U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

55–921 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 110–1040 

WATER RESOURCES NEEDS AND THE PRESIDENT’S 

BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR THE ARMY CORPS 

OF ENGINEERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 15, 2007 

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 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

CRAIG L. THOMAS, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

BAUCUS, MAX, Montana, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

BENJAMIN L., CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 15, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 3 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 10 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia .......................... 11 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 12 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 16 

Carper, Hon. Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ........................ 16 

Voinovich, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ............................. 18 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 82 

WITNESSES 

Feingold, Hon. Russell, D., U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Woodley, John Paul, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Accompanied by: Lieutenant General Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22, 32 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Alexander ..................................................................................... 34 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 35 

Senator Bond ............................................................................................. 37 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 38 

Pogue, Pamela, hazards program manager, Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 67 

Marchand, Doug J., executive director, Georgia Ports Authority, on behalf 

of the American Association of Port Authorities ............................................... 68 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Williams, Jamie, state director, The Nature Conservancy of Montana .............. 71 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

List of Reports: 

National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Public Administration Studies Calling for Reform and Pointing Out Significant Flaws 

in Corps of Engineers’ Project Studies ........................................................ 83 

Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service 

Reports Calling for Reform and Identifying Significant Flaws in Corps 

Project Planning ............................................................................................ 85 

Engineering Studies Concluding that the Corps’ Failed Project Planning 

Lead to Floodwall and Levee Failures in the New Orleans Region 

During Hurricane Katrina ........................................................................... 87 

Senate Katrina Investigation Calls for Changes to the Corps’ Planning 

Process ........................................................................................................... 88 

Department of the Army Inspector General Investigation Finding Significant Problems in Corps Project Planning ................................................... 89 
Page

IV 

—Continued 

Federal Commission and Task Force Reports Calling for Reforming Corps 

Project Planning ............................................................................................ 90 

Report, GAO, Corps of Engineers Observations on Planning and Project Management Processes for the Civil Works Program, March 15, 2006................. 91–105 

Letter from Dr. Leonard Shabman to Senator Feingold ...................................... 106 

Articles: 

The Times—Picayune, Forward on Corps Reform, March 14, 2007 ............ 107 

American Association of Port Authorities ...................................................... 115 

Term Sheet, Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue ...................................... 109–114 

Statement, Warren D. McCrimmon, February 16, 2007, American Association 

of Port Authorities ............................................................................................... 117 

Map, Fish Passage on the Lower Yellowstone River ............................................ 143 

Brochure, Penobscot River Restoration ................................................................. 144 
(1) 

WATER RESOURCES NEEDS AND THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2008 

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m. in 

room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Max Baucus 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Baucus, Isakson, Alexander, Boxer, Carper, 

Inhofe, Vitter, Voinovich, Whitehouse. 

Also present: Senator Feingold. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Welcome to the first hearing of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee in particular. I especially 

welcome Senator Isakson, who is the new Ranking Republican 

Member of the subcommittee. Thank you very much for participating and being such a valuable member, Johnny. 

In the book of Isaiah, God said: ‘‘I will pour water on the thirsty 

land and streams on the dry ground.’’ I know he was thinking of 

the St. Mary water project in Montana when he said that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BAUCUS. In our vast country, water continues to bring 

life. Without our waters, our land would be indeed thirsty. Without 

our streams, our land would indeed be dry. My home State of Montana has 11,000 miles of blue ribbon trout streams. Montana is 

home to the mighty Missouri River and the beautiful Yellowstone 

River, which I might add is the longest remaining free-flowing 

river in the Country. Montana’s Fort Peck Reservoir provides outstanding recreation for the eastern part of my State. 

This morning, we will examine the management of America’s 

water resources. The Army Corps of Engineers builds levees and 

floats barges. But we in Montana see the Corps as restorers of the 

ecosystem. We see the Corps as guardians of America’s recreational 

assets. 

We value the Corps’ expertise and their partnership in many of 

our water resources projects. In 1986, Congress enacted the Water 

Resources Development Act, otherwise known as WRDA. Every 2 
2 

years since then, Congress received a WRDA bill from the Administration seeking authorization for water resources projects. This pattern of requests provided the Corps and local sponsors with a regular planning schedule for the development of needed water resources projects. 

This Administration, however, has yet to request one updated 

WRDA. Why? Have all the water resources needs of the Country 

been met? No. I think that my colleagues, especially the Senator 

from Louisiana, would agree. His folks in Morganza have been 

waiting for a flood-control project for more than 6 years now. 

No, there are scores of water resources projects waiting for authorization. Does the Administration thinks that WRDA costs too 

much? Perhaps it does think that. But investing in our water infrastructure is a cost that we cannot put off. Levees are crumbling 

and people are living in harm’s way waiting for WRDA. 

We need to keep one thing in mind about WRDA, and that is, 

it is an authorization bill. It is just the first step. Once Congress 

enacts WRDA, the appropriations process must begin. Appropriations bills need to make tough choices, with limited Federal dollars 

to choose among the programs that WRDA authorizes. 

I expect that Mr. Woodley is going to tell us about all that today. 

I bet he wishes he had more money to do his job. But he has to 

set priorities. We here also need to set priorities. Our first priority 

is to authorize the long overdue projects in the WRDA bill this 

year. I hope that we can get the Administration’s support to do 

that this year. 

We passed the bill last year. Let’s get it enacted this year. Let’s 

do our part to ensure that the management of the waters to keep 

our land from thirst, let’s do our part for the streams that meander 

across the ground, and let us do our part to ensure that our waters 

continue to bring life. 

I would like to turn to the Ranking Member of the committee, 

Senator Jim Inhofe, for his statement. I know that Senator Feingold has a pressing schedule. We all have pressing schedules 

around here, unfortunately, as does Senator Inhofe. So Senator 

Inhofe, why don’t you proceed? 

[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Welcome to the first hearing of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee. In particular, I welcome Senator Isakson, who is the new Ranking Republican Member of the subcommittee this Congress. 

In the book of Isaiah, God said: ‘‘I will pour water on the thirsty land, and 

streams on the dry ground.’’ And in our vast Country, water continues to bring life. 

Without our waters, our land would indeed be thirsty. Without our streams, our 

land would indeed be dry. 

My home State of Montana has 11,000 miles of blue ribbon trout streams. Montana is home to the mighty Missouri River and the beautiful Yellowstone River. The 

Yellowstone is the longest remaining free-flowing river in the country. And Montana’s Fort Peck Reservoir provides outstanding recreation for the eastern part of 

my State. 

This morning, we will examine the management of America’s water resources. 

The Army Corps of Engineers builds levees and floats barges. But we in Montana 

see the Corps as restorers of the ecosystem. We see the Corps as guardians of America’s recreational assets. 

We value the Corps’ expertise and their partnership in many of our water resources projects. 
3 

In 1986, Congress enacted the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA. 

Every 2 years since then, Congress received a WRDA bill from the administration, 

seeking authorization for water resources projects. This pattern of requests provided 

the Corps and local sponsors with a regular planning schedule for the development 

of needed water resources projects. 

This Administration, however, has yet to request one update of WRDA. 

Why? Have all the water resources needs of the country have been met? 

No. And I think that my colleagues, especially the Senator from Louisiana, would 

agree. His folks in Morganza have been waiting for a flood-control project for more 

than 6 years now. No, there are scores of water resources projects awaiting authorization. 

Does the Administration think that WRDA costs too much? Perhaps it does think 

that. But investing in our water infrastructure is a cost that we cannot put off. Levees are crumbling. And people are living in harm’s way, waiting for WRDA. 

We need to keep one thing about WRDA in mind. It is an authorization bill. It 

is just the first step. 

Once Congress enacts WRDA, the appropriations process must begin. Appropriations bills need to make tough choices with limited Federal dollars to choose among 

the programs that WRDA authorizes. 

I expect that Mr. Woodley is going to tell us about that today. I bet that he wishes 

that he had more money to do his job. But he has to set priorities. 

We here need to set priorities, too. 

Our first priority is to authorize the long overdue projects in a WRDA bill this 

year. I hope that we can get the Administration’s support to do that this year. 

We passed a bill last year. Let’s get it enacted this year. 

Let us do our part to ensure the management of the waters that keep our land 

from thirst. Let us do our part for the streams that meander across our ground. And 

let us do our part to ensure that our waters continue to bring life. 

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

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. I thank you very much. I will be very brief. We 

have an Armed Services hearing that is taking place at this time, 

so I thank both you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Ranking Member 

Isakson, for allowing me to go first here. 

I want to thank you. The comments you made, I agree with, Senator Baucus. There are a lot of partisan things in this committee, 

but one thing that is not partisan is I think we all agree we really 

need to do something about the WRDA bill. We need to get it out. 

We are overdue. 

I want to say to you, General Strock, you have done a great job 

in a most difficult time. This may be your last hearing before us, 

and I just want to get on record saying you have done a great job, 

and I wish you the very best. While the Chief of Engineers will always have detractors, I believe General Strock has performed his 

duties very admirably. 

Today’s hearing is to look at the President’s fiscal year 2008 

budget request for the Corps of Engineers, as well as the Nation’s 

water resources. Let me first say that everyone knows how long 

overdue the Water Resources Development Act is. That is why I 

appreciate so much your jumping right into it as the first thing of 

your tenure as Chairman of the subcommittee. 

We made a lot of progress last year, but unfortunately we were 

unable to finalize the last few items during the conference. I continue to intend to work closely with all of you, and I have talked 

to Senator Boxer also, and she is in full agreement with what we 

are trying to do. 

As far as the President’s budget request in 2008, although I was 

pleased to see an increase over the request for 2007, this year’s re-
4 

quest is still significantly less than was enacted for 2007. As a fiscal conservative, I support the overall goal of reigning in Government spending, but I firmly believe that the two areas that are 

most important for Government to perform in are defense and infrastructure. Unfortunately, we don’t focus enough time and attention to the dollars on the important issues. 

An area that needs attention is recreation. I will bet many people 

are not aware of this, but the Corps of Engineers is actually the 

Nation’s largest provider of outdoor recreation, larger than both the 

Park Service and the Forest Service. There are a lot of Corps lakes 

and reservoirs in Oklahoma, and we are not getting the funding for 

either their operations or maintenance of the existing facilities. 

I do want to make one comment about the successes we have had 

in addressing the No. 1 most serious Superfund site in America, 

that is at Tar Creek in Oklahoma. I am not proud that my State 

is the home of the most devastating Superfund site, but finally 

after many years, we are doing something. General Strock, you 

have been there. You have worked with DOI, DOJ and all the others, the Indian tribes and the rest of them. That is on its way, and 

I just hope that we will be able to continue that, and your successor will be just as enthusiastic a supporter as you have been. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

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

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you Senator Baucus for holding this hearing. I’d first like to offer a special 

welcome to the current Chief of Engineers Lieutenant General Carl Strock, as this 

is likely the last time he will appear before our committee. General Strock will be 

retiring as soon as his successor is confirmed, which should be soon. 

In July 2004, when he assumed command of the Corps, General Strock faced 

many challenges with respect to balancing the varied objectives of our Nation’s 

water resources policies, as well as overseeing the Corps’ substantial involvement 

in reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The challenges only got more numerous and complex in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

While the Chief of Engineers will always have its detractors, I believe General 

Strock has performed his duties admirably and should be commended for his strong 

leadership during particularly difficult circumstances. Thank you, General Strock, 

for your dedication and service to the Nation. I wish you well in whatever endeavors 

you decide to pursue next. 

Today’s hearing is to look at the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget request for 

the Corps of Engineers as well as the Nation’s water resources needs more generally. Let me first say that everyone knows how long overdue the Water Resources 

Development Act is and how important the many project authorizations and policy 

improvements in the bill are to the country’s economy, public safety and environment. 

We made great progress last year, but, unfortunately, just weren’t able to finalize 

the last few items during conference. I intend to continue working closely with Senators Boxer, Baucus and Isakson to build on the progress made last year in order 

to enact WRDA as soon as possible this year. I also am committed to getting us back 

to a biennial cycle by pushing for a WRDA 08 bill. 

As far as the President’s budget request for FY08, although I was pleased to see 

an increase over the request from FY07, this year’s request is still significantly less 

than was enacted for FY07. As a fiscal conservative, I support the overall goal of 

reigning in government spending, but I firmly believe that the two things government should spend money on are defense and infrastructure. 

Unfortunately, we do not focus enough time, attention or dollars on this important 

issue on a consistent basis, and therefore, the state of our infrastructure is deplorable. For example, in its ‘‘2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,’’ the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that fully half of all Corps-operated locks 
5 

on our inland waterways were functionally obsolete and that that number would increase to 80 percent by 2020. 

In addition to adequately maintaining and updating the infrastructure we have, 

we need to make investments in new capability as well. The McKlellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System in Oklahoma and Arkansas could function much more 

efficiently and productively if we proceed with deepening it to 12 feet from its current 9 foot depth. 

Another area needing attention is recreation. I bet many people aren’t aware of 

this, but the Corps of Engineers is actually the Nation’s largest provider of outdoor 

recreation larger than both the Park Service and the Forest Service. We have a lot 

of Corps lakes and reservoirs in Oklahoma, but we’re not getting the funding for 

either operations and maintenance of existing facilities or for developing new facilities. 

The budget request again proposes a Corps recreation modernization initiative 

that would enable the Corps to use the collected user fees for maintaining and upgrading its facilities. We had language with the same intent in last year’s WRDA 

bill, but we ran into scoring problems and had to remove it. I want to continue discussing this idea and hopefully, we can come up with a plan acceptable to everyone. 

The other option we have is to further explore public-private partnerships as a 

means of providing better and more abundant recreation opportunities to our citizens. Last year’s WRDA bill included a provision allowing the Corps to experiment 

with certain policies to see what options are available at Oklahoma’s many lakes 

to maximize the recreation benefits of public-private partnerships. 

Let me conclude by commending the Corps of Engineers for its work with other 

Federal and State agencies at the Tar Creek Superfund Site. I appreciate your visits 

to the area. As you are aware, we have encountered problems such as reprogramming of funds and authorization of funding to assist residents. However, I appreciate you and your staff working with my office to remedy those issues. I want to 

get your continued commitment to make the work at Tar Creek a top priority and 

to devote resources to continue the necessary work we are accomplishing. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator, very, very much. 

It is interesting, as you were talking about Oklahoma, it is clear 

that each State has some very pressing needs. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate your statement. 

I would like now to turn to Senator Feingold. Senator Feingold 

is our first panel, but he has a hearing to attend to, and if the 

other Senators don’t mind, we’ll let him speak and then give our 

opening statements. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I always enjoy coming here. Chairperson Boxer was kind enough to respond very positively to my desire to testify before this subcommittee. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on an issue 

which I have spent a lot of time on over the past 10 years. I recognize the tremendous importance of WRDA and the urgency, but I 

am also feeling that way about passing meaningful reform of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Seven years ago, my friend from Montana, the Chairman, Senator Baucus and former EPW Chairman, Senator Bob Smith committed to helping me move forward on Corps reform. Back then, I 

never would have guessed that enacting Corps reform would take 

longer than enacting campaign finance reform. 

However, as Senator Inhofe indicated, we have made progress in 

this vital effort. In WRDA 2000, I agreed to a National Academy 

of Sciences study on independent review. We have received this 

study, along with many others, calling for reform. Then since 2001, 
6 

I have introduced seven reform bills with my colleagues, including 

Senators McCain and Ensign, and former Senators Daschle and 

Smith. 

Last year, I was able to work with this committee, and in particular Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond and Baucus, to include 

many key reforms in the WRDA bill that passed the Senate. We 

were also able to pass a much-needed independent review amendment on the Senate floor. I am especially appreciative of the work 

done by the co-sponsors of that amendment, Senators McCain, Carper, Lieberman, Collins, Snowe and former Senator Jeffords, in ensuring its passage. 

I also want to thank the members of this committee, including 

Chairman Boxer, Chairman Baucus, and Senators Carper, Clinton, 

Lautenberg, Voinovich and Alexander, for supporting that independent review amendment. 

As we look forward to a possible WRDA 2007, I would like to 

again remind my colleagues of the need for reform, and the minimum reforms that must be enacted. Since 1994, more than 30 

major reports have been issued calling for reforming the Corps and/ 

or pointing out stunning flaws in Corps projects and project studies. Rather than reading the names of those reports, I would ask 

that the full list of these reports be placed in the record. 

Senator BAUCUS. Without objection. 

[The referenced documents follow on page 83.] 

Senator FEINGOLD. Just 1 year ago, the GAO issued a scathing 

report on the Corps’ planning process. I also ask that the entire report, entitled Corps of Engineers: Observations on Planning and 

Project Management Processes for the Civil Works Program be 

placed in the record. 

Senator BAUCUS. Without objection. 

[The referenced document follows on page 91.] 

Senator FEINGOLD. Unfortunately, neither the GAO nor any of a 

number of other expert reform witnesses were called to testify 

today, but the GAO found that recent Corps project studies ‘‘were 

fraught with errors, mistakes and miscalculations, and used invalid 

assumptions and outdated data. Generally, GAO found that the 

Corps studies understated costs and overstated benefits, and therefore did not provide a reasonable basis for decisionmaking.’’ 

As the Nation bore witness in August 2005, the failing at the 

Corps has very real consequences. As we all know, Hurricane 

Katrina produced one of the most tragic and costly disasters in our 

Nation’s history. But the problems caused by Katrina in New Orleans were largely the result of human, not natural, intervention. 

Water resources projects authorized by Congress and planned by 

the Corps led to significant losses in Louisiana’s coastal wetlands 

and were not available to help buffer Katrina’s storm surge. An 

underused Corps-built navigation channel funneled and intensified 

that surge into New Orleans. The hurricane protection levees 

planned and built by the Corps encouraged the development of 

high-risk areas that suffered the brunt of Katrina’s flooding. Now, 

it is tragically clear that the city’s fate was sealed by the Corps’ 

faulty design and engineering of the flood wall and levees that 

were supposed to protect the city. 
7 

All of this happened despite Congress sending a significant 

amount of money to Louisiana water projects. In the 5 years preceding Katrina, Louisiana water projects received $1.9 billion, far 

more than was received by any other State, but only a pittance 

went to bolstering the city’s levees. 

We can and must do better. The evidence supporting reform is 

overwhelming. The bill that Senator McCain and I introduced last 

month, S. 564, would correct the failings at the Corps and provide 

clear policy directives to ensure that Corps projects protect our 

communities and the environment, and make sound use of our 

scarce Federal resources. 

My bill would institute the independent review language that 

passed the Senate last year as an amendment. That provision was 

carefully designed to ensure reliable and meaningful independent 

review of costly or controversial Corps projects. The provision establishes clear review triggers, ensures the independence of the review panels, and also responds to the National Academy of 

Sciences’ caution that independent peer review panels must have 

the benefit of public comment on a draft Corps report if the panel’s 

review is to be meaningful. 

I would ask that a letter I recently received from Dr. Shabman, 

the Chair of the NAS study, be inserted in the record at this point. 

Senator BAUCUS. Without objection. 

[The referenced document follows on page 106.] 

Senator FEINGOLD. The provision also establishes an outside 

safety assurance review for critical flood damage reduction projects. 

My bill would also modernize the principles and guidelines that 

form the basis for how Corps projects are planned. It would also 

improve the way Corps projects’ impacts are mitigated. While mitigation requirements were put in place in WRDA in 1986, the loopholes still need to be closed and language strengthened to ensure 

proper mitigation when Corps projects damage the environment. 

Weaker versions of both of these reforms were in fact included in 

last year’s bill that we passed in the Senate. 

For the benefit of hard working taxpayers, my bill would also institute a system to prioritize projects so that those with the highest 

national interest are funded and completed on a timely schedule. 

During last year’s WRDA debate, Chairman Baucus called for a robust program of independent peer review and project prioritization. 

I couldn’t agree more. He pointed out that the Corps currently has 

a $58 billion project backlog and a $2 billion a year project budget, 

and at that pace, it would take the Corps roughly 30 years just to 

work through the backlog of projects. 

We must come to grips with the need to manage the list of deserving projects so that we can complete projects on schedule and 

according to the greatest need and merit. 

I appreciate the commitment I have from Chairman Boxer to 

work together to develop the mechanism to prioritize projects that 

would address her concerns with the prioritization provision in my 

bill. I have found it very easy to work with her on these kinds of 

issues, and I am hoping we can come together on that in the future. 

It is essential that Congress come up with a way of determining 

how best to allocate scarce taxpayer dollars among water projects. 
8 

We have an historic opportunity to reform the beleaguered Corps 

and we must seize this chance. Just as we cannot afford to look the 

other way, we also cannot go weak on reform just to get a bill 

through. I would ask my friends sitting on this committee, I am 

sure you want to ensure that projects in your State are not the 

next national headline. 

Just yesterday a New Orleans Times Picayune editorial, which 

I would like to insert for the record, admonished the House for 

sticking to its pre-Katrina reforms. We have a responsibility to our 

constituents to do better than that. We must enact meaningful reforms in this year’s WRDA. 

[The referenced document follows on page 107.] 

I again thank the committee for letting me testify, and look forward to working with you. I do have to go to the Judiciary Committee at this time. I certainly appreciate being able to speak 

ahead of some of the other Senators, which I know is quite a courtesy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL FEINGOLD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF WISCONSIN

Chairman Baucus, Senator Isakson, distinguished colleagues, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on an issue which I have spent a lot of time on 

over the past years: passing meaningful reform of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Seven years ago, my friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, and former EPW 

chairman Senator Bob Smith, committed to helping me move forward on Corps Reform. Back then I never would have guessed that enacting Corps reform would take 

longer than enacting campaign finance reform, however, we have made progress in 

this vital effort. In WRDA 2000, I agreed to a National Academy of Sciences study 

on independent review. We have received this study along with many others calling 

for reform. Since 2001, I have introduced seven reform bills with my colleagues, including Senators McCain and Ensign and former Senators Daschle and Smith. 

And last year, I was also able to work with this Committee, and in particular Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond, and Baucus, to include many key reforms in the WRDA 

bill that passed the Senate. We were also able to pass a much-needed independent 

review amendment on the Senate floor. I am especially appreciative of the work 

done by the cosponsors of that amendment, Senators McCain, Carper, Lieberman, 

Collins, Snowe, and former Senator Jeffords, in ensuring its passage. I also want 

to thank the members of this committee, including Chairman Boxer, Chairman Baucus, and Senators Carper, Clinton, Lautenberg, Voinovich, and Alexander, for supporting that independent peer review amendment. 

As we look forward to a possible WRDA 2007, I would like to again remind my 

colleagues of the need for reform; and the minimum reforms that must be enacted. 

Since 1994, more than 30 major reports have been issued calling for reforming 

the Corps and/or pointing out stunning flaws in Corps projects and project studies. 

These include, among others: 

• Eleven studies from the National Academies of Sciences and Public Administration; 

• Seven reports from the Government Accountability Office; 

• Five major engineering studies, including an assessment by the American Society of Civil Engineers’ and a study by the Corps itself; 

• The Katrina investigation by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs; 

• An investigation by the Department of the Army Inspector General; and 

• A report by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 

I would like to ask that a full list of these reports be placed into the record. 

Just 1 year ago, the GAO issued a scathing report on the Corps’ planning process. 

I also ask that the entire report, entitled Corps of Engineers, Observations on Planning and Project Management Processes for the Civil Works Program, be placed in 

the record. Unfortunately, neither the GAO nor any of a number of other expert re-
9 

form witnesses, were called to testify today. The GAO found that recent Corps 

project studies: 

‘‘were fraught with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and outdated data. Generally, GAO found that the Corps’ studies understated costs and overstated benefits, and therefore did not provide a reasonable 

basis for decisionmaking.’’ 

As the nation bore witness in August 2005, the failings at the Corps have very 

real consequences. As we all know, Hurricane Katrina produced one of the most 

tragic and costly disasters in our nation’s history. But the problems caused by 

Katrina in New Orleans were largely the result of human, not natural, intervention. 

Water resources projects authorized by Congress and planned by the Corps led 

to significant losses in Louisiana’s coastal wetlands that were not available to help 

buffer Katrina’s storm surge. An underused Corps-built navigation channel funneled 

and intensified that surge into New Orleans. The hurricane protection levees 

planned and built by the Corps encouraged the development of high risk areas that 

suffered the brunt of Katrina’s flooding. And it is now tragically clear that the city’s 

fate was sealed by the Corps’ faulty design and engineering of the floodwall and levees that were supposed to protect the city. 

All of this happened despite Congress sending a significant amount of money to 

Louisiana water projects. In the 5 years preceding Katrina, Louisiana water projects 

received $1.9 billion—far more than was received by any other state—but only a pittance went to bolstering the city’s levees. 

We can—and must—do better. The evidence supporting reform is overwhelming. 

The bill that Senator McCain and I introduced last month, S. 564, would correct 

the failings at the Corps and provide clear policy directives to ensure that Corps 

projects protect our communities and the environment, and make sound use of our 

scarce Federal resources. 

My bill would institute the independent review language that passed the Senate 

as an amendment last year. That provision was carefully designed to ensure reliable 

and meaningful independent review of costly or controversial Corps projects. The 

provision establishes clear review triggers, ensures the independence of the review 

panels, and responds to the National Academy of Sciences’ caution that independent 

peer review panels must have the benefit of public comment on a draft Corps report 

if the panel’s review is to be meaningful. I ask that a letter I recently received from 

Dr. Shabman, the Chair of the NAS study, be inserted in the record on this point. 

The provision also establishes an outside safety assurance review for critical flood 

damage reduction projects. 

My bill would also modernize the Principles and Guidelines that form the basis 

for how Corps projects are planned. It would also improve the way Corps project 

impacts are mitigated—though mitigation requirements were put in place in WRDA 

1986, loopholes need to be closed and language strengthened to ensure proper mitigation when Corps projects damage the environment. Weaker versions of both of 

these reforms were included in last year’s Senate WRDA. 

For the benefit of hard-working taxpayers, my bill would also institute a system 

to prioritize projects so that those of the highest national interest are funded and 

completed on a timely schedule. During last year’s WRDA debate, Chairman Baucus 

called for ‘‘a robust program of independent peer review and project prioritization.’’ 

I couldn’t agree more. He pointed out that ‘‘The Corps currently has a $58 billion 

project backlog and a $2 billion a year project budget. At that pace it would take 

the Corps roughly 30 years just to work through the backlog of projects.’’ 

We must come to grips with the need to manage the list of deserving projects so 

that we can complete projects on schedule and according to the greatest need and 

merit. I appreciate the commitment I have from Chairman Boxer to work together 

to develop a mechanism to prioritize projects that would address her concerns with 

the prioritization provision in my bill. It is essential that Congress come up with 

a way of determining how best to allocate scarce taxpayer dollars among water 

projects. 

We have an historic opportunity to reform the beleaguered Corps, and we must 

seize this chance. Just as we cannot afford to look the other way, we also cannot 

go weak on reform just to get a bill through. I ask my friends sitting on this Committee; don’t you want to ensure that the projects in your state aren’t the next national headline? Just yesterday a New Orleans Times Picayune editorial, which I 

would like to insert for the record, admonished the House for sticking to its preKatrina reforms. We have a responsibility to our constituents to do better than that. 

We must enact meaningful reforms in this year’s WRDA. 

I again thank the Committee for letting me testify, and I look forward to working 

with you throughout the Water Resources Development Act process. 
10 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

I, for one, don’t speak for the committee, but I, for one, deeply 

appreciate your very deep concern to help assure that taxpayers’ 

dollars are spent carefully and appropriately. You have worked 

very hard on this subject. You have spent a lot of time and effort, 

and a lot of Senators agree with some of your precise ideas, and 

some don’t totally agree with other precise ideas. But the main 

point here is that you are trying to focus on something that needs 

to be focused on. I, for one, appreciate your work. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. The Chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer, 

would like to say something. 

Senator BOXER. Would you just wait about 3 minutes? I would 

ask unanimous consent to put my full statement in the record. 

Senator BAUCUS. Without objection. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. I want to thank you, Senator Baucus, first of all, 

for chairing this hearing at my request. I am so fortunate to have 

you do this because you do have a few other duties that are very 

pressing at the moment, so thank you for that. Second, to the members who are here, because it just shows a great interest in what 

we are doing. 

Senator Feingold, you and I have had many conversations, and 

I do look forward to working with you in the future on this. I wanted to reiterate for the committee what I said to you. I have also 

informed Senator Inhofe of this, as the Ranking Member, which is 

that we commit that the language that was in the Senate bill as 

it went through on peer review, which is part of your Corps reforms, about half of what you are trying to do, will be in the bill. 

I would just implore you, and everyone is going to offer whatever 

amendments they want, and that is fine, once it gets to the floor. 

But we must work together on this because here is the thing: we 

haven’t had a WRDA bill since 2000. I have my colleague here from 

Louisiana, and other colleagues, we have a tremendous backlog. As 

a matter of fact, Senator Baucus is very much ready, I think, I 

didn’t hear his opening statement, to do much more than we were 

going to do in the first WRDA bill because we have this backlog. 

