S. HRG. 108–650 

Senate Hearings 

Before the Committee on Appropriations 

Energy and 

Water Development 

Appropriations 

Fiscal Year 2005 

108th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 

H.R. 4614 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations, 2005 (H.R. 4614) 
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

92–143 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–650 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 4614 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2005, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

Department of Defense—Civil 

Department of Energy 

Department of the Interior 

Nondepartmental witnesses 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio) 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

Professional Staff 

TAMMY PERRIN

SCOTT O’MALIA

DREW WILLISON (Minority) 

NANCY OLKEWICZ (Minority) 

ROGER COCKRELL (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

ERIN MCHALE
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 

Page 

Department of Energy: 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ....................................... 1 

Office of Science ................................................................................................ 15 

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology ........................................ 23 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 

Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration .................... 63 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004 

Department of Energy: 

Office of Environmental Management ............................................................ 135 

Office of Environment, Safety and Health ..................................................... 159 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management ........................................ 168 

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 

Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation ............................................. 207 

Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of Engineers— 

Civil ....................................................................................................................... 257 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of Engineers— 

Civil ....................................................................................................................... 287 

Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation ............................................. 398 

Department of Energy ............................................................................................. 449 

(1) 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Domenici, Craig, Reid, and Murray. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

STATEMENT OF DAVID GARMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

Senator DOMENICI. The committee will come to order. Thank you 

everyone for coming. It’s interesting to note that, of no consequence 

other than it’s interesting, this is the first meeting of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water and we haven’t yet seen impact 

that the budget’s going to have on this subcommittee’s ability to do 

its work, but it’s pretty obvious that it won’t be a bed of roses, so 

I regret to tell you that I don’t think there’s any chance that very 

many of the discretionary programs are going to be funded with 

any increases. Most will get some cuts. 

But today we’re going to review the Department of Energy’s 2005 

budget request, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Science, and the Office of Nuclear Energy, and 

we will receive testimony from David Garman, Assistant Secretary, 

Office of Energy Efficiency. I’d like to thank you for joining us. And 

Dr. Raymond Orbach, Director of the Office of Science, and William 

Magwood, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy. I appreciate 

your attendance today and look forward to your testimony. The budget request for Renewable Energy provides $374 million, an increase of $4.3 million. DOE—that’s 1.2 percent—DOE’s budget provides $95 million for hydrogen technology, that is the basic 

research. It’s a $13 million increase and overall the President proposes spending $228 million on hydrogen R&D, multi-agency effort 

to diversify energy supply. 

Office of Science, the administration requests $3.4 billion, a reduction of $78 million, 2 percent below last year’s level. Science re-
2 

ports specifically stated that flat funding for the office should be reversed. Unfortunately, that language was ignored. 

Dr. Orbach, I understand the Secretary of Energy released a 20- 

year science plan late last year which will serve as a road map for 

science research. I appreciate your efforts to focus on these priorities and look forward to learning more about this proposal. 

For the Office of Nuclear Energy, the budget provides $409 million, that’s a $4.7 million increase, 1.2 percent. I’m disappointed to 

learn that nuclear R&D budget has been cut by $34 million, a 26 

percent reduction. If I have anything to do about it, I’ll put that 

money back, but I don’t know how to do it yet. 

The budget also cuts nuclear energy technology by 50 percent. 

I’m skeptical that the Department is serious about its commitment 

to deploy a new nuclear reactor, especially if you put a date alongside it of 2010. 

I’m discouraged by the fact that the advanced fuel concepts initiative was cut. The objective of this program is to develop a proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel. In light of the recent news regarding the sale of nuclear materials, the last and biggest being Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist, I believe more should be done to protect against nuclear proliferation, not less. I think we’re beginning 

to make people understand that in the administration. The President spoke to it, Secretary Powell has alluded to it, but nonetheless 

you can’t do this without money, and I’m hopeful that America will 

take the international lead in this regard. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I’m now going to turn to my good friend who’s been working with 

me on this subcommittee either as chairman or ranking member 

for many years, Senator Reid. I’d like you to make your opening 

statement and then we will proceed in order to Mr. Garman, Dr. 

Orbach, and Mr. Magwood. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

Today, the subcommittee will review the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2005 

budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office 

of Science, and the Office of Nuclear Energy. 

We will receive testimony from David Garman, Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Dr. Raymond Orbach, Director, Office of 

Science, and William Magwood, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy. 

I appreciate your attendance today and look forward to your testimony. 

The budget request for Renewable Energy provides $374 million—an increase of 

just $4.3 million (∂1.2 percent). The DOE budget provides $95 million for hydrogen 

technology research, a $13 million increase. Overall, the President proposes spending $228 million in fiscal year 2005 on hydrogen R&D in a multi-agency effort to 

diversify our Nation’s energy supply. 

