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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–628 PDF 2005

MEMBER PROJECT REQUESTS FOR

THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005

(109–7)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 16, 2005

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

VACANCY

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

GARY G. MILLER, California

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

TED POE, Texas

CONNIE MACK, Florida

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana,

Vice-Chair

VACANCY

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Allen, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from Maine ......................... 24

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, a Representative in Congress from Missouri .................. 18

Castle, Hon. Michael N., a Representative in Congress from Delaware ............. 16

Foley, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from Florida ........................... 16

Fortun ̃ o, Hon. Luis, a Delegate in Congress from Puerto Rico ............................ 28

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from Maryland .......... 2

Holt, Hon. Rush D., a Representative in Congress from New Jersey ................. 26

Jindal, Hon. Bobby, a Representative in Congress from Louisiana .................... 19

Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E., a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania ...... 5

McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from Massachusetts 23

Miller, Hon Candice, a Representative in Congress from Michigan ................... 21

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the District

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 22

Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from New Jersey ........ 9

Rohrabacher, Hon. Dana, a Representative in Congress from California .......... 12

Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from Connecticut ....... 7

Stupak, Hon. Bart, a Representative in Congress from Michigan ...................... 27

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Allen, Hon. Thomas, of Maine ................................................................................ 31

Andrews, Hon. Robert E., of New Jersey ............................................................... 33

Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, of Oregon ......................................................................... 35

Boustany, Hon. Charles W., Jr., of Louisiana ....................................................... 37

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 38

Castle, Hon. Michael N., of Delaware .................................................................... 40

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 49

Cuellar, Hon. Henry, of Texas ................................................................................ 50

Davis, Hon. Susan A., of California ....................................................................... 51

Foley, Hon. Mark, of Florida .................................................................................. 53

Holt, Hon. Rush, of New Jersey ............................................................................. 55

Jindal, Hon. Bobby, of Louisiana ........................................................................... 57

Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E., of Pennsylvania ............................................................. 62

McGovern, Hon. James P., of Massachusetts ........................................................ 66

Matsui, Hon. Doris, of California ........................................................................... 68

Miller, Hon Candice, of Michigan ........................................................................... 70

Norwood, Hon. Charlie, of Georgia ........................................................................ 73

Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., of New Jersey ................................................................ 76

Rohrabacher, Hon. Dana, of California .................................................................. 77

Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, of Florida .................................................................... 79

Shays, Hon. Christopher, of Connecticut ............................................................... 81

Stupak, Hon. Bart, of Michigan .............................................................................. 83

Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn A., of Georgia .............................................................. 87

Wilson, Hon. Heather, of New Mexico ................................................................... 89

(1)

MEMBER PROJECT REQUESTS FOR THE

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF

2005

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Duncan [chairman of the subcommittee] Presiding.

Mr. DUNCAN. I will go ahead and call the subcommittee to order.

Today the subcommittee is meeting to hear testimony from Members of Congress regarding their project requests for the Water Resources Development Act of 2005.

In the last Congress, the subcommittee developed legislation authorizing the Army Corps of Engineers’ projects, and we passed

that bill in the House by a vote of 412 to 8. That was after a very

long process, with great work done by my Ranking Member, Mr.

Costello, and we will always appreciate his work on that bill. Since

that legislation was not enacted, we have given Members of Congress an opportunity to update their project requests.

I think for the last bill we had over 300 letters from Members

and 400-and-something total requests, and we are getting about

that many this time. We do have several Members who have requested that they be allowed to testify, and so we set up this hearing to allow them to do so.

We have some—we have at least Mr. Gilchrest, who wants to testify from the dais, so we will get to him in just a moment. But first

we will turn to the very distinguished Ranking Member, my friend

Eddie Bernice Johnson, for any statement that she wishes to make.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. This

hearing marks the beginning of the process to authorize vital water

resource projects for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the

Corps is the Nation’s premier water resources agency. The Corps’

primary missions are to aid in the planning, design, construction

and maintenance of the Nation’s navigation and flood control

projects and improvements, and projects for environmental and ecosystem restoration.

This committee has a long tradition of bipartisan support for the

Corps of Engineers, and has worked diligently to approve water resources legislation on a biennial schedule. Unfortunately, however,
2

no water resource legislation has been signed into law since the

year 2000, despite consistent efforts of the House.

In both the 107th and 108th Congress, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved water resource development

legislation only to have these bills fail to reach the President’s

desk. I am hopeful that this year Congress will finally send a completed water resources bill to the President and that the President

will sign this deal into law. A great number of vital projects for

flood control and navigation improvement and environmental restoration await congressional authorization before they can begin.

We have waited too long for this legislation. It is time to finish

the job.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have scheduled today’s

hearing to hear from our colleagues in the House and to learn of

their legislative priorities for the Water Resources Development

Act. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses so that we can

have a better understanding and appreciation of their concerns.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Gilchrest.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to briefly

run through some of our water requests.

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay.

Mr. GILCHREST. The first one is in a small community in

Charlestown, Maryland, on the eastern shore of Maryland. It is a

community of 11 homes. Those 11 homes have been there for decades and decades. Two things happened. One, there was a large development upstream from these 11 homes, which actually changed

the floodplain, and it changed the hydrology, so that instead of

there being a large area where the water could be absorbed, there

were a number of impervious surfaces developed so that it changed

the floodplain map that FEMA used to determine who was in the

floodplain.

The other thing is a narrow culvert under a railroad bridge

where that excessive water would back up because of the way it

was channelized. What we are asking for is a $2 million buyout for

those 11 homes. It would be a permanent deconstruction, and they

are all voluntary sellers.

The other issue is a small lake that is dammed. It wouldn’t be

a lake if it wasn’t dammed, and over the years there’s been an accumulation of nitrogen buildup in the lake because of livestock. It

continues to interfere with fish—a normal fish passage to be

spawned in this tidal wetland, the forested wetland, so we would

ask for an increase in the authorization for 206 aquatic restoration

projects. It would be one of many great examples where you could

take the nitrogen-laden mud out of that lake, take the dam down,

bring back that natural forested wetland, which would be good for

the fish, much better for the ducks, and a whole raping of other

species.
3

The third one is the section 910, which is a pilot program that

improves and helps the State with their construction and engineering design of water restoration projects—and I have a photograph

here—Blackwater Wildlife Refuge on the eastern shore of Maryland, that the Corps of Engineers designed for the first time a way

to restore lost marsh, and I would like to just pass this up to you.

You can take a look at it, the Baltimore District of the Corps of

Engineers. It is a fantastic project. They use dredge material as a

beneficial use. They put that dredge material down. You see the

complete restoration of that marsh area of thousands of acres. It

is a great program.

The last thing, Mr. Chairman, is the Corps of Engineers is working on a native oyster restoration project in the State of Maryland.

What they are doing, instead of restoring oyster beds, the Corps of

Engineers is actually building oyster reefs the way they were 300

years ago, and in a way they are much more prolific and much

more beneficial to cleaning the water, providing habitat for other

species and so on. And so we are asking for that particular project

for the Chesapeake Bay, an enormously positive $30 million for the

oyster reef activities. It is not an oyster bar which will be covered

by silt, which is subject to all kinds of degradation. It is an oyster

reef that makes the oysters a lot more prolific, a lot healthier, and

it is a much more natural ecosystem process for the Chesapeake

Bay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gilchrest. Those sound

like very worthwhile projects.

I believe Mr. Bishop, or Mr.—who is first here? Mr. Salazar was

first.

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a

brief opening statement.

I look forward to hearing from my fellow Members of Congress

on projects that are important to their own districts and to work

towards getting the Water Resources Development Act signed into

law.

In rural Colorado, water is the lifeblood of our rural communities. Those of us who work the land every day understand the

lack of adequate water, and it can be devastating. For those of us

in the heartland, that drought is a national disaster and devastates

local communities. I have made a lifelong commitment to uniting

rural water users and to improving local water structure.

As a representative of the Third Congressional District, I have

made a commitment to make sure that Colorado receives its fair

share of Federal project funding.

Water is not a partisan issue. Rural communities need water. We

cannot allow our work on defending water rights to fall apart because of partisan bickering. I look forward to working with everyone on this committee to help make sure that we take care of rural

communities and their water needs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Salazar.

Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend you for holding the hearing today and for getting the bill moving again. I am
4

disappointed we didn’t get it passed through the whole process last

year, but I appreciate your leadership on this matter and look forward to working with you.

We do have a few projects we will talk to you about later. Thank

you.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. Anybody, Mr.

Bishop or Mr. Blumenauer, do you have a statement?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too appreciate

being able to move forward. I have requests for floodplain and environmental restoration, but I won’t take the committee’s time with

at this point.

