if projects should be modified to 

use different approaches to flood control, including non-structural methods such as 

relocations? Please describe if the lessons learned in the exercise are being applied 

here. 

Response. At this time, the Corps does not plan to conduct a comprehensive, integrated review of Corps infrastructure and pending projects. The Corps has established an independent performance evaluation task force to provide credible, objective engineering and scientific answers to fundamental questions about the operation and performance of the hurricane protection projects in the New Orleans metropolitan area that were flooded by Hurricane Katrina. Through this investigation, 

the Corps will be able to identify lessons learned and ways to potentially improve 

the performance of the existing hurricane protection system at the authorized level 

of protection. As a learning organization, the Corps systematically learns what 

works and what does not work from its experience and any increased innovation, 

effectiveness, and performance could ultimately be applied to other projects.

Question 12. Have delays in obtaining sampling results affected your ability to 

manage water quality issues surrounding the de-watering of New Orleans? 

Response. No. The Corps worked closely with EPA to develop a collaborative approach for managing potential water quality/ecosystem impacts associated with the 
73

un-watering effort. EPA identified 5 water quality areas of concern. As directed, the 

Corps worked to quickly initiate a monitoring program to sample water and sediment. We sampled at locations in the canals leading to the pumps as well as on 

the discharge side of the pumps in the immediate outfall areas in Lake Pontchartrain. The U.S. Coast Guard, in conjunction with the Corps, placed and maintained fresh sorbent booms at major outfalls to Lake Ponchartrain to adsorb oil and 

other floating chemicals from pumped flood waters. Additionally, the Corps deployed 

artificial aerators in the major canals to Lake Pontchartrain to enhance dissolved 

oxygen concentrations and volatilize any aromatic compounds in the water. 

RESPONSES BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL STROCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question 1. For years, community leaders, scientists, and citizen groups have argued that the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet was like a gun pointing directly at New 

Orleans. They argued that the outlet would funnel storm surges directly to New Orleans. Recent newspaper reports suggest that this is in fact what happened. 

When the Corps recently decided not to close the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, 

did you consider the risk of funneling storm surges? 

Response. The authorized channel in a fully open condition was modeled for nine 

storm scenarios using the Advanced Circulation Model for Oceanic, Coastal, and Estuarine Waters (ADCIRC). The nine storm scenarios were combinations of a weak, 

moderate, or strong intensity in combination with either a slow, moderate, or fast 

forward speed. All storm scenarios used the same track that was selected to maximize the winds parallel to the MR–GO and yet minimize the easterly component 

across Lake Borgne. This case would produce the maximum case for the storm surge 

analysis. The conclusion reached from the DDCIRC modeling analysis was that the 

MR–GO has minimal influence on storm surge propagation in the study area.

Question 2. In light of Katrina, do you believe the decision not to close the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet was correct? 

Response. The Corps has established an independent performance evaluation task 

force to provide credible, objective engineering and scientific answers to fundamental questions about the operation and performance of the hurricane protection 

projects in the New Orleans metropolitan area that were flooded by Hurricane 

Katrina. One of the most fundamental needs for the task force is understanding the 

storm surge and wave conditions that resulted from the hurricane. The surge and 

wave levels were likely significantly different in different parts of the region, especially in confined areas such as the canals and waterways and for the areas immediately adjacent to the lakes. The differences in the surge and waves with time and 

location equate to differences in the forces experienced by the various flood control 

structures which related directly to understanding their performance. The most advanced numerical hydrodynamic models will be used to generate this information. 

Understanding the true consequences of the system’s performance is critical to understanding the risk factors for future decision making.

Question 3. Coastal wetlands provide important protections from storm surges and 

all wetlands help absorb flood waters and reduce flooding impacts. The Corps has 

known for years that there is a significant problem with coastal and other wetland 

losses in Louisiana. 

What steps is the Corps taking right now to minimize additional wetland losses 

along the coast of Louisiana? 

Response. Many of the features of the proposed Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem 

Restoration Project would provide a benefit by preventing on-going wetlands loss 

through subsidence, creating new marsh and nourishing existing marsh. While 

there is adequate justification for coastal wetlands restoration for a host of reasons, 

it is also certain that these features would also provide an important component of 

the storm damage reduction system by helping to maintain the integrity of the landscape surrounding that system. According to the United States Geological Survey, 

one mile of wetland reduces storm surge by one foot. It is crucial that the storm 

damage reduction system include components that complement coastal restoration 

and management features. The President has recently requested that $250M of the 

Federal money already provided by Congress in the Emergency Supplemental be 

‘‘reallocated’’ for funding wetlands restoration projects that would enhance flood protection for the greater New Orleans area. 