I have the record. We used to do WRDA bills, Mr. Chairman, every 

1 to 2 years. So now we have gotten so backlogged, it is a real problem. 

The only other thing I wanted to say while you were here, because I know you are on the Budget Committee, and I wanted my 

colleagues to hear this because I think this is great news for us, 

the Chairman’s mark in the Budget Committee restores the funding to the Environmental Protection Agency in such a way that we 

will have full funding for the revolving fund for Superfund. I know 

Senator Voinovich particularly was concerned. 

Last, I think you are so right about making sure we do the work 

well. I have had experiences with the Corps over many years, since 

1982, even before that when I was a county supervisor. I love working with the Corps. As time goes on, they get more and more aware 
11 

of the environment and the need to proceed in ways that restores 

the environment, as well as takes care of the problem at hand. 

I think we can work with them. I think that they understand, 

after Katrina. This committee went down to Louisiana with the 

leadership of Senators Vitter and Landrieu. We saw things that 

just stunned us on that point. We have to get this WRDA bill 

through, because much of the WRDA bill is focused on rebuilding 

New Orleans. This is essential. 

So that is what I wanted to say. Many thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this chance, and thank you, Senator. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Isakson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed 

working with you on many projects in the past, and look forward 

to working with you on this committee. I pledge to Chairman Boxer 

that I absolutely will do everything I can to help expedite and facilitate the WRDA bill and I associate myself with her remarks. 

I would like to welcome Senator Mack Mattingly from Georgia, 

who is in the audience today, and Doug Marchand, who will testify 

later, who since 1994 has overseen the expansion of the Port of Savannah and the Port of Brunswick. I express my appreciation to 

the Corps of Engineers for the investment and the work they have 

done at both those facilities. 

I particularly welcome General Strock, and tell you how much I 

appreciate all you have done and how much you will be missed. 

You have done an outstanding job. 

Mr. Chairman, on Monday of this week at 2 o’clock p.m., the 

Governors of South Carolina and Georgia met on the banks of the 

Savannah River and held an historic press conference which announced a bi-State compact to propose the building of a new port 

in Jasper County, South Carolina to be jointly operated by the 

State of Georgia and the State of South Carolina. 

Historically, the two States have been at odds over Jasper County on many issues, and they joined hands today and even offered 

to pay the financial cost of the feasibility studies necessary to move 

forward on that event. I would like to submit that entire agreement 

between Georgia and South Carolina for the record. 

Senator BAUCUS. Without objection. 

[The referenced document follows on page 109.] 

Senator ISAKSON. Speaking of cooperation, Mr. Chairman, I am 

pleased to tell you that the Governors of Alabama and Georgia, you 

would think we were having a new civil war with all my testimony 

here, but the Governors of Alabama and Georgia have also worked 

together in the last 8 months to bring about a tri-State water compact in the Chattahoochee Basin. We have been in court for the 

better part of 17 years without a tri-State water agreement. It has 

hurt the States of Florida, Georgia and Alabama. The Corps was 

to begin early this year, has not yet, but I am going to encourage 

them to hurry up and facilitate the completion of the water control 

plan, which is the essential framework to formalize the tri-State 

water compact and make that in fact happen. 
12 

I also am looking forward to the testimony of the members of the 

Corps with regard to the fiscal year 2008 budget request, as to its 

sufficiency. In my personal judgment, it is probably insufficient to 

meet the challenges that we need. I hope they will make suggestions as to what we can do in the Senate and the Congress to improve that. 

I again want to end where I began, with my sincere appreciation 

to the Corps of Engineers for the investment of capital and time 

in the State of Georgia and our resources. Our ports of Brunswick 

and Savannah are two of the great facilities on the East Coast of 

the United States. The proposal to build a third port jointly by 

Georgia and South Carolina is because those two ports have finite 

capabilities: Brunswick, Savannah and the Port of Charleston. The 

States have realized the importance of meeting the needs of the 

people of the United States of America and our commerce in the 

21st century, and believe that facility to be an essential part of it. 

I thank the Ports Authority representatives for attending today. 

I thank the Corps for their investment in Georgia. I look forward 

to hearing from the Corps with regard to the water control plan on 

the Chattahoochee River. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thanks very much, Senator. 

According to our early bird procedure here, the Senators I have 

listed in order are Senator Alexander, Senator Inhofe, who has already spoken, Senator Carper, Senator Vitter, then Senator 

Voinovich. 

So Senator, you are next. 

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, 

and Ranking Member Isakson. Thank you all for this very important hearing. 

Obviously, I am enormously interested in all of these subjects. A 

lot of people on this committee and in the Senate are, but probably 

no one has more at stake than Senator Landrieu and myself, simply because of the nature of Louisiana, particularly post-Katrina. 

It reminds me of after I had met with Don Powell, the President’s Gulf Coast Recovery Coordinator, several times. I talked 

mostly about levees and Corps stuff. He said, after a couple of 

meetings, ‘‘Boy, you just have an absolute passion for levees.’’ I 

said, ‘‘Well, it is actually pretty simple to understand. My family 

and I live behind one. That sort of builds passion.’’ 

I wanted to spend my opening statement focusing on two concerns about the proposed budget for the Corps this year, and then 

some comments about Corps reform, in which I am very, very interested. 

First, on the budget, I am beginning to realize that former Congressman and Assistant Secretary of the Army Mike Parker was 

really a hero. He was forthright and honest about the budgetary 

constraints and the budgetary process forced upon the Corps. Nearly 8 months ago, I began receiving reports about the funding shortfalls related to the emergency restoration of the hurricane protection system in the New Orleans area post-Katrina. This is that im-
13 

mediate emergency work that the President has clearly committed 

to, and that Congress has clearly committed to. 

Over those 8 months, I identified at least $4 billion in additional 

funding needs to do that work that everybody has expressed complete commitment to. However, the recent budget request sent by 

the Administration to Congress only proposes to move around, not 

to increase, just to move around $1.3 billion. The request proposes 

no new funding for this emergency work, while the Corps and the 

Administration clearly admit to this enormous shortfall, which they 

are still trying to precisely quantify. 

This is a real problem, and I strongly disagree with kicking the 

can down the road. We need to start solving this problem now, including in the context of the supplemental, because it will be difficult or impossible to solve if we simply kick the can down the 

road. 

Second, very recent news reports about faulty pumps installed at 

the 17th Street Canal in New Orleans only confirms the concerns 

I expressed last summer regarding the capabilities of that pumping 

station and similar new pumping stations. These concerns were repeatedly debated by the Corps, but now we are expected to rely on 

these same faulty pumps and the pump manufacturer for flood protection in 2007. 

I understand that the Corps has expended millions of extra dollars attempting to resolve this problem. I am hopeful that we are 

on a path to resolution in time for this hurricane season. But I simply want to restate my extreme concerns that I began expressing 

many, many months ago about this very issue. 

Let me briefly move on to Corps reform. Certainly, I agree with 

that need absolutely, but like in most things, the devil is in the details. In developing thoughts for this topic, I remember the wisdom 

of Yogi Berra, who once said, ‘‘the future ain’t what it used to be.’’ 

Well, hopefully with regard to the Corps, that will be true and we 

can learn from past mistakes and make sure that that is true. Certainly, we need to learn from some incredibly painful lessons of 

Hurricane Katrina. 

In this regard, I commend General Strock, who is here today, for 

coming forward a few months after Katrina and admitting to some 

key Corps errors with regard to New Orleans that were a big part 

of catastrophic flooding. 

Every member of this panel has voiced support for some variation of Corps reform, but as I said, the devil is in the details. I 

have specific language which I put forward in WRDA last year, my 

Louisiana Water Resources Council language, that I think embodies four essential principles for Corps reform. Those principles 

are as follows. 

First, independence. We must ensure that the peer review teams 

bring independent expertise to the table, not because we don’t trust 

Federal engineers, but because the consequences of failure are far 

too great to rest on just a few shoulders narrowly, and we must 

reach out to all expertise that is available in the private sector and 

in academia. 

Mr. Chairman, if I could just have a couple of additional minutes, and I will be brief. 
14 

Second, consistency. The application of peer review criteria to all 

Corps projects must be consistent. Each team must have a clear, 

consistent understanding of their role, the engineering standards, 

their goals, and the purpose of water resource projects. 

Third, integration. Particularly in the case of Louisiana, this is 

a very important theme. This is one of the big lessons we have 

learned from Katrina. That is why I have called for one peer review 

entity known as the Louisiana Water Resources Council, to serve 

as the exclusive peer review team for all projects in our disaster 

areas of South Louisiana. 

The IPET, the National Science Foundation, the American Society of Civil Engineers, other expert review teams, have all identified the inter-performance of projects or the lack thereof as a key 

issue in the failures of Katrina. Very often, fault points, points 

where things failed, is where one discrete project met another, and 

there was no integration between projects. 

So for that reason, one peer review entity with a clear understanding of all projects in a region and how they need to integrate 

has to be in play, and has to comprehend the impact of related 

projects and the need for integration. Again, that is a very important theme and a very important lesson we learned from Katrina, 

and it must be built into peer review and Corps reform at least as 

it applies to Louisiana. 

Fourth and finally, efficiency and timeliness. In working on 

projects in Louisiana for years, there are two descriptions that are 

included in any local sponsor’s comments on a Corps project. One, 

it takes too long; two, it is too expensive. Those are related. 

We must ensure that any Corps reform requirements occur concurrent with design, rather than at the end of the normal Corps 

design process so that that timeframe doesn’t just expand and expand, and slow down and slow down. Water resource projects are 

designed to save lives, and so we can’t delay an already long process. We need to in fact speed it up. 

In closing, I would like to reemphasize the importance of getting 

this bill done with the Louisiana Water Resources Council Corps 

reform ideas in it as soon as possible. I appreciate everyone’s commitment to doing that as soon as possible this year. 

Thank you very much for the extra time. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:] 

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

Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Isakson, thank you for hosting this important hearing on the Fiscal Year 2008 budget request and the authorization needs 

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Water Resources Development Act. 

Two immediate concerns I have are in regard to the budgetary process and mismanagement related to the recovery work in New Orleans. 

First, I am beginning to realize that former Congressman and Assistant Secretary 

of the Army Mike Parker was a hero. Congressman Parker was forthright and honest about the budgetary constraints and budgetary process forced upon the Corps. 

Nearly 8 months ago, I began receiving reports about the funding shortfalls related to the restoration of the hurricane protection systems in the New Orleans 

area. 

I identified over $4 billion in additional funding needs to restore our hurricane 

and flood protection system to authorized levels. However, the recent budget request 

sent to Congress proposed to reallocate $1.3 billion in existing funds from emergency work in New Orleans. 
15 

The request proposes no new funding for this emergency work. With hurricane 

forecasters predicting another active year, this decision is beyond ill-advised. 

Second, recent news reports about faulty pumps installed at the 17th Street Canal 

in New Orleans only confirms the concerns I expressed last summer regarding the 

capabilities of the pumping stations on the canal. These concerns were repeatedly 

deemed unfounded by the Corps. Now we are expected to rely upon these same 

faulty pumps and the pump manufacturer for flood protection in 2007. I understand 

that the Corps has expended millions of extra dollars attempting to resolve this 

problem, but I remain very concerned about the command’s ability to meet its targets for this hurricane season. 

While I am confident that I could be here for hours going over other serious concerns about the water resources program—from OMB to the Army to the Corps’ civil 

works program—I’ll take a moment to focus on Corps reform. 

In developing my thoughts for this topic, I remembered the wisdom of Yogi Berra. 

He once said ‘‘the future ain’t what it used to be’’. In regard to the Corps of Engineers, I am hopeful that we can prove Yogi right. The future of the civil works program must not reflect the mistakes of the past. 

We learned some incredibly painful lessons as a result of Hurricane Katrina. It 

took the loss of over 1,200 lives to bring attention to the concerns we have voiced 

in Louisiana regarding the integrity and performance of our hurricane protection 

system. We must apply these lessons not only to our recovery efforts in Louisiana, 

but to our protection systems and water resource projects nationwide. 

I commend General Strock here today for coming forward and admitting that the 

Corps erred in New Orleans. I know that that wasn’t an easy statement on your 

part, but it was the right thing to do and a courageous act. Thank you. I am confident that your efforts will help guide us in preventing future disasters and the loss 

of life. 

Every member of this panel has voiced support for some variation of Corps reform. The devil is in the details and the details should not delay the passage of 

WRDA again. Seven years since enacting a WRDA bill is far too long. 

Hundreds of Members of Congress and interests groups across the country have 

proposed various forms of Corps reform. Unfortunately, a number of these proposals 

are not truly based upon experience with Corps projects. As a representative of the 

1,200 citizens that lost their lives during Hurricane Katrina and a representative 

of the state with the most intense civil works program in the world, I ask that you 

rely heavily upon the experiences of our State. 

There are four essential principles that must be included in any version of Corps 

reform: 

Independence: We must ensure that the peer review teams bring independent expertise to the table. Not because we do not trust the Federal engineers, but because 

the consequences of failure are far too great to rest upon the shoulders of any one 

engineer or agency. We also must reach out to all expertise that is available. 

Consistency: The application of peer review criteria to all Corps projects must be 

consistent. Each team must have a clear, consistent understanding of their role, the 

engineering standards, their goals and the purpose of water resource projects. 

Integration: In the case of Louisiana, I have called for one peer review entity, 

known as the Louisiana Water Resources Council, to serve as the exclusive peer review team for all projects in our disaster areas of south Louisiana. The IPET, National Science Foundation, American Society of Civil Engineers and other Hurricane 

Katrina expert review teams all identified the inter-performance of projects as key 

issue in the New Orleans area systems. 

One peer review entity with a clear understanding of all projects in a region will 

be able to comprehend the impact of related projects and verify the integration of 

protection infrastructure to ensure that it truly operates as a system. I thank the 

committee and conferees for agreeing to this concept in last year’s WRDA bill and 

in the conference committee. I understand that the House recently adopted my proposal in their version of WRDA recently introduced. 

I urge you to consider this concept in other areas as well. 

Efficiency and Timeliness: In working on projects in Louisiana for years, there are 

two descriptions that are included in any local sponsor’s comments on a Corps 

project. (1) It takes too long; and (2) It is too expensive. 

We must ensure that any Corps reform requirements occurs concurrent with design—without delay to the final recommendations or extraordinary expense. Water 

resource projects are designed to save lives. We cannot afford delays. 

In closing, I’d like to reemphasize the importance of getting this WRDA bill done 

as soon as possible. There are dozens and dozens of vital projects across this country 

that cannot wait any longer. 
16 

I have heard some theorize that WRDA has been delayed for budgetary reasons. 

I would like to remind the Members here today that Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and 

Wilma have cost our taxpayers nearly $160 billion and counting. Less than $5 billion would have prevented virtually all damages in New Orleans. 

A recent study commissioned by FEMA found that every $1 in mitigation measures provides $4 in benefits. If you are concerned about the budget as I am, it is 

clear that we must enact WRDA now. 

For years I have complained about the lengthy Corps of Engineers’ process. With 

7 years since enacting a WRDA bill, some obstacles in the Congress are no better. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

Next on our list is the great Senator from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be 

here. General Strock, it is good to see you. 

I have a couple of compliments for the Corps. One, I want to 

thank you for the job you have done on the Northwest Tennessee 

Port Project in Lake County, TN. You found a way to keep that on 

schedule, allocated funds to it for completion in September 2008. 

That is one of the lowest-income counties in our State, and the 

port has a potential for tremendous ability to raise family incomes 

in that area. I compliment you for that. 

Second, a lot of this happened well before I came to the Senate, 

but your focus on the safety concerns of the Chickamauga Lock in 

Chattanooga affects a whole region of our Country, not just the 

Chattanooga area, but several States. I very much appreciate the 

Corps’ attention to that. 

The only other comment I would make is I am concerned about 

the safety of the Wolf Creek and Center Hill dams. They are built 

above caves on an eroding limestone base. Of course, you recognize 

there are safety concerns there, and you have lowered the water 

levels. That in itself creates other problems as you make the repairs, which obviously have to be made, but it adds to the cost of 

electricity, changes the environment in the lake and in the rivers 

below it, adds to cooling costs down the river. All that needs to be 

done. There are important safety repairs. 

Equally important is for the Corps to acknowledge that there are 

safety repairs and pay its appropriate amount of costs for that. 

So I am glad you are working on it. I hope it can be done as soon 

as is possible, and that these safety repairs can be acknowledged 

and we can get the water levels back up to the place they need to 

be. 

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

According to the early bird rule, Senator Carper, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chickamauga Lock, is that it? Chickamauga Lock, all right. In 

fact, I played a piano concert down there one time. That is not 

what interfered with the strength of the dam, but—— 

[Laughter.] 
17 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, and our 

new Ranking Member, Senator Isakson; Senator Boxer, our Chairman; and Senator Inhofe for scheduling this hearing, and for committing to mark up the Water Resources Development Act so early 

in this Congress. I think it is a good sign that we might just finally 

pass this important legislation after, as Senator Boxer and others 

have said, after 6 years of trying. 

I want to echo the sentiments of some others who have said very 

nice things about General Strock as you prepare to head out for 

your next assignment. As we used to say in the Navy, fair winds 

and fallowing sea, and good luck to you and thanks for your good 

work. 

Secretary Woodley, good to see you. On behalf of a lot of folks 

who live in Sussex County, the good work that you have done from 

end of our State to the other to help particularly our beach front 

communities, I just want to say a special thanks. 

It is very important I think that we pass a bill that addresses 

the Nation’s water resources needs, from wetlands to levees, and 

we need to make sure that we have enough funding to meet those 

needs. 

In fact, Senator Voinovich and I have introduced, along with Senator Clinton and I think Senator Coleman, have introduced legislation to establish a commission to look at our Nation’s infrastructure needs and how we can best address those needs. Congress created a similar commission I believe to study highways and transit 

as part of what we call SAFETEA-LU. As we will discuss today, 

our infrastructure needs go far beyond those. 

I would invite our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the legislation. It is called the National Infrastructure Improvement Act of 

2007. It is S. 775. 

I think we all agree that sufficient funding is a big part of the 

solution. We also need to make sure that our constituents have 

faith in the products that our Government, in this case the Army 

Corps of Engineers, provides. I visited in New Orleans a year or 

so ago, in April, and met with our two colleagues, Senator Landrieu 

and Senator Vitter, and held an oversight hearing with Senator 

Coburn. We saw some of the devastation caused by floodwalls that 

failed to do what they were designed to do. 

I also participated in about another dozen or so oversight hearings on what went wrong. Many of you joined us in those hearings. 

One thing was perfectly clear, and that is that there were many 

warnings that were not heeded. I appreciate the Corps has acknowledged as much. 

However, the problem has not gone away. At least according to 

the Associated Press last year, the Army Corps installed defective 

flood-control pumps despite warnings that the equipment just 

might fail during a storm. That, for me, was disheartening news. 

But even if there was a reason to go ahead with the pumps, for example some pumping is better than none, it is disappointing to 

learn about this from the media and not from the Corps itself. 

I appreciate the fact that, Senator Baucus, you allowed Senator 

Feingold to speak to us earlier today about some of the reforms 

that we are considering for the Corps. Senator Feingold and Senator McCain have been tireless in fighting for Corps reforms to en-
18 

sure that we all receive the best quality flood control, the best navigation, the best environmental restoration projects for our communities. 

I am happy that the Senate approved Senator Feingold’s and 

Senator McCain’s amendment to require independent peer review 

of large Corps projects in WRDA last year. Further, I would like 

to express my appreciation to Senator Boxer and Senators Inhofe, 

Baucus, Isakson and others for agreeing to maintain that language 

in this year’s WRDA bill. 

Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to ask unanimous consent 

at this point on behalf of the Delaware Nature Society that joint 

testimony from members of the Corps Reform Network be included 

in the record of this hearing. 

Senator BAUCUS. Without objection. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

[The referenced document was not available at time of print.] 

Senator CARPER. We all want to ensure that our Nation’s water 

resource needs are met with the highest quality work possible, especially in States that rely heavily on the Corps, as we do in Delaware. As the New Orleans Times Picayune said yesterday, and this 

is a quote, ‘‘Any community that relies on a Corps-built projects deserves the assurance that the projects are well planned, designed 

and built, and making sure Americans who live beside those levees 

are safe ought to be the top priority for every Member of Congress.’’ 

I agree. 

Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Voinovich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. 

I have been supportive of this WRDA legislation for a long time. 

As I mentioned to Senator Vitter, the last time we passed a WRDA 

bill, Mr. Chairman, is 1999 and 2000, when I had your job, and it 

was interesting that we got it through so quickly in those 2 years, 

and then haven’t been able to get anything done since then. 

America’s infrastructure in waterway systems is the foundation 

of our economy. For too long, we have been ignoring our infrastructure. I am glad Senator Carper brought up our infrastructure legislation, and hopefully we can get it done and get a handle on what 

the infrastructure requirements are for the United States of America so the people of America know just how bad our infrastructure 

is, and start dealing with the problem forthrightly. 

Our physical infrastructure is the critical piece to making America more competitive. As I already mentioned, those needs are overwhelming. With the deterioration of our locks and dams, flood-control projects, and navigation channels, we risk disruptions in waterborne commerce, decrease protection against floods, as we saw 

in Katrina, and other environmental damage. 

Right now, our infrastructure is collapsing due to the insufficient 

funding. I am very disappointed the President’s budget includes an 

8.6 percent decrease for the overall Army Corps budget. It is in-
19 

credible, and a larger reduction for construction budget, a 31.8 percent decrease. Think about it. Congress desperately needs to provide increased funding for the Corps, especially with a large backlog of unfunded projects. 

When I arrived in the Senate, the backlog of unfunded Corps operations and maintenance projects was $250 million. Today, it is 

$1.2 billion. Despite these overwhelming needs, the Corps is currently able to function at only 50 percent capacity at the rate of 

funding proposed by this budget. 

Can you believe this after Katrina? At the current low levels of 

construction appropriations, as I think somebody pointed out, it 

will take 25 years to complete the projects in the backlog without 

even considering additional project authorizations, and you know 

there are a bunch of them in this WRDA bill once it is passed. 

We have been asking the Corps to do more with less. I am for 

trimming fat from the Federal budget and practicing fiscal discipline, but the Corps budget is not fat. It is the bread and butter 

of our economy and infrastructure. I believe we need a comprehensive priority system, and I am glad that you have agreed to put 

that priority system in reviewing the projects in our version of the 

WRDA legislation. 

There is some good news from my end of the region of the United 

States, and that is the Corps has put money in for the Asian carp 

barriers. We are very grateful for that and we are going to make 

sure that we change the language so that it is fully funded by the 

Federal Government. It is a little piece of expenditure, but a big 

deal in terms of keeping an invasive species out of the Great Lakes 

that would demolish our fishery. 

I am also concerned about the dredging in the Great Lakes. 

Throughout the Great Lakes, we have a significant dredging backlog. The Corps estimates that the backlog of Great Lakes dredging 

totals about 16 million cubic yards of sediment at commercial harbors. Addressing the backlog would take $192 million. Unfortunately, the inability to provide sufficient dredging resources to the 

Great Lakes has various serious impacts on our budget. 

The bottom line is that because we haven’t done the dredging 

that we were supposed to be doing, it is estimated that 75 percent 

of the cargoes that have been carried in the past years have been 

reduced in volume due to inadequate water depth at either loading 

or discharge ports, or in the connecting channels. The Midwest Environmental Resource Company reported that 1,000-foot vessels are 

losing as much as 18 inches of loaded draft, depending upon the 

route that they are going. 

So in other words, because we are not doing the dredging, you 

are having a very bad impact on the economy of our region of the 

Country. I think it is outrageous, and I don’t want to pick on one 

part of the Country versus another, but they treat the Great Lakes 

like a river system. Even with that, the Corps spent 52 cents per 

ton of cargo carried in the Great Lakes, and the Missouri River received $15 per ton of cargo that it carried. It is not right. It is not 

fair. 

So I talked to General Berwick in the Cincinnati Great Lakes 

and Ohio Division about this, and I appreciate that the Division is 
20 

developing a 5-year plan to address the backlog of projects on the 

Great Lakes. 

So I just want to say that it is important we get this legislation 

passed, Mr. Chairman, but it is also very important that we dramatize the fact that we are ignoring the infrastructure needs of the 

United States of America in just about every level that I can see, 

and one of the best examples is the Army Corps of Engineers. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today. As you know, 

I have long been supportive of passing WRDA legislation, and it is my hope that 

this Congress will finally act on this. I am also pleased that we are holding this 

hearing today to discuss the Fiscal Year 2008 budget for the Army Corps of Engineers. This is an issue of great concern for me. 

It has been 6 years since Congress last passed a Water Resources and Development reauthorization bill. The time has come to finally pass this important legislation. 

America’s infrastructure and waterways system is the foundation of our economy. 

For too long, we have been ignoring our infrastructure, but Katrina was a wakeup call for all of us. In the wake of this disaster, we saw firsthand the devastating 

impact of a weak infrastructure on our people and our economy. The more we continue to fail to fund our water infrastructure, the more we are putting our nation’s 

competitiveness at risk in this global marketplace. 

Our physical infrastructure is a critical piece to making America more competitive. Our infrastructure needs are overwhelming and being squeezed. We should be 

rebuilding an infrastructure of competitiveness so that future generations have at 

least the same opportunity to enjoy our standard of living and quality of life. If we 

continue to ignore the upkeep—the deterioration of our locks and dams, flood control 

projects, and navigation channels—we risk disruptions in waterborne commerce, decreased protection against floods as we saw in Katrina, and other environmental 

damage. 

Right now, our infrastructure is collapsing due to insufficient funding. I am disappointed that the President’s budget includes an 8.6 percent decease for the overall 

Army Corps budget—a larger reduction for Construction budget, 31.8 percent decrease. Congress desperately needs to provide increased funding for the Army Corps 

of Engineers, especially with the large backlog of unfunded Corps projects. When 

I arrived in the Senate in 1999, the backlog of unfunded Corps Operation and Maintenance projects was $250 million. Today, it is $1.2 billion. 

Despite these overwhelming needs, the Corps is currently able to function only at 

50 percent capacity at the rate of funding proposed by the budget. Can you believe 

this after the lesson we learned from Hurricane Katrina? At the current low levels 

of construction appropriations, it would take 25 years to complete the active projects 

in the backlog without even considering additional project authorizations that will 

be included in this WRDA, let alone future authorizing legislation. 

We have been asking the Corps of Engineers to do more with less. I am all for 

trimming fat from the federal budget and practicing fiscal discipline, but the Corps 

of Engineers budget is not fat—it’s the bread and butter of our economy and infrastructure. 

I believe that we need a comprehensive prioritization system to ensure that Congress has the information it needs to direct limited federal resources to the most 

urgent projects. As we begin another debate on WRDA, it is my hope that we can 

include prioritization language in the bill. Without this language, we simply will 

continue to ignore our most critical infrastructure needs. 

There is some good news in the FY2008 Army Corps of Engineers budget. I am 

pleased that the administration’s FY2008 budget requests $8 million in funding for 

the Asian Carp Barriers and also includes proposed authorization language for the 

Corps. However, I am disappointed that this language does not make the project the 

full responsibility of the federal government. During WRDA negotiations last year, 

we crafted language that would have made this a full federal project, and it is my 

hope that as this Committee considers WRDA, we will again make it a full federal 

project. It is critical that these barriers be completed and operational in a timely 

manner in order to protect the Great Lakes from the spread of invasive species. 
21 

Another Corps issue I am concerned about is dredging in Great Lakes. Throughout the Great Lakes, there is a significant dredging backlog, and I believe that this 

backlog is in part, the result of Corps policies that unfairly address the Great Lakes. 

The Corps estimates that the backlog of Great Lakes dredging totals about 16 million cubic yards of sediment at commercial harbors, and addressing this backlog 

would cost about $192 million. Unfortunately, the inability to provide sufficient 

dredging resources to the Great Lakes has very serious impacts on business. 

Last year, a U.S. Maritime Administration surveyed the lake carriers, ships that 

operate exclusively in the Great Lakes, and estimated that 75 percent of the cargoes 

they have carried in the past 5 years have been reduced in volume due to inadequate water depth at either loading or discharge ports or in the connecting channels. The Midwest Environmental Resource Company reported that its 1,000 foot 

vessels are losing as much as 18 inches of loaded draft depending on the route. 

When these vessels forfeit 18 inches of draft, they are leaving approximately 4,500 

tons of coal at the dock which is as much as 6.5 percent of their carrying capacity 

on each trip. 

While I understand that we are underfunding the nation’s navigation infrastructure needs, the problem for the Great Lakes is also a result of the Corps’ budget 

practices which rely on performance metrics that treat the Great Lakes like a river 

system which results in funding inequities. For example, the Corps spent about 

$0.52 per ton of cargo carried in the Great Lakes, but the Missouri River received 

about $15 per ton of cargo carried. 