But I do hope that we are going to be able to deal with some

broader strategic issues in WRDA. We, I hope, will consider raising

funding limits for the Continuing Authorities Program that was authorized and awarded in 1996. The limits for these programs are

really too low to meet the demands of environmental restoration

projects nationwide, which has impacts for me at home, and, I

think, for others.

But I also hope that we are going to be able to continue our discussion and our focus on what some have termed—and I think appropriately—Corps reform, issues of independent review and mitigation. We had some reference to this earlier, but I think, Mr.

Chairman, they need to have a high priority. I think there is a lot

that we can squeeze out of existing resources.

In some of the painful hearings we have had here, we heard that

some of the areas that cross-currents developed that were not good

for the Corps or the public process. I think we can avoid those with

a thoughtful program of independent review. I hope that we can

look forward to strengthening these provisions.

Something that has been a deep concern of mine is the Corps’

Principles and Guidelines. They really haven’t been updated since

1983. Under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, with our Ranking

Member, Ms. Johnson, we might be able to do something to beat

their 25th anniversary.

It is a different world, as you well know. Some of the hearings

that we have had before this panel, we have all come a long way.

For us to be frozen in time, back in 1983, is just a missed opportunity and it invites problems that we don’t need. So, with your

permission, I hope we can move in that direction.

I will stop at this point, submit a statement for the record, but

I wanted to get those two provisions in.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Blumenauer, you

have been a very fine member of this subcommittee. The bill that

the House passed went further toward Corps reform than we have

ever done; some of those things are done by the Army Corps already, even though that legislation did not pass the Senate. But we

have gotten encouraging words so far from the Senate, and I think

we are on the verge of passing this bill this time.

Mr. Bishop.

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and Ranking

Member Johnson for calling this hearing and for allowing members

to testify about important Army Corps projects throughout the

country.
5

Last week we all had the opportunity to discuss the Army Corps’

budget and the spending priorities the administration has set for

the coming fiscal year, and I am pleased that now Members of Congress will have the opportunity to highlight important initiatives in

their districts and throughout the Nation.

There are many initiatives that I hope are addressed as part of

the upcoming Border Act, and I want to touch on a few of the most

important proposals for my district. The Montauk Point Study

Area, which includes the historic lighthouse commissioned by

President Washington, is located on a bluff at the eastern end of

the southern fork of Long Island. While the Montauk Point Lighthouse was originally built 300 feet from the eastern tip of Long Island, it now stands only 75 feet from the ocean.

It obviously needs protection from constant erosion. Over the

past few years, this ongoing Corps project has become bogged down

due to an unclear set of guidelines Congress established more than

a decade ago. It is now appropriate to clear up any confusion on

Congress’s intent on projects dealing with single-user issues like

Montauk, and I am hopeful that this subcommittee will work to incorporate the changes I have proposed.

In addition to dealing with the situation in Montauk Point, there

are many continuing projects in my district that need to be reauthorized as part of the WRDA, and I will continue to work to assure that these initiatives, such as the Atlantic Coast Monitoring

Program, are continued and completed on schedule.

It is important that we draft a bill that appropriately addresses

the Corps’ role in protecting our shorelines and safeguarding the

environment while preserving the longstanding balance of the

Corps’ civil and military responsibilities.

So I appreciate your willingness, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking

Member’s willingness to pursue a new WRDA Act so early in the

109th Congress.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop. We had 400-

and-something requests in the last WRDA bill, and we are going

to have that many or more in this bill. Many, many Members have

requested that they be allowed to testify in person, and we have

got 15 scheduled today.

The first two are here with us, and we are very pleased to have

the Honorable Paul Kanjorski and the Honorable Christopher

Shays with us. Your full statements will be placed in the record.

You can summarize if you wish to do so, but we are pleased to have

you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Paul, you can begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you for offering this opportunity to testify. I come before the committee today to discuss two public policy priorities in my district:

(1) flood protection and (2) improvements in water quality.

The Susquehanna River runs through the heart of northeastern

Pennsylvania in my congressional district. Of course, it is rather famous for its floods and pollution, and these projects relate to that.
6

First and foremost, I urge the committee to continue to support the

flood control projects and the Wyoming Valley Levee Project, which

is about 80 to 85 percent complete. We are in the last few stages

of getting that done. Anything that the committee can do consistent

with the language that I have submitted to the committee will be

very helpful.

We also want to attach a Solomon Creek Flood Control Project

to the Wyoming Valley Levee Raising Project. We have included

language that—incidentally, this attachment did pass the 108th

Congress in H.R. 2557, which you know, did not make its way

through the Senate. So we urge the committee to maintain the Solomon Creek Flood Control Project in the new bill as it moves

through.

Also, I would appreciate the inclusion of an authorization for the

Bloomsburg Flood Control Project. What we are doing there is asking for an authorization, subject to the completion of the chief’s report that will be finalized by the end of December. The Corps has

assured me that they will complete that, and that would give us

sufficient authorization to move on to design and construction.

Also, we have what is called the Nanticoke Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project. Nanticoke Creek is a substantially polluted creek

that flows down into the Susquehanna River. Because of the size

of the restoration, it needs individual authority, and I ask the committee to give that authority in the new bill.

We also have the Olyphant Flood Control Project, which is located in Lackawanna County, and it requires increases in authorization level, and we have submitted statements and information

in accordance thereto.

The communities in my district lack the sufficient capacity to address some of these problems without the support of the Federal

Government. One major problem that we are working with is handling combines sewer overflows (CSOs). In order to accomplish

that, I have worked very closely with the Corps. We have provided

language for Title II, section 219, of the 1992 WRDA Act and Title

III of the 1992 WRDA Act. The submitted language will be instrumental in giving authority to move on to correct incredibly bad

combined sewer overflow problems, not sizable in nature. We require that adjustment so that appropriations can be made under

those two titles.

Finally, I heard our colleague from Maryland mention the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration Project program. I am urging the committee to increase the authorization level significantly

on that program, and particularly to relate to the committee that

it is important. You may say the Chesapeake Bay is in Maryland,

but I am from Pennsylvania. Well, I want the committee to know

that 50 percent of the fresh water that flows into the Chesapeake

Bay comes from the Susquehanna River.

I also may add, with embarrassment, that 50 percent of the pollution of the Chesapeake Bay, man-made pollution, comes from the

Susquehanna River. So by increasing the authority level of the

Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration Program, the Corps

will be able to go upstream into the Susquehanna to take care of

some of the really difficult problems.
7

Basically, Mr. Chairman, we have submitted papers to the committee with our requests and language changes that are necessary

to accomplish all these ends. I want to thank the committee for its

positive nature in taking this bill up. It is certainly essential. I

agree with the statements I have heard from all the members.

Mr. Salazar, water quality is absolutely essential. We can’t be

bogged down in 1982 thinking. We have got to really advance, and

I see the forward motion of this committee accomplishing that very

thing. I want to take this opportunity to compliment you on your

good works, and appreciate all the efforts you can give towards my

projects.

Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much, Paul. We don’t ordinarily ask many questions of members, since we know you have

such busy schedules, and we will have a chance to talk to you later

on the floor if we need to. But if anybody has any questions or comments—but thank you very much for coming to be with us today.

You are free to go.

Our next witness will be the honorable Christopher Shays. Chris,

we are pleased to have you with us, and you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, and Ranking Member

Johnson, and all the members. This is a hardworking committee,

and I will summarize and let your staff do the kind of background

they need to on my requests.

I have three project requests:

One is we would like you to consider correcting a problem with

the authorization in section 345 of the Water Resources Development Act. This act requires a 35 percent nonFederal share typically. It requires a 35 percent nonFederal share of innovative methods of dredging disposable material. Basically dredging is covered

100 percent, so this is almost discouraging our community to go

with a more innovative, active approach, because you end up having to pay the 35 percent. If your folks would look at that, that

would be helpful.

Second, I have a request from the Fairfield Harbor Management

Commission. They would like to redesign the existing Federal navigation project in Southport. Basically, they would like to relocate

the current boundary between the 9-foot Federal anchorage and the

9-foot Federal channel to approximately 850 feet downstream from

its current position; in other words, approximately 850 feet of the

existing navigation channel will become part of the 9-foot Federal

anchorage.

Third, the Bridgeport Port Authority again would like to narrow

the authorized Yellow Mill River channel from 200 feet to 150 feet.

We are providing water-dependent activities in our harbor, and

the Derecktor Shipyards has a major complex there, and shortening this by 50 feet would enable them to carry out and do their job.