Question 4. Once the Corps is done with the immediate task of stabilizing the levees and floodwalls around New Orleans, will the Corps reevaluate other Federal 
74

projects and activities that will add to wetland losses and exacerbate flooding risks 

in the region? 

Response. Our assessment of rebuilding existing projects or potential new projects 

for higher levels of protection includes an awareness of the relationship of the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) project and hurricane protection proposals. Coastal restoration provides numerous environmental and ecosystem benefits. These measures 

can also provide elements that will benefit hurricane protection in southeast Louisiana. Significant restoration of coastal wetlands and barrier islands could offer 

surge reduction benefits to hurricane protection projects. Proposals for hurricane 

protection and coastal restoration will be compatible and complementary. 

RESPONSES BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL STROCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. What is the status of efforts to repair the levee system to its preKatrina level? Is the Corps moving forward with the intent of simply replacing what 

was there? Or are you looking at other design options? 

Response. With our contractors, we are working around the clock on the levees 

and floodwalls to provide an interim level of protection to see the city through this 

hurricane season, which continues until the end of November, and the rainy season 

that the city normally experiences in December and January. The goal of this effort 

is to restore the pre-storm level of protection before the start of the next hurricane 

season, which begins in June 2006. The Corps has established an independent performance evaluation task force to provide credible, objective engineering and scientific answers to fundamental questions about the operation and performance of 

the hurricane protection projects in the New Orleans metropolitan area that were 

flooded by Hurricane Katrina. As we learn we will immediately act to incorporate 

those findings into the interim and long term work in which we are engaged.

Question 2. What kind of interactions with other agencies, the city or the state 

taking place to ensure that decisions as to when and where people will return are 

coordinated with the Corps’ decisions on rebuilding the levee system? 

Response. The Corps will work in close partnership with the states of Louisiana 

and Mississippi, the city of New Orleans, and other Gulf Coast cities, so they can 

rebuild in a thoughtful, well-considered way. The Corps is likely to have an active 

role in the restoration of public infrastructure in the disaster zone. We will be fully 

engaged in the effort to further strengthen Federal support for the region affected 

by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita through the Gulf Coast Recovery and Rebuilding Council. In accordance with President Bush’s executive order of November 

1, 2005, the Corps will be not only be responsive to, but also proactive in, providing 

effective, integrated, and fiscally responsible support to State, local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and faith-based and other community humanitarian 

relief organizations in the recovery and rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region affected 

by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita.

Question 3. I believe it would be a mistake to move forward with the various 

projects in the affected area independently, without taking a comprehensive look at 

how these missions can be integrated. For instance, rebuilding or expanding a levee 

that we’ll need to breach in a couple years as part of our wetlands restoration efforts 

may not make the most sense. What is the Corps doing now or preparing to propose 

doing to ensure this comprehensive integration of activities? 

Response. Our assessment of rebuilding existing projects or potential new projects 

for higher levels of protection includes an awareness of the relationship of the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) project and hurricane protection proposals. Coastal restoration provides numerous environmental and ecosystem benefits. These measures 

can also provide elements that will benefit hurricane protection in southeast Louisiana. Significant restoration of coastal wetlands and barrier islands could offer 

surge reduction benefits to hurricane protection projects. Proposals for hurricane 

protection and coastal restoration will be compatible and complementary.

Question 4. Earlier this year, this Committee passed a WRDA bill that authorizes 

a program for restoring the coastal wetlands. Where are we in assessing the affect 

of the hurricane on the coastline? Do we know yet whether the projects described 

in the LCA report are still feasible and advisable? If not, do we have an approximate timeframe for having the necessary assessments and determinations completed? Do you need anything from Congress in order to do that? 

Response. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has indicated that Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita impacted at least 100 square miles of marshland along Louisiana’s 

coastline. Wetlands east of the Mississippi River suffered the most severe damage, 
75

including 39 square miles lost from Breton Sound, 14 square miles from the mouth 

of the Mississippi River, and 6 square miles from the lower Pearl River basin. In 

some areas, the USGS stated that the losses exceeded projections for coastal erosion 

over the next 50 years. The projects described in the LCA report are not only still 

feasible, but now even more essential. The President has recently requested that 

$250M of the Federal money already provided by Congress in the Emergency Supplemental be ‘‘reallocated’’ for funding wetlands restoration projects that would enhance flood protection for the greater New Orleans area. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. CAPKA, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY

ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) actions in response to Hurricane Katrina. Our hearts go out to all those affected by 

the recent hurricanes, and we look forward to continuing our efforts to help the citizens of the Gulf Coast rebuild their transportation infrastructure and their lives. 