I have spoken with General Berwick in the Cincinnati Great Lakes and Ohio 

River Division Office about this situation, and while I appreciate that the division 

is developing a 5-year plan to address the backlog of projects in the Great Lakes, 

I would like Headquarters officials to understand that there is a problem and make 

a commitment to working to find performance metrics or some other process to better determine the funding needs of the Great Lakes. 

The passage of another WRDA bill cannot be delayed any further. It is simply too 

important to our nation in terms of its benefits to our economy and environment 

and for the speedy recovery for the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

Now, we will get into our main event here. We are honored now 

to have before us the Hon. John Paul Woodley, Assistant Secretary 

of the Army. He will be accompanied by Lieutenant General Carl 

Strock, who is the Chief of Engineers with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

Secretary Woodley, thank you very much for coming to testify before the committee. We ordinarily have a 5-minute rule here, but 

if you want to go a little beyond 5 minutes since you are the main 

event here, feel free to do so. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS) ACCOMPANIED BY: 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL A. STROCK, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you, Senator. In fact, I will take less. I 

have a detailed written statement in the record. 

I have with me today a piece of cloth. Those of you who have 

served, and I believe most have, will recognize this piece of cloth. 

It says, Hurricane Response, 2005–2006. This is a meritorious unit 

citation streamer awarded by the Army to the Headquarters of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. One thing it reminds us of is that 

in 2005 we thought that the hurricane season of 2004, in which 

four major storms struck the State of Florida, was a major hurricane response event. But these meritorious unit citations are very 

rarely given to a major command of the Army. They are ordinarily 

given to units of infantry, armor, or artillery for their actions in 

combat on the battlefield. 
22 

But this recognition has been given to the Headquarters, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, primarily due to the leadership of Lieutenant General Carl Strock, who is here today for what we believe 

will be his last appearance before the committee prior to his retirement from active duty. I want to take my time here, having given 

a detailed statement for the record, to recognize that service and 

to say that because of the sacrifice and performance of duty by the 

people under his leadership and his command, this streamer has 

been awarded to the Headquarters of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

So I think that it is incumbent upon all of us to take this opportunity to recognize that service, recognize that leadership—his and 

those of all the members of that command in responding to these 

events—and to express our deep appreciation for everything he has 

done as a leader in this context. 

So thank you very much. That will conclude my remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodley follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

(CIVIL WORKS) 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee, and to present 

the President’s Budget for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers 

for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. 

OVERVIEW

The FY 2008 Budget for Army Civil Works provides funding for development and 

restoration of the Nation’s water and related resources within the three main Civil 

Works program areas, namely, commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The Budget also supports hydropower, recreation, environmental stewardship, and water supply services at existing 

water resources projects owned or operated by the Corps. Finally, the Budget provides for protection of the Nation’s regulated waters and wetlands; cleanup of sites 

contaminated as a result of the Nation’s early efforts to develop atomic weapons; 

and emergency preparedness. The budget does not fund work that should be the responsibility of non-Federal interests or other Federal agencies, such as wastewater 

treatment and municipal and industrial water treatment and distribution. 

Total new discretionary funding in the FY 2008 Budget is $4.871 billion for FY 

2008, the highest amount ever in a Civil Works budget. Within this total, we have 

allocated $2.471 billion to activities funded in the operation and maintenance 

(O&M) account. This is the highest funding level for operation and maintenance 

ever proposed in a President’s budget or enacted by the Congress. It is 9 percent 

above the FY 2007 Budget level for the O&M account and $206 million above FY 

2006 enacted, after accounting for the $296 million that the Budget has proposed 

to transfer in FY 2008 from construction to operation and maintenance. 

The Budget also includes a FY 2007 recommendation to re-allocate up to $1.3 billion of emergency supplemental appropriations enacted in FY 2006. This would enable the Corps to use available, unobligated funds for measures that will provide 

a better overall level of protection for the New Orleans metropolitan area in the 

near-term. This proposal is discussed further below. 

A 5-year budget development plan (FYDP) is under development and will be provided to the relevant Committees of Congress. The FYDP includes two scenarios or 

projections: one based on the President’s proposed FY 2008 Budget; and one above 

that level based on the most recently enacted appropriations (FY 2006) at the time 

the budget was prepared. The projections are formula driven. They do not represent 

budget decisions or budget policy beyond FY 2008, but they can provide perspective 

on the Army Civil Works program and budget. 

Enclosure 1 displays the current estimate for the distribution of new discretionary 

funding among eight appropriation accounts, eight program areas plus executive direction and management, and five sources including the general fund of the Treasury and trust funds. Enclosure 2 is a crosscut between appropriation accounts and 

program areas. 
23 

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING

The FY 2008 Budget reflects a performance-based approach to budgeting. Competing investment opportunities for studies, design, construction, and operation and 

maintenance were evaluated using multiple metrics. We used objective, performance 

criteria to guide the allocation of funds among construction projects (see below). 

The Budget includes initiatives leading to the development of a more systematic, 

performance-based budget and improved asset management. For instance, to improve investment decisionmaking, the Budget funds the development of economic 

models for navigation and methods for evaluating the benefits of aquatic ecosystem 

restoration efforts. To help identify, evaluate, and establish priorities for the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing flood and storm damage reduction, commercial 

navigation, and hydropower assets, the Budget provides funding to develop asset 

management systems and risk-based condition indices. Finally, the Budget presents 

information for operation and maintenance activities by river basin and by mission 

area, setting the stage for improved management of Civil Works assets and more 

systematic budget development in future years. 

The focus on Civil Works program performance has a number of foundations. 

First, the Civil Works Strategic Plan, which was updated in 2004, provides goals, 

objectives, and performance measures that are specific to program areas as well as 

some that are crosscutting. Second, each program area has been assessed using the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Summaries of all completed civil works 

program assessments can be found on the Administration’s new website, 

www.ExpectMore.gov. Both the Civil Works Strategic Plan and the PART-based program evaluations are works in progress and will continue to be updated. 

HIGHLIGHTS—WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS

Studies and Design 

The FY 2008 Budget provides $90 million for the Investigations account and $1 

million for studies in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. The Budget 

funds the 67 most promising studies and preconstruction engineering and design 

(PED) activities. Performance was assessed based on the likelihood in the near-term 

of meeting the construction guidelines discussed below. For instance, among the 

projects in PED, the projects with benefit-cost ratios of 3.0 to 1 or higher received 

funding. Within the $90 million, $13 million is for the Louisiana Coastal Area study and science program for coastal wetlands restoration; $22 million is for other project-specific studies and design; $10 million is to continue the national inventory of flood 

and storm damage reduction projects; $17 million is for research and development; 

and $28 million is for other coordination, data collection, and study activities. Priorities within research and development include the Navigation Economic Technologies research program and the development of benefit evaluation methods for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

Construction 

The Budget provides $1.523 billion in the Construction account and $108 million 

for construction projects in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. 

Many more construction projects have been authorized, initiated, and continued 

than can be constructed efficiently at any one time. The funding of projects with 

low economic and environmental returns and of projects that are not within Civil 

Works main mission areas has led to the postponement of benefits from the most 

worthy projects, and has significantly reduced overall program performance. 

To remedy this situation and to achieve greater value to the Nation from the Civil 

Works construction program, the Budget focuses significant funding on the projects 

that yield the greatest return to the Nation, based upon objective performance criteria. The budget again proposes performance guidelines to allocate funds among 

construction projects. The most significant change is the inclusion of benefit-cost 

ratio (BCR) as a metric, rather than remaining benefit-remaining cost ratio. The 

BCR compares the total benefits to the total costs of a project at its inception, and 

provides a way to establish priorities among projects. 

Under the guidelines, the Budget allocates funds among construction projects 

based primarily on these criteria: their BCR; their contribution to addressing a significant risk to human safety or to dam safety assurance, seepage control, or static 

instability correction concerns; and the extent to which they cost-effectively contribute to the restoration of nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystems 

that have become degraded as a result of Civil Works projects, or to a restoration 

effort for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited. The construction guidelines are provided in Enclosure 3. 
24 

The construction projects funded in the Budget include 6 national priorities; 11 

dam safety assurance, seepage control, and static instability correction projects; and 

41 other, high-performing projects. The budget also funds ongoing continuing contracts, but no new contracts, for 11 projects with BCRs between 1.5 to 1 and 3.0 

to 1. 

Operation and Maintenance 

The Budget proposes $2.471 billion for the Operation and Maintenance account 

and $151 million for maintenance activities in the Mississippi River and Tributaries 

account. Even after adjusting for the reassignment of work, discussed below, this 

amount is the highest funding level for operation and maintenance ever proposed 

in a President’s budget. 

The Budget emphasizes performance of existing projects by focusing on the maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, hydropower, and other facilities. The proposed funding would enable the Army Corps of 

Engineers to carry out priority maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitations, and priority initiatives such as the development of asset management systems. 

The operation and maintenance program now includes four types of activities that 

were funded in the Construction program until last year. The Budget transfers responsibility and funding for these activities compliance with Biological Opinions at 

operating projects pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, rehabilitation of existing 

projects, use of maintenance dredging material, and replacement of sand due to the 

operation and maintenance of Federal navigation projects because they are integrally connected to the operation and maintenance of Corps projects. The reassignment to the Operation and Maintenance program is needed to improve accountability and oversight, reflect the full cost of operation and maintenance, and support 

an integrated funding strategy for existing projects. The Budget includes proposed 

appropriations language to cover funding for these activities in the Operation and 

Maintenance account. 

The Budget proposes that Congress allocate operation and maintenance funding 

by river basin, rather than on a project-by-project basis. The justification materials 

present a current estimate for each basin of the distribution of proposed funding 

among the flood and coastal storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, hydropower, stewardship, recreation, and water supply program areas. Should operation 

and maintenance work be funded using this framework, managers in the field would 

be better able to adapt to uncertainties and better able to address emergencies as 

well as other changed conditions over the course of the fiscal year, consistent with 

congressional appropriations decisions. The Corps has displayed its current projectby-project estimates for the FY 2008 operation and maintenance program on its 

website. 

HIGHLIGHTS—PROGRAM AREAS

The Army Civil Works program includes eight program areas, plus the oversight/ 

executive direction and management function. The eight program areas are commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, environment, recreation, 

hydropower, water supply, emergency management, and the regulatory program. 

Budget proposals for the nine areas are discussed below. 

Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction, and Emergency Management 

The FY 2008 Budget provides $1.384 billion for flood and coastal storm damage 

reduction, and $45 million for emergency management. 

Among the 69 construction projects funded in the FY 2008 budget, 46 are for flood 

and coastal storm damage reduction, including 8 dam safety and seepage control 

projects and 34 projects that address a significant risk to human safety or have high 

benefit-cost ratios. 

The Budget emphasizes natural disaster preparedness and flood and coastal 

storm damage prevention. Specifically, the Budget includes $40 million in the Flood 

Control and Coastal Emergencies account to fund preparedness for flood and coastal 

emergencies and other disasters. This is a 25 percent increase for preparedness activities compared to the FY 2007 Budget, and is needed to maintain and improve 

our ability to respond to disasters. The Budget also includes $20 million in multiple 

accounts to apply lessons learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (including the 

12 follow-on actions identified by the Chief of Engineers and stepped-up cooperation 

with Federal Emergency Management Agency programs for flood plains), $10 million to continue to inventory and assess flood and storm damage reduction projects 

across the Nation, and $10 million to continue to assess the safety of the Corps portfolio of dams (including improving ordinary, but essential, inspection procedures). 
25 

The Budget provides funding for all work currently planned to remedy the most 

serious (Action Class I and II) dam safety, seepage, and static instability problems 

at Corps dams. The planning, design, and construction of these projects are funded 

at the maximum amount that the Corps estimates that it can use efficiently and 

effectively. 

The Budget continues to support Federal participation in initial construction, but 

not in re-nourishment, at beach nourishment projects that provide storm damage reduction or ecosystem restoration outputs. 

Commercial Navigation 

The FY 2008 Budget provides $2.009 billion for the commercial navigation program area. 

The amount budgeted for inland waterway construction projects (replacements 

and expansions in the Construction Account, and rehabilitations in the Operation 

and Maintenance account) is about $418 million, the highest amount ever included 

in a President’s budget. Half of the funding, or $209 million, would be derived from 

the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The funding in the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund will not be sufficient after FY 2008 to support this level of investment in our 

principal inland waterways. 

The Administration is developing and will propose legislation to require the 

barges on the inland waterways to pay a user fee. The user fee will address the decline in the balance in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which affects the government’s ability to finance a portion of the continuing Federal capital investment in 

these waterways. The legislation will be offered this spring for consideration by Congress. 

The Budget focuses operation and maintenance funding on those waterway segments and commercial harbors that support high volumes of commercial traffic, 

with emphasis on the heavily-used Mississippi, Ohio, and Illinois waterways. The 

Budget also funds harbors that support significant commercial fishing, subsistence, 

public transportation, harbor of refuge, national security, or safety benefits. 

The Budget continues the policy of funding beach replenishment, including periodic re-nourishment, where the operation and maintenance of Federal navigation 

projects is the reason for the sand loss on shorelines. 

Environment 

The FY 2008 Budget provides $514 million for the environment program area. 

The Budget includes $274 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration, of which $162 

million is for the Corps of Engineers share of the South Florida/Everglades restoration effort. Of this amount, $35 million is for the Modified Water Deliveries project, 

a key element of this effort that both the National Park Service and the Corps are 

funding. The Budget provides $23 million for the Upper Mississippi restoration program and $13 million for the Louisiana Coastal Area restoration effort and its 

science program. The costs of compliance with Biological Opinions at existing 

projects are not included in the above figures. The Budget includes these costs as 

part of the joint operation and maintenance costs of the affected projects and allocates these costs among the program areas served by the projects. 

The Budget provides $110 million for environmental stewardship. Corps of Engineers-administered lands and waters cover 11 million acres, an area equal in size 

to the States of Vermont and New Hampshire. Funded activities include shoreline 

management, protection of natural resources, support for endangered species, continuation of mitigation activities, and protection of cultural and historic resources. 

The Budget provides $130 million for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 

Program (FUSRAP) to clean up contamination at sites resulting largely from the 

early atomic weapons program. This funding will enable continued progress toward 

completion of remedial actions at a number of sites. 

Regulatory Program 

The FY 2008 Budget provides $180 million to the Corps Regulatory Program to 

protect wetlands and other waters of the United States. This represents a $22 million increase over the FY 2006 enacted level of $158 million, and a $55 million increase since 2001. The funding will be used for permit processing, for enforcement 

and compliance actions and for jurisdictional determinations, including additional 

workload necessitated by the Supreme Court’s Carabell and Rapanos decisions. 

Investing in the Regulatory Program is a win-win proposition. The added funds 

will enable most public and private development to proceed with minimal delays, 

while ensuring that the aquatic environment is protected consistent with the Nation’s water quality laws. 
26 

Recreation 

The FY 2008 Budget provides $267 million for recreation operations and related 

maintenance. 

To help finance recreation modernizations, the Budget includes an initiative based 

on a promising model now used by other major federal recreation providers such as 

the National Park Service and the Forest Service. The Administration is re-proposing legislation for the Corps to generate additional revenue to help upgrade and 

modernize the recreation facilities at the sites where this money is collected. Specifically, the legislation includes authority for the Corps to charge entrance fees and 

other types of user fees where appropriate, and to cooperate with non-Federal park 

authorities and districts. The Corps would keep collections above an annual baseline 

amount. 

Hydropower 

Hydropower is a renewable source of energy. The Civil Works program is the Nation’s largest producer of hydroelectric energy, and provides three percent of the Nation’s total energy needs. The FY 2008 Budget provides $291 million for hydropower. This total includes $159 million for hydropower operation and maintenance costs, $43 million for the 

costs of replacements at four hydropower projects, and $89 million for the costs allocated to hydropower from multipurpose projects and programs. The replacement 

projects will help to reduce the forced outage rate, which is well above the industry 

average. 

Water Supply 

On average, Civil Works projects provide four billion gallons of water per day to 

meet the needs of municipal and commercial users across the country. The Budget 

includes $4 million for operation and maintenance costs allocable to water storage. 

Executive Direction and Management 

The FY 2008 budget provides $177 million for the Expenses account. 

Within this amount, $171 million is for the management and executive direction 

expenses of the Army Corps of Engineers, both at its Headquarters and Major Subordinate Divisions, as well as support organizations such as the Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, and the Finance 

Center. 

In addition, the Budget proposes to consolidate funding for activities related to 

oversight and general administration of the Civil Works program within the Expenses account, including funding for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Civil Works). Of the $177 million for the Expenses account, $6 million is for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), including some indirect and overhead costs that previously were centrally funded by the Army. 

OTHER BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

Protection of Greater New Orleans 

The FY 2008 Budget also recommends, as part of an FY 2007 Supplemental appropriations package, enactment of a statutory provision to authorize the Secretary 

of the Army to reallocate up to $1.3 billion of the emergency supplemental appropriations that were provided in FY 2006, but that remain unobligated. The recommended statutory language would reallocate unobligated funds appropriated by 

Public Law 109–234 (the ‘‘fourth emergency supplemental appropriations act of 

2006’’) to fund activities specified in Public Law 109-148 (the ‘‘third emergency supplemental act of 2006’’), and would reallocate unobligated funds among certain activities specified in the third emergency supplemental appropriations act of 2006. 

Within the total amount that would be reallocated, $270 million would be reallocated from the Construction account to the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 

account. 

The FY 2006 emergency supplemental appropriations were initially allocated 

based on ‘‘rough order of magnitude’’ estimates by the Corps of the amount of work 

that would be required to rebuild, complete, and raise the levees in New Orleans. 

Their estimate of the cost of the work necessary to accomplish these objectives is 

expected to increase greatly as a result of various engineering forensic investigations and assessments, a review of new storm surge data, increased material costs, 

and other factors. The earlier cost and schedule estimates have proven to be low, 

and actionable re-estimates will not be available until this summer. Without the reallocation of the FY 2006 funds that were allocated in law, important work to increase the level of protection in some areas could not be completed in concert with 

similar work in other areas. The proposed re-allocation would enable the Corps to 
27 

best apply available funding to those measures that will increase in the near-term 

the overall level of protection for the New Orleans metropolitan area. 

General Provisions 

The Budget includes bill language to authorize continuation of limits on reprogramming with certain changes; replace the continuing contract authority of the 

Corps with multi-year contracting authority patterned after the authority available 

to other Federal agencies; and prohibit committing funds for ongoing contracts beyond the appropriated amounts available, including reprogramming. 

The Budget also includes bill language to authorize the following: continuation of 

the national levee inventory and assessment; continuation of activities in Missouri 

River Basin to comply with the Endangered Species Act; completion of the two Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal invasive species barriers in Illinois, subject to appropriate cost-sharing; and completion of the McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and 

Indiana, project. 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT PROPOSAL

I am working with others in the Administration towards the goal of developing 

a legislative framework that will reflect the Administration’s priorities for a Water 

Resources Development Act for your consideration. This proposal or a subsequent 

legislative proposal will support the Budget’s recommendations for the Civil Works 

program as addressed in my testimony today. 

In the coming weeks I hope to be able to make a proposal that will help accomplish the principles, policies, and practices that have proven to be successful in the 

past, and will seek to create incentives for their improvement. Working together, I 

believe the Administration and the Congress can make very substantial improvements in the Civil Works program, and I look forward to offering a proposal that 

I trust you will find helpful. 

PRESIDENT’S MANAGEMENT AGENDA

The Army Civil Works program is pursuing five government-wide management 

initiatives, as are other Federal agencies, plus a sixth initiative on real property 

asset management. ‘‘Scorecards’’ for the Army Corps of Engineers and other Federal 

agencies can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/agenda/scorecard.html. 

Under these initiatives, the Corps is improving its efficiency through recently 

completed public-private competitions. In addition, the Corps is undertaking two efforts (for Logistics Management and the Operation and Maintenance of Locks and 

Dams) to improve its performance through re-engineering of internal business processes, rather than through public-private competitions. 

The Corps has also made great progress in working with the Office of the Department of Defense Inspector General on the FY 2006 audit. The Corps is continuing 

to work towards the goal of obtaining an unqualified opinion, on its accounts, and 

has been a leader within the Department of Defense in this area. The Corps is committed to addressing any concerns that may arise during the audit. 

CONCLUSION

In developing this Budget, the Administration made explicit choices based on performance. The increase in O&M funding, transfer of activities from construction to 

O&M, emphasis on high-performing construction projects, and increase for preparedness for flood and hurricane emergencies and other natural disasters, for example, all reflect a performance-based approach. 

At $4.871 billion, the FY 2008 Army Civil Works budget is the highest Civil 

Works budget in history. This Budget provides the resources for the Civil Works 

program to pursue investments that will yield good returns for the Nation in the 

future. The Budget represents the wise use of funding to advance worthy, missionbased objectives. I am proud to present it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity 

to testify on the President’s Fiscal Year 2008 Budget for the Civil Works program 

of the Army Corps of Engineers. 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 

[The prepared statement Lieutenant General Strocks follows:] 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL A. STROCK, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: 

I am honored to be testifying before your subcommittee today, along with the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr., 

on the President’s Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) Budget for the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program. 

My statement covers the following 3 topics: 

• Summary of FY08 Program Budget, 

• Construction Program, and, 

• Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation’s Economy, and to the Nation’s 

Defense 

SUMMARY OF FY08 PROGRAM BUDGET

Introduction 

The Fiscal Year 2008 Civil Works Budget is a performance-based budget, which 

reflects a focus on the projects and activities that provide the highest net economic 

and environmental returns on the Nation’s investment or address significant risk 

to human safety. Direct Program funding totals $5.406 billion, consisting of discretionary funding of $4.871 billion and mandatory funding of $535 million. The Reimbursed Program funding is projected to involve an additional $2 billion to $3 billion. 

Direct Program 

The Budget reflects the Administration’s commitment to continued sound development and management of the nation’s water and related land resources. It proposes 

to give the Corps the flexibility and responsibility within each major watershed to 

use these funds to carry out priority maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitations. The 

Budget incorporates objective performance-based metrics for the construction program, funds the continued operation of commercial navigation and other water resource infrastructure, provides an increase in funding for the regulatory program to 

protect the Nation’s waters and wetlands, and supports restoration of nationally and 

regionally significant aquatic ecosystems, with emphasis on the Florida Everglades 

and the Upper Mississippi River. It also would improve the quality of recreation 

services through stronger partnerships and modernization. Additionally, it emphasizes the need to fund emergency preparedness activities for the Corps as part of 

the regular budget process. 

Reimbursed Program 

Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Services Program we help nonDOD Federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, and other countries 

with timely, cost-effective implementation of their programs, while maintaining and 

enhancing capabilities for execution of our Civil and Military Program missions. 

These customers rely on our extensive capabilities, experience, and successful track 

record. The work is principally technical oversight and management of engineering, 

environmental, and construction contracts performed by private sector firms, and is 

financed by the customers. 

Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 60 other Federal agencies 

and several state and local governments. Total reimbursement for such work in 

FY08 is projected to be $2.0 billion to $3.0 billion. The exact amount will depend 

on assignments received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

for hurricane disaster relief and from the Department of Homeland Security for border protection facilities. 

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

The goal of the construction program is to produce as much value as possible for 

the Nation from available funds. The Budget furthers this objective by giving priority to the continued construction and completion of those water resources projects 

that will provide the best net returns on the nation’s investment for each dollar invested (Federal plus non-Federal) in the Corps primary mission areas. The Budget 

also gives priority to projects that address a significant risk to human safety, notwithstanding their economic performance. Under these guidelines, the Corps allocated funding to 69 construction projects, including 6 national priority projects; 11 

other dam safety assurance, seepage control, and static instability correction 

projects; and 52 other ongoing projects. 
33 

The Budget uses objective performance measures to establish priorities among 

projects, and through a change in Corps contracting practices to increase control 

over future costs. The measures proposed include the benefit-to-cost ratios for 

projects with economic outputs; the extent to which the project cost-effectively contributes to the restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem 

that has become degraded as a result of a Civil Works project or to an aquatic ecosystem restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited; and 

giving priority to dam safety assurance, seepage control, static instability correction, 

and projects that address a significant risk to human safety. Resources are allocated 

based on Corps estimates to achieve the highest net economic and environmental 

returns and to address significant risk to human safety. This approach significantly 

improves the realization of benefits to the Nation from the Civil Works construction 

program and will improve overall program performance by bringing higher net benefits per dollar to the Nation sooner. 

Maintenance Program 

The facilities owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the Civil Works Program 

are aging. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are working to ensure that its key 

features continue to provide an appropriate level of service to the nation. Sustaining 

such service poses a technical challenge in some cases, and proper operation and 

maintenance also is becoming more expensive as this infrastructure ages. 

The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program for the FY08 Budget consists of 

$2.471 billion in the Operation and Maintenance account and $158 million under 

the Mississippi River and Tributaries program, with a focus on the maintenance of 

key commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, hydropower, and 

other facilities. Specifically, the operation and maintenance program supports the 

operation, maintenance, repair and security of existing commercial navigation, flood 

and storm damage reduction, and hydropower works owned and operated by, or on 

behalf of, the Corps of Engineers, including administrative buildings and laboratories. Funds are also included in this program for national priority efforts in the 

Columbia River Basin and Missouri River Basin to support the continued operation 

of Corps of Engineers multi-purpose projects by meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Other work to be accomplished includes dredging, repair, 

aquatic plant control, removal of sunken vessels, monitoring of completed costal 

projects, and operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in the various River and Harbor, Flood Control, and Water Resources Development Acts. 

VALUE OF THE CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM TO THE NATION’S ECONOMY AND DEFENSE

We are privileged to be part of an organization that directly supports the President’s priorities of winning the global war on terror, securing the homeland and contributing to the economy. 

The National Welfare 

The way in which we manage our water resources can improve the quality of our 

citizens’ lives. It has affected where and how people live and influenced the development of this country. The country today seeks economic development as well as the 

protection of environmental values. 

Domestically, USACE personnel from across the nation continue to respond to the 

call to help re-construct and improve the hurricane and storm damage reduction 

system for southeast Louisiana. The critical work they are doing will reduce the risk 

of future storms to people and communities in the region. 

Over the past year, Corps dams, levees and reservoirs again provided billions of 

dollars in flood damage reduction and protected lives, homes and businesses in 

many parts of the nation following heavy rains. 

Mr. Chairman, we will continue to work with you, this subcommittee, and other 

members of Congress on the ongoing study, and the authorization and funding proposed by the Administration, for modifications to the existing hurricane protection 

system for New Orleans. The Budget’s recommendation, as part of an FY 2007 Supplemental appropriations package, to re-allocate up to $1.3 billion of emergency supplemental appropriations enacted in FY 2006 will enable the Corps to use available, 

unobligated funds for measures that will provide a better overall level of protection 

for the New Orleans metropolitan area in the near-term. 

Research and Development 

Civil Works Program research and development provides the nation with innovative engineering products, some of which can have applications in both civil and 

military infrastructure spheres. By creating products that improve the efficiency 

and competitiveness of the nation’s engineering and construction industry and pro-
34 

viding more cost-effective ways to operate and maintain infrastructure, Civil Works 

Program research and development contributes to the national economy. 

The National Defense 

Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to support the mission to help Iraq and Afghanistan build foundations for democracy, freedom and 

prosperity. 

Many USACE civilians—each of whom is a volunteer—and Soldiers are providing 

engineering expertise, quality construction management, and program and project 

management in those nations. The often unsung efforts of these patriotic men and 

women contribute daily toward this nation’s goals of restoring the economy, security 

and quality of life for all Iraqis and Afghanis. 

In Iraq, the Gulf Region Division has overseen the initiation of more than 4,200 reconstruction projects valued in excess of $7.14 billion. Of those, more than 3,200 

projects have been completed. 

These projects provide employment and hope for the Iraqi people. They are visible 

signs of progress. 

In Afghanistan, the Corps is spearheading a comprehensive infrastructure program for the Afghan national army, and is also aiding in important public infrastructure projects. 

CONCLUSION

The Corps of Engineers is committed to staying at the leading edge of service to 

the Nation. In support of that, I have worked to transform our Civil Works Program. We’re committed to change that ensures an open, transparent, and performance-based Civil Works Program. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This concludes my 

statement. 

RESPONSES BY HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL A. 

STROCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR ALEXANDER

Question 1. I have heard that Wolf Creek and Center Hill Dams were built above 

caves and on an eroding limestone base, called karst, and I understand that this 

kind of geology when exposed to water permits seepage over time. Is that true? If 

so, how serious are the structural problems at these dams? Is there potential for 

failure of these dams upstream of Nashville? 

Response. General Strock.—Although considered adequate in the 1940s, the foundation preparation of both Wolf Creek and Center Hill Dams was eventually discovered to be inadequate for the karst geology. The Corps (Nashville District) has closely monitored the serious foundation seepage since sinkholes first appeared at Wolf 

Creek in the late 1960s. From close monitoring of hundreds of foundation monitoring instruments placed throughout the dams in the early 1970s and in consideration of the extensive interim risk reduction measures currently in place, we have 

concluded imminent failure is unlikely at either project. These instruments indicate, 

however, that seepage is slowly increasing and continued erosion is occurring. The 

probability of ultimate failure is unacceptably high, particularly given the consequences of failure. Therefore, the Corps has implemented an aggressive risk management program designed to ensure the safety of the dams. This program includes 

increased inspection, monitoring, public awareness, emergency preparedness, pool 

reductions and accelerated design and construction of the remedial repairs. Until 

such time as permanent repairs are made, the dams are being characterized as unsafe. 