It is my understanding that both the requests of the Fairfield Commission and the Bridgeport Port Authority, both of these requests

have been supported by the Army Corps of Engineers.
8

Thank you very much.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Shays. Those sound like

very important and worthwhile projects. Thank you very much.

We have now been joined by Dr. Boozman and Mr. Osborne. Dr.

Boozman, do you have any statement or comment that you wish to

make at this time?

Mr. BOOZMAN. I really don’t have a statement. At some point I

would like to address two or three projects.

Mr. DUNCAN. Go right ahead.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. I won’t take a lot of time. I have been

working with you and staff, you know, about these things. But I

really have two or three things that are really important in our

area; you know, really have looked for projects that we feel like are

very important.

One of the problems that we have—it is not really a problem—

but we are in a very rapidlygrowing area of the country. We are

probably the fifth, sixth, fastest-growing region in the country.

With many other areas, water has become a real problem. So one

of the problems that we would like to do is take and dam up part

of Lee Creek on Pine Mountain. Certainly that would provide a

good deal of water, you know, for many years to come, and for

many other reasons: flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement.

One of the other projects that we have worked hard to get authorized is a minimum flow initiative. Arkansas is blessed with a

great deal of scenery and things, and has really become one of the

better trout fishing areas in the country.

One of the problems that we have is the water coming through

the turbines on the dam. You know, one day they are generating,

the next day they are not. Sometimes you are being swept away

by the water, sometimes you are not.

So we have worked really hard with the Corps. We have worked

with our power producers and things to kind of negotiate how we

would like to do that, and have really reached agreement there.

So those are the main things. One other thing, I mentioned this

the other day in the hearing to the General as he was over here—

we have a power—I guess a power plan on the Ozark lock and

dam. You know, the turbines and things, they were designed in an

area where they weren’t, many years ago, where they were just inefficient.

Now they don’t work, and we have got a tremendous amount of

power potential that is just being wasted for a minimal amount of

money, you know. We can get that up and running.

But we have a situation now where so much, you know, we have

concerns of global warming, you know, things like that. This is

such a clean form of energy, whereas the alternative is to use a

coal-fired or a natural gas-fired production of energy. So that is another project that we would like to look at. So thank you very

much.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you, Dr. Boozman.

Mr. Osborne.

Mr. OSBORNE. Just a real brief comment. Those of us who reside

in the Plains States are generally pleased with the accommodation

the Corps and the Fish and Wildlife Service have reached on the
9

Missouri River. It seemed like a pretty good adaptation of conservation practices, and preserving the endangered species, plus

flows in the river. So we want to make sure that that is in the

WRDA agreement and we certainly appreciate the work that has

been done there. But other than that, I have no further comments.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, thank you very much. As I said earlier, we have about, I guess, about 400 or more requests for

projects in the bill. We had 15 Members who requested that they

be allowed to testify here in person this morning, but we have got

several of them running late. So we will be in a brief recess.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, does this mean that those of us

who showed up will—

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, those of you who showed up, your projects will

definitely be included.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right.

[Recess.]

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. We will go back into session. There are

a couple of other members on their way. We are pleased at this

time to give Mr. Oberstar a chance to get his breath, and we will

hear the testimony from the honorable Frank Pallone.

Mr. DUNCAN. Frank, we are pleased to have you with us and you

may proceed and make your statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can’t help but remember when I came to this room and I used to be on the committee—

I hate to say how long ago it is now, I think it was 13 years now

when I was last on the committee—and I would see my predecessors up there, Congressman Jim Howard and Congressman Bob

Roe, both of whom I had such great respect for over the years.

I just wanted to talk to you about four projects under WRDA, if

you would consider for authorization, each of which is in my district, and essentially along the coastal part of New Jersey. One is

authorization of the South River Flood Damage Restoration and

Ecosystem Restoration Project. I call it the South River Dam

Project. Basically, it was the result of the 1993 storm, which was

about the worst storm that hit New Jersey in a long time. That is

over 10 years ago now, and we have moved forward with various

stages, you know, for the design and the reconnaissance and all

that on the project. The chief’s report has been completed. There

is a design agreement that has already been executed. The total

cost is over $1 million. And so I would hope that you would consider that for authorization in WRDA.

The second one is Union Beach. This is one of the flood control

and shore protection projects. It is a very low-lying area on the

Raritan Bay, across from the City of New York. Again, looking back

to the 1992 or 1993 storm when we had terrible conditions there,

a lot of flooding—and, again, a chief’s report is expected within the

next month or two on that project, after which the Corps will execute a design agreement with a local sponsor. That is a $97 million

project, and, again, very important to my district and the State of

New Jersey.
10

The third project is a little different. It is called the Marlboro

Township Watershed Project. It is something that Congressman

Holt and I are requesting together of the subcommittee. This is an

innovative program developed by the Corps’ New York district office as part of an effort to involve smaller communities and constituencies that don’t have the resources to develop a multistage

Federal project.

It is based on a successful effort at Lake Champlain in Vermont

and New York where the Corps set up the framework with a lot

of local communities to implement small watershed restoration

projects without getting repeated authorizations or funding from

Congress. Again, if you would consider that, I would certainly appreciate it. It is a very innovative program, and it is shared by myself and Congressman Holt.

Finally, on a programmatic note, I wanted to request that WRDA

include modifications to annual funding limits on the Continuing

Authority Program, the CAP program. These CAP funds which are,

you know, small funds really, not a lot of money, small projects,

but they are vitally important to communities across New Jersey.

We have a lot of very small communities in our State, and the CAP

programs have frequently been oversubscribed. So I am urging you

to increase the ceiling on section 205, the Small Flood Control

Projects, section 206, Aquatic Ecosystems Restoration, and section

1135, Environmental Improvement Projects, to 75 million. I would

also like to see the ceiling increased to 20 million on section 14,

Emergency Stream Bank Protection, and to 50 million for section

107, Small Projects for Navigation. I personally in my district have

relied on the CAP program quite a bit, and I think it is time that

we see some increases in the authorization level.

Thank you again for all you do. I know how important these and

other projects are to my district. I appreciate the time that you

spend and the fact that you give us an opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, Frank, thank you. Frank and I were sworn

into Congress on the day after the election in 1988, and because

of alphabetical order I have always been one number higher. But

now you are talking about moving possibly to the Senate, I see.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, we will see. We have a Governor’s race we

have to get over first in New Jersey, but it looks good.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, thank you very much.

We are always pleased to have the Ranking Member of the full

committee, Mr. Oberstar here. No one knows the work of this committee, I don’t think, any better than Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. Oberstar, we will call on you for any comments or statements that you wish to make at this time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman for those

gracious words. I greatly appreciate your leadership, previously on

the Aviation Subcommittee, and now in Water Resources, where

you have given your characteristic judicial and thoughtful consideration to the subject matter before the committee, and we are grateful for the leadership you have demonstrated.

This marks about 42 years that I have served on this committee

as a staff member and as a Member of Congress. I worked with

every one of the members portrayed in the portraits around this
11

room. Never have we gone this long without a Water Resources Development Act being enacted into law and implemented for the

good of the country.

The earliest charge of the Constitution was to the Congress, to

this committee, to the first committee of the U.S. House, to build

post roads and to develop the internal waterways and navigation

system of the Nation. Seventy-five percent of the population in the

country lives along the water. Most of our Nation’s major cities

were ports before they were major cities. Only two major metropolitan areas in the country are not located along a waterway.

It is the most vital responsibility in this country to develop the

most energy-efficient and the most economical means of moving

goods. We once also moved people by this most efficient means, the

waterways.

Now you, Mr. Chairman, and the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Young and I and the rest of us, have done our job. We

have reported dutifully the necessary legislation to invest in America’s water resources development. But the other body has failed to

come to a resolution. We haven’t even gotten the conference.

We welcome and are grateful for the testimony of our colleagues.

I enjoin each of them to appeal to their Senators to move this legislation. Let us not get bogged down on nitpicking issues—some of

which are very important—but in the fine details; we could have

had these matters resolved in the conference, got the bill enacted,

and be attending to the appropriations yesterday.

Just by accident, I happened to see our former colleague, John

Myers from Indiana, Mr. Chairman, former ranking Republican on

the Water and Energy Appropriations Subcommittee. We spent a

good deal of time lamenting the inability to move this legislation

through the other body and how the comity and reciprocity of earlier years resulted in successful legislation.

I don’t know of a Republican levee or a Democratic lock or any

other partisan piece of our waterways. They are all American investments. We have got to make those investments for the good of

this country and move our goods in this country and keep our economy competitive.

So I welcome the testimony of our witnesses, and I urge them to

reach across the gulf between this and the other body and help us

get this legislation enacted.