For the Office of Science, the administration has requested $3.4 billion—a reduction of $78 million or 2 percent below last year’s level. The Senate report specifically 

stated that flat funding for the Office of Science should be reversed—unfortunately, 

that language was ignored. 

Dr. Orbach, I understand the Secretary of Energy released the 20-year Science 

Plan late last year, which will serve as a road map for DOE’s science research. I 

appreciate your efforts to focus the Department’s priorities and I look forward to 

learning more about this proposal. 

For the Office of Nuclear Energy, the budget provides $409 million—an increase 

of $4.7 million above fiscal year 2004 (∂1.2 percent). 
3 

I am disappointed to learn that the Nuclear R&D budget has been cut by $34 million (¥26 percent). The budget entirely eliminates funding for the Nuclear Energy 

Plant Optimization and the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative. 

This budget also cuts the Nuclear Energy Technologies by 50 percent. As a result 

of these cuts, I am skeptical that the Department is serious about its commitment 

to deploy a new nuclear reactor by 2010. 

I am also discouraged by the fact that the Advanced Fuel Concepts Initiative was 

cut by 30 percent. The objective of this program is to develop a proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel. In light of the recent news regarding the sale of nuclear material 

by Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist; I believe more should be done to protect against 

nuclear proliferation. 

It is clear from these lean budgets that we will face numerous challenges this 

year. Nevertheless, I look forward to working with Senator Reid to develop the best 

bill we can. 

I will now turn to Senator Reid or any other Senator who would like to make a 

brief opening statement. Thereafter, we will hear from Mr. Garman, Dr. Orbach, 

and Mr. Magwood. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

Senator REID. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You and I 

have worked together, a long, long time together on this committee, 

subcommittee, I’m sorry, and I enjoy working on this bill with you. 

I think the enjoyment will have been better in the past than this 

year because of the tremendous constraints on the budget. It’s been 

frankly a lot of fun in years past, but I don’t see that happening 

this year, but with our friendship we’ll work our way through this. 

Today is a first, as you have indicated, in a series of five budget 

oversight hearings for our subcommittee. Next week, a week from 

today, the subcommittee will hear testimony from the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, which is so vitally important to the entire western half of the United States. 

Today we’re going to hear from the witnesses as you’ve outlined. 

I’ve reviewed all your statements and they cover some of my 

most—some of my favorite subjects, alternative energy and all 

these things that are so important to the future of our country. 

I’m going to—we have a big tax bill coming up in 20 minutes so 

I have to leave soon, go back and work on that on the floor, but 

I appreciate everyone being here. I have a series of questions for 

each of the witnesses, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask consent of 

the subcommittee that I be allowed to submit those in writing and 

that they respond to them within the next 10 days in writing. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes, sir. 

Senator REID. And the answers go to every member of the subcommittee. 

Senator DOMENICI. I’ll submit them on your behalf and let me 

say to you, if you have any trouble with the time, I don’t expect 

you to just let it pass. I expect you to tell us why, if you had to 

go find something or whatever then let us know. Go ahead, Senator. 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST

Senator REID. I’ve reviewed the budget for the Office of Science, 

and by and large I suspect that you share some of the same frustrations as I have and you won’t articulate them today and I understand why you can’t. I’m concerned that such a budget, if enacted, will not allow you to move forward aggressively on enough 

major initiatives, including the ITER Project. 
4 

The request also strikes me as inadequate in terms of allowing 

you to maintain and improve your laboratory facilities nationwide. 

My overall impression is that the request is weak and I really believe it’s short-sighted. I hope we’ll be able to improve on that this 

year before we complete our work. 

As I’ve said many times before, funding for research in the hard 

sciences is one of the very best and most appropriate investments 

taxpayer dollars can be made for this country. Few things that we 

do here can make our country safer or more secure than maintaining a scientific and technological edge. 

For many years now, Chairman Domenici and I have watched as 

the last two administrations have sent ever-escalating budget requests up here for National Institutes of Health that have far outstripped the increase requests of the Office of Science. The imbalance between funding for the physical sciences and the biological 

sciences was getting to be staggering, particularly because both disciplines rely on each other so much. I think this is short-sighted 

in the long term. 

I’m pleased with the work that you’re doing on genomics and 

with the very impressive pace of the nanotechnology. Drew Willison 

of my staff and Tammy Perrin of Senator Domenici’s staff visited 

the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab last month and were surprised at the rapid progress the lab is making on the molecular 

foundry. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

You’ve been on the job now for nearly 2 years and I hope you’re 

enjoying your time in one of the greatest jobs our Federal Government has to offer. Mr. Garman, as you know, I am a big supporter 

of your programs and believe that the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory in Golden is one of the premiere labs in all the DOE 

if not the world. While I certainly hope we can add some resources 

to your budget, I realize that the most important thing Congress 

can do in the short term for the renewable energy industry is to 

get a series of productive tax credits into place and extend some 

of the others. Hopefully our body will be able to get that done this 

year and we may be able to get it done on this bill this week. 