Question 2. I understand that you have recently lowered water levels at Wolf 

Creek and Center Hill dams and that the reduction in water levels at the dams will 

result in an extra cost of $100 million a year in replacement of power costs. I also 

understand that repairs at Wolf Creek and Center Hill will take approximately 6 

to 7 years. Is that true? Should or can anything be done to accelerate the repairs 

at Wolf Creek and Center Hill? 

Response. General Strock.—The Corps has lowered Lake Cumberland (Wolf Creek 

Dam) to elevation 680, 43 feet below normal summer pool. Center Hill Dam is currently maintained about 10 to 15 feet lower than normal. This is entirely a risk 

management decision because it is impossible to predict, with certainty, the extent 

of the ongoing effects that continued seepage is having on the foundation. This is 

one more step in a monitoring process that has been ongoing for years. We constantly monitor and assess the condition of the dam and will take all necessary 

measures to ensure public safety. The Southeastern Power Administration esti-
35 

mated the lowered pools would increase the cost of power $100 million per year due 

to the need to use fossil fuel as a replacement for lost hydropower. 

The repairs for Wolf Creek and Center Hill will take 6 to 7 years, but our team 

is currently looking for options to expedite the construction with anticipation of reducing the total time required. The length of construction is not a function of funding, but a function of physically carrying out the design and construction. Repairing 

these dams is a high priority with the Administration and, to date, we have received 

all funds needed to progress at the fastest pace feasible. 

Question 3. Are these repairs classified as safety repairs for flood control or 

project repairs for production of hydroelectric power? If the repairs are classified as 

safety related, does that affect the costs born by ratepayers? Do safety repairs result 

in a different cost share relationship between the Corps of Engineers and the power 

distributors? 

Response. Mr. Woodley.—The Corps has two programs under which safety-related 

remediation above a certain cost threshold may be performed. These are the Dam 

Safety Assurance (DSA) program, carried out pursuant to section 1203 (a) of Public 

Law 99–662 (Water Resources Development Act of 1986), and the Major Rehabilitation program, carried out under the authority of the Chief of Engineers to maintain 

projects constructed by the Corps. Within the Major Rehabilitation program is a 

subset of activities called the Dam Safety-Related Major Rehabilitation (DS Major 

Rehab) program, which includes control of seepage and instability and is treated 

with the same priority as the DSA program. Funds are available in the Construction 

account’s ‘‘Dam Safety and Seepage and Instability Corrections’’ line item for both 

the DSA program and the safety-related projects under the DS Major Rehab program to ensure that critical work is not delayed due to lack of funding. Wolf Creek 

Dam and Center Hill Dam currently are being remediated under the DS Major 

Rehab authority. The main differences between the two programs are the types of 

dam deficiencies they address and the cost-sharing terms. Since the 1986 enactment 

of section 1203, the Army has implemented the DSA authority for modifications to 

address new hydrologic or seismic data, although the authority also may be used 

to address changes in the state-of-the-art design or construction criteria deemed necessary for safety purposes. For modifications addressed under the DSA authority, 

fifteen percent of the modification cost is recovered from Non-Federal interests in 

accord with the cost sharing in effect at the time of initial project construction. For 

modifications addressed under the Major Rehabilitation program, including seepage 

and instability corrections under the DS Major Rehab program, 100 percent of the 

costs are assigned to project purposes and recovered from Non-Federal interests in 

accord with the cost sharing in effect at the time of initial project construction. For 

the Wolf Creek Dam project, for example, the share of costs assigned to hydropower 

is 55 percent. Since the modification is under the DS Major Rehab program, the 

amount to be recovered from non-Federal hydropower interests is $170 million. If 

the modification were carried out under the DSA program, the amount to be recovered from hydropower interests would be $25.5 million. 

RESPONSES BY HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL A. 

STROCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CARDIN

Question 1. Mr. Woodley, I have a very parochial issue that I’d like to raise with 

you. To some this may seem like a minor issue, but to the people affected, I can 

assure you that it is important indeed. The Town of Chesapeake City, Maryland, 

sits astride the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, which is the shipping channel that 

connects Delaware Bay to the Chesapeake Bay. Originally, Chesapeake City had a 

drinking water line that ran under the C&D Canal. When the Corps of Engineers 

deepened and widened the Canal several decades ago, the Corps removed Chesapeake City’s water line, essentially leaving the community with two separate water 

treatment and distribution systems. In the 1999 WRDA bill, Congress authorized 

the Corps to evaluate the town’s claim of damage to its water supply system. The 

Philadelphia District Engineer determined in September 2003 that replacing the 

water line and making the system whole again was appropriate and he recommended that mitigation package. Since that time, Corps Headquarters has refused to compensate the Town pending ‘‘additional documentation to support its 

claim.’’ Mr. Woodley, the Town of Chesapeake City has a population of 735 people. 

Some of the issues surrounding this issue go back decades, and the tiny town staff 

does not have the resources to undertake extensive additional research. You already 

have a District Engineer report that clearly determined the validity of the compensation. That report contains a statement from Corps Counsel that the report was 

fully reviewed and approved. Can I have your assurance that the Corps will waive 
36 

any additional requests for documentation and get on with making Chesapeake 

City’s water system whole again? 

Response. The specific issue at hand is not whether the Town of Chesapeake City 

deserved compensation for damages to its water system. As compensation, the 

Corps, at Federal expense, provided the town with a water tower and a modification 

to its distribution system. The issue raised with the 1999 authority is whether additional compensation is necessary. In January 2004, as part of the review process for 

the decision document under the 1999 authority, the Corps headquarters 

(HQUSACE) determined that the information provided in the report did not adequately support the recommendation that additional compensation is required. Recently, the Corps, the Town, and your staff have been working to bring this matter 

to closure. Information that has been provided by the Town is being used to address 

the outstanding HQUSACE review comments. I am hopeful that the information 

provided is sufficient to reach closure. Should the Corps provide the report to me 

for a decision, I assure you that I will act quickly on the recommendations. 

Question 2. General Strock, what is the status of the feasibility study on the MidChesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project? Specifically, I would like to 

know: Aside from questions which may arise during your considerations, do you 

have all information, reports necessary for processing a Chief’s Report for the MidBay Islands project? What procedural steps remain before the Corps can issue a 

Chief’s Report? What is your current schedule for issuing a Chief’s Report for the 

Mid-Bay Islands project, and if the project is reviewed by the Review Board on July 

19th, can you issue a Chief’s Report before Labor Day? 

Response. Sir, we do not have sufficient information to process a Chief’s Report 

at this time. The Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, is currently addressing 

comments from our Headquarters and modifying the information included in its 

draft feasibility report. This revised information will be included in a presentation 

before the Corps of Engineers Civil Works review Board. Subject to approval by the 

Board, the feasibility report is distributed for a 30-day State and agency review. 

Once any comments are addressed, the final Chief’s Report is prepared and signed. 

This process will likely take longer to produce a final report than by Labor Day; 

however, I am committed to ensuring that this process moves forward as expeditiously as practicable. 

Question 3. One of the many lessons of Hurricane Katrina was the tremendous 

cost, both human and financial, associated with the failure to make timely investments in hurricane protection. More than two decades ago, local, state, and Federal 

officials reached an agreement to share in the costs of providing hurricane protection to the Town of Ocean City on Maryland’s Atlantic Coast. The purpose of the 

Atlantic Coast of Maryland Hurricane Protection Project is not to protect a recreational beach, but to provide hurricane protection for the citizen’s of Worcester 

County and the $3 billion in public and private infrastructure in the area. Since its 

completion in 1991, the project has repeatedly demonstrated its worth by preventing 

an estimated $230 million in damages from storms over the years. Without this 

project, the Federal government would have been faced with the financial responsibility of helping to rebuild Ocean City and its infrastructure after storms. Why does 

the Administration keep cutting funding for the annual surveys and periodic renourishment of this project, even though the project is not a recreational ‘‘beach’’ 

project? 

Response. Mr. Woodley.—The Administration continues to support Federal participation in initial construction, but not in re-nourishment. The Administration’s 

position is that such re-nourishment is more appropriately a non-Federal responsibility, except in the cases of projects authorized to mitigate the shoreline impacts 

of Federal navigation projects. 

Question 4. State and local authorities made the initial financial investments in 

the project and executed agreements committing to a 47 percent non-federal share 

of the periodic nourishment costs in good faith and according to law, with the expectation that the Federal government would meet its commitment to the project. Don’t 

you think that changing the rules at this time and terminating federal support is 

unfair to the State and local community? 

Response. Mr. Woodley.—Funds available for the Civil Works program are limited, and re-nourishment at storm damage reductions is a low budget priority. This 

policy is applied uniformly to all projects in like circumstances. 
37 

RESPONSES BY HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL A. 

STROCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOND

Question 1. Questions during the hearing were raised to suggest that upstream 

lake levels are low. Is it not true that there currently is an historic drought in the 

basin and can you describe the extent of the drought? 

Response. General Strock.—The Missouri River Basin is currently experiencing 

the 8th year of drought conditions, the worst drought since the Missouri River 

Mainstem Reservoir System (System) was filled in 1967. Total System storage 

reached a record low of 33.9 million acre-feet (MAF) on February 9, 2007. The three 

upper mainstem reservoirs, Fort Peck, Garrison, and Oahe, have experienced record 

low pool levels of 2196.2 mean sea level (msl), 1805.8 msl, and 1570.2 msl, respectively. 

Question 2. Is the historic drought a reality that the Assistant Secretary may consider mentioning when discussing the current predicament faced by the entire 

basin? 

Response. Mr. Woodley.—Yes, this historic drought is a reality based upon data 

I have seen, and I frequently mention the length and scope of the drought when 

discussing the current challenges faced by the entire Missouri River Basin. 

Question 3. The Corps undertook a decade-plus long process to revise the Master 

Manual. Did the Corps not modify the manual to provide additional water for lake 

storage at the expense of traditional downstream needs deemed priorities by the 8th 

Circuit Court of Appeal in the case of Operation of the Missouri River System Litigation decided on August 6, 2005, which the Supreme Court refused to consider on 

appeal and issued that decision on April 24, 2006? 

Response. General Strock.—The Corps is authorized to manage the water in the 

System for multiple project purposes including navigation, flood control, hydropower, fish and wildlife, water supply, irrigation, recreation, and water quality. The 

level of service to be provided to the various project purposes was the subject of intense study for more than 14 years during the Master Water Control Manual Review and Update (Review and Update) process. The Master Manual includes what 

are termed ‘‘drought conservation measures’’ designed to conserve water in the System during extended drought. The ‘‘drought conservation measures’’ include shortening the navigation season length and reducing releases to support navigation during extended droughts, and suspending navigation service when the volume of water 

stored in the System is below what is termed the ‘‘navigation preclude’’ level. 

The Master Manual was revised in 2004 to include more stringent drought conservation measures. Since 2004, this has resulted in shorter navigation seasons and 

lower releases to support navigation as compared to what would have occurred 

under the provisions of the previous Master Manual. The shorter navigation seasons 

and lower releases have retained more water in the System since 2004 than would 

have been the case under the previous Master Manual. 

The navigation preclude level in the previous Master Manual was set at 21 MAF. 

The 2004 Master Manual revision increased that level to 31 MAF. The water stored 

in the System has not fallen below the 31 MAF navigation preclude since the revision in 2004. Therefore, that change to the previous Master Manual has had no effect during the current drought. 

The Master Manual was again revised in 2006 to include provisions for a ‘spring 

pulse’, as required by the 2003 Amended Biological Opinion for the Missouri River 

Mainstem System. 

On June 21, 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota 

issued a decision in a series of consolidated cases by Basin states, tribes and stakeholders challenging the 2004 Revised Master Manual and the 2003 Amended Biological Opinion for the Missouri River Mainstem System. The District Court’s decision by Judge Paul A. Magnuson upheld both the revised Master Manual and 2003 

Amended Biological Opinion. On August 6, 2005 the United States Court of Appeals 

in a consolidated opinion affirmed Judge Magnuson’s decision. Subsequent petitions 

for certiorari were denied by the United States Supreme Court. 

Question 4. It was suggested that water releases exist to provide Missouri River 

navigation. While that is also true, can you please describe how releases are also 

provided to support endangered species protection, drinking water supply, hydro energy production, downstream energy production cooling capacity and Mississippi 

River navigation not only Missouri River navigation as suggested? 

Response. General Strock.—Releases are made from the System to support numerous downstream economic uses and support environmental resources, including 

Federally listed species and the habitats they use. Along with navigation, economic 

uses include river recreation, municipal and industrial water supply (including cool-
38 

ing water for thermal power plants), and irrigation. The availability of sufficient 

quantities of water to meet all of the authorized and required economic and environmental uses has been a significant challenge to manage during the current 8-year 

long drought. The resulting low water levels in the mainstem reservoirs and river 

stretches in between have led to concerns about the ability of thermal power plants 

to meet water quality standards for cooling water discharges to the river. Considerable investments have been made by several power plant operators to modify their 

intake structures so that they can function under low water conditions. System 

water releases are also managed to protect threatened and endangered bird species 

that nest primarily on river islands below the reservoirs during the summer 

months. The extent to which low water levels affects the pallid sturgeon is not well 

known, however, in accordance with a Biological Opinion developed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service under certain hydrological conditions water is pulsed from System reservoirs to simulate a ‘‘spring rise’’ that would have occurred pre-impoundment condition. This action is thought to trigger the pallid sturgeon to mate and 

reproduce. 

Question 5. Are these multiple uses a reality that the Assistant Secretary may 

consider mentioning when discussing the suggestion that lake levels should be 

maximized? 

Response. General Strock.—Yes, the multiple uses are a reality and are included 

in discussions regarding reservoir levels because the System must be managed to 

serve the multiple project purposes as authorized by Congress. 

Question 6. During this drought, is it true that significant reductions have imposed upon navigation, and that pain in not limited to recreational fishing tournaments? 

Response. General Strock.—The extended drought has negatively impacted all 

project purposes throughout the Basin, with the exception of flood damage reduction, and likewise has affected many of the people that live and work in the Basin. 

There have been impacts to commercial and recreational navigation, water supply 

from both the river reaches and the reservoirs (including irrigation), hydropower, 

upstream fisheries and general recreation along river reaches and the reservoirs. 

Question 7. During this drought, is it true that reductions have placed burdens 

on large urban downstream water supply and all other downstream needs? 

Response. General Strock.—Considerable investments have been made by water 

supply entities in the lower river to modify their intake structures to function during the low water conditions that exist during a drought. Water supply entities in 

St. Joseph, Missouri and in both Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas 

have modified their intakes to ensure operation at lower river levels. 

RESPONSES BY HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL A. 

STROCK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. General Strock, we heard some comments at the hearing explaining 

a belief that we must legislatively ‘‘reform’’ the Army Corps of Engineers. Could you 

please describe any internal changes that have already been taking place at the 

Corps during your tenure as Chief? 

Response. General Strock.—The Corps has taken significant internal steps to improve our processes and products. What follows is a brief description of some of 

these actions: 

We have embraced External peer review. In May 2005, we published external review guidance as required by the Office of Management and Budget bulletin on 

independent peer review. 

The most significant features of this guidance are: 

• External review is required for projects that involve high risk, complexity, or 

precedent-setting approaches. The decision to subject a particular study to external 

review is made within the Corp’s vertical chain of command, with consideration 

given to public comment. The decision ultimately rests with the Chief of Engineers. 

• When appropriate, external review will be built into a study through a review 

plan that is integral to the overall study plan. Review Plans are established early 

in the study process, and adapted as warranted throughout the life of the study. 

• Review plans are to be posted on a web site for public review and scrutiny. If 

the public believes external review is appropriate they will be able to tell us that. 

• When external review will be incorporated into a project study, the selection 

of reviewers will follow National Academy of Science procedures (this follows directly with guidance in the OMB bulletin). 
39 

• We are currently working on a contract to get a third party independent organization in place to run the selection and administration of external panels completely independent of the Corps. 

• Technical review that takes place within the Corps is executed through the 

Planning Centers of Expertise, outside of the home district responsible for the 

project study. 

• All review and response must be completed prior to release of the report for 

State and Agency Review. 

We have also been incorporating external reviews into significant water resources 

projects where the nature of the project setting or the path-breaking nature of the 

activity demand using external review: Some notable examples are: the navigation 

studies on the Upper Mississippi River System, Columbia River, Delaware River, 

and the Port of Iberia; the ecosystem restoration studies in the Louisiana Coastal 

Area and Everglades (both have extensive peer review organizations established and 

have had NRC reviews as well); and the Seven Oaks Dam and Folsom Dam. Each 

external review process has been unique, tailored to the specific circumstances of 

the study. 

We are moving forward on fish and wildlife mitigation reforms. 

• We are developing a mitigation tracking system that will effectively track compensatory mitigation required for Civil Works projects. This mitigation tracking system will use the new system and concepts developed for the Corps Regulatory Program. Regulatory program and Corps project mitigation would be tracked in a comparable manner. For both regulatory and Civil Works projects, the system is focused 

on the future. The full capability of the system will be utilized on new actions and 

projects. However, we will also work to capture historic and on-going mitigation activities to the extent practicable. 

• We will use the tracking system to monitor the accomplishment of concurrent 

mitigation, as required by WRDA 86. 

• Through this tracking system we will also assure that mitigation is concurrent 

as required by WRDA 86. We will monitor project development to assure that mitigation is completed as nearly as possible currently the primary project features but 

certainly no later than the next construction season in cases where the nature of 

the project and mitigation features make concurrence physically unachievable. 

We now have a decade and half of Corps project development guidance reform. 

• Our guidance modernization began when Congress added environmental protection and restoration as our mission in 1990. That was our first step beyond the sole 

use of economic criteria. We have been formulating water resource plans under environmental criteria since the early 1990s. We have some of the largest restoration 

projects ongoing such as the Everglades, Coastal Louisiana and a comprehensive 

restoration effort on the Upper Mississippi. 

• In response to General Flowers’ Environmental Operating Principles we added 

guidance for the formulation and recommendation of multipurpose projects based on 

environmental and economic criteria. 

• In May 2005, we issued guidance to move beyond national economic and environmental criteria and added construction criteria that include: regional economic, 

environmental and social objectives. We don’t give one objective priority over the 

others, but seek to work collaboratively with sponsors to achieve the best balance 

of all these criteria. 

• Our current project development model is one that seeks comprehensive solutions to the range of community problems touching water resources. We are looking 

to bring in other Federal agencies and define all agency roles in the process. We 

are founding our planning on systems and watershed approaches to develop holistic 

and contemporary solutions. 

We have implemented and continue to pursue an aggressive program of improvements to our planning procedures and methods. The main features of this initiative 

are: 

• Intensive training of all our planners and planning disciplines of economics, environmental compliance, plan formulation and planning management 

• Revival of our Planning Associates Program to give planning leaders intensive 

year long training in the full range of planning activities throughout the Nation. 

• Alliances with several universities to develop Masters programs in Water Resources. Six of our employees have already completed these graduate degrees and 

over eight more are nearing completion. 

• Creation of six planning centers of expertise to ensure competent planning capacity in difficult and challenging planning fields 

• Creation of the Office of Water Project Review in the Headquarters, but with 

complete independence from project development functions 
40 

• Established a standing Washington-level Civil Works Review Board comprised 

of General Officers and Headquarters Senior Executives, Chaired by the Deputy 

Chief of Engineers, to review each pre-authorization project proposal before it is determined to be ready for formal State and Agency review. 

• Creation of a model certification program to ensure external review of our planning models. 

We have learned from the painful experiences of Katrina and Rita and have embarked on fundamental changes in the Corps. In August 2006, I outlined 12 interrelated actions to improve public safety and the quality of the Nation’s Corps of Engineers water resources infrastructure, the quality of life for our service personnel 

and their families, and the way we communicate risk to our stakeholders and customers. These 12 Actions for Change will involve changing our methods and thinking and will require devoting resources to improve our products and services. These 

12 Actions are grouped in three overarching themes: Implementing a Comprehensive Systems Approach; Communications; and Reliable Public Service Professionalism. 

Question 2. Secretary Woodley’s testimony notes that the budget request does not 

include funding for projects outside the main mission areas of the Corps and cites 

wastewater treatment activities as an example. While I certainly agree that there 

is an incredible amount of need for environmental infrastructure across the country, 

I have maintained that the Corps is not the most appropriate agency to handle 

these needs. Is there in fact any reason why the Corps would be uniquely well-suited, from either a technical or policy perspective, to play a large role in this area? 

Or would it make more sense to leave this as a state and local responsibility with 

some financial assistance from the EPA and to a lesser extent USDA for small communities? 

Response. General Strock.—It is true that the Corps technical expertise to execute 

these types of programs is not unique, and that there are numerous Federal programs involved in helping to address community water supply and water treatment 

needs. 

Question 3. This year’s budget includes $10 million to continue to inventory and 

assess the nation’s levees. Last year’s WRDA bill included authorization language 

for this purpose. Could you please discuss how you are proceeding with this inventory and assessment and how that does or does not match up with the Senate’s authorizing language? 

Response. General Strock.—The initial funding for the inventory and assessment 

were provided by Public Law 109–148, ‘‘Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and Pandemic 

Influenza Act, 2006.’’ The additional $10 million proposed for FY 2008 would be carried out in accordance with Section 105, a general provision proposed in the budget, 

which would provide as follows: ‘‘The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 

Chief of Engineers, is authorized to inventory Federal and non-Federal flood and 

storm damage reduction projects across the nation; develop and test a methodology 

to assess the structural and operational integrity of such projects and the associated 

risks; and establish and maintain a database of such projects, including information 

on their structural and operational integrity and the parties responsible for their 

operation and maintenance.’’ Carried-over funds in FY 2007 and $10 million in the 

FY 2008 budget would enable the completion of the inventory for approximately 90 

percent of the Corps program levees (levees that are operated and maintained by 

the Corps, levees that were federally authorized and transferred to others for operation and maintenance, or private levees where the owner has met the requirements 

to participate in the Corps Rehabilitation and Inspection Program), development 

and beta testing of the levee assessment methodology, and initiation of assessments 

for a few high risk levees. 

From our interpretation, the $50 million proposed for authorization in the WRDA 

bill would be to ‘‘develop, maintain, and periodically publish an inventory of levees?’’ 

and would be used to complete an inventory of not only the Corps program levees 

as defined above, but also to inventory private levees not in the Rehabilitation and 

Inspection Program, levees owned by other federal agencies, and non-Corps program 

levees in the National Flood Insurance Program. It is also our understanding that 

the funding in WRDA would be for levee assessments, which would be conducted 

using the assessment methodology developed with funds in 2006–2007. The assessments would be performed using the levee inventory data collected using the 2006 

supplemental, 2008, and proposed $50M funding. 

Question 4. Secretary Woodley, it is now nearly 9 months after the Supreme 

Court’s Rapanos decision regarding the definition of navigable waterways. The 
41 

Corps has been working with EPA to develop a guidance document interpreting the 

decision. When will the guidance be issued? 

Response. Mr. Woodley.—Interagency guidance was released on June 5, 2007 by 

my office and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to the guidance itself, the agencies also released key points, a news release, a Jurisdictional 

Determination Form and Instructional Guidebook (with photographs and drawings), 

a Regulatory Guidance Letter on documenting jurisdictional determinations under 

the Rapanos Guidance, and a memorandum to the field that establishes an expedited process for elevating any interagency disputes over jurisdictional determinations. 

Question 5. I am very supportive of the concept mentioned in your testimony of 

allowing the Corps to use the fees it collects to operate, maintain and improve recreation opportunities. In fact, we had language to do just that in the WRDA bill reported from this Committee last Congress. Unfortunately, we ran into budget scoring problems and had to remove it during floor consideration. I don’t expect those 

scoring issues to disappear, so maybe we need to look at other ways of improving 

the recreation experience, such as through public-private partnerships. 

• Could you please describe how the Corps can or does encourage such partnerships? 

• What Corps policies or procedures do you see as the biggest inhibitors to such 

partnerships and what can be done to overcome these obstacles? Can it be done administratively or do you need legislative guidance? 

Response. Mr. Woodley.—Public-private partnerships can be important elements 

that support the needs of our natural resources management and recreation programs. When crafted appropriately, they can provide a means of enriching services 

to the public and fostering long term stewardship for public lands and waters. Public-private partnerships build positive relationships and are useful in leveraging 

funds. We need to be sure that the overall public interest is best served in any public-private partnership. 

It is the Corps policy to use partnerships to enhance its programs and to help 

achieve excellence. 

The Corps has the authority to enter into agreements with cooperating associations in an effort to aid operations related to natural resources management, interpretive and visitor service activities. For example, associations operate bookstores 

on-site, purchase equipment and materials for use at Corps projects, and conduct 

and/or fund programs. By having associations, the Corps has developed partnerships 

with communities and improved communication among local constituencies. As an 

example, one community donated conceptual drawings for an amphitheater and 

raised funds, donated materials and successfully secured grants to assist in its construction. 

The Corps has authority to accept contributions, donations, volunteer services, 

supplies, and enter into challenge partnership (cost-share) agreements with non-federal public and private groups and individuals to participate in the operation and/ 

or management of recreation facilities and natural resources at Corps water resource development projects. Examples include construction of various types of 

trails, universally accessible facilities and wetland restoration. 

The Corps also uses memorandums of understanding to work with national organizations like The Nature Conservancy, the International Mountain Bicycling Association and U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary on mutually beneficial programs and 

projects. 

These authorities are not being applied in a consistent manner throughout the 

Corps, resulting in confusion and discouragement among potential partners. The 

Corps also lacks partnership authorities available to other federal natural resources 

agencies. A more comprehensive, coherent and consistent approach to this program 

is currently under development to eliminate these issues as impediments to an effective program. As part of this effort, the Corps is exploring both administrative and 

legislative means that may be needed to enhance public-private partnerships. Welldefined authorities that establish consistent legal and policy interpretations and result in a streamlined process are the goals of this effort. 

Question 6a. Your testimony identified a few items the Administration intends to 

send to the Congress at some point in the future. Could you please give me at least 

a rough estimate of when you expect to send the following documents to us: The 

Five-Year Development Plan? 

Response. Mr. Woodley.—We plan to submit the plan in the third quarter of FY 

2007. The plan was delayed by the extraordinary work load associated with the various continuing resolutions. 
42 

Question 6b. Legislation to require barges on the inland waterways to pay a user 

fee? 

Response. Mr. Woodley.—The proposal is still under development. We plan to submit a legislative proposal to the authorizing Committees, following consultation with 

users of the system and other Federal agencies. 

Question 6c. The legislative framework reflecting the Administration’s priorities 

for a WRDA bill? 

Response. Mr. Woodley.—The Administration plans to issue a ‘‘Statement of Administration Position’’ (SAP) before floor consideration in both the House and Senate. Additionally, we look forward to working with the House and Senate conferees 

during the conference process. 

Question 7. Your testimony notes that the budget request does not include funding 

for projects outside the main mission areas of the Corps and cites wastewater treatment activities as an example. While I certainly agree that there is an incredible 

amount of need for environmental infrastructure across the country, I have maintained that the Corps is not the most appropriate agency to handle these needs. Is 

there in fact any reason why the Corps would be uniquely well-suited, from either 

a technical or policy perspective, to play a large role in this area? Or would it make 

more sense to leave this as a state and local responsibility with some financial assistance from the EPW and to a lesser extent USDA for small communities? 

Response. Mr. Woodley.—I agree with the Chief’s assessment that the Corps technical expertise to execute these types of programs is not unique, and that there are 

numerous other federal programs that address community needs for water supply 

and water quality infrastructure. 

Question 8. There has been discussion about which Federal Agency should pay for 

the Modified Water Deliveries project in Florida. Does the Administration still propose to have the Corps and the National Park Service share equally in the cost of 

this project? I see that the Corps budget includes $35 million—is there a similar 

amount included in the Parks Service budget this year? 

Response. Mr. Woodley.—The Administration has not proposed to have the Corps 

and the National Park Service share equally in the costs of this project. For example, the National Park Service (NPS) Fiscal Year 2008 budget for the Modified 

Water Deliveries project is $14,536,000, while the amount for the Corps is $35 million. As indicated in the Corps budget justification for this project, the Administration has not yet decided how to propose allocating the costs beyond FY 2008. 

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. To be candid, I am a bit disgusted and certainly disappointed at the trend often of major witnesses to say virtually nothing, because they don’t want to get in 

trouble and say things that might be controversial and so forth, 

and just wait for Senators to ask questions. 

I don’t know if that is the intent or not, but it is a trend I have 

noticed over the years, with lots of Administration officials in the 

last 3, 4 or 5 years. I will strike the word ‘‘disgusted,’’ but I am 

disappointed as one member of the U.S. Senate. 