These storms have presented enormous challenges to all those involved, but the 

events also have helped to bring out the best in the public servants at our Agency, 

and I am grateful for their continued service. 

I visited the affected areas with Louisiana’s Secretary of Transportation, Johnny 

Bradberry, and Mississippi Department of Transportation’s Executive Director, 

Butch Brown, and the Highway Commission Chairman, Wayne Brown, and had an 

opportunity to see the devastation first hand. While TV coverage, aerial surveys, 

and photos of bridge and roadway damage along I–10, US 90, and other area roads 

tell the story of Katrina’s force, they could not convey the full impact of the devastation that I witnessed. 

Critical sections of Federal-aid highways in New Orleans were submerged for an 

extended period of time. Portions of Highway 23 in Plaquemines Parish, which service communities and petro-chemical facilities, remain under water. An I–10 bridge 

structure at Pascagoula was damaged, forcing single lane traffic across the remaining structure. Highway bridges along both I–10 and US 90 had huge deck slabs, 

weighing many tons, shifted and lifted off their support piers and dumped into the 

water. Massive casino barges along the Mississippi coast were yanked from their 

moorings and deposited onto US 90 at locations, in some cases, that were more than 

a mile away from their original sites. US 90, an important artery for Gulf Coast 

residents, was impassible in numerous locations due to the debris and structural 

damage. This highway infrastructure damage represents only a small fraction of the 

total devastation inflicted on the communities in Mississippi and Louisiana. 

The United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and FHWA remain 

firmly committed to helping the ravaged areas recover as quickly as possible. There 

is much work to be done in both the short-term and long-term. FHWA has been 

working closely with our State and Federal partners before, during, and after the 

storm. Today, I would like to share with you some of the details related to our response. 

PRE-HURRICANE ACTIVITIES

FHWA was well positioned to rapidly respond to the effects of Hurricane Katrina. 

We have permanent Division Offices in each State, and have developed both first 

hand knowledge of the States and strong professional and personal relationships 

with State and local highway officials. The mutual trust and confidence that 

preexisted Hurricane Katrina provided an excellent foundation for an effective plan 

and team effort to execute a timely highway response to the hurricane disaster. Our 

Division Offices provided advice to State and local jurisdictions concerning Emergency Relief program eligibility and engineering and contracting issues, and shared 

lessons learned from prior emergency situations. 

RESPONSE IMMEDIATELY AFTER HURRICANES

As soon as we could re-enter the affected areas, FHWA deployed personnel, including employees from outside the affected States, to work along side State highway and local officials to help assess the damage and to help facilitate response and 

recovery efforts. In response to Hurricane Katrina, FHWA deployed 104 employees 

from our Headquarters and 23 field offices to Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, 

and Mississippi to support relief activities. 
76

I must express my admiration for the State and local road crews, many of whom 

suffered great personal losses along with their community neighbors. Mississippi 

and Louisiana responded exceptionally well in getting debris removal underway. 

Road crews began clearing debris—including downed trees and power lines from 

highways and bridges as soon as it was safe to do so after the storm. Consequently, 

with the exception of areas that were flooded, the States opened their essential Federal-aid highways for responders in less than a day, where re-entry was warranted. 

FHWA employees worked shoulder to shoulder with our State and local counterparts to rapidly assess the situation and to shape strategies that would provide the 

most efficient response. We provided ready access to past lessons learned and helped 

Mississippi and Louisiana to work with Florida experts in addressing the bridge 

damage along I–10 and Highway 90, since Florida had experienced similar challenges following Hurricane Ivan last year. FHWA-provided information was used to 

support the flow of relief goods and services into the Gulf Coast region. This information was shared throughout all levels of government and with industry organizations, such as the American Trucking Associations. For example, FHWA posted 

State proclamations and weight permit and waiver information on our Web site. 