For the last few years, you’ve funded a competitive project in Nevada that has worked very well. As you know, my State has tremendous solar and geothermal potential and the seed money for 

the Department—that the Department has provided—allows Nevada and its universities and research organization industries to 

work together to prove out technology and techniques. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. Magwood, as you know, I’ve been very supportive of your 

programs during my years as chairman and ranking member of 

this subcommittee. I’m supportive even though it sometimes puts 

me in an awkward spot due to that very visible word, nuclear in 

your office’s title. I support strong budgets for you because, as I 

mentioned earlier, long-term stable investments in scientific research and development is what makes our Nation strong. 

My biggest problem with nuclear power comes, of course, at the 

end of the fuel cycle, and we’ve heard that so many times that I 
5 

even get tired of myself saying it. To the extent that there will be 

an ongoing waste stream, it will be investments in science that 

solves all or most of those disposal problems, and you’re involved 

in that and I appreciate that. 

That’s why I’ve supported your advanced fuel cycle initiative over 

the years. I’m a little concerned this year that your support for this 

program seems to have eroded, but I suspect that Chairman 

Domenici and I can help you un-erode it as we move through this 

budget. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I feel confident that Senator Craig and Domenici have thoughts 

on the ongoing transition of the laboratory in Idaho to the Nation— 

this is to the Nation’s nuclear energy laboratory, so I’ll not address 

that issue at this time, other than to say that I’m far more interested in an aggressive R&D budget that benefits the Nation as a 

whole than I am in a long, slow, drawn-out transition. 

I thank everyone for appearing today and appreciate the patience 

of everyone listening to my long statement. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By my count you and I are beginning our eighth Energy and Water appropriations cycle together. As you know I enjoy working on this 

bill with you and greatly appreciate your friendship and support throughout our 

many years together here in the Senate. 

Today is the first in a series of five budget oversight hearings for our subcommittee. Next Wednesday, the subcommittee will hear testimony from the Bureau 

of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Today we will hear from three witnesses: Dr. Raymond Orbach, the Director of 

DOE’s Office of Science; Mr. Bill Magwood, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy; and Mr. Dave Garman, the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

Good afternoon, gentlemen, thank you for coming. Senator Domenici and I both 

appreciate you taking the time to join us. My duties on the Floor may require me 

to depart early today, but my staff will remain here and will report back on what 

transpires. I do have a series of questions for each of you and would ask, at this 

time, that they be made a part of the record. I hope each of you can respond quickly 

because the Chairman and I rely on your answers to help us make informed funding 

decisions. We are likely to be on an accelerated schedule this year so timely responses are critical. 

I plan to keep my comments very brief today, but do want to highlight several 

issues concerning the budget requests for each of the three DOE offices represented 

today. 

Dr. Orbach, I have reviewed the budget for the Office of Science and, by and 

large, I suspect that you and I share some of the same frustrations with it. The administration’s budget request provides your office with a 2 percent cut this year. I 

am concerned that such a budget, if enacted, will not allow you to move forward 

aggressively enough on a number of major initiatives, including the ITER project. 

The request also strikes me as inadequate in terms of allowing you to maintain and 

improve your laboratory facilities nationwide. 

My overall impression is that the request is weak and shortsighted. 

I hope that we are able to improve on that a little bit before Congress completes 

work this year. As I have said many times before, funding for research in the hard 

sciences is one of the very best and most appropriate investments of taxpayer dollars that Congress can make. Very few things that we do here can make our country 

safer or more secure than maintaining a scientific and technological edge. 

For many years now Chairman Domenici and I have watched as the last two administrations have sent ever-escalating budget requests up here for the National Institutes of Health that have far outstripped the increases requested for the Office 

of Science. The imbalance between funding for the physical science and the biologi-
6 

cal sciences was getting to be staggering, particularly because both disciplines rely 

on each other so much. 

Again, over the long-term, this is very short-sighted. 

That said, I am very pleased with the work you are doing on genomics and with 

the very impressive pace of the nanotechnology program. Drew Willison of my staff 

and Tammy Perrin of Senator Domenici’s staff visited Lawrence-Berkeley National 

Laboratory last month and were surprised at the rapid progress the lab is making 

on the Molecular Foundry. 

You have been on the job now for nearly 2 years and I hope you are enjoying your 

time in one of the greatest jobs our Federal Government has to offer. 

Mr. Garman, as you know, I am a big supporter of your programs and believe that 

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden is one of the premiere labs 

in all of DOE. While I certainly hope we can add some resources to your budget 

this year, I also realize that the most important thing Congress can do in the short 

term for the nascent renewable energy industry is to get a series of production tax 

credits into place and to extend some of the others. Hopefully, we, as a body, will 

be able to get that done this year. 