I would like to talk to you a little bit, Mr. Secretary, about the 

Missouri River. 

Mr. WOODLEY. We could get into some controversy over that, 

Senator. 

Senator BAUCUS. Yes, but you didn’t say anything about it. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I have plenty to say. 

Senator BAUCUS. The problem is this. According to the Corps’ 

own estimates, recreation in the Upper Missouri River Basin generates about $87 million a year in economic activity. By contrast, 

according to the Corps’ own studies, navigation on the Lower Missouri generates only $7 million a year—$87 million to $7 million. 

We in Montana are in the seventh year of drought. In fact, there 

is a joke in Montana that if the boat ramps out to the lake, because 

it is so low now, at Fort Peck get any longer, we will have to apply 

for funding under the Highway bill. It is almost a mile long at 
43 

some places, the boat ramps, because the water levels are so low. 

They are just dropping, dropping, dropping. 

In fact, the water level right now on that lake, I think it is about, 

I don’t have the figures right here. According to the Corps’ rules, 

our current storage of 34 million acre-feet is just 2 million lower 

than last year, and it is 20 million acre-feet below average. The 

Fort Peck water levels are expected to be 33 feet below average, a 

record low, this year. That is because you are dropping the water 

out of it for the barge folks downstream. 

Your own studies show that recreation upstream is $87 million, 

whereas barge economic value downstream is only $7 million. 

Now, this is a little bit like what Senator Voinovich is saying 

about the Great Lakes in the Missouri. It sounds to me that your 

priorities are out of whack. Right now, the Corps’ general rule is 

8- to 6-month navigation season on the river, and right now the 

master manual calls for an 8-month navigation season on the river. 

If the total storage system falls below 36.5 million, the season can 

be shortened to 6 months, and the navigation season is canceled if 

the water storage falls below 31 million. 

I might also add that fishing is a huge, big recreation on the Fort 

Peck Reservoir. We have the annual walleye tournament. It has 

fallen 50 percent. You can’t fish on the lake any more, for all intents and purposes, because you have lowered the lake pool levels 

so low to accommodate barge traffic downstream. 

So I am asking you, doesn’t it make more sense to devote your 

resources according to your studies that show that the economic 

value of higher pool levels is a lot higher than the economic value 

of the low pool levels? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Senator, that is something that will have to be 

addressed constantly and continually looking into the future. The 

last action that we took was in 2004 to amend our master manual 

in a way that we feel, objectively speaking, provided a lot more 

support to our ability to support recreation over time, than it did 

to navigation. 

Under that master manual, we believe this year we will curtail 

the navigation season by a full 61 days, and that if trends continue, 

next year under that master manual, that is to say in calendar 

year 2008, what we hope for is a good season of precipitation, but 

if we do not receive that, then navigation will not be supported in 

calendar year 2008 under our current master manual. 

Now, have we struck the right balance, Senator? That is for Congress to determine and for the stakeholders and Governors of the 

region to determine over time. We are always interested in understanding how we can strike a better balance, but we are very much 

aware of the imbalance that you described, and are addressing it 

under our current master manual which provides our authority to 

act. 

Senator BAUCUS. So you do agree there is an imbalance? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I think it is fair to say that there is an imbalance, 

yes, sir. 

Senator BAUCUS. Which is to say that the priorities should be 

changed. If there is an imbalance, the priorities should be changed. 
44 

Mr. WOODLEY. I think we should constantly examine whether or 

not that should be, and I must say that the people in the basin 

should be heard from in that regard. 

Senator BAUCUS. If you agree that there is an imbalance, by definition you should agree that on pure policy levels, the priorities 

should be changed, if I hear you correctly. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I think we should always be looking at whether 

we have the right balance, yes, sir. 

Senator BAUCUS. Well. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I can’t declare today that I believe there is an imbalance, because that would take—— 

Senator BAUCUS. You said there was. I don’t mean to be argumentative, but you said there is an imbalance. Didn’t you say there 

is an imbalance? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I think that the question of whether or not we are 

in the right balance should constantly be examined. It may be that 

we are in the wrong balance. That may be. I will admit to that possibility. That is the most I can do. 

Senator BAUCUS. Usually first impressions count, and two or 

three times you have said ‘‘we are imbalanced.’’ So I will take you 

for your word that you think we are imbalanced. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, Senator. 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Woodley, I read in part the announcement between 

Georgia and South Carolina with regard to Jasper County. They 

have both agreed to a bi-State compact in anticipation of developing a bi-State ports authority. They are willing to put the money 

up and pay the cost of a feasibility study. Is there any reason why 

the Corps cannot, since it is being paid for by the States and they 

have reached that agreement, and memorialized it, immediately 

initiate that study? 

Mr. WOODLEY. No reason at all, Senator. I am very, very pleased, 

as you are, to receive news of that agreement. That is an historic 

act on the part of the Governors and we welcome it. We will take 

immediate steps to implement the feasibility study. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you very much. 

You and I have had, and I know you hate to see me coming because of the water control plan. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Not at all, Senator. 

Senator ISAKSON. We have had numerous conversations. I want 

to approach it from a little bit of a different perspective than the 

past. On Monday, I met with 150 residents of the middle Georgia, 

western Georgia area of LaGrange-Troup County, which shares 

with Alabama the West Point Lake. The West Point Lake’s winter 

pool is supposed to be 635. The lake on Monday was at 627. As was 

expressed by Senator Baucus regarding the Missouri River, all the 

boats were on dry land. All the docks were on dry land, and the 

mussels are dying, which are the system that really cleans the 

water. 

In part, the reason for that is the Chattahoochee River and that 

entire basin is being operated under an interim operational plan as 

a response to an endangered species case regarding a sturgeon in 
45 

Florida. We have the largest water supply in the Southeast United 

States for three States being managed by an intermediate operational plan, and have waited 17 years for modernization of the 

water control plan. 

To dramatize the difficulty, the deviations at West Point Lake 

are now 7 feet. The deviations at Lanier are at 1 foot, and at Walter George, 2 feet. Now, I don’t know what the right deviation 

should be, but I know those three all share the same source of 

water. Without a coordinated plan, the operation for all three of 

those is in danger, but in particular right now West Point Lake is 

going dry. 

Now, historically, and I know the Corps controls that for flood 

purposes, but West Point Lake by definition was built as a recreation and economic development entity or infrastructure for that 

part of the State. It is also a flood control, which is a concern, and 

the water levels south in the Chattahoochee River are going toward 

Bainbridge, and then to Florida. 

But it seems to me like, well, it doesn’t seem to me like, if you 

study rainfall and the history of that lake, there was a 2-day period 

where they had 15 inches of rain, when the lake was at full pool, 

635. They had 15 inches of rain in a 24-hour period of time, which 

was a 200-year rainfall, and the lake did not flood. 

Now, the lake is 7 feet lower now than it was then, which tells 

me it could take a whole lot more than is necessary to retain for 

flood control. I know I am making a speech and not asking a question, and I apologize, but I want to get this information in the 

record because I think those people, just like the people in metropolitan Atlanta and just like the people in Alabama, everybody deserves a water supply management program that balances the 

needs of everybody on the river. It means each community has to 

understand the other community, if for no other reason but because 

of riparian rights, deserves the right to be represented. 

So you and I talked privately. We don’t have to get into it. I am 

going to try to address the question you raised to me about the 

plan, but we have to get a water control plan done. The two States 

are not in court right now. The two Governors have started writing 

letters jointly to the Corps in support of getting the water compact. 

We know we have difficulties, but we know this: Without a water 

control plan, there can’t be a compact. It takes 18 months to 24 

months to do a water control plan, which means today the compact 

would only be doable by 2009. 

So in the interests of the people of Alabama and Georgia, and in 

particular today, in the interest of that West Point Lake situation, 

please do everything you can to instigate that water control plan 

and prioritize it in the Corps. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you, Senator. I have long advocated that, 

and I will continue to. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much. 

Senator Vitter. 

I am sorry. Chairman Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, thank you so much. 

Mr. Woodley, I would like to take a moment and talk about a 

critical public health and safety issue in my State: the threat of 
46 

catastrophic flooding faced by the people of Sacramento. I am sure 

you are familiar with it. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I am very familiar with it, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Sacramento is situated at the confluence of two 

great rivers, the American and the Sacramento. This large floodplain is home to nearly 500,000 people and contains 165,000 

homes, 1,300 Government facilities, including our State’s capitol, 

and businesses providing 200,000 jobs. 

Throughout its history, Sacramento residents have lived with 

devastating flooding. The last one was in 1986. The cost was enormous then, and we know a future major flood could cause between 

$7 billion and $16 billion in direct property damage. 

Thankfully, the people of Sacramento, including the Mayor and 

city officials, have worked together with the Corps to help develop 

a plan to greatly improve Sacramento’s flood control. It is the joint 

Federal project at Folsom Dam. We address it in this bill. 

I understand the proposed Folsom Dam improvement project is 

in its final stages of review. I have been told that for a long time. 

I need to get you on the record today. Please, I am begging you, 

what date are you going to give us for the final plan, the final 

project plan? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Let me ask that question, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Maybe General Strock has the answer. 

Mr. WOODLEY. It is something we are going to do as quickly as 

possible. If you wanted a precise date, I will have to ask the General to address that. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, would you do that? 

Thank you, General. 

General STROCK. Yes, ma’am. We do not have a precise date. For 

that, I will have to get back to you on the record on that. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we have been told over and over again, 

May, June. We were told before. We can’t wait anymore. So you 

cannot give me a date. Is it going to be within the next 2 months, 

3 months? What is your outside date? 

General STROCK. Ma’am, I don’t know the answer to that. We 

will just have to take that for the record, ma’am. 

May I inquire specifically which report you are referring to? 

Senator BOXER. The Folsom Dam improvement project, the joint 

Federal project. 

General STROCK. The joint Federal project with the Bureau of 

Reclamation? 

Senator BOXER. Correct. The local people are telling us May, 

June. 

Mr. WOODLEY. That is also what I have heard, Senator, but to 

get you a commitment or a firm date, we will do that. I should be 

able to do that by tomorrow. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I can tell you that we are very anxious to get that 

report done. It is a very big and complex project and complex report. That is very high on our priority list. I have spent a lot of 

time in Sacramento discussing this with the leadership there. We 

are working on it. There are no holdups that I know of that are 

holding it up. 
47 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Woodley, for your positive response. I can only just say, I look over at David Vitter there, and 

I know what he has gone through. I know what Mary Landrieu has 

gone through on behalf of the people. I just know we have to get 

this done. We can get this done. We must get it done. The local 

people seem ready to go. So I am counting on you. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. I have to ask Mr. Woodley a question. I think 

that Senator Vitter would be interested in this because this is responding to the issue of the 17th Street Canal. 

As you know, our committee did go down to New Orleans. We 

went to the 17th Street Canal, the London Avenue Canal, and the 

Orleans Canal. These canals, we understand the Associated Press 

ran a story about the inadequacy of the pumps installed there, and 

that the canals could not have operated at full capacity in the 

event of a hurricane, even if the pumps worked perfectly. 

The Corps’ plan to repair the pumps that are necessary for hurricane protection is kind of like changing a flat tire while the car is 

moving down the freeway. What is the timeframe for a fully operational system of drainage pumps that you can state without reservation will work? And when can we tell the people of New Orleans that their hurricane and flood protection systems will work 

when they are needed? 

Mr. WOODLEY. We will have the pumping capacity up at full capacity by July of this year. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. WOODLEY. My impression of the reports were that they are 

based on a quality control and quality assurance report that was 

issued by a Corps official herself as part of our normal process of 

quality control, and that the actions recommended were in fact 

taken. But the context in which those pumps were being done was 

in a context of creating a maximum level of protection for the 2006 

hurricane season, which began on the first of June. 

Senator BOXER. OK. You gave me a good answer. You said July. 

Now, that is already hurricane season. Is that right? So we can’t 

slip. So we can tell the people of New Orleans that their hurricane 

and flood protection systems will work in those areas because you 

are fixing the pumps by July. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Not only fixing those pumps, but installing other 

pumping capacity. 

Senator BOXER. Good. OK. Well, don’t let it slip because then obviously it is going to be too late. 

Last question, and then I will be leaving my Chairman of the 

subcommittee and his distinguished Ranking Member to have all 

the witnesses to themselves. I hope that you will support the 

WRDA bill. This is really important. We need the Administration 

to back us, to be with us. 

I am going to have a bipartisan strong vote coming out of this 

committee for WRDA. That is why we are not changing it dramatically. We will have a few little adjustments around the edges, but 

even though members are coming up to me and saying, ‘‘Please, 

Senator, we need to do more,’’ we will do more eventually and soon, 

but we have to get your support. 
48 

Do I have that support from this Administration to get the 

WRDA bill done? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, Senator, you do. The concerns that we expressed in a letter I wrote to conferees last fall still express the 

views of the Administration, which are that we see a lot to support 

in the various versions that were being considered in conference. 

We had some reservations as to aspects of it that we were asking 

the conferees to consider, but we were very pleased that the process had gone so far as to enter conference. 

Senator BOXER. Well, if you could just tell the folks over at OMB 

and the rest that we owe this to the American people to protect 

them. The people in Louisiana, they can’t take any more failures. 

We need this bill. The people in all of our States represented up 

here, we need the projects. This is not pork. This is necessary work 

that has to be done, and 6 years in the making. So I hope and I 

pray that we can be bipartisan in this, because this has got to get 

done. 

My last point is a good one, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell Senator 

Voinovich we just did a little homework. We got over to the Budget 

Committee. The Chairman’s mark restored all of the Army Corps 

cuts, so we are going to have a budget that has restored these cuts. 

I am just pleased to inform you of that. 

OK. Thank you. 

General STROCK. Senator Boxer, if I might, I have the answer to 

your question. I was confused on exactly which project you were 

talking about. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

General STROCK. We are doing a post-authorization change order 

on the modifications. That will be ready in June. That will allow 

us, then to process what is called a 902 request when a project exceeds more than 20 percent of its base cost, we must come back to 

you and request a cost increase. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

General STROCK. We expect to be able to bring that forward in 

the July to October timeframe, to let you know exactly how much 

it is going to cost us in addition to what is already authorized. So 

that is the timeframe we are working in. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

General STROCK. We have a very important part of that project 

with the initiation of the bridge that will allow other components 

of the project to move ahead. So the project is moving ahead in the 

right way. 

Senator BOXER. That makes me very pleased. I thank you so 

much. 

Mr. Chairman, I leave you with these words. Thank you for our 

leadership in this area as usual. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator Vitter, you are next. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to focus on two issues specifically: the budget shortfall 

issue, No. 1; and the pumps that we have been talking about, No. 

2. 

So first, the budget shortfall issue. Mr. Secretary, just so everybody is clear, we are talking about emergency post-Katrina work 
49 

in Southeast Louisiana that the President has clearly committed 

to, and that Congress has clearly committed to, basically, the current 100-year standard. Is that correct? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, Senator. 

Senator VITTER. Isn’t it correct that the very clear timetable that 

the President committed to is by 2010? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, Senator. 

Senator VITTER. OK. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I am sorry. Excuse me. I need to be more specific 

on that. The President is committed to the 100-year level of protection. Our goal set by General Strock is to reach that goal if possible 

in the year 2010, and we are straining every nerve and every effort 

to do so. So if there is a difference, that is our operational goal to 

get there. The President wants us to get there as soon as possible. 

We believe we can get there in 2010, but the President has not personally committed to 2010. I want to be very clear on exactly what 

the nature of our commitment is. 

Senator VITTER. But it is clearly a stated goal of the Administration to get there by 2010. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir, absolutely. 

Senator VITTER. OK. In that context, of course, we now realize, 

it is fair to say, that there is a significant shortfall of funds required to do that. Is that fair to say? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator VITTER. At an absolute minimum, it seems to me, you 

have said that it is at least $1.3 billion because that is the amount 

you are proposing to move around from one project to another. Is 

that fair to say? 

Mr. WOODLEY. You could draw that inference, yes, sir. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Now, as I understand it, you all are working on the exact number. You say you might have it in July. My 

information is that it is certain to be well over $1.3 billion. Would 

you agree that that seems to be where we are going? 

Mr. WOODLEY. That would not surprise me, Senator. 

Senator VITTER. In all of that context, I am very concerned that 

you are not asking for more money in the fiscal year 2008 budget, 

and you are not asking for more money for this in the supplemental. Is that right? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, Senator, that is correct. 

Senator VITTER. So under normal circumstances, the next opportunity to ask for this money, billions which will be necessary, 

would be the fiscal year 2009 budget, and under normal circumstances the first moment you could possibly get it is October 

1, 2008. But if recent history is a guide, it could well be into 2009 

before you get the extra money, if it is asked for in that fiscal year 

2009 budget. Is that correct? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I would hope that there would be opportunities in 

the meantime. I am not in control of those opportunities, but I 

would hope to be in a position to work with you and to create some 

of those opportunities. 

Senator VITTER. That opportunity would have to be another supplemental. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 
50 

Senator VITTER. OK. That is clearly not announced or not in 

sight yet. 

Mr. WOODLEY. That is correct. 

Senator VITTER. OK. So based on what we know, normal regular 

order would be trying to get this money in the fiscal year 2009 

budget. If that is true, the first moment you would see it is October 

1, 2008, maybe into 2009, to do all this work, by 2010. It seems 

to me if that is your plan, you should start admitting that this 

work cannot possibly be done and be completed by 2010. Am I 

missing something? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I hope that there will be other opportunities to, 

and I expect that there will be other opportunities to proceed with 

the funding on this project in an orderly way. As you mentioned, 

I will not know until July. I cannot determine until July. 

Senator VITTER. The exact total amount? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator VITTER. But we certainly know it is over $1.3 billion. 

Mr. WOODLEY. And so, I have basically two options. One is to 

seek additional funding in a piecemeal fashion, and the other is the 

one that we have proceeded with, which is to seek to reprogram 

funds so that we can avoid immediate delays that we now face the 

potential of right now. Then seek, when I have a full lay down that 

I can give you and everyone else, of funding and schedule that I 

need to complete the work that we have all, I believe, committed 

to. Then I can present that as a comprehensive package that we 

can have some confidence in, and ask the Congress and the other 

members and people in the Administration exactly how they wish 

to proceed on that. 

Senator VITTER. In closing on this topic, I would just make two 

points. First of all, there are in fact White House public documents, 

White House fact sheets, not Corps fact sheets, but White House 

fact sheets that clearly identify 2010 as the goal. We will submit 

those for the record in the next few days. 

Second, it seems an enormous mistake and missed opportunity 

not to begin to solve this problem now, because it is going to be 

a big number problem, and we have a supplemental opportunity 

now. You are talking about maybe a supplemental in the future. 

We don’t know that. It is certainly not planned as of now. So I just 

think it is an enormous mistake and missed opportunity not to 

begin solving this problem now. I am hopeful that Congress will in 

fact do that. 

Mr. Chairman, if I could just have two more minutes on the 

pumping question. 

Senator BAUCUS. This is important. 

Senator VITTER. It is very important. I appreciate it. 

On the pumps, under the original contracts for these pumps, 

they were required to be tested and passed according to Hydraulic 

Institute standards under the contracts. How many of those pumps 

have been tested and have passed according to those HI standards 

to date? 

General STROCK. Sir, I don’t know the specific answer to that 

question, but I can get it for the record. What we were faced with 

here was being required to deliver a system in less than a year 

that normally, following normal processes of sequential testing, de-
51 

sign and installation, would have taken 3 years. We understood 

that we were taking a risk in putting some system in place, and 

we did the very best we could on this one. But I will get the specific 

answer on that contractual requirement and how we accomplished 

that. 

Senator VITTER. OK. My information is there are about 40 

pumps total and that at most 4 have been tested and passed that 

standard. I would invite you to either confirm that, or give us some 

other numbers. 

General STROCK. I will do that, sir. At any point where the contractor is not meeting contractual obligations, we withhold funds 

until he meets those obligations. So we are managing this very 

closely. 

[The information follows:] 

Testing of the full-size pumps in strict accordance with HI standards could not 

be achieved in the factory. However, full-scale testing of pumps with diameters over 

48 inches is not the industry standard so is not normally required or conducted. As 

examples, none of the pumps we have installed in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes 

have undergone full-size testing. Corps design criteria and the Guide Specifications 

recommend that, for pumps having a diameter of 48-inches or greater and a discharge rate of 75 cfs or greater, model tests shall be used in lieu of full-scale testing. 

In this case, model test results in strict accordance with HI standards were used. 

The pump manufacturer provided certified pump performance curves based on a 16- 

inch model. Therefore, any pump scaled up and manufactured based on the certified 

model, is in accordance with HI standards. 

There were four pumps which did undergo full-scale performance tests to verify 

pump design capacities. The Corps’ Engineer Research and Design Center (ERDC), 

in conjunction with the manufacturer, performed a full-size performance test on one 

of those pumps. From observation of the tests and analysis of the test data, ERDC 

determined that the test measurements were valid and within ∂/∼5 percent of the 

actual discharge. 

We are currently field-testing the pumps. In recent field tests for vibration, 18 of 

the 40 pumps tested to date have operated without problem. We are continuing to 

test the remaining pumps at a rate of four per week. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Were those testing requirements, and that 

standard, Hydraulic Institute standard, changed or lowered in any 

way since the initial execution of the contract? 

General STROCK. Sir, I don’t know the answer to that. I will have 

to answer for the record. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Thank you. My information is that they 

were changed and lowered for some significant period after the initial execution of the contract. So again, if you could confirm that 

or give us some other information on it. 

General STROCK. Sir, I will confirm that. I would not be surprised if there was some modification, again, based on the urgency 

of the situation to have something in place without perhaps going 

through all the requirements. We may have well modified the contract to allow us to at least have some capability in place. 

[The information follows:] 

There were changes, but standards were not lowered. The testing procedures were 

changed to bring the testing requirements in compliance with the Corps’ Engineer 

Manuals and Guide Specifications. A model test certified by the manufacturer to be 

in accordance with HI standards was accepted, as recommended by the Corps guidelines and consistent with industry standards. Full-size pump testing determines the 

amount of discharge, but it does not identify problems with particular component 

parts. Consequently, additional testing requirements were added, specifically to test 

the drive units to insure their mechanical integrity. 
52 

Senator VITTER. OK. Final question on this. As you know, General, at the 17th Street Canal, which is one of these vital canals, 

what we are trying to get to in terms of these pumps is 7,200 CFS, 

while the capacity at the canal in the heart of the city that feeds 

that stream is in fact over 10,000, and while the Corps’ own longterm plan for the pumps at the lake are over 10,000. That is, as 

you know, an issue that has been causing me a lot of heartburn. 

Why shouldn’t we be concerned about this gap between 7,200 

CFS and the Corps’ own long-term goal, which is over 10,000 CFS? 

General STROCK. Sir, the current projection is by July or August 

of this year, we will have 7,600 cubic feet per second in there. It 

is a concern that we have about our inability to match the nameplate capacity of pumping station six, but we are working very 

closely with the Water and Sewage Board to try to mitigate any potential problems as a result of that. But it certainly is a concern 

that we are unable to match the capacity of the fixed pumping station. 

Senator VITTER. And it is in fact the Corps’ long-term goal to 

match that 10,000-plus? 

General STROCK. Yes, sir. Under the fourth supplemental, we 

have the authority to construct permanent pump stations at the 

face of the levee which will have that kind of capacity. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much. 

My apologies to the Senator. 

Senator BAUCUS. Do you accept those apologies, Senator? 

Senator VOINOVICH. Absolutely. David has really been working. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator Vitter. I appreciate the 

point you are making very strongly. In fact, I might say it is a 

great opportunity for the Corps and for the Administration, frankly, to just do a bang-up job down there in New Orleans. It is so 

needed, and it would be just great, for lack of a better expression, 

for the good will I think the Corps and the Administration could 

get with all that. I just encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity. 

Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. My comment is that I know that Senator 

Vitter gets up every morning and goes to bed late at night thinking 

about trying to respond to remedying the situation caused by 

Katrina. I have talked to him many times. This is something that 

he is very emotional about. I think that we should give him as 

much time as we can, because if we were in the issue, I think that 

we would feel the same way that he does. 

I recently shared my concerns with General Berwick in regard to 

the Great Lakes and the Ohio River Division Office about the 

dredging backlog in the Great Lakes. Would you be willing to work 

with the Division and consider changes to the Corps’ budgeting 

guidelines to provide more equitable funding allocations such as to 

Great Lakes? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, Senator. We are very interested, very concerned about the shortfall in maintenance dredging for harbors. 

Great Lakes is a particular case, but this is true across the Country. I would like to see a lot more done in the way of harbor maintenance dredging. As of right now, that is in a harbor maintenance 
53 

trust fund that is fed by a particular tax. The balances are adequate in the fund, but we are not able to tap them appropriately 

because they are on budget and they score on budget. 

And so in order to do a package of maintenance dredging somewhere, we have to forego other critical maintenance in another part 

of the system. So I am very anxious to work over the next year to 

vastly increase our capacity for harbor maintenance dredging in 

the Great Lakes and elsewhere. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. What you are saying, if I am not mistaken, is that they are on budget, meaning the people putting the 

budget together want to keep them there because if they started 

to spend them, that they would have to find some other money to 

make up for the fact that they are taking it out of that fund. Is 

that right? 

Mr. WOODLEY. They can’t be spent except by direct appropriation 

as part of the energy and water appropriation. That is what I 

meant by that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. But the fact is that it is a budgetary consideration that is the reason why. 

Mr. WOODLEY. It is a scorekeeping issue. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Sure. It just underscores the fact that the 

Administration is unaware or doesn’t care about the infrastructure 

needs of this Country that are so important to the competitiveness 

of the United States of America. I think that you have an obligation to stand up. 

I don’t know what you say when you meet with OMB people or 

when you meet with the President or anybody else, but I think you 

have an obligation in your capacity to share that information with 

the members of this Administration, because we have a very, very 

significant challenge. 

If we keep going the way we are, we are going to see some real 

disruption in the movement of commerce in this Country that is 

going to negatively impact upon our competitiveness in that global 

marketplace and impact upon jobs in various regions of this Country. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I take that very seriously, Senator, and I do advocate for this program within the Administration. 

Senator VOINOVICH. How do you explain that the construction ac- count has fallen from $4 billion average in the mid–1960’s to $1.5 

billion average for 1996 through 2005? I have been working on this 

now, this is my ninth year. I was Chairman of the subcommittee, 

as I said, in my first 2 years here as a freshman and somehow 

lucked out, I guess. But we had a big chart up here and we showed 

the Army Corps not only has the traditional responsibilities that 

they have had before, but we have now loaded them up with restoration projects. You just can’t do it all. Logic would say that if it was $4 billion in the mid–1960’s, that it ought to be—mid–1960’s, $4 billion—maybe it is $20 billion. I 

don’t know the number. In other words, it shouldn’t have fallen 

down to $1.5 billion average from 1996 to 2005. 

Don’t you think that that defies logic? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I think that there is no question that neither the 

budget nor any recent appropriation has funded all of the good 

things that the Corps of Engineers could do. 
54 

Senator VOINOVICH. But it is ongoing. What is this, the seventh 

year of this Administration? 

Senator BAUCUS. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The seventh year. Again, it just is an indication that somebody doesn’t pay attention. What do they say to you 

about how this is going to be taken care of? Do they say that this 

is a federalism issue and that the State should step forward and 

put the money in? Or the private sector should come in and we 

should privatize? What is the answer? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Well, sir, I think we are trying to do as much as 

we can with the priorities that we have. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Give it a number. 

Last question is, we put provisions in the WRDA bill last year 

in terms of prioritization. Mr. Chairman, according to Chairman 

Boxer, we are going to keep that same WRDA language in there 

in terms of prioritization? 

Senator BAUCUS. That is unclear. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, the Administration did come forward 

with a positive recommendation there in terms of prioritization, 

didn’t they? In the last WRDA bill, the Administration said that 

their recommendation was that we ought to prioritize these 

projects. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Can you share what that prioritization is? 

Or maybe the real question is: How does what the Administration 

wants to do with this prioritization fit in with the language that 

was in the WRDA bill, but came out of the Senate? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I am not sure that we agree that there should be 

a commission or some outside group to make those determinations 

outside the normal channels of Government. But clearly, we feel 

there is a definite need for prioritization and that the priorities 

ought to reflect the Corps’ core mission of flood control, navigation 

and environmental restoration. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. In other words, you are saying that the 

Administration didn’t come forward with recommended language to 

deal with the issue of prioritization? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I don’t recall that, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. General Strock, do you remember anything 

about that? 

General STROCK. No, sir, I do not recall. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. Well, I would be interested to know 

what this Administration thinks about the language that is in the 

WRDA bill that we got passed out of the Senate. How do you feel 

about it? 