We can move it through the House, but we are not going to be

able to invest in America if the other body doesn’t cooperate with

us. The Columbia River Channel needs to be dredged 45, even 50,

feet. It is the second-most important grain export artery in America. For wheat, that locks and dams on the Mississippi River are—

with the exception of Lock and Dam 26—stuck to the largest lock

in the 1930s. Tolls have to be broken up, costing as much as 8 to

12 hours delay, and huge costs with container vessels calling in our

ports with the Chinese Shipping Company now moving to 9,000

container-sized vessels. The only two ports they can put in the

United States are on the West Coast.

Because of the lack of capacity in our rail systems, those cargos

have to be broken up on smaller ships and moved through the Panama Canal, the Gulf, and up the East Coast waterways. We need

to deepen our East Coast ports, we need to deepen the Gulf ports.
12

We have got to invest in the America waterway. We have got to

move America ahead. That’s the purpose of this committee, and I

thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar.

As you know, we did pass the WRDA bill in the House, although

we do have to get some action out of the Senate.

Mr. Pallone, we don’t normally ask Members questions in this

subcommittee because we know you have such a busy schedule and

we will have a chance to talk to you about these things on the

floor, unless somebody just calls that to my attention. So we will

let you go, and our colleague, Dana Rohrabacher, is next.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Dana, you go ahead with your statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANA ROHRABACHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking

Member, and Mr. Oberstar, of course.

There is a second item I am talking about that I am very pleased

you are here to listen to because I haven’t had a chance to talk to

you personally about it, but I think it is something you would be

interested in and the whole committee would be interested in.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

There are two items I wish to address: a stormwater infrastructure

project at Huntington Beach, California, and, second of all, a legislative provision which will provide a better way of improving port

infrastructure.

In Huntington Beach, California, the stormwater infrastructure

is, in many cases, over 40 years old and badly in need of improvement or replacement. This last February, California suffered

through what experts call a 100-year flood event, and it was to be

a whole lot of rain. I sat on my front porch and watched it rain

for days and days in California. That does not happen very often.

While the flood control systems did work and they did their job, it

was evident, however, that there is still a major challenge that we

face in my area in southern California.

The storm exposed southern California’s inability to control

urban runoff in storm conditions. The current infrastructure, obviously, could not protect Huntington Beach from health-threatening

pollutants carried downstream with rainwater. Sewage pump stations were overwhelmed by the volume of water. Some of them simply shut down due to power loss, causing millions of gallons of untreated wastewater to be released into the rivers and ultimately

into the Pacific ocean, fouling the water for days and weeks and

contributing to a health problem, or at least a health threat, to the

people who live on the coast.

Clearly, we need to vastly improve the water infrastructure that

we have. Huntington Beach and other surrounding areas sit like a

narrow funnel at the end of three rivers in a vast network of drainage channels, where polluted urban runoff from hundreds of square

miles consolidate right there at the coast. The dynamics of this system assure that if a downstream system in Huntington Beach fails,

then massive amounts of polluted urban runoff and raw sewage
13

from all over southern California are dumped right into our coastal

waters.

Stormwater infrastructure repair and upgrade in Huntington

Beach will remedy this situation. Specifically, the addition of pump

stations, increasing the capacity of existing facilities and improving

stormwater conveyance will provide the residents of Huntington

Beach, and, as I say, all of southern California, the safeguards

needed for flood protection and the delivery of clean drinking water

and the preservation of the cleanliness of our Pacific coastline. For

these reasons, I urge the inclusion of this request in the WRDA

bill.

This leads to the second part of my testimony, which is basically

a suggestion that I have—and, as I say, I am glad Mr. Oberstar

is here, because it goes to a fundamental reform that I would like

to see considered here in Congress. As Members of Congress, any

one of us can identify hundreds of projects that are worthy of support by this Congress. Just as I have been here testifying, there are

billions of dollars that could be spent in worthy endeavors, yet we

struggle to come up with the money.

Somehow, along the way, Congress has stopped asking, you

know, how are we going to pay for these things, these improvements. Well, that has to be part of the question today, because we

know we don’t have the resources to take care of all of these things.

The Federal Government is currently running a deficit in the

neighborhood of half a trillion dollars a year. Thus, we need some

creative approaches to finding new sources of revenue.

It is against this reality that I request the provisions of my bill,

H.R. 494, be included in the WRDA bill, and this allows U.S. ports

to levy fees on a per-container basis, and that money would then

be available for the projects that we are talking about, and this

would be included in a WRDA bill. Our Nation’s ports are among

our Nation’s most significant infrastructure assets. The ports of Los

Angeles and Long Beach, for example—and those are in my district—handle nearly half the goods imported in the United States.

Trillions of dollars’ worth of foreign-manufactured goods are transported through our ports and into the American market in order

to compete with domesticallymanufactured products.

Yet, almost without a question, we continue to appropriate

money for the expansion, upkeep, and maintenance of these facilities. We are essentially subsidizing the companies in China and in

the rest of the world so they can move their ships and their goods

more easily to our shores while domestic companies are being taxed

to pay for the bill.

This is a bitter irony to many embattled American manufacturers, that their tax dollars have paid for the transportation costs of

their foreign competition. This amendment which I am suggesting

today will allow ports like those in Long Beach and Los Angeles

to levy a fee on each container that is processed by those facilities.

This is just containers; this isn’t shiploads and other things, this

is a container fee.

By the way, there are no container fees now. We are picking up

the entire cost, our taxpayers, of shipping these containers through

the system that we built for them. The proceeds from this fee must

be used for the security and infrastructure improvements at the
14

port, alleviating at least a portion of the Federal burden of these

improvements.

This provision is a true user’s fee. It permits the port facilities

to charge people or receive the benefit, which is access to our markets with their goods. I am in favor of a vigorous free-market strategy, but a free-market philosophy does not require the United

States, to our own detriment, to subsidize, access to foreign companies to our market.

These Federal subsidies to the Nation’s ports often benefit companies that employ slave labor, like in China; and basically, some

of these containers rewarded with goods are manufactured by companies that are in partnership with the Chinese People’s Liberation

Army.

I say we should not be subsidizing this, and this money instead

should be made available to work on these capital programs. So

this is not good form to permit the current situation.

I am losing my voice. But let me just say that having a port fee

also is a self-regulating authority, because if ports charge too

much, they will lose customers, so it is a market-based concept.

I would ask—before I lose my voice, I will submit it for the

record and hope that you would consider this creative alternative.

Mr. DUNCAN. A very good proposal.

Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman. He is losing his voice, he doesn’t have to respond. Your testimony is prescient. However, the idea of a container fee was one

that I advanced 4 years ago in consideration of the Port Security

Act.

The Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, joined with

me in the House-Senate conference. We had a majority of conferees

in support of a container fee whose proceeds to be used exclusively

for security needs at ports—not for equipment, not for trains, not

for truck, or any other kind—but a true fee, a charge imposed to

support the service for what the charge is imposed. The White

House vigorously opposed it.

In order to get the security bill, the port security bill passed,

Senator Hollings and I agreed to withdraw on representations for

the White House that that would work. ′′they were called to work

with us,′′ close quote, to reach a financing mechanism. Never did.

It hasn’t happened.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I am looking forward to working with

you.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I know that the gentleman has great access to

the White House, and I would encourage him to use his good offices

to prevail upon those who may reason rightly at the White House

and work with us to develop a container fee.

There are more than 11 million containers entering the United

States each year; $365 billion of goods come into California ports

for distribution, 70 percent of which goes to the rest of the United

States. China is engaged right now in a $200 billion investment

program, doubling the capacity of their ports. We can do no less.

And I think that the container fee, divided among the security

needs and port infrastructure needs, would be a splendid resolution.
15

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I appreciate—

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have also tried in the past, though, I would

advise my colleague—in fact, is it the gentleman, Mr. Roe, former

chairman of the full committee—to use part of the customs duties,

95 percent of which are collected at U.S. ports, for port development. That has always been vigorously opposed. The container fee

is of a different nature.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I see this is a bipartisan

issue.

Mr. DUNCAN. It is something we will take a look at it. We will

go into more detail at another time. We have many other Members

who wish to testify.

Thank you very much, Dana. Everyone’s full statements will be

placed in the record. So you can summarize.

Mr. DUNCAN. Next is Mike Castle; our friend, Mike Castle. Mr.

Castle, I notice that you have got like 10 requests. We will help you

all we can, but if we put that many requests in there, we will have

to name this bill after you.

Mr. CASTLE. I sort of suspect that is not going to happen, Mr.