For the last few years you have funded a competitive pilot project in Nevada that 

has worked tremendously well. As you know, my home State has tremendous solar 

and geothermal potential and the seed money the Department has provided has allowed Nevada universities, research organizations, and industries to work together 

to prove out technologies and techniques. I appreciate your hard work and that of 

your staff in getting this program started and keeping it moving forward. 

Mr. Magwood, as you know I have been very supportive of your programs during 

my years as Chairman and Ranking Member of this subcommittee. I am supportive 

even though it sometimes puts me in an awkward spot due to that very visible word 

‘‘nuclear’’ in your office’s title. 

I support strong budgets for you because, as I mentioned earlier, long-term, stable, investments in scientific research and development is what makes our Nation 

strong. 

My biggest problem with nuclear power comes at the end of the fuel cycle. However, I firmly believe that investments in the future of nuclear power can produce 

reactors that are safer and will not produce the deadly waste streams that plague 

the current generation of reactors. 

To the extent that there will be an on-going waste stream, it will be investments 

in the science that solves all or most of the disposal problem. 

This is why I have supported your Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative over the years. 

I am a little concerned this year that your support for this program seems to have 

eroded, but I suspect that Chairman Domenici and I can help you in this area. 

I feel confident that both Senator Craig and Senator Domenici have many 

thoughts on the on-going transition of INEEL to the Nation’s nuclear energy laboratory, so I will not address that issue at this time other than to say that I am far 

more interested in an aggressive R&D budget that benefits the Nation as a whole 

than I am in a long, slow, drawn-out transition. 

Again, thanks to our witnesses for appearing today. 

Senator DOMENICI. Senator, thank you very much, and now we 

will excuse you and look forward to the next hearing. 

Senator, would you like to make some comments, please? 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an opening statement. I’ll just welcome the witnesses. I do have questions and we’ll 

wait until after they’ve had their testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Cochran has submitted a statement 

for the record which will be included. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to thank the Assistant Secretary and Directors for testifying before this committee today. The work you do is very important to my State 

and to me. I commend David Garman, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, for the work his department does with biomass research. 
7 

Biomass energy is estimated to contribute over 7 percent of Mississippi’s total energy consumption—that amount is double the national average. The majority of our 

lumber facilities burn wood waste to generate steam for industrial processes. Biomass offers special benefits for Mississippi’s economy by keeping energy dollars in 

our State and by providing jobs in rural areas where biomass is produced. By using 

these wastes for energy, disposal costs are avoided, and industries are better able 

to compete. I would also like to commend Mississippi State University and Jackson 

State University for their continuing research into this important scientific area. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I have some questions I’d like to submit for 

the record. 

Senator DOMENICI. Let me say how good it has been to have you 

working with us on this subcommittee. You have some very significant interests, but I’m very pleased to find that when we have 

problems on this committee, you’re there to help us. It’s not just 

strictly what’s going on in your State, and we all need each other. 

Some very tough, tough problems when you cut the budget as 

much as ours here. 

I want to make one last observation before I proceed to the witnesses. I don’t know how to solve it, but I want to say about 10 

years ago or a little less, a couple of Senators circulated around 

and got most of us to sign up on a resolution. Perhaps you signed 

it like I did and you probably, having been here awhile, chuckled 

as you signed it. We were going to make the NIH, National Institute of Health, double in 10 years. Of course, we signed it as we 

walked out the door wondering, who’s kidding who? 

Well, it happened, and every year after that it would be among 

the last bills, and sure enough, somebody would stand up and say, 

well, in order to meet our resolution we need $680 million more 

and the next year they needed a billion and here we have the largest National Institute of Health growth in a decade of any institution of that type in the world has ever seen. And here we sit with 

everybody telling us the counterpart is science, right, that without 

basic science, pretty soon the NIH, with all of its work, is going to 

be without the talent that’s needed to back up the medical people. 

And here we come, not critical of the President, after all we’re 

in this terrific deficit, but here we are. While that occurred, we’re 

cutting basic science, not increasing it. And I’m just wondering 

what we have to do around here to get us on a path where we recognize that these scientists and scientific prowess is not going to 

keep America if we don’t fund it. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

And so with that, I’m very sorry to start with such a negative 

comment, but let me open with you, Mr. Garman. You’re the Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and 

we want you to give your testimony and be ready for questions. I 

do want to say to you, sir, from the first time I inquired of you 

about this work, you have come a long way and I am very complimentary of you. 