Mr. WOODLEY. As it passed out of the Senate, our concerns were 

expressed in the letter that I sent to the conferees last fall. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you remember anything about the problems that you may have had with the language? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. I remember that we were concerned 

about those aspects of it that interfered with the Secretary’s capability to manage the program. I remember that we were concerned 

about the aspects of the authorizations that were outside of the 

core mission areas of the Corps of Engineers. As I recall, we indicated our very positive reaction to the concept of independent re-
55 

view of Corps projects, but indicated that the way it was embodied 

should be flexible and should be incorporated early in the process— 

I think that was a point Senator Vitter made—rather than being 

tacked onto the end of the process. So those were the main items 

that we addressed in our letter. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Were those items in that letter, General 

Strock, pretty much generated by the Corps, who would have to 

deal with this? Did you have any input in the letter that was sent 

in regard to this prioritization? Did anybody consult with you about 

whether it made sense or not, or did they just come out of OMB? 

General STROCK. Sir, personally, I did not participate in that, 

and I don’t think my staff participated. 

Sir, if I might, we are adjusting our prioritization processes by 

going to performance-based mission area funding, so that we understand the full life cycle of a project, as outlined in studies and 

construction in O&M. 

We look across the business line in all those areas. I think to an 

extent, the six budgeting principles we use do represent a method 

of prioritization. We began with dam safety. We then focused on 

national priority projects. We focused on projects with a substantial 

life-saving benefit. We focused on projects with mitigation or environmental requirements we had to meet under ESA and other 

laws. We focused on high-performing projects, those that returned 

at least a three to one benefit on the investment, with continuing 

contracts or contracts that needed to be continued. 

And then we focused on another set of projects that are underway that had at least a 1.5 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. So there was a 

form of prioritization in this budget. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, the safety issue, prior to 

Katrina, wasn’t one of the considerations, was it? I think that we 

met and I was kind of shocked. 

General STROCK. Sir, it has always been a consideration specifically under the dam safety, and in other projects we do evaluate 

it. But it is not one of the driving criteria, because in most cases 

we assume that our projects will perform for what they are designed to do to the given level of protection. 

But if the threat is larger than that as it was in Katrina, that 

the area will have been evacuated. We are looking at ways to accommodate a consideration of life and property. That is one of the 

major outcomes of our review of Katrina is how to do evaluation 

of risk and consequence in decisionmaking, but it has not been a 

principal factor in the past. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

All I will say is this, it would be interesting to get the Corps’ impression of the language that we are going to put in the WRDA 

bill, because they are the people where the rubber meets the road, 

whether it is realistic, or whether they can work with it. 

Senator BAUCUS. OK. The language we are talking about, I don’t 

know where it exists right now at this point. But whatever it is, 

I think it makes sense for us to have at least an informal conversation about the language so we can try to work it out so we can 

agree, rather than having a big confrontation, if we possibly can. 

Let’s work to make that happen. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I hope that will be possible, Mr. Chairman. 
56 

Senator BAUCUS. Good. 

I would like to just pick up on a quick point on Senator 

Voinovich’s point about infrastructure in this Country. My personal 

view is that we are slipping dramatically with the competition. 

What is the competition? Other countries overseas. 

Have you been to Shanghai and Shanghai Harbor? Have you 

seen it? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I have not, but I have had it described to me, Senator. 

Senator BAUCUS. I suggest you go. I suggest you go over to 

Shanghai and you see it. I was stunned when I saw it about 2 

years ago, roughly. I was talking to a bunch of businessmen here 

on Capitol Hill about American competitiveness and infrastructure 

needs in this Country, and how the United States responded very 

well to other challenges—World War II, the Depression, Sputnik. 

But I also feel that even though we responded to Sputnik with a 

man on the moon very quickly, with great American know-how and 

tradition and so forth, it is hard to respond to the current challenge 

because it is kind of like a stealth challenge. It is kind of hard to 

see it, immediately and graphically, as we could Sputnik. 

I mentioned that to the businessmen and we were talking about 

it. One CEO of a very major U.S. company who would be recognized immediately, said, ‘‘Senator, I have seen Sputnik. It is 

Shanghai Harbor.’’ It scared the bejeebies out of him, what they 

are doing and the huge, big infrastructure they are building, with 

the ships and railroads and the ports and dealing with the cargo 

ships that are coming in. It is just stunning what they are doing. 

I just urge you, in fact, I think if more people go over to Shanghai and see what the Chinese are doing, that it will scare us into 

doing something a little more than we should be doing, but are not 

doing so far. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BAUCUS. I suggest you go to Shanghai. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Just look. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I appreciate that. At the risk of being controversial, I would like to associate myself with your remarks. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

One quick question about Fort Peck. We talked about the lake. 

No one talked about the cabins. We in Montana sometimes we are 

a little stubborn. Even though the lake level is going down, we 

want to have our cabins on the lake. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Oh, absolutely. Yes, sir. 

Senator BAUCUS. Could you give me some assurance we are 

going to finally get those sales completed very quickly? Because as 

you know, it has been since the year 2000, 367, I think, cabin sites, 

revenue from the sales is going to go to the resource issues in Montana, the wildlife refuge, for example. The Corps said, well gee, 

they can’t get going because they need appraisals and so forth. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has stepped up and contributed $100,000 in that regard. There was money in the 2007 appropriations. That dropped out, as we all know, but there is no request 

in 2008. So I wish you could just sit down with those folks that 

want to own those cabins. They really, really care. All they want 
57 

to do is buy them. It has been 7 years now. So can you give the 

cabin owners, and some who want to own cabins, some assurance 

here? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I share your concern about that, Senator. We 

have a process. We need to work it. I think we need a little bit of 

help on the funding, but we very much would like to complete that 

in the next fiscal year. 

Senator BAUCUS. If you could in the next fiscal year, that would 

be great. So is it 2008 you are talking about? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator BAUCUS. OK. You have not made a request. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I think we are not funded for that, though. 

Senator BAUCUS. But you have not made a request for it either. 

Mr. WOODLEY. It is not a priority within the budget. 

Senator BAUCUS. Well, can you make it one? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I will make it a priority within the program. 

Senator BAUCUS. Let’s get it in the budget. 

Mr. WOODLEY. If we can achieve some consensus. 

Senator BAUCUS. You have not gone to Shanghai. Have you gone 

up to Fort Peck? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I have, sir. Yes. 

Senator BAUCUS. Have you seen the cabins there? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I did not. I visited the visitors center. 

Senator BAUCUS. There are people currently with leases who 

want to buy them. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator BAUCUS. Well, if you could just look in their eyes, you 

would want to do something. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Isakson, any questions? 

Senator ISAKSON. No. Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Oh, sorry. 

Senator Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

I just wanted to thank Secretary Woodley for accompanying the 

committee members who took the tour down to New Orleans to see 

the damage that had been sustained and the unfortunate rate of 

progress in rebuilding that was demonstrated to us. It was good for 

us to have you there, and I very much appreciated that you took 

the trouble. 

One quick and very local matter I would love to have you take 

a look at and get back to me on. We have done considerable work 

on dredging in Rhode Island. As a result, a lot of the private marinas have gone in and dredged in order to be able to accommodate 

the slips and so forth that they have authorization to maintain, but 

they don’t have the depth to effectively moor boats there. 

They have done it, and considerable money has been spent, but 

what has not been done is the channels dredged that will allow 

those marinas to have access to the main channel. So they are 

hemmed in right now and sort of locked in by a wall of mud that 

needs to be moved. We would love to have your attention to that 

and work out a plan so that the private investment that has been 
58 

made by these marinas in the hope and expectation that they 

would be connected to the wider ocean with an appropriate level 

of channel can be performed. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you, Senator. That is a constant problem 

within our program. We are underfunded for harbor maintenance 

in general. We are working on it, as I mentioned earlier. I intend 

to work very hard over the next year to find a way to improve that 

situation. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is particularly tough when small business owners, marina owners are not gigantic corporations. They are 

people who really are making their livelihood in a very, very difficult way, a lot of hard work, a seasonal business. For them to put 

the kind of money that they have into the dredging that they have 

had to do, and then find that they can’t be connected to the waterways of Rhode Island is a very great disappointment to them. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

And thank you both very, very much. Thank you, General. I 

know how hard you work. I appreciate it very much. Thank you. 

OK, next panel. 

Ms. Pam Pogue is hazards program manager for the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency. Mr. Doug Marchand is executive director of the Georgia Ports Authority. Did I get that correct? 

Mr. MARCHAND. You got it right. 

Senator BAUCUS. Good. Thank you. 

And Mr. Jamie Williams who is State Director of GNC of Montana and also with the Nature Conservancy of Montana. 

OK, Ms. Pogue, why don’t you begin? Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF PAMELA POGUE, HAZARDS PROGRAM MANAGER, RHODE ISLAND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, 

ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN 

MANAGERS, INC. 

Ms. POGUE. I would like to thank Chairman Baucus and Senator 

Isakson, as well as Madam Chairman Boxer and Senator Inhofe, 

for inviting me to testify today. We look forward to working with 

you to develop a much more effective approach to flood risk identification and damage reduction. 

My name is Pam Pogue, and I am the chair of the Association 

of State Floodplain Managers. My other job is the State Floodplain 

and disaster manager for the State of Rhode Island. 

We appreciate the initiative of this committee under the strong 

leadership of Madam Chairwoman Boxer. ASFPM supports the 

Water Resources Development Act in general, but we would like to 

provide you with some suggestions on how we feel it can be better 

strengthened. 

Due to my time limit of a 5-minute sound bite, I am only going 

to go through only a couple of points, but as you know, we submitted written testimony which goes into it in much greater detail. 

Let me say something about ASFPM. We represent over 9,000 individual members with 25 State chapters. We represent State and 

local officials and other professionals engaged in all aspects of flood 

loss reduction, floodplain management and hazard mitigation. This 

includes risk identification, management mapping, engineering, 
59 

planning, community development, hydrology forecasting, emergency response, flood protection projects, and insurance much of 

what you guys have been just discussing about all morning long. 

Many of our members work in communities impacted by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, and we work with organizations 

assisting those communities to rebuild. All ASFPM members are 

concerned with working to reduce our Nation’s flood-related losses 

and in rebuilding a safer, more resilient community. Our State and 

local officials are the Federal Government’s partners in implementing programs and working to achieve effectiveness in flood 

loss reduction. 

I would like to initiate, or basically speak on only three points 

right now in the next probably 31⁄2 minutes. 

No. 1, there is a great need for a paradigm shift in how this Nation deals and manages with flood risk. No. 2, in the shorter term, 

we must address the consequences to our Nation lacking a comprehensive approach to levee safety. Finally, we must and would 

like to identify budget priorities for WRDA, the Corps of Engineers’ 

programs for this fiscal year 2007–2008. 

On the first point, we must change how the Nation manages 

flood risk. A paradigm shift is needed to place more responsibility 

on States. The catastrophic events of 2005 affecting most of the 

Gulf and Southeast Coast and the increasing flood damage elsewhere in this Nation are reminders that we continue to be susceptible to natural hazards, especially flooding. 

We must have programs, policies and initiatives that can adequately handle these events, efficiently use taxpayer money, and 

build resilient communities with a more sustainable future. Nothing less than our Nation’s prosperity and viability are at stake. 

Yet despite the 75 years of water resources and floodplain management policy, simply stated, Katrina showed us and it dramatically demonstrated it is just not working. What basic programmatic 

changes have taken place in the last year and a half to address the 

devastating impacts from Katrina? From Rita? From Wilma? Nothing. 

One of the most devastating natural disasters in our time, Hurricane Katrina, ravaged our community business districts, waterways, neighborhoods, critical facilities, natural resources, and 

human spirit. Yet what really has been accomplished, programmatically speaking, since Katrina landed on the shores of the Gulf 

Coast over 19 months ago, nearly 2 years ago? Very little. Are we 

any better prepared? Are there any national policies, programs and 

initiatives that will allow us to be able to handle those same issues 

that we are so frightfully unprepared for? No. 

We need to change the Nation’s top-down model of flood risk 

management. States should become the focal point for managing 

flood risk. The logic behind this is that in order to more effectively 

manage and reduce flood risk, we must rely on the authorities that 

are reserved solely for States under the Constitution, namely land 

use management, building codes, community planning for development, mitigation and resource protection. The ASFPM written testimony addresses in detail some of these principles that we speak 

about. 
60 

The second point, what are the consequences to this Nation 

should we lack a comprehensive approach to levee safety? Make no 

mistake about it, the potential for levee failure with catastrophic 

consequences and human suffering is not just a New Orleans problem. Levees in California are a disaster waiting to happen, complicated, of course, by the earthquake risk. Every single one of 

these folks from their States have levees. We in our State have a 

levee that is about to be decertified. 

States do not know the magnitude of the problem we are facing. 

We don’t know where the levees are. We don’t know the physical 

condition of these structures, the number of people and structures 

and the critical facilities at risk behind them. 

All of this points to the need for a comprehensive levee safety 

program for the Nation and for a national inventory of levees. 

ASFPM believes that a properly designed State levee safety program is absolutely critical. The levee program must be integrated 

with State floodplain management to avoid the stovepiping effect 

we might have in other programs, which in the case of levee safety 

could effectively separate levee safety and the ‘‘management’’ from 

floodplain management. 

The effectiveness and object of this program would be to become 

not a permit function, rather but to integrate the management between levee safety and floodplain management. 

Finally, third point, budget priorities for the Corps of Engineer 

programs for this fiscal year. Two relatively small programs of the 

Corps of Engineers Civil Works have nationwide benefits. These 

are the Floodplain Management Services Program, FPMS, and the 

Planning Assistance to States Program. The 2008 administrative 

budget request for these programs is $5.6 million and $4.5 million 

respectively. These amounts represent a decrease or hold in these 

programs. Sadly, they fall short of the authorized level for these 

programs and will not allow the Corps to apply them in appropriate and innovative ways to assist communities throughout this 

Nation struggling with how we are going to address repeated flood 

losses, and this means to identify actions toward the recertification 

of levees within our own communities. 

Overall, the Association of State Floodplain Managers is disappointed with the budget request for FPMS and the PAS programs. ASFPM respectfully requests funding to the full authorized 

level to meet the current and anticipated demand for these programs. 

We particularly note the two events that have reinforced the 

need for these programs: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, where numerous levees failed. These events have shown where these two 

programs could have been critically important to assessing the protection level of levees, and ultimately the risk of flooding behind 

these levees, and using that data to support accurate flood maps 

nationwide. 

The Corps of Engineers’ planning assistance to State—— 

Senator BAUCUS. I am going to have to ask you to summarize if 

you could, as well as you possibly can. 

Ms. POGUE. I have two paragraphs. 

Senator BAUCUS. Great. 

Ms. POGUE. OK. 
61 

In terms of PAS, in our own State we are personally feeling the 

pain because we have had six flood events since 2003, and despite 

programs that might be available to be funded, we have absolutely 

no technical or planning experience to come up with projects that 

might mitigate future funding. 

Therefore, we would suggest the best hope is to provide technical 

assistance to the communities with the levee recertification program. Also, we respectfully ask that the committee fully support 

the funding for PAS to its authorized level of $10 million, and we 

would also support the President’s budget for 2008 for $10 million 

for the Corps of Engineers to move forward with its inventory of 

the Nation’s levees and their status. 

In conclusion, ASFPM has a mission to reduce the cost of flood 

damages in this Nation, which prior to 2004 and 2005 hurricane 

seasons exceeded $6 billion per year. We have reached new thresholds. Today, we once again stand at a crossroads in the aftermath 

of a catastrophic flood disaster, with an opportunity to refine our 

Nation’s policy for managing flood hazards. 

Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to provide our thoughts on 

these important issues. We look forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pogue follows:] 

STATEMENT OF PAMELA POGUE, HAZARDS PROGRAM MANAGER, RHODE ISLAND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, INC. 

INTRODUCTION

The catastrophic events of 2005 affecting most of the Gulf Coast and the increasing flood damage elsewhere in the nation are reminders to the nation that we are 

susceptible to natural hazards—especially flooding—and that we must have programs, policies, and institutions that can adequately handle these events, efficiently 

use taxpayer money, and build a more sustainable future. Nothing less than our nation’s prosperity and viability are at stake. The Congress and this committee will 

be at the epicenter of this discussion, with an opportunity to make policy changes 

that can have importance and relevance far into the future. 

The Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. (ASFPM), and its 25 Chapters 

represent over 9,000 state and local officials and other professionals who are engaged in all aspects of flood loss reduction and floodplain management and hazard 

mitigation, including management, mapping, engineering, planning, community development, hydrology, forecasting, emergency response, water resources projects, 

and insurance. Many of our members work with communities impacted by hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma; or work with organizations that are assisting those 

communities in rebuilding. All ASFPM members are concerned with reducing our 

nation’s flood-related losses. Our state and local officials are the federal government’s partners in implementing programs and working to achieve effectiveness in 

meeting our shared objectives of reducing the suffering and costs associated with 

flooding. For more information on the Association, please visit http://www.floods.org. 

ASFPM has been involved in numerous national policy dialogues with partner organizations in the past year. These have included the Flood Risk Policy Summit involving 60 experts from many different groups such as homebuilder, realtors, lenders, environmental organizations, academia and others. We co-sponsored this Summit with the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies 

(NAFSMA), with strong support from the Corps of Engineers and FEMA. We also 

participated in the American Water Resources Association’s National Water Policy 

Dialogue; and held discussions with the leadership of numerous agencies, the White 

House and Congressional staff, researchers and others. 

ASFPM appreciates the leadership of this Committee, under the strong leadership 

of the Chair, Senator Boxer. The ASFPM also appreciates the important contributions made by Senators Russ Feingold and John McCain and a number of members 

of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to start to address the 

need to modernize the Corps planning process and to address issues raised by the 

systemic failures identified in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We look 
62 

forward to working with you to develop a more effective approach to flood risk reduction. 

Thank you for inviting us to offer our recommendations on flood risk reduction. 

The following testimony addresses: 

a. Changing how the nation manages flood risk—the Federal/State/local partnership 

b. The History of levees in the nation—how we got in this predicament 

c. Consequences to a Nation Lacking a Comprehensive Approach to Levee Safety 

d. The need for data showing where levees exist or the population at risk behind 

levees 

e. Overarching suggestions for Reducing Future Flood Damages caused when levees fail 

f. Measures to improve effectiveness of the policy nexus between USACE & FEMA 

programs 

g. Budget priorities for Corps of Engineers programs for FY 08 

A. Changing how the Nation Manages Flood Risk—The Federal/State/Local Partnership 

An overarching and critical issue to all our efforts as we work to change policies 

that led to the catastrophic consequences from program failures in Hurricane 

Katrina—is the understanding we need to change the nation’s top-down model of 

flood risk management. One concept that is receiving more and more support in 

these discussions is to design the system to have states become the focal point for 

managing flood risk. The logic behind this is that in order to more effectively manage and reduce flood risk we must rely on authorities that are reserved to the states 

under our Constitution, namely land use management, building codes, and community planning for development, mitigation, and resource protection. 

A number of principles necessary for improved flood risk management have 

emerged, which this testimony will address: 

• Flood protection provided by levees is a double-edged sword, providing significant protection, but also leading to severe flood impacts when levees fail or are overtopped. Wise flood risk management must include use of a menu of floodplain management options and cross integration of those options. 

• The nation is urgently in need of data showing where levees exist, their condition and the population and critical facilities at risk behind those levees. 

• An effective levee safety program must be developed, building off the land use 

authorities of the states. Incentives and disincentives for states must be incorporated to foster action. 

• The need to periodically update and modernize the planning Principles and 

Guidelines and other critical guidance that is used to plan and implement water resources development projects. 

• Integrated watershed planning for water resources projects is essential for effective flood risk management. To accomplish this, states must be encouraged to play 

an integral role through a system of incentives using cost-shares and discounts. 

• The Army Corps of Engineers can play a key role in fostering watershed and 

‘‘bottom up’’ project development by providing states and local jurisdictions with 

technical assistance and consensus building assistance. (See the related budget discussion on page 11). 

• For Corps projects, we must agree on a process for independent review of some 

projects that will help insure tax dollars are spent on appropriate, cost effective 

projects that reflect the true federal interest. 

Why aren’t states and locals doing more to manage flood risk? What factors would 

encourage or induce states to step up to the plate? This is a critical part of the ongoing discussion. For the past 70 years, starting with the 1936 Flood Control Act 

through the 1968 National Flood Insurance Program Act and its reforms, along with 

various versions of the Disaster Relief Act, those national programs and policies 

have led state legislatures, Governors and local decision makers to believe that 

flooding is the problem of the federal government. Over the decades this has resulted in many states and locals putting little or no resources or effort into reducing 

flood risk, believing the federal government would bail them out after flood events. 

There are few incentives or disincentives for states and locals to take action on their 

responsibility to reduce flood risk. 

What is the appropriate model to devolve flood risk and floodplain management 

programs to the states? Almost none of the current federal flood risk programs are 

delegated to the states, and that includes water resource development programs, the 

NFIP, and flood mitigation. Many of these programs have some state involvement 

or some contractual arrangement with states, but do not delegate authority or decision making to the states. Few governors or legislatures are interested in those non- 
63 

delegated approaches, and they continue to view such efforts as federal programs, 

and with federal disaster assistance as a backdrop removing the need for state or 

local priorities or leadership. Models of programs that actually delegate authority 

for decision making and funding to states include the Clean Water Act and the federal highway programs. Under these models, the state works with federal programs 

to reach agreement on the state-specific goals of the program, then designs the state 

program to achieve those goals. The program is not delegated to a state until appropriate state laws and capabilities are in place. The federal program then has oversight and auditing functions to ensure the goals are being met, and can and does 

withhold federal funds if the state does not uphold its end of the agreement. 

What incentives might be most effective? ASFPM has long advocated that federal 

programs use a sliding cost share to reward positive state and local actions. A sliding cost share could apply to disaster assistance payments, which might keep the 

75 federal/25 state/local as a base, but the federal share could increase as states undertake more and more actions that will reduce their risk to flooding and other natural hazards. This is cost effective for the federal government since it reduces federal disaster assistance from many programs. The same sliding cost share approach 

could apply to water resources and flood mitigation projects. Another approach 

would be that, when states invest in important flood risk activities, such as flood 

mapping, that amount of money could be ‘‘banked’’ toward the non-federal share of 

the next disaster. In this way, state legislators and governors can see the benefit 

of a ‘‘pay now or pay later’’ scenario, and in the meantime their citizens are safer, 

suffer fewer flood losses and trauma, and future disasters are reduced. As a start, 

the sliding cost share could be linked to the Community Rating System (CRS) used 

in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The CRS program has a list of 

18 activities a state or community can undertake that go beyond national minimum 

standards that will all further flood loss reduction. Certain points are given for each 

activity, and the number of total points determines how much incentive is given for 

discounted rates. In that way, the federal, state and local governments will be integrating their actions to reduce losses, and we will be rewarding those states and 

communities who do more, instead of the current system that provides more federal 

money to those states and communities who do less to reduce flood risk. 

B. The History of Levees in the Nation—How we got in this predicament 

Levees have existed in this nation since early times. Those early levees were simply mounds of dirt thrown up by farmers or property owners to prevent frequent 

flooding of their property or crops. Most of the population lived near rivers or the 

coast, since waterways were our highways and the rivers were our source of water 

for human and livestock consumption. The federal government got into the levee 

business in an organized way when Congress asked the Corps to become involved 

in the levees in Sacramento in 1917. The Flood Control Act of 1936 provided authority for the Corps of Engineers to be the lead agency on Flood Control projects in 

the nation. That authority has been used extensively for structural projects such as 

levees, dams and channelization, which modify our natural waterway systems to accommodate human needs. While the Corps has authority to also perform non-structural projects such as elevation or relocation of at risk buildings, the vast majority 

of projects have been structural. The evolution of responsibility for flooding and its 

consequences that has focused on federal structural projects has led states and communities to view flooding as a federal problem, not a state and local problem. It is 

important all federal legislation on levees and disaster assistance establish a shared 

responsibility for damages when a levee fails, and for implementing a levee safety 

and flood mitigation approach. 

Thousands of miles of levees have been constructed by the Corps, most with a 

non-federal sponsor that provides cost sharing for construction and accepts responsibility for operation and maintenance. The location of those levees is known to the 

Corps, although many of them may not be in a geo-spatial database. Many other 

levees have been constructed by communities or private individuals or levee groups. 

We know where some of these are, especially those who apply for and participation 

in the Corps PL 84–99 rehabilitation program, which allows federal money to be 

used to reconstruct the levees after failure or damage from a storm event. Many private levees were built to protect farmland from frequent flooding in order to make 

it economic to crop the land. Over time, development of homes or other building has 

taken place in that area which would be inundated if those levees overtop or fail. 

Many of the property owners behind those levees may not even be aware the levee 

‘‘protecting’’ them is poor and likely to fail. 

Levees have been built to various heights to contain storms of various frequencies. 

In the early years levees may have been built to contain the Probable maximum 

flood, the 500- or 200-year flood, etc. In the past few decades most levees have been 
64 

‘‘dumbed down’’ to only contain the 1 percent chance flood (100-year flood). That is 

an unintended consequence of combining the Corps NED policies with FEMA’s policy for the flood insurance where areas protected by the 100-year flood are not required to carry flood insurance or be subject to any land use regulations for protection from flooding. Mapping those residual risk areas and requiring flood insurance 

in them is essential. Levee standards for protection on urbanized areas and critical 

facilities like hospitals, emergency operation and shelters must be protected to at 

least the 0.2 percent (500-year) flood event and in coastal areas a category 5 storm 

surge. 

C. Consequences to a Nation Lacking a Comprehensive Approach to Levee Safety 

We do not know the amount of population or structures at risk behind levees that 

would suffer damages or loss of life when those levees overtop or fail. We have no 

data on the population behind most of the levees in the nation, let alone how many 

of those people would be able to evacuate in the event that levee or floodwall 

overtops or fails during a storm event. Damage data on the cost of the structures 

or the infrastructure in those levee or floodwall inundation areas is needed in order 

to asses the exposure of the Disaster programs for both property damage and infrastructure. 

What is the risk associated with each levee? Risk is determined by multiplying 

the probability of failure of the levee or floodwall times the consequences when that 

levee fails. Which of our levees is high risk, moderate risk or low risk? We need 

all these answers in order to proceed wisely. 

Based on the data that a well designed levee inventory would produce, Congress 

can ask the agencies to design levee safety programs that would prioritize the nation’s efforts to protect people and property. Without that data the size of the problem and costs of future events like Katrina-Rita are not known. To start fixing the 

problem before we know the magnitude or cost does not seem to be an efficient use 

of taxpayer dollars. 

D. The Need for Data Showing Where Levees Exist and the Population at Risk Behind Levees 

Levees can be grouped in 4 categories: 

1. Federally built and operated 

2. Federally built and locally maintained 

3. Locally built and locally maintained 

4. Privately built and hopefully maintained 

Information on Corp of Engineers constructed levees (category 1) is now being 

gathered in a geo-spatial database that can provide cumulative data such as miles 

of levee, condition of the levees, etc. That did not previously exist, and that data 

for the other classes of levees is more problematic, with data on even the location 

of private levees being almost non-existent. 

Data on the adequacy of the levee for (1) hydraulic capability (height to contain 

a certain level of storm) (2) structural stability (is it geo-technically sound and structurally stable) is similar to the above. Data on the population at risk when the levee 

overtops or floods or the cost of the structures and infrastructure likely to be damaged is also not known to any reasonable extent. The concern is that without this 

data, the Congress, the agencies, the states and communities or the public has any 

idea of the magnitude of the problem. 

ASFPM surveyed the states to determine if states had an inventory of levees in 

their state. Only two states have a geospatial data base of their levees, and less 

than a dozen have even a listing of levees within their states. Other data indicates 

less than half of the states have implemented their authority to regulate levee design, construction or maintenance of levees. 

E. Overarching Suggestions for Reducing Future Flood Damages Caused when Levees Fail-Key Provisions of any National Levee Inventory and Safety Program 

Some basic principles should be included in addressing the levee problem in the 

nation. Those include: 

1. Congress should decide if this bill should focus first on an inventory of levees 

so that we have enough data to determine the magnitude and potential solutions 

to the problem. Subsequent legislation could then design a levee safety program 

based on the data. We recommend you consider this approach. 

2. The federal government (Corps of Engineers as lead) should develop the initial 

levee inventory in cooperation with states, which must collaborate with local and 

regional entities in their state. 

3. Any long term levee program must use the states as a focal point. States are 

the only entity that has authority to regulate the design, construction, operation and 
65 

maintenance of levees. The federal government can encourage those things and offer 

incentives, but cannot mandate it. 

4. Incentives must be built into the program to encourage states to undertake 

levee safety programs in conjunction with their regional and local governments. 

Monies states spend on effective levee safety programs will result in reduced federal 

tax spending for disaster relief. Thus, incentives could consider that appropriate 

state expenses could be banked against the non federal share of future disaster costs 

in that state. 

5. Guidance must be developed that establishes criteria and definitions for high, 

moderate and low risk levees in order to set priorities for the assessment and future 

mitigation actions. 