Just after the hurricanes, our Division Offices in the impacted areas conducted 

refresher training on our Emergency Relief program for joint FHWA and State damage assessment teams. For example, the Louisiana Division Office met with the 

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development leadership and the team 

members and explained the Emergency Relief Program. The same type of training 

was held for the local jurisdictions of Jefferson and Orleans parishes. This training 

increased the efficiency of the teams to make Emergency Relief program qualification decisions. 

The Emergency Relief program provides reimbursement to States for expenses related to highway infrastructure damage associated with natural disasters and other 

emergency situations, such as Hurricane Katrina. Examples of the type of work eligible for Emergency Relief program reimbursement include repairing pavements, 

shoulders, slopes, embankments, guard rails, signs, traffic control devices, and 

bridges, and removing debris from the highway rights-of-way. Reimbursement under 

the Emergency Relief program is for the repair and restoration of highway facilities 

to pre-disaster conditions. However, Emergency Relief program reimbursement is 

not for new construction to increase capacity, correct non-disaster related deficiencies, or otherwise improve highway facilities. 

FHWA has made down payments to the States of Louisiana and Mississippi for 

emergency relief. We provided Louisiana with $5 million of ‘‘quick release’’ Emergency Relief funds for the I–10 Twin Span Bridge, which connects New Orleans and 

Slidell with the understanding that more funds to support the repair of the bridge 

and damage to other Federal-aid highways and bridges would be forthcoming. We 

also provided Mississippi with $5 million in ‘‘quick release’’ Emergency Relief to reimburse the State for repairs to US 90, I–10, and other federally funded roads and 

bridges. 

In addition to the immediate infusion of funds, FHWA has expedited environmental reviews to ensure that we can get work underway as quickly as possible, 

while still being good stewards of the environment. In Headquarters, we coordinated 

with the Council on Environmental Quality and other Federal agencies to use existing expedited procedures to streamline the environmental analysis process for the 

States. For example, we worked with affected Federal and State agencies to approve 

the preparation of an expedited Environmental Assessment, with limited deviations 

from FHWA’s standard procedures, for the US 90 bridge replacement and associated 

approach roadwork in the area of Biloxi Bay and Ocean Springs. Furthermore, our 

employees in the field have used rapid-response coordination techniques to get critical environmental information immediately by phone or electronic mail. 

RECOVERY

FHWA also has been working actively to support long-term recovery efforts across 

the region. Every day we are making more progress in repairing the transportation 

systems destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Our primary goal is to help restore the 

stability and quality of life to the people of the Gulf Coast as quickly as possible. 

Over the past few weeks we have made remarkable strides, and we will continue 

to build on that success to ensure that the region’s transportation network serves 

as an engine of its economic recovery. 

We worked with the States to provide appropriate expedited procedures to get 

contractors underway with repairs. Incentives have been employed effectively to ensure the timeliest possible restoration of lost essential service. For example, Mississippi awarded a $5.2 million contract to repair one of the highest priority roads 
77

in the region the I–10 bridge at Pascagoula and included not only an incentive if 

work is completed in less than 31 days, but also a corresponding penalty for finishing late. I am pleased to report this bridge reopened on October 1 more than a 

week ahead of the contract completion date. Louisiana is using a similar technique 

to restore initial service across the I–10 Bridge at Slidell. We strongly support these 

‘‘incentivized’’ contracts, and we are out in the field working closely with the States 

to exercise all appropriate options and tools available during this rebuilding effort. 

The long-term restoration of roadways is considered permanent repair work under 

the Emergency Relief program. Generally, permanent repair and reconstruction 

work, not accomplished as emergency repairs, must be done by a competitive bid 

contract method unless the State demonstrates some other method is cost effective. 

This work can be expedited using innovative contracting procedures available under 

the Federal-aid Program such as the design-build contracting method. 

In addition to the ‘‘quick release’’ Emergency Relief funds, all affected States may 

use up to $100 million per State per event for Federal-aid highway roads and 

bridges damaged as a result of the hurricanes. When an event of the magnitude of 

Hurricane Katrina occurs, the repair cost can far exceed available Emergency Relief 

funding. However, repairs can still get underway with other Federal-aid or State 

funds. 

We will continue to work with State and local governments to identify long-term 

highway recovery needs. We are engaged in interagency coordination with the US 

Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that infrastructure recovery is coordinated and 

synchronized. We are leading coordination among other agencies to ensure that upto-date engineering design criteria are provided and environmental requirements 

are accomplished in ways that will not impede the rapid recovery of lost or damaged 

infrastructure. 

A number of longer-term projects have been identified in the impacted States. The 

following is a brief description of such projects. 