First of all, you are not run by the renewable associations out 

here in America. They have their interests but they don’t run your 

Department. You’re not supposed to be running their editorials, 

you’re not supposed to be paying for their journals. Remember, we 

had all that going when you took over. Of course, all they did was 

get mad. Then when you looked at it you found that Domenici was 
8 

right, that if you want to do research, you ought to do research, but 

you sure shouldn’t be paying for various organizations to get done 

what they want. They aren’t synonymous with research. And now 

I think it’s pretty clean in that regard. 

I also want to tell you that we can do as much research as you 

want, but ultimately Americans want to see some of this work, and 

I am very, very pleased that I heard today that Democratic leader 

said we have the votes to pass the Energy bill. Now why would I 

be speaking of that at the same time? Well, you know, if you want 

to build wind energy, you want to build solar energy and biomass 

energy, everybody knows how to do that. You can perfect it, but 

that’s already passed, your research issues. 

And we’re ready to go and build those but we need the incentive 

that caused them to move ahead so rapidly, and what everybody’s 

finding out now, there is no incentive today. And people say, well 

what do you mean? Well, the incentives expired in January, so 

those who are very anxious and terribly enamored as most of us 

are with energy that comes from wind, you ought to know that unless you have a project that is already going, there are no new 

ones, and there’s nobody going to do a new one. Why? Because they 

can’t afford it. 

But if we pass this bill they got this wonderful incentive for this 

next decade, and you will see biomass and geothermal and these 

other ones, you’ll see them flourish across the land. The biggest one 

will be wind. Whether the public’s going to want that much wind, 

I don’t know. It’s going to look funny because there’s going to be 

a lot of it, but I think we’re going to win, I think it’s going to happen. 

All right, would you proceed with your testimony? Make it brief, 

please. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GARMAN

Mr. GARMAN. Yes, sir. And thank you for your comments. As you noted in your statement, we are seeking an increase of $17.3 million in the renewable energy funding, and a budget increase in this 

environment does constitute an awesome responsibility and we understand that. We’re not only mindful of how much we spend, but 

the way we spend it, as you noted, and we’re proud of the fact that 

OMB has recognized the Department of Energy as leading the pack 

of Cabinet agencies in terms of management improvement, and 

we’re also proud that the Office of Management and Budget has 

singled out the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

as an example in implementing the President’s management agenda. 

So I will very briefly mention a few highlights of our budget. Our 

hydrogen technology subprogram is a key component of the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. For 2005, we request $95.3 million, a $13.3 million increase. With these funds we propose to continue and accelerate our work with regard to hydrogen production, 

safety, storage, codes and standards, and other work that’s critical 

to the long-term success of this initiative. 

Last year, roughly $40 million out of our total hydrogen appropriation of $82 million was earmarked for some specific projects 

that in many cases were inconsistent with our research plan, so we 
9 

will have to delay some very important work in areas such as hydrogen storage and production that the National Academy of 

Sciences and others have told us is very important to the success 

of our program. For our solar energy technology program, we’re seeking $80.3 

million, roughly equivalent to the unencumbered amount of our fiscal year 2004 appropriations. With this funding, we’ll continue our 

work to lower the cost of photovoltaic solar energy systems, and for 

the first time in several years we’re seeking funding for concentrating solar power technologies. 

Our wind energy technology program has been successful in 

bringing down the cost of electricity generated from wind. Wind energy systems have been the fastest growing source of electricity 

worldwide for over a decade, but, of course, as the chairman mentioned, that is dependent on the production tax credit, which we do 

hope Congress will extend very quickly. 

We are starting to devote more attention to the promise of offshore wind and our focus on wind energy has shifted to larger 

blades and turbines using advanced materials that will allow economically viable wind development in lower wind speed areas that 

are distributed across the country. For our hydropower technology work, we request $6 million, a $1.1 million increase over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. Geothermal, as the chairman mentioned, offers a promise as a baseload 

renewable energy resource, particularly in the U.S. West. Our program focuses on exploration and reservoir technologies and drilling 

research to enable industry to locate and produce new geothermal 

fields at greatly reduced cost. 

Our biomass and biorefinery system R&D program is focused on 

technologies to transform our domestic biomass resources into high 

value chemicals, fuels, and power. In fiscal year 2005, we’re seeking $72.6 million for activities conducted under this appropriation. 

That’s $13.9 million less than the fiscal year 2004 amount. However, last year we did receive nearly $41 million in earmarks, so 

we’re actually seeking far more funding directed toward our biomass and biorefinery R&D goals than we received last year. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

There are a variety of other programs and activities that time 

doesn’t allow me to mention, but for now I ask that my full statement appear in the record and I’m happy to answer any questions 

this committee has either today or in the future. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID GARMAN

Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the Fiscal Year 2005 President’s Budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). My focus will be the renewable energy activities under the purview of this subcommittee. 