Chairman.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman and Ms. Johnson, I am only going to

talk about one of my requests. I do thank all of you for being here

today to give me an opportunity to talk to me about my water resources projects in Delaware. As I have indicated, I have elaborated on only one here, although we have other requests which are

in it. The one I want to talk about is the creating of a recreational

area surrounding the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.

The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal runs 14 miles from Delaware City on the Delaware River to Chesapeake City on the Chesapeake Bay, and is one of two commercially vital canals in the

United States. The history, the wildlife, and the scenic views and

the bridges of the canal are all great attractions.

A similar venue, the Army Corps-operated Cape Cod Canal, has

served as a model for us to follow creating this new vision for the

C&D Canal. I have toured the grounds of Cape Cod, and I believe

the C&D has similar potential. It is also owned by the Army Corps

of Engineers.

Mr. Chairman last year Chairman Hoekstra appropriated

$150,000 in the energy and water appropriations bill to develop a

master plan or blueprint for various recreational opportunities that

exist along this unique canal.

Reflecting widespread support for this project, the Delaware Department of Transportation, the Delaware Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, and Delaware County of Newcastle

each pledged $50,000, matching the current Federal contribution of

$150,000. State agencies and organizations are currently compiling

the capabilities of the land. It is the priority of all partners to

maintain the wetlands and wildlife and natural infrastructure of

this land.
16

With this information, we will conduct two public workshops currently scheduled for next month, April. The C&D team will hold

these community workshops, both in Delaware and Maryland, in

order to incorporate the recreational demands of the surrounding

communities into the master plan. Based on community views, the

top recreational options for the canal will be presented from October of 2005. By December the master plan will outline the steps to

tap into the full recreational, cultural and historical and environmental value of the C&D Canal.

To assist in the creation of a recreational area surrounding the

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, I respectfully request that construction authorization be granted to the Army Corps to begin construction on the Corps-owned land along the C&D canal. Wtih its

authorization, Delaware and Maryland may share in the stewardship of the land with the Army Corps of Engineers. Together we

can work to realize the full recreational, educational, and environmental value along the C&D canal. I have seen firsthand there is

great support, unanimous support, I might add, within the States

of Delaware and Maryland. I truly believe the entire mid-Atlantic

region can benefit from recreational development of the C&D

Canal.

I thank you for your consideration. I would just point out, all of

this is about 2 hours from here so all the members of the committee, all the staff here, could enjoy the benefit of this if we get it

done.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. A very reasonable request.

We will try to work with you all we can.

I would like to apologize to the members. We have votes starting.

We will let everyone else go except Congressman Foley. We have

time to get your statement in. The rest of you we will do when we

come back from the votes.

Mr. Foley, you can begin yours.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK FOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, members of the

subcommittee. I want to thank you for holding this hearing on the

Water Resource Development Act. It is extremely important that I

come before you today and respectfully request that the Indian

River Lagoon South, the IRL, be included in this year’s Water Resources Development Act.

The IRL is the first Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

project requiring congressional authorization. When Congress

passed CERP, we reaffirmed the Nation’s commitment to America’s

most imperiled national treasure, the Everglades.

For almost 45 years, there has been a steady stream of clear and

compelling scientific data detailing the perilous state of the Everglades. There are unnatural levels of fresh water in our estuaries,

lesions on our fish, deposits of muck and phosphorous in our lakes

and canals, and the decline of wading birds. I have some sampling

material here to show you what is exactly finding its way into our

beautiful Everglades that needs immediate attention.

CERP represented a historic partnership between all stakeholders. Finally, Florida agricultural interests, the Administration, util-
17

ities, the State of Florida, Indian Tribes, and environmental groups

came together in an unprecedented show of cooperation to develop

a plan that would protect and preserve our ecosystem. It built upon

the initial commitment we as Congress made, at my request, to

provide 200 million in Federal funds for Florida’s Everglades restoration efforts back in the 1996 farm bill.

The Indian River Lagoon is a 156-mile long estuary located at

the mouth of the St. Lucie River in Martin County, Florida, which

is part of my district. It is home to more than 4,300 species of

plants and animals, and supports an annual economic contribution

of more than $730 million.

Mr. Chairman, we are now at a crossroads and timing is critical.

The Indian River Lagoon Plan-South is responsible for critically addressing environmental abuses visited on the St. Lucie River, the

Indian River Lagoon, and Lake Okeechobee by the old Central and

Southern Florida Flood Control Project.

A favorable Chief of Engineers Report was issued on August 6th

of 2004. The formal review by the Department of the Army is nearing completion. Last year the Senate division of WRDA included

the IRL, but Congress adjourned before there was an opportunity

to work out differences with the House version. When the House

WRDA bill passed in the Congress, IRL was not ready for inclusion

in that legislation. It is now.

And my constituents of Martin County have been extremely instrumental in their support of the project. Not only did they organize numerous rallies and write thousands of support letters, but

they also voted for a 3-year $0.01 sales tax on themselves to contribute over 50 million in revenue for the plan itself.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, did a

tremendous job working in conjunction with its partner, the South

Florida Water Management District, finishing the final project implementation report for the IRL last year. I would like to commend

Colonel Carpenter and Henry Dean, executive director of South

Florida Water Management District, and their staffs, for their incredibly hard work.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot wait one moment longer to authorize

this project. It needs to occur this year. The success of CERP depends upon it, and I believe we should not falter in our commitment to it. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence and the opportunity to speak today.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, Mark, yours is a very important project. It is

one of the three biggest or most expensive in this bill. We have already gotten word from the White House that they are wanting us

to try to hold down some of the costs, or they have expressed some

concerns about that. But we will try to work with you. You work

with the White House, though, some too.

Mr. FOLEY. And I will be working with Governor Bush, who happens to have a relative living there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. We will be in recess for these votes.

[Recess.]

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. [Presiding] Good afternoon, we are coming back to

order. The Chair will recognize for 5 minutes Mr. Carnahan to

make a statement. Are you ready for that.
18

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Please do so.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSS CARNAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and fellow members

of the committee. I am pleased to be here today. I want to—I am

fortunate to have leadership here in the committee that recognizes

the importance of these projects to our country and to our districts

back home.

The district that I represent borders the Mississippi River, and

our city is at the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers,

so rivers and water resources are very critical and important to our

region.

The economic and environmental health of the river, the riverfront, are of utmost importance. That is why I requested the St.

Louis Regional Greenways Proposal as part of the WRDA hearing

today. This proposal is a broad-reaching attempt to improve the

quality of life of St. Louis and the people of our State by developing

the greenways and natural areas connected by parks and trails.

The proposal is an authorization request for Corps of Engineers

projects included in eight local greenway plans, including projects

in the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County, as well as counties

in several other of my colleagues’ districts. The project has many

environmental benefits that will conserve natural resources such as

improving water quality in our waterways, preserving open space

and protecting natural wildlife habitat.

It will also improve public and disabled access to parks, open

space, and waterways.

In addition to the environmental impact, the development of

these greenways will also boost economic activity. The realized benefits will include creating new outdoor recreation opportunities and

will attract large numbers of new tourists. Further, we believe that

the project will stimulate new commercial and residential development, as well as attract new businesses resulting in the creation

of both new jobs and new residents.

We have seen prior developments of these areas have also been

a big factor in turning around the population decline in the city of

St. Louis that recently announced, for the first time in 50 years,

that the population had begun to increase in our city.

The proposal has very strong regional support from all areas of

the community. Local government and nonprofit groups, area business leaders, are collectively in support of the greenways development. This is shown by the fact that we already have more than

$75 million in State and local public, private, and nonprofit investment in projects that are part of the local plans included in the St.

Louis Regional Greenway Proposal.

Now let me turn to the specifics of the overall plan. The greenway plans are focused on preserving open space and natural wildlife habitat, improving the water quality of our rivers and streams,

and for providing outdoor recreation opportunities. To achieve

these goals, to fully develop a regional greenway system, the proposal allows local government and nonprofits to partner with the

Corps on several different projects. One of the most important will
19

involve the restoration of fish and wildlife habitat. We will also see

an improvement to public access to the Mississippi and Missouri

Rivers, as well as other rivers, streams and waterways in our region.

In addition, there will be development of aquatic recreation areas

and waterways, as well as regional trails and other connectors to

link these greenway improvements.

I would like to highlight two of the projects that could result

from this bill. First, is Chouteau Lake and Greenway. Through this

we will see the development of the waterway and surrounding

greenway system, which will be the focal point of the city of St.

Louis. The Chouteau Lake system will partially restore an urban

stream and watershed dating back to the pre-industrial era. The

greenway will act as a filter and cleansing system for stormwater

running and draining into the lake system.