Louisiana: Hurricane Katrina severely damaged the I–10 Twin Spans over Lake 

Pontchartrain in New Orleans. A $31 million ‘‘incentivized’’ emergency repair contract was let to temporarily restore two-way, single-span access to New Orleans by 

October 30 and access across both spans by January 18, 2006. Louisiana is considering a replacement bridge that would be constructed to current design standards 

and criteria, and we will work with them on those efforts. In addition to the bridge, 

many sections of I–10 were flooded due to the levee breaks. The Lake Pontchartrain 

Causeway and LA 1 and LA 23 also sustained some damage. 

Mississippi: Emergency repair projects are currently underway to restore sections 

of US–90 from Pass Christian to Biloxi-Ocean Springs. A series of emergency repair 

projects are under contract (via force account) to restore US–90 to 2 lanes from Pass 

Christian to Biloxi-Ocean Springs by December 9th. Storm surge heavily damaged 

approximately 30 miles of US 90 roadway between Bay St. Louis and Biloxi. Additionally, two US 90 bridges—the Bay St. Louis bridge—and Biloxi-Ocean Springs 

bridge collapsed during Hurricane Katrina. Design-build contracts will be utilized 

to replace these bridges. 

Alabama: Mobile and Baldwin Counties suffered the majority of the damage from 

Hurricane Katrina in Alabama. The Cochrane-Africatown Bridge over the Mobile 

River at Mobile was damaged by an oil rig that floated into the structure during 

the storm. Currently, the four-lane bridge is open only to one lane in each direction. 

A contract will be let in a couple of weeks to repair the bridge so that it may be 

opened to unrestricted traffic. 

Due to damage sustained during Hurricane Katrina, five spans of the east bound 

on ramp from US–90 to I–10 eastbound must be replaced. Currently, the ramp is 

closed to traffic. Alabama is preparing plans to replace the five damaged spans. 

Florida: US 98 on Okaloosa Island sustained substantial damage during Hurricane Katrina. Many traffic signs and signals were damaged in the Miami area. Additionally, debris removal was needed throughout the affected parts of Florida. 

FUTURE PREVENTATIVE ACTIONS

The Bush Administration recognizes that more will have to be done to restore the 

Gulf Coast. I–10, US 90, and other important local roads are the economic lifeline 

of the hurricane-damaged region and play a central role in the economy of the entire 

Gulf Coast region. FHWA is bringing all its resources to bear to ensure that this 

region can get moving again. Projects that will be the foundation for a long-term 

rebuilding effort will begin soon. 

We have begun a review of existing bridges that might be impacted by storm 

surge conditions in the future. Before we can identify suitable retrofits for existing 

bridges of the types damaged during recent hurricanes, we must improve our under-
78

standing of, and ability to quantify, the lateral/transverse and uplift forces that result from floods and storm surges. Accordingly, we have initiated research at the 

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center to aid our understanding in this area. 

With respect to the design of new bridges, FHWA has developed a policy that defines a flood frequency approach for the hydraulic analysis and design of coastal 

bridges. We also are reviewing the problem of loose barges impacting bridges during 

storm conditions. 

Contraflow is an emerging traffic operations area that requires close coordination 

of all levels government. We recognize the challenges of evacuation and contraflow 

and the need for more attention to these areas in the future. As we did after Hurricane Ivan in 2004, we will analyze the events of Hurricane Katrina for lessons 

learned that can be applied to future situations. We also will continue to work with 

other Federal agencies to determine where transportation assets and systems can 

continue to contribute to evacuation planning and execution. FHWA will assist the 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security 

in developing the Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plans Report to Congress as 

mandated in SAFETEA–LU. 

STEWARDSHIP AND OVERSIGHT

While quick response in getting funding and support to the Gulf Coast region is 

important, we are also cognizant of the importance of financial accountability and 

stewardship. As the recovery work continues, I want to assure you that I am very 

mindful of the responsibility we have as stewards of these critical Federal resources. 

FHWA has taken steps to track all transactions related to the Hurricane Katrina 

recovery efforts. We will ensure that funds are spent wisely and judiciously, and 

that projects comply with the requirements of our Emergency Relief program. American taxpayers deserve to know that each and every dollar dedicated to this tremendous effort is fully justified and properly accounted for every step of the way. 

CONCLUSION

I believe that we have made significant progress thus far and are on our way to 

ensuring that the Gulf Coast region has a transportation system that will meet its 

long-term needs. We will continue to work with our State and Federal partners to 

ensure that highway recovery efforts are completed quickly and in a fiscally responsible manner. 

Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

RESPONSES BY RICHARD CAPKA TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THUNE

Question 1. Seeing that road infrastructure is critical to the Gulf Coast’s recovery, 

what is the Administration’s position regarding the use of Highway Trust Fund dollars above and beyond the $100 million annually set aside in SAFETEA–LU to cover 

Emergency Relief costs? 

Response. The Emergency Relief program has a permanent authorization of $100 

million per year from the Highway Trust Fund. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century—A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–59) amended Emergency Relief program to authorize 

an additional appropriation from the General Fund in years where the Emergency 

Relief needs exceeded $100 million. SAFETEA–LU authorized such sums as may be 

necessary from the General Fund to address the ‘‘backlog.’’

On October 28, 2005, the Administration released a supplemental appropriations 

request, which included a request for $2.325 billion from the General Fund for the 

Emergency Relief program for expenses related to Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. FHWA continues to work with the affected States to refine the cost 

estimates for the repair or replacement of damage to roads and bridges eligible 

under the Emergency Relief program. 

Under the ‘‘quick release’’ procedures for the Emergency Relief program, FHWA 

has provided $5 million each to Louisiana and Mississippi as a down payment on 

their Emergency Relief funding. In the absence of other Emergency Relief funds, a 

State can fund projects eligible under the Emergency Relief program in a number 

of ways. A State may use unobligated Emergency Relief funds from other Emergency Relief-eligible events in the State. A State may use other apportioned Federalaid funds or State funds to complete emergency or permanent repairs. Additionally, 

a State may use Advance Construction. Any funds used for work eligible under the 

Emergency Relief program will be reimbursed by the Emergency Relief program 
79

funds when they become available. Currently, States are not holding up essential 

project work because of a lack of funding.

Question 2. What is FHWA’s estimate concerning the time it will take to restore 

all damaged roadways and bridges to pre-Hurricane condition? 

Response. It is difficult to estimate the time it will take to restore all damaged 

roadways and bridges to pre-Katrina condition. Affected Federal-aid highways currently are open to essential traffic service. However, completing the permanent repairs of these roads will take some time. FHWA is working to ensure that appropriate design criteria are being used for the long-term restoration of Federal-aid 

highway facilities. FHWA also is working to ensure that interagency coordination 

occurs so that these long-term projects can be completed as expeditiously as possible.

Question 3. In your testimony Administrator Capka, you touched upon the damaged caused by massive casino barges that dislodged from their moorings during the 

Hurricane. How many other bridges were damages (and to what extent) as a result 

of foreign structure collisions? 

Response. Foreign structure collisions damaged two bridges in Mississippi and one 

in Alabama during Hurricane Katrina, and one bridge was damaged in Louisiana 

during Hurricane Rita. The casino barges that dislodged from their moorings during 

Hurricane Rita damaged U.S. 90 in Mississippi, but did not damage any bridges.

Question 4. As the author of S. 1761, the ‘‘Gulf Coast Recovery Act’’ I would appreciate knowing more about how the Department of Transportation (as well as 

your private sector partners) are impacted by the threat of litigation in post-disaster 

clean-up efforts. 

Response. As you know, the roadways and bridges in question are owned by the 

State and local governments. FHWA provides reimbursement through the Emergency Relief program to States for work on roadways and bridges on a Federal-aid 

highway that are damaged as a direct result of a natural disaster or catastrophic 

failure from an external cause. The States contract with private entities for the repair work on a federally owned facility. Even if the FHWA did enter into contracts 

with private entities for the repair work, any FHWA liability would be governed by 

the Federal Tort Claims Act. Similar to the Federal Tort Claims Act (under which 

the Federal Government waived its sovereign immunity, but retained some exceptions to this waiver), States generally have some exceptions to their waivers of sovereign immunity to limit their liability exposure. FHWA is not aware of any delays 

in the restoration of transportation services in the Gulf Coast region due to litigation threats to State or local governments or their contractors. 

RESPONSES BY RICHARD CAPKA TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR OBAMA

Question 1. Senator Coburn and I introduced a bill recently to appoint a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the President to oversee hurricane reconstruction efforts. The bill is meant to ensure that there is oversight on the front end 

before money is spent, instead of after the money has gone out the door. 