6. The federal government should not be performing detailed engineering analysis 

of levees or designing engineering remedies for non-federal levees. That is the function of levee owners and sponsors. 

7. The levee inventory and any follow up assessment and levee safety program 

must be clearly coordinated with related mitigation programs of the Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies such as FEMA, NRCS, Bureau of Reclamation, etc. 

and especially with the flood mapping programs of FEMA. Additionally this program must be done in collaboration with state programs, which in turn must involve 

regional and local related programs. 

8. Federal and State policy groups and Boards must be charged with recommending appropriate levee standards for various levees in the nation. Those standards must be improved to use 500-year levees for protecting urban areas and critical 

facilities. This moves from the current 1 percent (100-year) standard generally used, 

which is inadequate for protecting highly urbanized areas or for critical facilities 

like hospitals, drinking water, fire stations, etc. 

9. ASFPM finds that future flood losses can be reduced if levees are never used 

to protect undeveloped land. Levees may be a viable last resort option for mitigating 

damages to existing urbanized areas if properly designed, constructed, operated and 

maintained, but only if proper warning and evacuation procedures can assure protection of lives for those living at risk behind those levees. 

F. Measures To Improve Effectiveness of the Policy Nexus between Corps of Engineers 

and FEMA programs 

There are a number of places where policies of the Corps and FEMA intersect. 

As explained above in the discussion of levee risk, sometimes those policy nexus results in unintended negative consequences. In addition to those mentioned above, 

the following suggestions come from the Flood Risk Policy Summit this past December involving many experts representing various interests: 

• Public safety must become a default standard in determining the design of and 

priorities for flood mitigation projects above and beyond the benefit/cost analysis and 

any other objectives in the NED or Principles and Guidelines.—We cannot in good 

conscious be designing and building flood mitigation projects with Federal tax dollars that result in (avoidable) loss of life. 

• Levees must be designed to protect urban areas and critical facilities to the 

500-year flood 

• Federal monies should not place people and structures at risk, nor contribute to 

the increased flood risk of other structures and people.—Many agencies will spend 

billions of taxpayer’s monies in our efforts to rebuild the Gulf coast. This includes 

the Corps of Engineers, FEMA, HUD, EDA, EPA and DOT. It is imperative those 

agencies do not increase flood risk, or cause flood risk to be transferred to others 

through their actions. Federal Executive Order #11988 directs all federal agencies 

to analyze their actions to avoid increasing flood risk as they assist to build, finance 

or provide technical assistance. We urge this Subcommittee to condition each program authorization on compliance with this Executive Order. 

• Operation and Maintenance of flood control structures must be ensured through 

strong federal and state oversight.—No federal assistance for flood control structures 

should be provided without upfront assurance of financial capability for ongoing 

O&M of the structure. 

• The O&M requirements of the PL 84–99 program must be tied to the criteria for 

certifying levees under FEMA’s flood mapping program. 

• Identify residual risk structures and lands that will be flooded when levees fail 

or overtop; and require flood insurance for structures in those areas. 

• Integrate planning and program requirements for flood mitigation and water resource planning and projects between the two agencies, using holistic, watershed approaches. 
66 

• Require a level of protection commensurate with the risk—in the Corps and 

FEMA programs the map and manage flood risk, especially for flood control structures where the consequence of failure is catastrophic. 

• Flood control structures should not be built with federal dollars in communities 

which do not join the National Flood Insurance Program, nor should those communities be eligible for federal disaster assistance for damage to public infrastructure. 

• Levees should be considered an option of last resort and used only to protect existing communities. Levees should not be used to protect undeveloped land with the 

speculation new development will be placed at risk behind those levees. 

G. Budget Priorities for Corps of Engineers Programs for FY 08 

Two relatively small programs of the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program 

have nationwide benefits—these are the Floodplain Management Services Program 

(FPMS) and Planning Assistance to States Program (PAS). The 2007 budget request 

for these programs is $5.6 million and $4.5 million respectively. These amounts represent a decrease or hold in these programs. Sadly they fall far short of the authorized level for these programs and will not allow the Corps to apply them in appropriate and innovative ways to assist with recovery needs in the Gulf Coast region 

and throughout the Nation. ASFPM respectfully requests funding to the full authorized levels to meet the current and anticipated demand for these programs. 

Overall, he Association of State Floodplain Managers is disappointed with the 

budget request for the FPMS and PAS programs. We particularly note that two 

events have reinforced the need for these programs—Hurricanes Katrina/Rita, 

where numerous levees failed and the efforts to modernize the nation’s flood maps. 

Combined, these events have shown where FPMS and MS could be critically important—through assessing the protection level of levees, and ultimately the risk of 

flooding behind levees, and use that data to support accurate flood maps nationwide. 

Communities who face the threat of having their levees decertified need technical 

assistance to explore their flood mitigation options related to those levees. The 

FPMS program provides support and the ability of Corps stair to travel to and assist those communities. However, proposed funding levels will not even meet current 

needs expressed by states and communities for technical assistance from the Corps. 

• The best hope for providing technical assistance to communities with levees that 

must be certified for flood mapping and compliance with Operation and Maintenance 

(O&M) criteria rests with adequately funding the FPMS and PAS programs. 

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES PROGRAM

The Corps of Engineers Flood Plain Management Services Program is a Continuing Authority program authorized under Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control 

Act. The program provides funding to each district office to provide coordination 

with States, local communities, Native American Tribes and other entities. Coordination and technical assistance is provided to assure wise use of the nations flood 

plains for new development and assistance in mitigating future flood hazards. 

The program also provides for specific special studies for a wide range of flood related projects. Typical special studies would include flood plain analyses for communities where there is no existing data, flood preparedness plans, hazard mitigation 

plans and flood mitigation conceptual plans where other Corps programs are not 

justified. These studies generally promote a more non structural approach to flood 

hazard mitigation. 

Based on discussions with communities there is a huge increase in interest 

brought on by the Gulf Coast hurricanes. All communities are extremely concerned 

about reevaluating their flood risk and many are requesting levee certification. This 

request is important in two aspects. First, as a nation, we do not even have a complete inventory of levees and also do not know the safety level that these levees provide. Second, providing technical assistance with certification of levees in the Gulf 

Coast and throughout the nation (the State of California is currently facing significant issues with levees and certification) will help communities and states determine where future needs are and improve the quality of our nations flood maps. 

Without counting levee certification the Corps FPMS program needs could be over 

$20 million in FY 07. 

• ASFPM urges the Committee to prove for the full authorization of the FPMS program to $15 million in FY 08, and to consider a substantial increase in the annual 

authorization ceiling for this program to at least $50 million in the upcoming WRDA. 

• ASSFPM urges the Committee to direct the Corps to explore how it can utilize 

the FPMS program to assist communities and states to evaluate existing levees and 

assist with certification of them as safely providing protecting to a specific flood level. 

Additionally the Corps should he encouraged to work closely with FEMA to utilize 
67 

this information to help develop more accurate flood maps for the nation that reflect 

the location and safety level of existing levees. 

PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES PROGRAM

Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1974. as amended, 

provides authority for the Corps of Engineers to assist the States, local governments, and other non-Federal entities, in the preparation of comprehensive plans 

for the development, utilization, and conservation of water and related land resources. Federal allotments for each State or Tribe from the nation-wide appropriation are limited to $500,000 annually, but typically are much less. Individual studies, of which there may be more than one per State or Tribe per year, generally cost 

$25,000 to $75,000. 

One innovative use of PAS funds is currently occurring in Ohio where the Huntington District has initiated a project called the Silver Jackets that is focusing on 

comprehensive solutions to flooding issues through the coordination of federal agencies and pooling of resources. Currently, the City of Marietta is a pilot community 

which was flooded severely in September 2004 and then again in January 2005. One 

of the needs identified is to do a comprehensive risk assessment and vulnerability 

analysis on flood prone structures in the downtown area and suggest some possible 

non-structural and structural solutions to mitigate against future flooding. It is important to note this effort employs a comprehensive planning process to involve all 

sectors of the public and is led by the community. 

Every year there are more requests for PAS assistance than funds appropriated 

leaving many needs unmet. 

• ASFPM urges the Committee to fully fund PAS at its authorized level of $10 

million and also to consider an increase in this program’s annual authorization ceiling to at least $30 

• The ASFPM supports the President’s budget for FY 2008 of $10 million for the 

Corps of Engineers to move forward with its inventory of the nation’s levees and 

their status. 

CONCLUSION

The ASFPM has a mission to reduce the costs of flood damages in the nation, 

which prior to the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons exceeded $6 billion/year. Today, 

we once again stand at a crossroads—in the aftermath of a catastrophic flood disaster with an opportunity to refine our nation’s policy for managing flood hazards. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our thoughts on these important issues. 

The ASFPM and its members look forward to working with you as we move towards 

a common goal of reducing flood losses. For more information, please contact: 

Larry Larson, ASFPM Executive Director, (608) 274–0123, (larry@floods.org) or 

Pamela Pogue, ASFPM Chair, (401) 946–9996 (pam.pogue@us.army.mil). 

RESPONSE BY PAMELA POGUE TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question. I noticed that one of your recommendations for a levee safety program 

is that the Federal Government should NOT perform detailed engineering analysis 

of levees or design engineering remedies for non-Federal levees. As a staunch proponent of limited government, I tend to agree with that position. Last year when 

we were developing our Senate levee safety program provision, however, I was persuaded to include language directing the Corps to perform the first round of assessments for all levees, not just Corps or other Federal levees. I insisted that all subsequent rounds for non-Federal levees would be the responsibility of the states, 

though. Could you please expand a bit on why you believe the Federal Government 

should not be involved in even these initial assessments? 

Response. ASFPM has a position that the cost of performing detailed engineering 

analysis of existing levees is the responsibility of the owners of those levees. Where 

the owner is the Federal Government, the Corps of Engineers should perform those 

analyses. Where the owner is a non-Federal sponsor, the owner should be responsible for those analyses. 

Our logic is that these non-Federal sponsors chose the levee as their mitigation 

approach. Federal programs of a number of agencies cost share mitigation approaches, which can include acquisition and relocation of structures out of flood hazard areas, elevation of structures above the predicted 100-year flood level, 

floodproofing of individual structures; or a levee. No matter which option a community chooses, the cost of operating and maintaining that mitigation option is the responsibility of the non-Federal sponsor or partner. 
68 

Communities who choose elevation, relocation or other options do not come back 

to the Federal Government seeking future costs to operate or maintain their selected option, and neither should communities who choose levees as their option. 

The community signed an agreement at the time the levee was constructed that 

they would be responsible for future operation and maintenance of the levee. Determining whether the levee is adequate to provide the protection it was designed for 

is part of that O&M. As such, the levee owner should be responsible for the detailed 

engineering analysis. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Marchand. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG J. MARCHAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

GEORGIA PORTS AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES 

Mr. MARCHAND. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Senator Isakson, and subcommittee members—— 

Senator BAUCUS. I don’t know if your microphone is on. Is there 

a button there or something? 

Mr. MARCHAND. There it is. Got it. 

Senator BAUCUS. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. MARCHAND. I am extremely grateful for the invitation to appear today, and also for the determination of the subcommittee to 

move forward with enactment of the Water Resources Development 

Act. 

And thank you, Senator Isakson, for your hard work for our 

ports, going back to your earliest days in the Georgia General Assembly. 

Mr. Chairman, the Georgia Ports Authority is one of the few public ports in the Nation which both owns and operates our port property and facilities. We have enjoyed historic increases in ocean 

commerce. Savannah is now the second largest container port on 

the East Coast, and the fourth largest in the Nation. 

What distinguishes port operations in Georgia and the entire Nation is that how well we do our job has a direct and immediate impact on how well others can do theirs. If American businesses large 

or small are expected to stimulate new employment and generate 

increased tax revenues through world trade, then our ports must 

be a leader in productivity and efficiency. 

Our biggest barrier to increased efficiency in the maritime transportation system is the shortfall of Federal resources. This includes 

lack of assurance of adequate channel maintenance dredging and 

the lack of sufficient authorization and funding for new projects to 

modernize our harbor channels. 

Here are my suggestions: pass WRDA. It is a roadmap for the 

future of marine transportation and the key to improving productivity and lowering transportation costs. When it moves in orderly 

fashion, roughly every 2 years, it gives direction, commitment and 

accountability. So pass WRDA, even if it is not the perfect bill that 

we would all aspire to have. 

Do not think that by delaying WRDA, as has been done for more 

than 6 years now, you are simply putting off problems to another 

year. Delay actually creates new problems, while not resolving the 

old. It sows the seeds of doubt, confusion and inflation-driven high-
69 

er cost. We need a tough system to guarantee wise stewardship of 

tax dollars and wise stewardship of our environment. 

But the system must be free of conflicting regulations and repetitive layers of review. An example of the glacial pace of action is 

the reconnaissance study for the Savannah Harbor expansion 

project, our pending harbor deepening project. A Federal interest 

for deepening was established in 1996. Eleven years and almost 

$30 million in State-funded studies later, the draft report is not 

slated to be out for public review until January 2008. 

Mr. Chairman, it should not take a dozen years to do a study to 

deepen an existing channel. Either spend the money in the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund or dissolve the fund. That fund, as you 

are aware, contains more than $3 billion. We have a documented 

core capability for fiscal year 2008 of as much as $1.3 billion. But 

the request for appropriations in fiscal year 2008 for operations 

and maintenance is only $735 million. In the words of my colleague, Warren McCrimmon of the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, we ought to put the ‘‘trust’’ back in the trust fund, or make 

the tax go away. 

Third, modernize the Corps of Engineers and its work process. 

The American Association of Port Authorities has identified several 

proposals to do that. These recommendations range from revising 

the cost sharing formula for deep draft harbor projects, to providing 

a more accurate assessment of the true costs and benefits of the 

Corps’ dredge fleet. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I ask that along with my 

statement, your record include a fact sheet from the American Association of Port Authorities on WRDA, with all of their recommendations, as well as recent testimony in the House on behalf 

of AAPA concerning port needs and dredging requirements. 

Senator BAUCUS. Without objection. 

[The referenced documents follow on page 115.] 

Mr. MARCHAND. Finally, Mr. Chairman, in this room I know I am 

preaching to the choir, but more of your colleagues need to recognize that river and harbor development is not a luxury in the new 

millennium. It is the blood supply for the growth of our economy 

and all of the economic opportunities and benefits that come with 

international trade. We need your help. 

Thank you for your time and the honor of being here with you 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marchand follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DOUG J. MARCHAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEORGIA PORTS

AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Senator Isakson, and subcommittee members, I 

am Doug Marchand, Executive Director of the Georgia Ports Authority. I am very 

grateful for your invitation to appear today, and also for the determination of the 

subcommittee to move forward with enactment of the Water Resources Development 

Act. 

First, if I may display a little home state bias, I also would like to thank you, 

Senator Isakson, for your tireless work and interest in behalf of our ports going back 

many, many years. That work began in your days with the Georgia General Assembly, then in the U.S. House of Representatives, and now in the U.S. Senate. 

Although you represented an urban District in the Atlanta area in both the state 

legislature and the U.S. House, you have always looked beyond the borders of your 

District to help our ports time and time again. We very much appreciate your com-
70 

mitment, and I can attest to the fact that you and Senator Chambliss speak with 

the voice of authority in this and many other arenas of policy. 

Mr. Chairman, the Georgia Ports Authority is one of the few public authorities 

in the nation in which we both own and operate our port property and facilities. 

This gives us a unique vantage point from which to survey the challenges and opportunities of modern ocean commerce. 

Savannah is the second largest container port on the East Coast, and the fourth 

largest in the nation. In the 5-year period from 2001 to 2006, Savannah has experienced 100 percent growth, making it the fastest growing container port in the nation. Our Port of Brunswick is the sixth largest auto port in the nation. The Georgia 

Ports Authority directly employs 870 people, and Georgia maritime activities support more than 275,000 jobs in the state, contribute some $10.8 billion in income, 

$35.4 billion in revenue, and $1.4 billion in State and local taxes each year. 

As the subcommittee well knows, this is a complicated business with many moving parts: ocean commerce handles 99 percent of our nation’s overseas trade by volume, it operates within a complex web of local, state, and federal regulations, and 

it is on the front lines of homeland security in the post-9/11 world. 

What distinguishes port operations in our economy is that how well we do our 

job has a direct and immediate impact on how well others can do theirs. If American 

businesses—large or small—are expected to stimulate new employment, and generate increased tax revenues through world trade—then our ports must be a leader 

in productivity and efficiency. 

I must say, however, that the biggest barrier to increased efficiency in the maritime transportation system is the shortfall and uncertainty of federal resources. 

That includes the lack of assurance of adequate channel maintenance dredging, and 

the lack of sufficient authorization and funding for new projects to modernize our 

harbor channels. That is why the pending WRDA authorization, and full and fair 

appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008, are so important. 

Here are my key points: 

• Pass WRDA. It is the road map for the future of marine transportation, and 

the key to improving productivity and lowering transportation costs. When it moves 

in orderly fashion—every 2 years—it gives direction, commitment and accountability. So pass WRDA, even if it is not the perfect bill that we would all aspire 

to have. • Do not think that by delaying WRDA—as has been done for more than 6 years 

now—you are simply putting off problems to another year. Delay actually causes 

new problems while not resolving the old. It sows the seeds of doubt, confusion, and 

inflation-driven higher costs. And it increases daily operating costs. For example, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, more than 30 percent of the 95,000 

vessels that call at U.S. ports each year are light loaded. We need a system that 

protects the environment and assures the cost effectiveness of projects, but not a 

system that creates conflicting regulations and repetitive layers of review. A Reconnaissance Study for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project—our pending harbor 

deepening project—identified a federal interest for deepening in 1996. After 11 years 

and almost $30 million in largely state-funded studies since then, the draft report 

is not slated to be out for public review until January 2008. Let me emphasize that 

most of the funding for this study has been advanced by the State of Georgia, so 

we have not been waiting on Federal appropriations—we have been waiting to get 

every block checked in the study requirements. Mr. Chairman, it should not take 

a dozen years to do a careful study of deepening an existing channel. 

• Either spend the money in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, or dissolve the 

fund. As you know, that fund currently contains more than $3 billion. We have a 

documented Corps capability for Fiscal Year 2008 of as much as $1.3 billion, but 

the request for appropriations in FY 2008 for operations and maintenance is only 

$735 million. In the words of my colleague Warren D. McCrimmon of the ToledoLucas County Port Authority, ‘‘we ought to put the trust back in the trust fund, or 

make the tax go away.’’ 

• Modernize the Corps of Engineers. The American Association of Port Authorities has identified several proposals to do that: improve partnership relationships 

between the Corps and local sponsors; revise the WRDA 1986 definition of deepdraft harbor and cost sharing formula to reflect the changes that have taken place 

in the world cargo fleet, and thus make the federal-local cost share more equitable; 

provide credit for in-kind work during construction; give ports broad authority to 

levy fees for raising the local share of federal dredging; give the Corps direction to 

exercise its authority to direct that removal and/or relocation of utilities within 

navigation channels at 100 percent of the owner’s expense; and provide language 

to allow ports to purchase, as an allowable project cost, indemnification insurance 

for both the federal government and local sponsors. Finally, I also support the AAPA 
71 

initiative to have greater freedom in the operation of the Corps dredge fleet to permit an accurate assessment of the fleet’s true costs and benefits. 

• Pass the appropriations bills, and pass them at an adequate level to get the job 

done. I know that appropriations are not a matter under the direct control of this 

subcommittee and full committee, but without the orderly flow of funding, we tie 

our port system in knots, we unduly burden the Corps of Engineers and local sponsors, and we increase costs. 

In this room I am preaching to the choir, but more of your colleagues need to recognize that river and harbor development is not a luxury in this new millennium— 

it is the blood supply for the growth of our economy and all of the economic opportunities and benefits that come with international trade. 

I applaud the subcommittee for moving out early in this session to bring the bill 

to a vote in committee and in the Senate. I urge the House to follow your lead in 

moving forward, and I urge both bodies to give your very best effort to resolving 

disagreements and move to enactment. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I ask that along with my statement, 

your record include a fact sheet from the American Association of Port Authorities 

on WRDA, as well as Warren McCrimmon’s recent testimony in the House on behalf 

of AAPA concerning port needs and dredging requirements. Thank you for your time 

and the honor of being with you this morning. 

Senator ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to Mr. Williams. I have a 12 o’clock appointment that I cannot miss. So when 

I get ready to get up, which is right now, and leave, it is not because I don’t want to hear your testimony. I read your brochure on 

the Penobscot River in Maine, and your testimony. We appreciate 

very much the contribution of the Conservancy, in particular to the 

Chattahoochee National River Forest effort in Atlanta, GA, which 

is now the largest urban river park in America. So thank you, and 

I apologize I cannot stay. 

Doug, thank you very much for what you and Senator Mattingly 

are doing for our State. We appreciate your being here to testify 

today. 

Ms. Pogue, likely as well. We appreciate your being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. You bet. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Williams. 

STATEMENT OF JAMIE WILLIAMS, STATE DIRECTOR, THE 

NATURE CONSERVANCY OF MONTANA 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. Again, I 

am Jamie Williams, State Director for the Nature Conservancy of 

Montana, as you well know. I am here to provide the subcommittee 

with my perspective on some ecosystem restoration successes with 

the Corps of Engineers, and to offer some suggestions on legislative 

and funding needs, with the strong hopes that WRDA passes this 

year. 

The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to the conservation of ecologically important places for nature and people. Our on the ground 

conservation work is carried out in all 50 States and 30 foreign 

countries. In Montana, we have a 30-year track record of helping 

local landowners and communities sustain Montana’s working 

landscape, legendary wildlife, free-flowing rivers, and recreational 

access—all of which, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, is so central 

to Montana’s special quality of life. 

The Corps of Engineers has been the key conservation partner 

for the Nature Conservancy, as we have expanded our efforts to re-
72 

store large ecosystems such as the Upper Mississippi River, the Everglades, as well as many numerous smaller projects. 

Drawing on this experience, I would like to share two success 

stories that demonstrate how we can meet the Nation’s most challenging environmental problems, while also providing for flood control, irrigation, navigation and other water resource needs. 

The Yellowstone River is one of the Conservancy’s top conservation priorities in Montana. It is the longest remaining free-flowing 

river in the lower 48 States. The 671-mile-long Yellowstone is a 

rare model of the structure and function of large Western rivers. 

It continues to support extensive cottonwood forests and over 60 

fish species, including a small population of pallid sturgeon, one of 

the last strongholds in the Missouri River Basin. 

Just 70 miles above the river’s mouth, however, lies a low-head 

diversion dam called Intake Dam. While critical for irrigation, Intake Dam prevents the Yellowstone’s warm water fish species from 

reaching their native spawning grounds upstream. With only about 

350 pallid sturgeon left in the Upper Missouri, fixing Intake is the 

keystone to their recovery in the Upper Basin. 

To this end, the Nature Conservancy has been involved with a 

tremendous collaborative effort with the Army Corps of Engineers, 

the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, Montana’s Governor and congressional delegation, and most importantly the Lower Yellowstone 

Irrigation Districts, to find a way of providing fish passage at Intake, while ensuring continued water delivery to over 52,000 acres 

of irrigated agricultural land which is key to Montana’s sugar beet 

industry. 

After studying many alternatives, a plan was developed to retrofit Intake Dam with a long rock ramp that will not only allow 

for fish passage, but also upgrade a deteriorating century old dam, 

ensuring water delivery for the next century. The project also complements other local efforts already underway upstream on one of 

the Yellowstone’s key tributaries, the Tounge River, to modify 

three irrigation structures with ‘‘fish friendly’’ management. Once 

completed, the Intake project would immediately reopen 167 miles 

of spawning habitat on the Yellowstone, and another 375 miles of 

major tributaries, providing the best and cheapest alternative to restore these fish in the Upper Basin. 

The project represents a creative way to meet restoration and 

economic needs, and has very broad local, State and Federal support. 

The Conservancy is also a partner on the Hamilton City Flood 

Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project in California, which is a model for meeting both human and ecosystem 

needs. Hamilton City is located on the Sacramento River, the largest river in California. 

Historically, the river was lined by 800,000 acres of riparian 

habitat, over 90 percent of which has been lost. Hamilton City and 

surrounding agricultural lands are only marginally protected from 

flooding by a degraded private levee called the ‘‘J’’ Levee. As a result, Hamilton City has been evacuated due to flooding six times 

in the last 20 years. 
73 

For over 25 years, the community has attempted unsuccessfully 

to secure Federal engagement in efforts to reduce their risk of 

flooding. It was not until habitat restoration was incorporated into 

the project that the cost-benefit ratio justified Federal participation. When complete, this project will replace the existing ‘‘J’’ Levee 

with a structurally sound setback and reconnect 1,500 acres of 

floodplain to the Sacramento River. By meeting the flood control 

needs of the community, while restoring riparian habitat to the 

river processes, this innovative effort, which enjoys broad bipartisan support, is a true win-win. 

While the Corps has been an excellent and willing partner on the 

projects I have just described, policy and fundraising constraints 

threaten the success of these and many other important restoration 

efforts. We recognize that tight budgets require difficult funding 

decisions, but with that said, the Conservancy believes that Congress must make ecosystem restoration a top water resource funding priority. 

In addition, many of our projects, including our work on the Yellowstone and the Sacramento River I just described, are awaiting 

authorization in WRDA in order to move forward. 

In conclusion, the Corps and its partners are developing remarkable projects that achieve significant economic and environmental 

gains, and are highly responsive to local interests. Congress should 

support this innovative work by passing WRDA and making ecosystem restoration a funding priority. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JAMIE WILLIAMS, STATE DIRECTOR, THE NATURE

CONSERVANCY OF MONTANA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify on America ’s Water Resources needs, and in particular, the ecosystem restoration needs of our country. I am Jamie Williams, State Director for The Nature 

Conservancy in Montana. My comments today will focus on three areas: 

• examples of successes in ecosystem restoration; 

• policy and funding needs to move forward; and 

• highlights of some of the nation’s most significant ecosystem restoration priorities. 

The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit organization dedicated to 

the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. Our on-the-ground conservation 

work is carried out in all 50 states and in 30 foreign countries and is supported by 

approximately one million individual members. The Nature Conservancy has protected more than 117 million acres of land and 5,000 miles of river around the 

world. Our work also includes more than 100 marine conservation projects in 21 

countries and 22 US States. In Montana, we have a 30-year track record of helping 

local landowners and communities sustain Montana’s working landscapes, legendary 

wildlife, free flowing rivers, and recreational access—all of which are so central to 

Montana ’s special quality of life. 

The Conservancy owns and manages approximately 1,400 preserves throughout 

the United States—the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. 

We recognize, however, that our mission cannot be achieved by core protected areas 

alone. Therefore, our projects increasingly seek to accommodate compatible human 

uses, and especially in the developing world, to address sustained human well-being. 

As the Conservancy has increased its engagement in a variety of restoration 

projects ranging from large-scale efforts in the Upper Mississippi River and Everglades to smaller scale projects under continuing authority programs, the Corps has 

become an important conservation partner. By number of projects, the Conservancy 

is now the Corps’ largest non-federal sponsor of ecosystem restoration projects. This 
74 

expanding partnership is reflected in our Sustainable Rivers Program, a joint effort 

focusing on dam re-operations on 10 ecologically significant river systems across the 

country. At another 39 sites we are collaborating with the Corps under the sections 

1135 and 206 Continuing Authority Programs (CAPs), and other Corps authorities, 

to protect and restore areas of critical ecological concern. 

I. SUCCESSES IN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

The past century has witnessed a decline in the ecological health of many of our 

nation’s rivers and streams. Much of this decline is the unintended consequence of 

federal water development projects designed to provide public benefits such as flood 

control, electricity and irrigation. As a result, ecosystem restoration has become a 

critical component of the Corps’ Civil Works mission. Drawing on the Conservancy’s 

growing experience with ecosystem restoration, I would like to share with you three 

success stories that demonstrate how we can meet some of the nation’s most challenging environmental problems while continuing to provide for water resource 

needs such as flood control, irrigation and navigation. 

The Yellowstone River is one of the Conservancy’s top conservation priorities in 

Montana. As the longest remaining free-flowing river in the lower 48 States, the 

671-mile Yellowstone is a rare model of the structure and function of large western 

rivers. It continues to support healthy riverside cottonwood forests and over 60 fish 

species, including a small population of endangered pallid sturgeon, one of the last 

strongholds in the Missouri River Basin. 

Just 70 miles above the river’s mouth with the Missouri is a low-head diversion 

dam, called Intake Dam. While critical for irrigation in the region, Intake Dam prevents the Yellowstone ’s warm water fish species from reaching native spawning 

grounds upstream. There are only about 350 pallid sturgeon left in the upper Missouri-Yellowstone Recovery Area, and the Yellowstone presents the best functioning 

river system to recover this endangered fish. Right now, the fish collect at the base 

of Intake dam during their spawning run only to turn around without success. The 

sturgeon population is aging, and biologists estimate they only have about 10 years 

left to successfully reproduce naturally. The Conservancy has been involved with a 

tremendous collaborative effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army 

Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, 

Montana’s Governor and Congressional delegation, and most importantly, the local 

Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Districts to find a way of providing fish passage at Intake while ensuring continued water delivery to over 55,000 acres of irrigated agricultural land critical to Montana’s sugar beat industry. 