Another project I would like to share with you is the River des

Peres Greenway. Currently this River des Peres area looks like a

giant concrete ditch, but this project will reconstruct the River des

Peres Greenway from the Mississippi River to Deer Creek . This

greenway development would include environmental restoration

and park projects along the new trail throughout the greenway.

I want to thank the committee and its members and its leadership for their time and consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan.

We will proceed in the order in which the members arrived

today, as requested by the staff. That would mean, if that is okay

with you all.

The next one will be Mr. Jindal from Louisiana. Mr. Jindal, you

have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOBBY JINDAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. JINDAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank

Chairman Duncan and the entire subcommittee for allowing me to

appear today.

I come to talk about an issue of great importance not only to my

home State, but also I think our entire country, and that issue is

coastal erosion. It is not just a problem for Louisiana, it is a problem that if we leave it unchecked, the cultural, economic, and environmental implications would be devastating, again, not only for

Louisiana but for the United States and for the world.

This committee has taken action before, and I am here to urge

you to take additional steps, even more aggressive steps in confronting this challenge. Through a combination of wetlands disintegration, barrier-island erosion, sea level rise and land subsidence,

my own State is losing 25 to 30 square miles of coast land every

year. Every year we are losing 25 to 30 square miles of coast land.

The southern quarter of Louisiana is disappearing at an alarming rate, the equivalent of nearly two football fields of land, every

hour, 365 days a year. Louisiana has lost nearly 1,500 square miles

of coast over the last 50 years. We will lose another astonishing

1,000 square miles in the next 50 years if we don’t adopt aggressive
20

corrective measures now. That is an area larger than the size of

the State of Rhode Island, the direct impact of coastal erosion.

As we continue to lose our coastal wetlands, they continue to be

eroded. As our communities continue to continuing to lower levels,

the risk of the overwhelming damage from storms, from hurricanes,

will only increase. I myself had to evacuate my own home this past

year for fear of a hurricane coming up the Mississippi River.

Already coastal Louisiana towns like Leeville and others are

flooded from relatively small storms that would have had very

minimal impact just 20 years ago. New Orleans, which is already

at an elevated risk from hurricanes, is experiencing an increased

level of risks every year if this problem is not addressed. Houma,

Lafayette, Lake Charles, and many other cities and towns below

Interstate 10 aren’t far behind.

Without a significant slowdown in the rate of coastal land loss,

many of our families will lose homes and land that have been in

their families for generations. Many of our grandchildren will never

be able to see where their grandparents grew up, because entire

towns will be underwater.

Even more important to homeowners, we are going to see property insurance rates continue to skyrocket in towns across coastal

Louisiana. The impact of coastal erosion on our economy cannot be

overstated. I don’t mean Louisiana’s economy, but the Nation’s

economy. Roughly 20 to 25 percent of the country’s oil and natural

gas flow through our coastline, much of it through pipelines and

other infrastructure that has not been designed to withstand open

water constructions. With further erosion for wetlands, this infrastructure will be placed at an increasingly high level of risk of

damage from severe weather.

Our Nation would share that economic loss in the form of higher

gasoline and natural gas prices, less energy security, and billions

of dollars for disaster recovery. Already, FEMA routinely spends

hundreds of billions of dollars to salvage these Louisiana towns—

recover from hurricanes and floods.

The result is economic catastrophe for our State and our Nation,

which will lead to much higher gasoline and natural gas prices, severe damage to our petrochemical industry, and the loss of much

of our State’s $20 billion oil and gas export business.

We have all been impacted by the rising cost of energy. These

storms, these hurricanes, will only increase that cost. Commercial

and recreational fishing along our coastline, including shellfish and

fin fish, will also be at risk. That currently represents 30 percent

of our Nation’s fisheries’ catch. As the Gulf of Mexico and its saltwater encroach into freshwater marshes, we will lose many of these

grounds forever. Sport fishing, which is a huge part of our tourism

industry, could also collapse.

I want to turn to the environmental impact. The environmental

value of our coastal areas is significant worldwide. The ecological

significance of our wetlands, of our marshes, is also suffering from

continued rapid coastal land loss. These resources can’t be replaced

if lost. Increased oil spills are likely, due to the exposed infrastructure, delicate ecosystems, that will be disrupted by salinity, increased wave action. These are ecosystems that provide the wintering habitat for many migratory birds. These will continue to be
21

gradually eliminated, decreasing bird populations across northern

America.

There is much that Congress can do, much that this committee

can do. We would ask that saving our coast to become one of the

highest, not only economic, but environmental priorities of our Nation.

Off of our coast, over $5 billion a year is generated for the Federal Treasury, due to off-coast drilling exploration for oil, and we

think that some of these moneys should continue to be reinvested

in restoring and preserving our coast. Current estimates of a 20-

to 30-year plan put the cost at $14 billion. There are signs that

many of our efforts have worked through use of sediment materials

and shoreline and protection.

We have many requests before this committee. I am just here to

urge you to continue to help our State. It is important for Louisiana and preserving our coast. It is also important for preserving

our Nation.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you, Mr. Jindal.

Going down our list, the next one will be Ms. Miller.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CANDICE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to have the opportunity

to meet with the committee today. I appreciate your interest in my

particular request, and I ask the committee for consideration.

I do have a statement. I will, without objection, just put it into

the record and try to summarize here what the request is that I

lay before the committee today.

I am from the State of Michigan, also known as the Great Lakes

State. It is great in Michigan, because you always have a map of

your State on the end of your arm. We always hold up a mitten

and say, ′′We live here, we are here, we are here.′′ but the Great

Lakes, of course, comprising fully one-fifth of the fresh water supply of the entire planet—of the entire planet—is a huge economic

impetus for us; it is our very identity, it is everything to us.

In the 1960s—I think 1964—the United States Army Corps of

Engineers undertook a huge dredging operation in the St. Clair

River, which is a river that goes between Lake Huron, Lake St.

Claire, out into Lake Erie. They did this with an idea of opening

up the upper Great Lakes for shipping. It has worked extraordinarily well.

However, there has been a theory bouncing around for years. Recently the theory has been solidified by a very highly regarded

coastal engineering firm called Baird & Associates out of Canada,

who have undertaken a study—and the theory now is manifesting

itself in some very strong language. It says because of the dredging

in the 1960s and subsequent years, erosion and other dredging

projects have happened in the St. Clair River, that has essentially

pulled the drain plug in a bathtub on two of the Great Lakes, and

those lakes are Huron and Michigan.

So even though we have had a great amount of precipitation in

the last year or so, and the cycle now is to raise the lake levels,

that is happening everywhere except these two lakes, Lake Michi-
22

gan and Lake Huron, which are actually experiencing a much

lower-than-average lake level. Of course, this is having a huge impact.

And so my request is for $2.5 million, which would be to the

United States Army Corps of Engineers and the International Joint

Commission, the IJC, because we do believe you would have to

have Canadian involvement to actually create a 3D model of the St.

Clair River. You know, if you are doing aeronautical engineering

studies, you are using wind-tunneling. In the case of trying to understand how water is transiting, certainly a 3-D model would be

extremely helpful.

If this theory is correct, it is imperative we understand whether

it is happening or not. If you want to interpolate what they are

saying, it would be 845 gallons of water that is actually being diverted and lost every day, just going out into the Atlantic Ocean.

If you can think about the cost of one of these bottles of water

and then think about 845 million gallons of fresh water that is

being lost each and every day, it obviously is something that is not

just impacting a particular congressional district or even a particular State. It is a regional—a project of regional and national significance, and I certainly would ask the committee to give every consideration for this very reasonable request. I appreciate the time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you very much.

If the other two members, if it would be okay with you, Mrs. Norton, who is a member of the committee, would like to make her

statement. Ms. Norton, I will have to step out for a second for a

vote. But if you can make your statement.

If for any reason I or somebody else in the committee is not here,

we will have to have a recess so I can rush back. It is right here

in the same hallway, but I just have to go back over there and vote.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS, FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will certainly wait until you return. I appreciate that the committee has given members the opportunity to come forward and explain these projects so that we can understand what we are doing.

I understand it very personally, because the Federal Government

is the largest user of many of our utilities, including the combined

sewer system that was built 162 years ago by the Corps of Engineers, and the reason it is a combined sewer system is because that

is the way they did it then.

The Federal Government makes about one-third of the use of our

sewer system. That means all of downtown Washington, all the

Capitol complex, the kinds of places where we are today. Yet the

Federal Government has contributed almost nothing to a $1 billion

plan that the region is now in the midst of to overhaul this combined sewer system.

When I look at amounts of money that the Federal Government

has given to jurisdictions throughout the United States to deal

with combined sewer overflow, I am simply amazed. The Federal

Government doesn’t even use those systems, and yet sometimes
23

you see hundreds of millions of dollars that has been appropriated.