Already, we’ve seen some disturbing examples of poorly spent money. A few weeks 

ago, Senator Coburn and I highlighted a $200 million contract that FEMA signed 

with Carnival Cruise Lines to house evacuees and rescue workers. Under this contract, taxpayers are paying $2,500 a week per person housed on the ship—four 

times the cost of a 7-day Caribbean cruise, which includes entertainment. 

Please describe how your agency is ensuring that reconstruction funds are being 

well spent. 

Response. Secretary Mineta has emphasized that sound fiscal management is a 

top priority. The Chief Financial Officer for the Department has issued guidance to 

the Operating Administrations detailing the procedures for the tracking of hurricane 

funding to ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent waste, fraud, 

and the misuse of Federal funds. FHWA is adhering to these procedures. 

Under the Emergency Relief program, States must apply for reimbursement for 

eligible expenses. FHWA reviews these applications to ensure the Emergency Relief 

funding is spent on eligible work. Additionally, Emergency Relief funding is not disbursed until FHWA has received a legitimate bill.

Question 2. Are there instances when multiple agencies are involved in contracting and procurement decisions? When that happens, who coordinates oversight 

over these financial decisions? 

Response. For Federal-aid highway program, the facility owner, the State, contracts the work. The FHWA coordinates the Federal oversight. For non Federal-aid 
80

emergency repairs, FEMA may participate in repair costs in accordance with the 

provisions established in the Stafford Act. Funding for FEMA-eligible repairs 

(through FEMA’s Public Assistance program) and funding for FHWA-eligible repairs 

(through FHWA’s Emergency Relief program) are administered separately by each 

agency. There cannot be any duplication of reimbursement from both FEMA and 

FHWA for damages at the same location. To avoid duplication, FHWA and FEMA 

staff coordinate and communicate when there is a concern about the status of a 

highway. 

RESPONSES BY RICHARD CAPKA TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. Mr. Capka, Louisiana officials estimated last month that the cost of 

immediate repairs for their State’s transportation system would exceed eleven billion dollars. Still others have estimated the damage to the region’s transportation 

network at between two and a half and three billion dollars. Can you give us your 

best estimate at the cost of the damage to the Gulf region? 

Response. FHWA estimates that the total cost of Hurricane Katrina-related re- pairs to Federal-aid highways in the Gulf Coast region will be $1.725 billion. This 

estimate represents a preliminary figure based on damage assessments conducted 

by FHWA and state transportation agency personnel in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. FHWA and State personnel continue to work closely on 

damage assessments. Once all damage assessments have been completed and reviewed by FHWA, a formal request for an allocation of ER funds will be processed.

Question 2. Mr. Capka, in your testimony you mention that your agency has started research on the effect of storm surge on bridge infrastructure and has begun a 

review of existing bridges that may be impacted by storm surge conditions in the 

future. When do you plan on completing this review, and what is your agency doing 

to ensure that storm-damaged bridges in the gulf region are rebuilt to avoid, to the 

maximum extent possible, similar damage the next time a major storm hits the region? 

Response. The research we are doing is two-fold. First, we must improve our understanding of, and ability to quantify, the lateral/transverse and uplift forces that 

result from floods and storm surges. With this greater understanding, we must assess potential retrofits. 

On October 6, 2005, FHWA completed an internal literature search to quantify 

the magnitude of wave forces, which can be very destructive when waves slam 

against a structure while the buoyancy and vertical impact forces are tending to lift 

a bridge deck off of the pier. Most of the research in this area has been done by 

the offshore drilling industry. 

Currently, FHWA is negotiating with researchers at the University of South Alabama ‘‘Coastal Transportation Engineering Research Center’’ to (1) expand on the 

FHWA internal literature search and demonstrate how the forces might be combined to evaluate the feasibility of various restraining devices that could be used 

to hold bridge decks in place; (2) conduct preliminary wave tank tests with a model 

of a bridge deck to determine if the technology borrowed from other sources can reasonably be applied to the bridge problem; and (3) conduct preliminary geotechnical 

analyses using existing numerical modeling techniques to determine if securing the 

bridge decks against these forces might be jeopardizing the stability of the foundation. We expect this work to begin around November 15, 2005, and to be completed 

around May 15, 2006. 

On October 1, 2005, FHWA began a year long laboratory study at the TFHRC Hydraulic Lab of Lift and Drag Forces on inundated bridges under riverine conditions. 

The study will also analyze bridge superstructure response to the impact (slamming) 

forces extracted from wave force experiments performed by other Laboratories 

through use of high tech force measurement techniques developed at the TFHRC 

lab. 