After studying many alternatives, a plan was developed to retrofit Intake dam 

with a long rock ramp that will not only allow for fish passage but also upgrade 

a deteriorating, century-old dam, ensuring water delivery for the next 100 years. 

The project also compliments other local efforts upstream on one of the Yellowstone’s key tributaries, the Tounge River, to modify 3 irrigation structures with ‘‘fish 

friendly’’ management. Once completed, the Intake project would immediately reopen up to 175 miles of spawning habitat on the Yellowstone River and another 375 

miles of major tributaries once the Tounge projects are completed, providing the 

best and cheapest alternative to restore these fish in the Missouri Basin (see attached map). 

The project represents a great, creative way to meet ecosystem restoration and 

economic needs, and has very broad local, State, and Federal support. In fact, it has 

resulted in basin-wide support, which is remarkable given that the water politics 

of the Missouri River basin are extremely complicated. To ensure that success is realized, we urge Congress’ continued support by providing authorizing language in 

WRDA and necessary federal funding for this project. 

The Conservancy is also a partner on the Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction 

and Ecosystem Restoration project in California, which is a model for what can, and 

should, happen elsewhere. Hamilton City is located on the Sacramento River—the 

largest river in California, draining approximately 24,000 square miles and supplying 80 percent of the freshwater flowing into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 

Historically, the river was lined by 800,000 acres of riparian habitat. Over 95 percent of this habitat has been lost. The remaining mosaic of riparian and aquatic 

habitats along the Sacramento River is home to several listed threatened and endangered species, including neotropical migrant birds, all four runs of chinook salmon, and steelhead trout. 

Hamilton City and surrounding agricultural lands are only marginally protected 

from flooding by a degraded private levee (circa 1904) called the ‘‘J’’ Levee. The ‘‘J’’ 

Levee does not meet any formal engineering standards and provides only a 66 percent chance of passing a 10-year flood. As a result, Hamilton City has mounted flood 
75 

fights and has been evacuated due to flooding six times in the last 20 years. In the 

winter of 2005–2006, flood conditions prompted delivery of 60,000 sandbags to Hamilton City. Surrounding agricultural lands also receive little protection from flooding. 

For over 25 years, the community attempted—unsuccessfully—to secure federal 

engagement in their efforts to reduce the risk of flooding to the town and the surrounding agricultural lands that are important to the town’s economy. It was not 

until habitat restoration was incorporated into the project that the benefit of the 

project was deemed sufficient to justify the cost. Project partners collaborated to 

conduct a feasibility study, which produced a plan with broad bipartisan support. 

The plan involves construction of a new set-back levee and reconnection of about 

1,500 acres of floodplain to the river, which will simultaneously facilitate restoration 

of riparian habitat and significantly enhance flood protection for the community. 

This dual purpose project has the potential to be a true ‘‘win-win′′—by meeting 

the flood-control needs of the local community while restoring riparian habitats and 

natural river processes. The local community is working hard to uphold its part of 

the bargain. Its citizens have raised over $100,000 in donations and proceeds from 

annual levee festivals held since 1998 to contribute toward the project’s nonfederal 

cost share. To continue to move forward, this project needs the continued support 

of Congress to provide federal funding and authorizing language in WRDA. 

Lastly, I would like to highlight an innovative and cooperative project to restore 

over 1,000 miles of river habitat on the Penobscot River in Maine. The Penobscot 

is Maine’s largest river and second largest in New England. Historically, runs of Atlantic salmon, American shad, alewife and nine other migratory fish species 

streamed from the Gulf of Maine to spawning habitats up river. These native fisheries thrived in a complex ecosystem supported by diverse and abundant invertebrate life, fertile wetlands and varied spawning. However, over the last two centuries, construction of a series of dams along the river has created impassable barriers to many of these native sea-run fish. 

The restoration of the Penobscot River is an unprecedented effort to remove two 

dams and build a state-of-the-art fish bypass around a third to open up historic 

spawning habitat for endangered Atlantic salmon and six other species of sea-run 

fish. The seeds of the project were sown in 1999 when PPL Corporation (formerly 

Pennsylvania Power and Light) purchased a series of dams in Maine. PPL approached the Penobscot Indian Nation and several conservation organizations in 

hopes of creating a cooperative model for the dam relicensing process. The project 

is the result of a groundbreaking agreement among diverse parties, including PPL 

Corporation, the State of Maine, the Penobscot Indian Nation, the U.S. Department 

of the Interior and several conservation groups. An innovative part of the agreement 

allows the power company to increase energy production at five other hydro facilities on the river thus replacing the energy that would otherwise be lost from the 

decommissioning of three dams. 

The Penobscot River Restoration Project resolves longstanding disagreements over 

how best to restore native sea-run fish and their habitat while balancing the need 

for hydropower production. The environmental and economic goals of the project include restoring self-sustaining populations of native sea-run fish, maintaining hydropower resources, renewing opportunities for the Penobscot Indian Nation to exercise sustenance fishing rights, and avoiding future uncertainties over regulation of 

the river. The project also promises to expand recreational fishing and boating opportunities, creating new opportunities for tourism and local economic growth. 

The total cost for this restoration is estimated to be $50 million. To date, the 

project has raised $7.5 million from non-federal sources and $4.5 million from federal sources. The President’s FY08 budget requests at least $10 million in support 

of the acquisition of the dams and for pre- and post-removal monitoring. In addition, 

this project requires authorizing language in WRDA to enable the Corps to become 

a fully integrated partner in the restoration work. 

Much of our experience in ecosystem restoration, including our work on the Yellowstone, Sacramento and Penobscot Rivers, has shown how traditional water resource goals such as flood protection, irrigation and navigation can be met while 

providing for ecosystem needs. These success stories and many others like them 

demonstrate why ecosystem restoration must remain a top priority in legislation 

and funding. 

II. POLICY AND FUNDING NEEDS

While the Corps has been an excellent and willing partner on the projects described above, policy and funding constraints threaten the success of these and 

many other important restoration efforts. We recognize that in tight budget times 

difficult funding decisions must be made. With that said, we urge Congress to make 
76 

the restoration of ecosystems that contribute to the safety, welfare and livelihoods 

of local communities one of the nation’s top water resource funding priorities. In addition to funding needs, many projects, including the successes just described, are 

awaiting authorization in WRDA to move forward. To ensure that we continue to 

build on past successes in ecosystem restoration, Congress must quickly pass WRDA 

and return to the bi-annual reauthorization of this critically important legislation. 

Specific recommendations for WRDA authorization and ecosystem restoration 

funding are outlined below. 

Programmatic Funding 

The Conservancy supports well-funded, robust programmatic authorities to restore functioning, sustainable ecosystems. However, funding shortfalls in existing 

restoration programs have hindered a number of our restoration projects. In addition, there are a number of ecosystem restoration needs that are not adequately addressed by current restoration authorities. We offer the following programmatic 

funding recommendations: 

Raise the programmatic funding ceilings for sections 206 and 1135 Continuing Authority Programs (CAP) from $25 million to $100 million per year nationally, and 

the per project ceilings from $5 million to $10 million. 

Under the Section 1135 and 206 Continuing Authority Programs (CAP), the Conservancy has been the lead non-federal sponsor on 17 projects. These projects seek 

to achieve an array of ecosystem restoration goals ranging from coastal shoreline 

stabilization to fish passage and floodplain reconnection. CAP 1135 and 206 projects 

are producing many success stories around the country, and as a result, demand 

now exceeds even the annual authorized limits for these programs. 

Oversubscription of these programs has halted a number of projects that enjoy 

strong support from the local community and Corps District. In an attempt to address this problem, the FY06 Energy and Water appropriations bill implemented a 

ban on new starts and advancement of existing projects. Despite significant investment of both Federal and Conservancy resources in feasibility studies and project 

design, this situation left many of our projects languishing without funding. In some 

cases, this moratorium has forced the Conservancy’s state chapters to either abandon work on the projects or seek other funding outside of the Corps budget. Increased authorization and full funding is needed to move these worthwhile projects 

forward and to continue the positive work that has been started under these ecosystem restoration authorities. 

In addition to increasing overall program funding, adjustments are needed to the 

per project funding limits under these authorities. While the relatively small size 

of CAP projects provides distinct advantages for the Corps and project sponsors, the 

typical costs associated with ecosystem restoration such as re-vegetation or channel 

reconstruction can easily eclipse the Federal limit of $5 million per project. Increasing the per project authorization to $10 million will help alleviate this problem. 

Create a new Small Dam Removal Continuing Authority Program authorized at 

$25 million per year. 

Currently, there are tens of thousands of small, privately-owned dams nationwide. 

These dams were built to meet public needs such as flood control, irrigation and hydropower. While many are still serving these purposes, a large number no longer 

perform as they were originally intended and many have aged beyond their planned 

life expectancy, causing safety risks for communities downstream. As we have 

learned from our work on the Yellowstone and Penobscot Rivers, many dams also 

cause ecological harm to rivers by altering the natural chemical, physical and biological characteristics of the waterway and limiting access to important habitat for 

a number of fish species. While there is often strong support for removal of small 

dams that have outlived their usefulness, a dedicated funding source for this purpose does not yet exist. A new small dam removal continuing authority program 

would go a long way to help to fulfill this unmet need. 

Reauthorize the Estuary Restoration Act 

In approving the Estuary Restoration Act (ERA) in 2000, Congress recognized the 

importance of a nationwide, strategic plan and multi-level partnerships for effectively addressing the problems plaguing our nation’s estuaries. By setting a goal to 

restore one million acres of estuary habitat by 2010, the Act encourages coordination 

among all levels of government, and engages the unique strengths of the public, 

non-profit, and private sectors. 

At this time, a number of improvements are necessary to the Act, including funding reauthorization for the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as new authority for 

the partner federal agencies on the Estuary Council the Environmental Protection 

Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture to request funding and coordinate with 
77 

the Army Corps through cooperative agreements to implement estuary restoration 

projects. Additionally, in order for the Estuary Restoration Program to become more 

effective, small projects language must be enacted to complement these cooperative 

agreements, thereby allowing projects under $1 million to move forward through the 

assistance of the partner agencies. 

The Conservancy supports the inclusion of language in this year’s WRDA to reauthorize the Estuary Restoration Act (ERA, P.L. 106–457). We applaud the committee for including reauthorization language for the ERA in the Senate WRDA 

2006 legislation, and we encourage the committee to support maintaining the ERA 

language in the WRDA 2007 legislation. 

Policy Constraints 

Through our on the ground experience delivering ecosystem restoration projects 

we have identified a number of programmatic or policy changes that are needed to 

improve the implementation of these projects. The recommendations below will help 

improve efficiency and expedite project delivery by removing some of the policy barriers to successful implementation. 

Permit credit for ecosystem restoration work that is related to a flood control 

project and is locally implemented prior to project authorization. 

Presently, the Corps may credit non-federal sponsors for early implementation of 

flood walls, levees or other features that reduce flood damages if built to Corps 

standards and ultimately included in the authorized project. However, no similar 

authority exists for early implementation of floodplain or ecosystem restoration. In 

cases where flood control projects include a restoration component, allowing early 

restoration means implementation can proceed more quickly, perhaps accelerating 

the schedule by years. 

Permit NGOs to serve as the non-federal sponsor of General Investigations Studies 

The Nature Conservancy has been an integral partner in many ecosystem restoration efforts involving General Investigation studies, but currently, non-governmental 

organizations cannot serve as the non-federal sponsor. Where the Conservancy or 

another NGO is the lead partner in an ecosystem restoration project, this policy limits the non-federal funding and in-kind support that can be brought to a project. Allowing NGOs to be non-federal sponsors will expedite project delivery and ensure 

that NGOs can continue to play an active role in ecosystem restoration projects. 

Permit pre-Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) credit in the Section 206 and 

1135 programs for necessary project elements performed by the non-federal sponsor. 

The PCA occurs after all of the Corps studies, planning, and designs are completed and the non-federal project sponsor commits to the non-federal share of the 

project. All of the Corps costs prior to signing the PCA are included in the cost of 

the project, while any work the non-federal sponsor does prior to the PCA is not 

included or credited. The Conservancy proposes the local Corps District be permitted 

to give cost-share credit for work undertaken by the non-federal partner within 5 

years prior to signing the PCA and after the initial letter of intent. This credit could 

include such activities as pre-project monitoring and restoration activities. Credit 

will not be recognized beyond the non-federal sponsor’s cost share requirement and 

the Corps will not be liable for funds if the PCA is not ultimately signed. 

Correct unlimited liability for non-federal sponsor in Project Cooperation Agreements (PCA). 

Presently, PCAs permit either party to stop a project if it exceeds agreed project 

costs. The unlimited liability problem is a clause in the PCA that permits the District Engineer to require a project to be completed at statutorily required cost share 

for the purposes of public health and safety, and if the project exceeds the statutorily determined cap for federal share, then all additional costs become the responsibility of the non-federal partner. The Conservancy proposes that in the event that 

the District Engineer determines a project needs to be continued for the purpose of 

public health and safety, the non-federal sponsor will be responsible for increased 

project costs up to 20 percent over the original estimated project cost at the statutorily determined cost share. The Corps will assume all costs exceeding 20 percent 

of the original estimated project cost, notwithstanding the statutorily determined 

federal share cap. 

III. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PRIORITIES

In addition to the projects highlighted above, the Conservancy is actively involved 

in a variety of restoration efforts across the country. As the committee evaluates the 

President’s FY08 Budget for the Corps of Engineers and considers a new WRDA bill, 

we ask you to take into account these significant ecosystem restoration needs. Our 

top priorities are outlined below. 
78 

The Conservancy has a long history of working with partners on conservation 

projects within the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River basins. To further 

these efforts the Conservancy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mississippi 

Valley Division signed a regional memorandum of agreement to promote collaborative water management of the Mississippi River. The Conservancy’s goal is to conserve and restore the ecological structure, function and dynamics of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers’ basins and their diverse freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. Key strategies for accomplishing this include naturalizing flows, restoring 

floodplains in these river valleys and promoting compatible agricultural and forestry 

practices within their basins. Two important restoration authorities are contributing 

to our restoration work in the Upper Mississippi River basin. 

The Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program (EMP) 

is a Corps program that constructs habitat restoration projects and conducts longterm resource monitoring of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. The EMP operates as a unique federal-state partnership involving five states (Illinois, Iowa, 

Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin). We applaud the committee for authorizing 

NGOs to be non-federal sponsors for this program in the 2006 WRDA bill, which 

will increase ecosystem restoration opportunities within the basin. We encourage 

the committee to maintain this language in this year’s WRDA bill. The Conservancy 

also supports full funding of $33.2 million for EMP in FY 2008, an increase over 

the President’s $23.464 million request. 

The Enhanced Navigation Capacity Improvements and Ecosystem Restoration 

Plan for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System is a comprehensive ecosystem restoration program that recognizes the Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers as multi-purpose rivers that provide important economic and ecological 

benefits, enriching the quality of life for millions of people. However, regularly and 

at great cost, ecological functions and benefits have been compromised for economic 

development. This program will allow the Corps and its partners to begin the task 

of restoring the ecological health of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers. 

The Nature Conservancy strongly supports a well-funded, robust ecosystem restoration program for the Upper Mississippi River basin. We would like to commend 

the Committee for including provisions in WRDA as it passed the Senate last year 

that promote a science-based approach to restoring the upper Mississippi River 

basin and emphasize a healthy ecosystem through effective and adaptive restoration 

and management. We ask you to retain these forward-looking provisions as you consider WRDA this year. 

The Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Program supports projects that 

mitigate for fish and wildlife habitat losses resulting from past channelization efforts on the Missouri River. The Missouri River has an array of aquatic and terrestrial systems containing more than 500 species of mussels, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, five of which are either listed or candidates for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act. The Corps has completed 30 projects along the 

river in the lower four states (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska) resulting in 

more than 40,000 acres of restored aquatic and floodplain habitat. The Missouri 

River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Program will not only enhance these restoration 

efforts, but complement protection and restoration efforts across the basin by the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Defense, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National 

Park Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

The Conservancy is in agreement with the Basin states Governors that program 

funding should be used basin-wide, including funding for the Yellowstone River Intake project in Montana. The Conservancy also supports the establishment of the 

Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee to oversee and coordinate restoration efforts. We commend the Committee for including these provisions in last 

year’s Senate-passed WRDA and request that they be retained as you consider 

WRDA this year. The Conservancy also supports $85.0 million in FY 2008 for the 

Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Program. 

The South Florida Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Program includes a collection of restoration authorities that function together to restore one of our nation’s 

most precious natural resources. The Everglades are home to a profusion of bird 

species, with 347 species recorded within Everglades National Park alone. The ecosystem provides breeding habitat for roseate spoonbills, snail kite, southern bald 

eagle, Cape sable seaside sparrow, wood stork, white ibis, glossy ibis and eleven species of egrets and herons. For the last 60 years, the Corps has built projects for 

human benefit that shunted water away from the Everglades. Many factors, including these flood control projects and agricultural and urban development, have contributed to the reduction and degradation of the wetlands ecosystem. Restoration of 

this globally significant region is a priority for the Conservancy. The Conservancy 
79 

continues to support robust funding for these efforts and recommends $249.1 million 

in the South Florida Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Program in FY 2008. This 

funding will support the following suite of restoration programs: • Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park ($35 million): This 

project balances fresh water crossing Tamiami Trail and entering the park. Completing this project is a pressing concern to restore habitat and stave off the danger 

of an estuarine collapse in Florida Bay. • Critical Projects Construction ($8.3 million): This special program is made up 

of nine projects that are critical to the future of the entire ecosystem’s restoration • Kissimmee River Restoration Construction ($50 million): This project involves 

restoring water-level fluctuations and seasonal discharges from Lakes Kissimmee, 

Cypress and Hatchineha in the upper basin. This project features 22 miles of canal 

backfilling and structure removal along with land acquisition of over 100,000 acres. • Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Project Construction ($35 

million): Components of this plan include aquifer storage and recovery; construction 

of surface water storage reservoirs; construction of storm water treatment areas; 

seepage management; removal of 240 miles of barriers to sheet flow; and reuse of 

wastewater at two regional plants. • Central and Southern Florida Project to include the C–111, CERP, and STA 1 East projects ($120.8 million): This program includes the Upper St. Johns, Manatee 

Protection, C–51 and STA–1E, C–111, Miami Canal Study and 10 initial projects 

of the CERP. Recent progress includes initial construction of manatee pass gates, 

with all gates expected to be completed this year; completed construction on the C– 

51 and transfer of operations to the South Florida Water Management District; and 

continuing design for the next phase of buffer construction for the C–111 project. 

The Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Program provides funding for early action 

projects to preserve, protect and restore critical ecosystem processes, habitats, and 

functions within the Puget Sound basin. A Puget Sound Nearshore Marine Habitat 

Restoration General Investigation study is also underway to examine the needs of 

the Puget Sound Basin and determine how large-scale management measures, including restoration actions, can benefit the environment. These two efforts are closely coordinated, as the Nearshore study is informing the selection of critical projects 

for implementation through the Adjacent Waters Program. 

Initial assessments of nearshore habitat by the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring 

Program indicate that the ecological health of the nearshore ecosystem is in steep 

decline with more than a third of the system directly impacted by development. This 

situation is much worse near urban centers and large river deltas, where habitat 

loss approaches 100 percent. The Puget Sound Basin is home to more than 220 species of fish, 26 different kinds of marine mammals, 150 species of birds and thousands of species of invertebrates. This includes federally-listed Southern resident 

orcas, Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer chum salmon, bull trout, Stellar sea lion, marbled murrelet, bald eagle, and more than 100 other species of rare 

plants and animals. 

Resources for conservation in this region are limited, urban areas are expanding, 

and an extraordinary heritage of native species and ecosystems is at risk. The Puget 

Sound restoration efforts are designed to provide an ecosystem approach to the ongoing Endangered Species Act and other species-specific restoration and recovery 

initiatives with the goal of achieving a healthy and sustainable Puget Sound basin. 

The Conservancy supports continued funding for these important restoration efforts 

and recommends $5 million in FY 2008 for the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters 

Program as well as $1.9 million in FY 2008 for the Puget Sound Nearshore Marine 

Habitat Restoration General Investigation Study. 

The Louisiana Coastal Area study (LCA) represents a committed effort to establish highly productive, cost-effective, and long-term coastal restoration projects that 

are essential to saving Louisiana’s coastal wetlands. The Louisiana coastal plain remains the largest expanse of coastal wetlands in the contiguous United States. The 

coastal wetlands, built by the deltaic processes of the Mississippi River, contain an 

extraordinary diversity of habitats that range from forested swamps to freshwater, 

brackish, and saltwater marshes. These habitats comprise one of the nation’s most 

productive and important natural resources. Coastal Louisiana produces 20 percent 

of the seafood in the United States and includes deep-draft ports that handle 16 percent of the Nation’s waterborne commerce by tonnage. Coastal wetlands also provide 

critical stopover habitat for neotropical songbirds on their migration between North 

and Central America. 

Cosatal Louisiana is home to over 2 million people, representing 46 percent of the 

State’s population. In addition to providing vital habitat to commercial and recreational wildlife and fishery resources, the coastal wetlands protect an internationally significant commercial-industrial area from the destructive forces of coastal 
80 

storms. The need for the storm mitigating capacity of healthy coastal wetlands was 

highlighted by the devastation of the 2005 hurricanes that struck the Louisiana 

coast. 

The Nature Conservancy strongly supports authorization and funding of a largescale program for restoration of this nationally important resource. We applaud the 

committee for including provisions in WRDA as it passed the Senate last year that 

promote a science-based program to support the restoration and recovery of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands. We ask you to retain these forward-looking provisions as you 

consider WRDA this year, and we call for continued commitment to funding for restoration of the Louisiana coast.In conclusion, our experience suggests that ecosystem 

restoration should be one of our Nation’s top water resource priorities. The Corps 

and its partners are developing remarkable projects that achieve significant economic and environmental gains and are highly responsive to local interests. Congress should support that innovative work by passing WRDA and making ecosystem 

restoration a funding priority. 

I would like to thank the Chairman and the entire subcommittee for the opportunity to share this testimony with you today. 

[The referenced documents follow on page 143.] 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Jamie. 

We have spoken often about some of the projects in our State. 

I am very impressed with the cooperative efforts of lots of different 

people, whether it is the Blackfoot Challenge, or all the various different projects in the State. It is my experience, frankly, that they 

have been successful basically because of the hard work of a lot of 

people, and also individuals spending a lot of time listening to another person’s point of view, whether it is a landowner, or whether 

is somebody at Trout Unlimited, or whatever it is, just to get the 

thing put together in a way that everyone can work with and appreciate and champion, and be very proud of. 

For the benefit of this committee, could you tell us what tends 

to work and what doesn’t work? I know dollars are important, but 

just anything based upon your experience that this committee can 

benefit from as you in the Conservancy try to protect wildlife and 

recreational needs. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I think probably the most important thing you mentioned there was listening. That is a hard trait 

for many folks. You know, there are amazing people in each of 

these landscapes we work that have really terrific ideas about how 

to achieve conservation. 

And so, I would say collaborating with all the stakeholders and 

understanding what their interests are and where they are coming 

from, and collaborating on creative solutions that meets multiple 

interests. That has really been the key to conservation successes in 

Montana, and certainly the key to the success of this project. 

The Intake project is a win-win for everybody and it meets all 

of their needs, 450 farming families, conservation interests, as well 

as avoiding a major regulatory train wreck, because we got 

proactive early and found a creative solution. Of course, at the end 

of the day, funding is very important. 

Senator BAUCUS. Right. Thank you very much. I commend you 

for what you are doing, you and all your colleagues. It is very impressive, the success that you are reaching, at least in Montana. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to particularly thank the Chairman for his courtesy in having me join his 

subcommittee, of which I am not an ordinary member, but I didn’t 
81 

want Ms. Pogue to be the only member of the panel who did not 

have their home State Senator present. So I felt it was advisable 

to stop by, and I want to commend her here for her strong leadership on so many environmental issues in Rhode Island. 

Senator BAUCUS. That is a good thing to do. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I did want to mention one piece of her testimony, where she says in the early years, levees may have been 

built to contain the probable maximum flood, the 500- or 200-year 

flood, et cetera. In the past two decades, most levees have been 

dumbed down to only contain the 1 percent chance flood, the 100- 

year flood. 

I wanted to ask to what extent we need to be looking at revising 

those 100-year flood level estimates, some of which may have been 

developed 10 or 15 years ago. In the wake of new information, we 

are finding out about climate change driven by global warming and 

its effect on the severity of anticipated storms. 

Ms. POGUE. Yes, thank you, Senator Whitehouse. There are a 

couple of points to be made with that, and that is that one of the 

things that needs to be looked at, and I am sure we will find as 

we progress I hope through the levee inventory, is that oftentimes 

levees were built perhaps with that 100-year standard in agricultural or open areas way back then. 

What has happened, and we have seen it in our own State with 

dams, the 587 that we have, is that once that levee fills, and it 

might have initially been intended for agricultural purposes, but lo 

and behold you have urban sprawl and you have development and 

you have residential areas all of a sudden on the other side of the 

levee, so that 100-year standard may not be adequate. 

The other point we try to make in our testimony is that what is 

the most adequate standard, and that is trying to make a point for, 

for example, critical facilities are an example of something that 

should perhaps be built to a 500-year standard, or a higher standard than a 100-year standard. 

So I think that when we look at levees, and obviously we are not 

advocating that levees be built. There are other floodplain management solutions out there, but that in the event of improving levees 

or building levees, you need to really look at a more comprehensive 

approach, as opposed to project-directed, and that is, what is going 

to be on the other side of that levee? What type of land are you 

trying to protect? 

We strongly advocate on behalf of the Association in the event 

there is no development around, there should be no levee built. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, all of you. Maybe we can get WRDA 

enacted this year. That would just be wonderful, and also an updated WRDA, too, and not just an old WRDA, but an updated 

WRDA. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate all the time you have taken. 

One final point, Senators will want to ask questions, and they 

will be submitted for all of you to answer. I would urge you to respond on a very timely basis. I think we have 3 days for Senators 

to submit questions to you, and again, if you could get them back 

on a very timely basis, that would be very helpful. 

Thank you very much. 
82 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to 

reconvene at the call of the Chair.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mister Chairman: 

Thank you for holding this hearing today. 

I represent a state which relies heavily upon the Army Corps of Engineers’ water 

resource programs. 

Maryland has 31 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline, which are the site of two critical Corps projects—a hurricane protection project at our premier beach resort community, Ocean City, and a mitigation project at Assateague Island National Seashore. 

The Chesapeake Bay is America’s largest estuary. The Corps’ oyster and habitat 

restoration, shoreline protection, and sediment management programs are integral 

to our efforts to restore the Bay. 

We have a geography and topography which makes the Chesapeake Bay particularly susceptible to erosion. This erosion contributes millions of cubic yards of sediment annually to the bay, adversely affecting water quality and clogging navigation 

channels. 

The Port of Baltimore is one of the largest ports on the east coast and a vital engine of economic activity, contributing $2 billion to the State’s economy and employing 18,000 Marylander’s directly and tens of thousands more indirectly. 

There are 126 miles of shipping channels leading to the Port of Baltimore. Maryland also has more than 70 small navigation projects around the Chesapeake Bay 

and Atlantic Ocean. These navigation projects are critical to commercial and recreational fisherman, to local and regional commerce and to local economies. 

We rely heavily on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood protection in communities in Western Maryland and for water supply. 

In short, the Corps of Engineers has projects and provides assistance to virtually 

every jurisdiction in the State of Maryland. 

This partnership would not exist but for the authorities and funding provided in 

previous Water Resources Development Acts. 

Our efforts in Maryland focus on four principal areas: 

maintaining the navigational channels serving the Port of Baltimore and numerous communities in our state, and finding responsible and environmentally sound 

solutions for disposing of the dredged material from these channels, 

restoring the Chesapeake Bay and the rivers and streams which flow into the 

Bay, 

addressing the shoreline erosion problems on Maryland’s Atlantic Coast, and 

mitigating for previous construction of civil works such as the rewatering of the 

C&O Canal in Cumberland. 

Because of the cuts in the President’s budget for the Army Corps of Engineer’s 

civil works program in recent years and the failure to reach an agreement on the 

reauthorization of WRDA, many of these priorities are at risk. 

The President’s budget for fiscal 2008 once again cuts essential Corps’ programs 

and projects. It terminates federal support for the Chesapeake Bay’s oyster restoration project and environmental protection programs; it zeroes out the periodic renourishment required for the hurricane protection project at Ocean city; it provides 

no continued funding for the flood mitigation project at Cumberland; and it significantly reduces funding for many small navigation projects. 

We need a WRDA and a budget that will help move forward on all these fronts 

and address critical water resource infrastructure needs in Maryland. 
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 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 

Æ