I am all for that.

But if you are going to use this system, then it seems to me that

the Federal Government ought to contribute to the billion-dollar

overhaul that is now underway as more than a ratepayer—and

that is about all that the Federal Government has done, except for

token amounts. I appreciative of those amounts, but they don’t

begin to meet the problem.

When there is a storm, a rainstorm, what happens? The way the

sewer system works is that it overflows, sending sewage that is to

say raw waste—into the Potomac River, where we get our water;

the Anacostia River, which flows literally within sight of the Capitol and is one of the most polluted rivers of the United States;

Rock Creek, which we know from those who have been to Rock

Creek Park; and, of course, the extraordinary wonder that is the

Chesapeake Bay.

The Federal Government has a vested interest now in dealing

with this problem beyond its use of the sewer system. The Federal

Government is in the midst of a massive development on the Anacostia waterfront, which is polluted from the stormwater overflow.

The Department of Transportation Building is under construction

now.

The Southeast Federal Center, perhaps the most valuable parcel

of land on the East Coast, owned entirely by the Federal Government, is now under development.

The Navy Yard has moved its very important and secure hightech tech facility from Crystal City to a new and renovated Navy

Yard. So there, the Federal Government is on the banks of one of

the most polluted rivers in the United States, polluted because of

stormwater overflow.

I therefore ask for $150 million, a small contribution toward beginning to really make a dent in this $1 billion job that needs to

be done.

I might add that the District has some interest in this. It has an

Anacostia waterfront initiative, far smaller than the initiative of

the Federal Government. For those Members who will be going to

baseball games, the baseball stadium is not on the river, but it is

close enough to smell the Anacostia, and I think it is time we did

something about it.

I very much appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to speak

about my own request at this time and yield back.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you, Ms. Norton.

Mr. McGovern, thank you for being so patient. You have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience

and your willingness to listen to our riveting testimony. I was on

this committee before I got on the Rules Committee, and I remember sitting here listening to all the Members come before you. But

I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony and to explain two projects of vital importance in my district.
24

First, I ask you to support the John H. Chafee Blackstone River

Valley National Heritage Corridor. The subcommittee can support

this project by amending a prior authorization in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to allow for planning, design, and

construction funding to be made available. This project is part of

an ongoing urban neighborhood revitalization in the city of Worcester, Massachusetts and the surrounding region. The main purpose

of the project is to reopen and recreate sections of the historic

Blackstone Canal.

The Blackstone Canal first opened in 1828 and served to spawn

the industrial revolution of the city of Worcester and, indeed,

across the United States. Over time, sections of the canal were

filled in, and/or buried, as rail became the primary means of moving goods. This particular neighborhood has suffered blight, as

many of the industrial properties within the neighborhood have become vacant and derelict. This canal project has spurred new investment in the area and has the potential to serve as a catalyst

for further economic development and growth.

A professional feasibility study of the canal project was com- pleted in June of 2003 and estimated the total project costs at $20

million. The State’s 2004 transportation bond bill included funding

for the project, which could ultimately serve as a local match to the

Corps’ participation. I would be happy to provide the subcommittee

with excerpts of the feasibility study, if you like, but I respectfully

request that you support the request for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National HeritageCorridor, and thank you for

your consideration of this project.

Second, I would like to ask for support of the project for navigation of the harbor of Fall River, Massachusetts. The subcommittee

can support this project by continued authorizing that the depth of

the portion of the project extending riverward of the Charles M.

Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge in Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts shall not exceed 35 feet.

This request would complement the city of Fall River’s comprehensive waterfront redevelopment master plan which includes a

marina on the Taunton River. The redevelopment of the waterfront

will attract new marine traffic to Fall River Harbor, and this continued attraction is necessary to accommodate additional marine

traffic within the Taunton River.

I urge you to support this request, and appreciate your attention

and thank you again for your time.

With that I yield back my time. Thank you.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.

Shall we proceed then with Mr. Allen? You have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS ALLEN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

the opportunity to testify on the Camp Ellis project on behalf of my

constituents in Saco, Maine. I also want to thank the subcommittee

for its past support of this project. In the 108th Congress, the subcommittee included a $10 million authorization for Camp Ellis in

H.R. 2557. Unfortunately, that project has changed since 2003, and

my request has increased substantially to $25 million.
25

In 1867- - not 1967—in 1867 an Army Corps jetty was constructed to protect the Saco River’s navigation channel at Camp

Ellis, a seaside village within the city of Saco. Since that time, the

jetty has been lengthened, strengthened, smoothed and raised, exacerbating shoreline erosion, while protecting the channel. The

State geologist has told me that the beach erosion problem in Saco

is by far the most severe in the State.

Over the past 60 years, 36 homes have been washed out to sea.

Currently, homes that were once six rows back from the shoreline

are in danger of being destroyed. During winter nor’easter storms,

parts of Camp Ellis often become an island, and residents fear not

only for their homes but for their lives. You have to be there to understand that. These dangerous conditions are caused by a structure erected, improved, and maintained by the United States Government. For that reason, I believe that the Federal Government

must do everything possible to alleviate this situation.

For the past 5 years, I have been actively involved with a broad

coalition of Federal, State, and local officials, as well as Camp Ellis

residents, all of whom are dedicated to fixing the Camp Ellis erosion problem. The members of the coalition have all agreed to a

plan recently proposed by the Army Corps. I have been very

pleased with the performance of the Army Corps. They have just

done a terrific job.

The Army Corps proposes to build a spur jetty off the existing

jetty. Although the original plan had included a breakwater in conjunction with the spur jetty, geologic conditions, namely 40 feet of

clay under the water off Camp Ellis, would make a breakwater prohibitively expensive.

In fact, the cost estimates for the spur jetty have risen since I

last made this request in 2003, due to geologic conditions underwater and the studies necessary to design an adequate structure to

mitigate the erosion. That is why I am asking for a $25 million authorization instead of the $10 million authorization.

But that $25 million would allow the Army Corps to finish its design studies and models, build the proposed enhanced spur jetty,

and to renourish the eroded beach. That figure also accounts for

previously conducted studies and models. The residents of Camp

Ellis are justifiably, in my opinion, angry at the Federal Government for not fixing a structure that it built and that is destroying

their homes. They have seen this problem studied over and over

again for more than a decade and are losing patience.

However, I would not feel comfortable asking the subcommittee

to support a project unless I believed that it would permanently restore the beach and prevent further erosion and property loss. The

plan developed by the Army Corps, the State of Maine and the city

of Saco, in consultation with Camp Ellis residents, is the best plan

to mitigate the damages caused by the Corps’ jetty.

However, without congressional authorization, this plan will not

go forward. I would ask for your support of this important project.

I want to thank the subcommittee again for its past support of this

project and for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Holt, you have 5 minutes.
26

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH D. HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your patience

in hearing all of the Members today, and I would also like to put

in a request for several things in the water resources authorization.

Speaking about the Corps of Engineers in general, let me begin

by saying they are a competent organization that do good work.

But I would like to express real frustration in the way that the

Corps has been handling projects I think throughout the Nation,

and certainly in my district.

Although Congress specifically authorizes projects such as ones

that I have requested subcommittee support for previously, the

Corps has repeatedly ignored the guidelines and set their own priorities. It has resulted in significant delays that I think distress the

communities and the residents near these projects.

The most egregious example that I would point to of this disregard for projects authorized and appropriated is the environmental restoration of Grovers Mill Pond. Those of you with a keen

sense of history may recognize the name Grovers Mill. It was the

site of the fictitious invasion of the ′′War of the Worlds.′′ well, there

really is a Grovers Mill where Orson Wells said these spacecraft

were coming in.

Well, Grovers Mill Pond is a beautiful and historic site and a

recreation destination in Westminster Township. But years of sediment buildup and runoff from the watershed have caused the pond

to be overrun with aquatic weeds and algae. In fiscal year 2003, Congress specifically designated $500,000 in

funding for fixing this pond for this project, and an initial 10,000

was spent to begin a draft study that was completed in the spring

of 2003. In August, the Corps was ready to begin further study

work, but by that time the Corps headquarters had already reprogrammed the funding to other projects.

In fiscal 2004 the Corps spent $40,000 to do the first stage of

study and design—data collection. The Corps has recently informed

me that no further work can be conducted until fiscal year 2005

funding is made available. Now, let me repeat: There was specifically designated funding in the 2003 budget. So this pond in its

current condition is not only an eyesore, it is a ′′nose sore′′ for the

community and for the residents who live near it. It gives off an

unpleasant smell in some seasons and is long overdue for fixing.