The most effective way to avoid damages like those that occurred to bridges along 

the Gulf Coast is to raise the grade of the bridges so that the decks are above the 

storm surge elevation. The preliminary consideration is to design new bridges to 

clear the storm surge elevation for the storm of record. Raising the grade of existing 

bridges is a very costly retrofit for all of our coastal bridges. That is why we are 

attempting to quantify the forces to consider other retrofit options. 

With respect to FHWA’s review of existing bridges, we completed a query of the 

National Bridge Inventory database to identify structures within 5 to 15 nautical 

miles of a coast and of a design that is similar to those damaged in recent hurricanes. The results of these queries can be considered a first approximation at identifying bridges that are vulnerable to storm surge and wave damage. Further refine-
81

ment of the identification of vulnerable bridges will require agreement upon reasonable assessment criteria, additional data that is available from the bridge owning 

agencies, and cooperation of the bridge owners. FHWA will work to address these 

issues over the next three months. 

With respect to the design of new bridges, FHWA has developed a draft policy 

that defines a flood frequency approach for the hydraulic analysis and design of 

coastal bridges. Currently, several States are reviewing this draft policy. 

RESPONSES BY RICHARD CAPKA TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question 1. With Davis-Bacon protections suspended for construction contracts in 

hurricane-impacted states, how will this impact your agency’s ability to detect fraud, 

discrimination, and the use of kickbacks? 

Response. While the September 8, 2005 Presidential proclamation suspended the 

Davis-Bacon Act in certain counties, it did not suspend many other Federal labor 

policies such as the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(FLSA), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA) and various 

US Department of Labor and FHWA Equal Employment Opportunity and non-discrimination provisions. 

The FLSA provides standards for minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, 

and child labor. It requires that the records include certain identifying information 

about the employee and data about the hours worked and the wages earned. 

The State DOTs and FHWA will provide oversight to prevent contract fraud by 

using accepted procurement procedures. All contracts for permanent repairs will be 

competitively bid. Thus, the contractor’s payment will be based on the actual work 

performed with inspection, oversight, measurement and payment provided by the 

State DOT. The payment will be based on competitively bid unit prices. 

Emergency repair work, by definition, is necessary to restore essential traffic, to 

minimize the extent of damage, or to protect the remaining facilities. By FHWA policy, emergency repairs can be done using negotiated contract or agency force account 

work as determined by the State DOT as best suited to protect the public health 

and safety. Record keeping and oversight requirements still apply regardless of 

whether there is a requirement to submit certified payrolls. 

Normal State DOT and FHWA inspection and auditing procedures will apply to 

all contracts funded by the FHWA.

Question 2. Will the Davis-Bacon suspension affect projects not related to the disaster? How many contracts will be affected by the proclamation? 

Response. Yes, the suspension is applicable to all Federal-aid projects executed on 

or after September 8, 2005, and will remain in force until November 8, 2005. FHWA 

does not have information on the number of contracts affected by the proclamation.

Question 3. What lessons has your agency learned after these recent disasters 

about the shortcomings of the Interstate system when it comes to evacuating masses 

of people? 

Response. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), recently enacted, requires the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with Gulf Coast 

and contiguous States, to review and assess jointly Federal and State evacuation 

plans for catastrophic hurricanes affecting the Gulf Coast region. FHWA will review 

the transportation component of these plans and will make recommendations as appropriate. A report on the finding of this study is due to Congress by October 1, 

2006. The report will address a several issues impacting evacuations occasioned by 

hurricanes, including roadway infrastructure integrity and capacity, as well as operational factors. In general, evacuation planning and execution represent extraordinarily complex tasks and the evaluation of associated State and local plans will 

require substantial review and analysis.

Question 4. During the evacuation of Houston, how many people suffered injuries 

or died while evacuating or while sitting in traffic waiting to evacuate? 

Response. The number of fatal and injury-related highway crashes that occurred 

during the Hurricane Rita evacuation is unknown. Crash data is not coded to capture this type of event. Given the slower speeds and high usage of the highway system, plus several days of restricted or prohibited travel, one would expect the overall number of fatal and serious injury crashes in the Houston area to decrease during the evacuation. The most significant crash occurred on September 23, 2005, 

when a bus carrying nursing home residents caught fire and exploded on I–45, kill-
82

ing 23 of the 37 persons on board. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating this crash.
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145

Æ