So I urge the subcommittee to include language in your bill that

will require the Corps to use its funds to complete the restoration

of Grovers Mill Pond.

I would mention, quickly, that I also request that the committee

support the restoration of Rogers Pond, which is located in Franklin Township, New Jersey. This project was included in the WRDA

bill in the 108th Congress and I am hopeful that the subcommittee

will see fit to include an authorization for this project in this bill.

I believe you have heard from Representative Pallone. We both

have an interest in the South River Flood Damage Reduction and

Ecosystem Restoration Project in South River, New Jersey, as well

as the project in Marlboro, New Jersey. I would ask the subcommittee, respectfully, to include authorization for these projects

in the legislation as you draft it.
27

So I again thank the committee for your patient taking of all of

this testimony.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. My pleasure, Mr. Holt. Thank you very much.

We will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a pleasure to

be here. Just briefly, my district encompasses three of the five

Great Lakes and Michigan passed a bill here—and it is not in my

testimony—but I want to bring it up because hopefully we can still

get a chance to work on it. I know the Chairman, Mr. Duncan, has

been interested in it, but we just can’t get all our groups together

yet on my beach grooming bill, which basically says this: When you

are on the beaches of the Great Lakes, we are going to have one

set of standards.

Right now the State of Michigan has its standards on what you

can do with your lakefront property. The Federal Government has

a different set of standards. So we are trying to bring the two together and we are fairly close. We still have a few more issues to

work out. So I just want to bring it to everyone’s attention that we

still hope we can do it yet this year to get it passed this session

of Congress.

Let me first bring up the Menominee River dredging. This committee has been great. We have always put this project in the

WRDA bill. The WRDA bill goes to the Senate and never goes anywhere. We also have this as a freestanding bill. We are trying to

get the committee to sign off on it. In fact, I know my side of the

aisle signed off. Hopefully, your side of the aisle will join us.

What we had in Menominee, we were always authorized, way

back in 1960, to dredge from 24 to 26 feet within the river. We

checked, and the Army Corps said you don’t have to do anything

with it. Well, lo and behold, the authorization lapsed, based upon

some bum advice we got from the Army Corps. I am not picking

on the Army Corps, but that is exactly what happened. So now we

have situations like this, which was just recently here last fall, a

big 680-foot freighter run aground in the Menominee River because

it is less than 20 feet at the mouth.

The city of Menominee has dredged the river to 26 feet at their

own cost, because we do have a port authority there, and a lot of

shipping going on. But this is what is happening: The Army Corps

has said if we could do a freestanding bill, move it, just give them

the authorization, the spring break-up of the ice, which will be

breaking up here on March 21st, they will have the first tug out

there and do the dredging for us.

They realize they made an error in this whole situation, would

like to remedy it because it is a shipping port of great significance

to Michigan and Wisconsin. Every time one of these ships runs

aground it costs, probably, just depending on the extent of the damage and how long it takes to get it off, probably about $10- to

$20,000, which comes out of the port authority, and it makes it no

longer viable economically to ship. So this is just an example of

what happens at least once a year, twice a year up there.
28

Secondly, the Ontonagon Harbor and East Pier Walkway. Back

in 1995 the Army Corps went in there and changed the river; I

should say, put on steel skirting for a breakwall. What happened,

it caused a ping-pong effect. The city had just did its whole walkway with city and State funds; that ping-pong effect of the water

ripped up the walkway.

For 10 years I have been fighting with the Army Corps to fix it.

It was their responsibility, improper design—which I can’t blame

the Corps here, it came from the University of Michigan—but anyway, improper design. The walkway is destroyed, it is unsafe. They

haven’t used it in 10 years. And every time the Army Corps comes

in, they say we have got to get it authorized, we have got to get

it authorized. Once again, we would like you to authorize it, and

this committee goes to the Senate, and that is where the bill dies.

Au Sable River dredging, again you had this in the WRDA bill

last year. About a quarter of a mile of dredging we need. Just a

primary source of revenue for that area and the city of Oscoda is

fishing, boating, and local marinas and restaurants in the area of

the Au Sable River. So you did it last year, and I will ask you to

do it again.

Last but not least is the Traverse City Harbor Dredging. I used

to represent Traverse City in reapportionment, I no longer do. But

while I am there, it is the home of the Great Lakes Maritime Academy. Through our efforts and that of other members of the Michigan delegation, we were able to get them their Great Lakes maritime training ship. They went in and built a whole new big complex at this port. They do need some dredging there.

So I certainly would support the Great Lakes Maritime Academy

facilities and the dredging and the fixing of that port. The partners

in the Great Lakes Academy, the Great Lakes Maritime Academy,

who support—because they use the research places there—is

Grand Valley University, Michigan State University, University of

Michigan, Michigan Technological University, Ferris State University, University of Wisconsin-Superior and University of Minnesota-Duluth.

As you can see, all of us in the Great Lakes use Northwest

Michigan College. They have secured local funding of 1.3 million,

and the total cost is going to be about 3 million, and we are hoping

we can increase the harbor space, and we are going to need some

dredging and other renovations to allow NMC to meet the demands

of their program.

That was a quick summary. Anything further, Mr. Chairman, or

any questions, I will be happy to answer them.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you very much, Mr. Stupak, thank you.

The Chair will now recognize himself.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LUIS FORTUN ̃ O, A DELEGATE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. The Corps has undertaken a number of flood control and navigation projects in Puerto Rico in recent years which

were authorized through this committee in the Rivers and Harbors

Act and Water Resources Development Act. Some of these projects

have already been authorized by this committee.
29

I met with Colonel Carpenter, commander of the Jacksonville

District, and Richard Bonner, deputy district engineer for programs, as well as Chief Jose Rosado from the Antilles Construction

Office to identify projects for inclusion in the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. The Puerto Rico high-priority projects are

the Arecibo River, the Portugues and Bucana Rivers in Ponce, the

Rio Puerto Nuevo, Rio Fajardo, the San Juan Harbor, Cano Martin

Pena, the Rio La Plata and Ojo De Agua in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico.

The Rio de la Plata project was authorized in Water Resources

Development Act of 1990. Preconstruction engineering and design

has long since been completed, and for which construction funds

were appropriated in each fiscal year from 1995 through 2004. Yet

physical construction has not yet commenced. The project has been

on the President’s long-term recovery action plan for Puerto Rico.

A Project Cooperation Agreement for the project was signed in

June 1995 following an appropriation of initial construction funds.

The initiation of physical construction, however, has not yet provided the Corps the lands required to award the initial construction

contract. I am now advised that these lands will be available at the

end of calendar year 2005. I urge you to move this project to construction at the earliest possible time.

Another project of importance to my constituents is the Rio Puerto Nuevo. Rio Puerto Nuevo is located right at the heart of Puerto

Rico metropolitan area. Severe flooding in the area affects 7,500

residents and 700 commercial and public structures valued at over

$3 billion. However, for the last 2 years, construction on the project

has been very slow, and at times the project has been halted.

The Arecibo River Project is another important Flood Control

Project authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of

1996. The President’s budget proposes an allocation of $3.8 million

for fiscal year 2006.

Portugues and Bucana Rivers involves the construction of 9.1

miles of channel improvements and two multipurpose dams with

uncontrolled emergency spillways.

The dredging of the San Juan Harbor and restoration of the

Cano Martin Pena are two operation and maintenance projects of

critical importance to Puerto Rico.

Finally, the Rio Fajardo located in the eastern side of the island,

and the Ojo de Agua in the Aguadilla located in the western coast

of Puerto Rico, are two section 205 continuing authority programs

critical to the economic development of the two municipalities

That will conclude my statement for the record.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Mrs. Matsui, I was making sure that I would be

able to make my own statement.

Now you are certainly recognized for 5 minutes.

Mrs. MATSUI. Thank you so much.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come before the

committee today to testify on a matter of great importance to the

whole of my district, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency for

flood protection. I know you probably are all intimately aware of

my husband’s commitment to increased flood protection for Sacramento.
30

It is only through this committee’s shared commitment that a

suite of projects was approved and authorized to put Sacramento

on the road to a 200-year protection.

I thank you very much for your diligent work and ongoing commitment. I look forward to working with this committee to build on

my husband’s work and to ensure the public safety and threat of

flooding is diminished, and Sacramento receives the level of protection it needs and deserves.

I realize the committee has a long agenda today, and I don’t

want to take up much of your time.

What I would do instead is not go into specifics, but to submit

a statement for the record and look forward to working with each

of you as we move forward.

So thank you very much.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you very much, and certainly we will take

your written statement into consideration. We thank you for coming over.

Given the fact that there are no more Members wishing to testify, this hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91Æ