The research and development activities surrounding and the deployment of advanced clean energy technologies are already making a difference in the lives of 

Americans, and they will have an even greater impact in the future. The overall 

EERE budget request for fiscal year 2005 is a robust $1.25 billion, an increase of 

$15.3 million over the comparable fiscal year 2004 appropriation. For the renewable 

energy programs funded through the Energy and Water Development appropriation, 
10 

1 Activities focused on energy conservation are funded through the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. 

the fiscal year 2005 request totals $374.8 million, a $17.3 million increase over the 

fiscal year 2004 appropriation and 30 percent of the total EERE Budget.1

We are not only mindful of how much we spend on these programs, but also the 

manner in which we operate and the results we are achieving. Our budget is 

prioritized in accordance with the National Energy Policy Report and the Department of Energy Strategic Plan. EERE has also used the research and development 

investment criteria called for in the President’s Management Agenda to focus our 

research and development dollars on a balanced portfolio of well-planned activities 

that could generate significant public benefits and that require Federal involvement 

to be successful. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently announced that DOE has 

made the most progress among cabinet-level agencies in the implementation of the 

President’s Management Agenda. OMB recognized the Department as the cabinetlevel agency ‘‘leading the pack with regard to management improvement.’’ In support of that, EERE in 2002 underwent a dramatic restructuring to streamline program management and centralize administration functions with a focus on developing consistent, uniform and efficient business practices. We are also increasingly 

successful in linking our expenditures with performance and results. We are striving 

to achieve more work in the laboratory with every research and development dollar 

entrusted to our stewardship. While we are very proud of the accomplishments we 

have made, a great deal of progress remains to be made in all of these areas. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST

The renewable energy programs included in the Energy Supply account and funded within the Energy and Water Development appropriations include Hydrogen 

Technology, Solar Energy Technology, Wind and Hydropower Technologies, and 

Geothermal Technology. Activities in the Biomass Program and Intergovernmental 

programs are funded through both the Energy and Water Development and Interior 

and Related Agencies appropriations. 

HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY

The Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request for Hydrogen Technology is $95.3 million, a $13.3 million increase over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. Much of the proposed increase is for hydrogen safety research. This includes safety testing and 

analysis on bulk storage systems, fuel dispensing equipment, and piping to support 

new codes and standards specific to hydrogen. The Department has worked with the 

Department of Transportation and other agencies on an interagency codes and 

standards plan. Under this activity, we will also develop system safety requirements 

for producing hydrogen and sensors to detect hydrogen leaks. 

Research undertaken in the Hydrogen Technology Program is also targeted to reduce the cost of distributed hydrogen production from electrolysis and natural gas 

reformation. An enhanced focus on electrolysis, as recommended by the National Research Council, may lead to cost competitive production of hydrogen from renewable 

energy at $2.25 per gallon of gasoline equivalent by 2015. 

One of the major technical obstacles we face is developing the means to store sufficient amounts of hydrogen aboard the vehicle to provide a driving range of greater 

than 300 miles. The fiscal year 2005 budget provides funding for innovative storage 

technologies to be pursued under our ‘‘Grand Challenge’’ to leading universities and 

national laboratories. ‘‘Grand Challenge’’ is our name for a competitive solicitation 

that was directed towards the scientific community to get the best minds at our universities and national labs to propose research ideas to tackle this challenging problem. 

The Hydrogen program is also stepping up its efforts on education at all levels, 

so Americans know what the hydrogen economy will mean for them, their businesses, and the environment, and understand how to handle hydrogen safely in 

their communities. 

Our hydrogen work is well integrated with the fuel cell and vehicle work funded 

through the Interior Appropriations bill. Taken together, these programs represent 

the majority of the Federal efforts comprising the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative announced by President Bush during his 2003 State of the Union Address, and we 

have published very specific, measurable technical goals against which to measure 

our progress. If we achieve our technical objectives, the automotive and energy industries will be in a position to consider commercialization by 2015, with mass market availability of both vehicles and refueling infrastructure by 2020. 
11 

The President’s initiative was received by Congress with enthusiasm, and we appreciate this subcommittee’s support. However, while the fiscal year 2004 EERE appropriation for hydrogen technology was approximately $82 million, roughly half of 

those funds were earmarked for specific projects that are not wholly consistent with 

our research plan or the recommendations of the National Research Council. As a 

consequence, we must delay some very important work in areas such as hydrogen 

storage and production, and thus our ability to meet our established research targets in the specified timeframes may be in jeopardy. The Department looks forward 

to working with the subcommittee to help ensure that projects supported by the 

Committee are consistent with our established goals in an effort to keep our 

progress on track. 

SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

The Solar Energy Technology program focuses research on advanced solar devices 

that can provide the Nation with a widely available domestic energy resource to 

help meet electricity needs and reduce the stress on our critical electricity infrastructure. Efforts are directed in the interrelated areas of Photovoltaics, Solar Heating and Lighting, and Concentrating Solar Power. The fiscal year 2005 budget request for Solar Technology is $80.3 million. This is roughly equivalent to the 

unencumbered amount of the fiscal year 2004 appropriation of $83.4 million, which 

included $3.6 million earmarked to specific recipients. 

Photovoltaic research and development seeks to reduce the manufacturing cost of highly reliable photovoltaic modules from $2.10/watt in 2003 to $1.85/watt by fiscal 

year 2005. The program is focused on next-generation technologies such as thin-film 

photovoltaic cells and leap-frog technologies such as polymers and nanostructures. 

Systems engineering efforts seek to increase system durability and develop technologies to improve interconnections with the electric grid. The fiscal year 2005 request of $75.4 million for photovoltaic includes: $30 million for critical fundamental 

research, including $2.1 million to equip the new Science and Technology Facility 

at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; $29 million for advanced materials, 

including thin films and next generation materials with potential for dramatic cost 

reductions; and $16.4 million for technology development efforts to improve reliability of the entire system, including testing, verification, and deployment activities 

for grid-connected applications and analysis of private sector commercialization options. 

The fiscal year 2005 $2.9 million request for Solar Heating and Lighting will support efforts on hot water and space heating for residential and commercial buildings 

in collaboration with industry partners. The program uses new formulations of lightweight polymer materials to modernize solar water heaters, making them easier to 

install, while lowering the cost of solar water heating in non-freezing climates. 

Last year, we did not request any funding for the Concentrating Solar Power 

(CSP). In light of recent studies we sought from an independent engineering firm, 

a draft of which was reviewed by the National Research Council, the Department 

proposes $2 million for Concentrating Solar Power in fiscal year 2005 to support a 

more thorough investigation of the appropriate R&D course needed to realize the 

potential for CSP. The fiscal year 2005 budget request will maintain essential facilities and support work with several States on the establishment of 1,000 MW of Concentrating Solar Power in the Southwest, while developing a comprehensive program plan to help inform the fiscal year 2006 budget development process and a 

longer term R&D plan. 

ZERO ENERGY BUILDINGS

Zero Energy Buildings activities develop strategies to integrate renewable energy 

technologies into highly energy-efficient buildings that produce as much or nearly 

as much energy as they consume on an annual basis. The fiscal year 2005 budget 

request for the Building Technologies Program funded through the Interior Appropriations bill combines this energy research and development with ongoing activities 

in the Buildings program and therefore, no fiscal year 2005 funds are requested in 

this area. 

WIND AND HYDROPOWER TECHNOLOGIES

Wind and Hydropower research and development supports the Nation’s fastest 

growing and most widely used renewable energy resources. These technologies emit 

no air pollution or greenhouse gases, and they produce significant amounts of bulk 

power to help meet America’s growing need for clean, domestic sources of electricity. 

Since 2000, installed wind turbine capacity in the United States has more than 

doubled, driven in large part by the tremendous reductions in cost that have re-
12 

sulted from wind energy research. Our research contributed to reducing the cost of 

electricity generation by a factor of 20 since 1982, to 4 cents or less per kilowatthour in areas with excellent wind resources. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request for Wind Energy is $41.6 million, $290,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, which included $1.4 million in funds 

that were earmarked to specific recipients. The $12 million request for Low Wind 

Speed Technology research and development will support multiple large wind system technology pathways to achieve the goal of 3 cents per kilowatt-hour for onshore systems. It also supports new work in off-shore systems to help achieve a cost 

goal of 5 cents or less per kilowatt-hour. Fiscal year 2005 activities will include field 

testing of the first full-scale low wind speed technology prototype turbine and fabrication and testing of advanced drivetrains, power converter and blades for future 

low wind speed turbines. The $17 million request for supporting research and testing will engage the capabilities of the National Labs, universities and private sector 

for technical support including both facility and field tests of newly developed components and systems to ensure design and performance compliance. 

Hydropower is the most widely used form of renewable energy in the world today 

and accounts for about 7 percent of total electricity generation in the United States 

and over 75 percent of domestic renewable electricity generation. The fiscal year 

2005 budget request for Hydropower Technologies is $6.0 million, a $1.1 million or 

22 percent increase over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Department’s research approach involves a unique combination of computer modeling, instrumentation, lab testing, and field-testing that is improving the design and operation of the 

next generation of hydropower technology. The request will support development of 

technologies that will enable hydropower operators at existing plants to generate 

more electricity with less environmental impact. This will be done through environmentally enhanced, improved efficiency turbines, as well as with new methods for 

optimizing unit, plant, and reservoir systems to increase energy production per unit 

water. Supporting research and testing will improve understanding of fish response 

to the physical stresses experienced in passage through turbine systems. The program will also explore ways to harness undeveloped hydropower capacity without 

constructing new dams. 

GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY

The fiscal year 2005 budget request for Geothermal Technologies is $25.8 million, 

a $300,000 increase from the fiscal year 2004 appropriation of $25.5 million, which 

included almost $2 million in funds that were earmarked to specific recipients. Geothermal energy generates electricity and provides heat for applications such as 

aquaculture, crop drying, and district heating, and for use in heat pumps to heat 

and cool buildings. The program focuses on developing technology that optimizes the 

use of geothermal energy through improved exploration, drilling, reservoir engineering, and energy conversion. These technology improvements lead to cost-effective energy production at new geothermal fields and expanded production at existing fields. 

Fiscal year 2005 resource development activities will characterize and assess the 

geothermal resource by understanding the formation and evolution of geothermal 

systems, including a collaborative effort with the U.S. Geological Survey on a national geothermal resource assessment. Activities in the Enhanced Geothermal Systems program seek to increase the productivity and lifetime of reservoirs, potentially 

more than doubling the amount of viable geothermal resources in the West. Fiscal 

year 2005 activities will include Enhanced Geothermal System field tests in California and Nevada, and tests of the Diagnostics-While-Drilling advanced drilling 

system in a high temperature geothermal well. New geothermal State working 

groups in Alaska and California will be added, bringing the number of groups to 

nine. 

BIOMASS AND BIOREFINERY SYSTEMS R&D

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D focuses on advanced technologies to transform the Nation’s domestic biomass resources into high value chemicals, fuels, and 

power. With the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the DOE biomass program leads 

the multi-agency Biomass Research and Development Initiative that coordinates 

and accelerates all Federal bioenergy research and development in accordance with 

the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000. 

The 2002 EERE reorganization integrated several bioenergy activities into one office to allow a clear and consistent set of goals and objectives and increased collaboration with industry. The program worked closely with industry to produce a vision 

and R&D roadmap that focuses on the most promising long-term opportunities that, 

with leveraged funding from industry, can realize a goal of establishing the first 
13 

large-scale biorefinery based on agricultural residues by 2010. A multiyear technical 

plan in support of this goal provides a comprehensive work breakdown structure 

with milestones, costs and schedule, so that every project is linked to program goals, 

objectives and technical barriers. 

In fiscal year 2005, the Department is requesting $72.6 million for biomass program activities in the purview of the Energy and Water appropriation, $13.9 million 

less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. However, it is important to note that 

the fiscal year 2004 appropriation included nearly $41 million, or nearly half of the 

biomass budget, targeted to specific projects not identified in program plans. Congressional earmarking has delayed progress toward the program goals and diminished core research capabilities at the National Laboratories. 

Biomass activities funded through the Energy and Water appropriation focus on 

advanced biorefinery technologies to produce low cost sugars, syngas and pyrolysis 

oils. In fiscal year 2005, the thermochemical program will test the continuous production, cleanup and conditioning of biomass syngas and pyrolysis oils suitable for 

conversion to fuels, chemicals or hydrogen, and examine the production of hydrogen 

from biomass via synthesis gas. Work will continue with industry on improved process integration capabilities for industrial biorefineries, and the program will evaluate existing partnerships for more productive and lower-cost cellulase enzyme systems. Additional partnerships may further improve the procession operations leading to cheaper biomass-based sugars. Projects to test and evaluate the performance 

and costs of converting corn fiber to fuels and co-products will also continue. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES

Intergovernmental Activities funded through the Energy and Water appropriation 

include a variety of programs to promote renewable energy technologies. The fiscal 

year 2005 request for these programs is $16 million, an increase of $1.3 million over 

the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. 

The International Renewable Energy Program provides technical assistance to 

support sustainable development and emerging market economies. These efforts expand the market of U.S. industries and reduce the cost of energy to trading partners 

while improving their environment and creating new jobs. In fiscal year 2005, we 

request $6.5 million for international activities, a $612,000 increase from the fiscal 

year 2004 appropriation, which included nearly $2.7 million in funds that were earmarked to specific recipients. We propose to use these funds for a wide variety of 

partnership activities under the U.S. Clean Energy Initiative arising from the World 

Summit on Sustainable Development. 

In fiscal year 2005, we request $5.5 million for the Tribal Resources Program, an 

increase of $594,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The program provides 

assistance to Native American Tribes and Tribal entities in assessing energy resources, comprehensive energy plan development, energy technology training, and 

project development. This primarily involves the development of energy efficiency 

and renewable energy resources on Tribal lands. Projects include resource assessments and development plans for energy efficient and renewable energy technologies. Technical assistance helps Native American Tribes, and Tribal Colleges develop culturally compatible energy and economic development plans and strategies 

reflecting Tribal priorities. In addition, the program invests in technical program 

and market analysis and performance assessment in order to direct effective strategic planning. Again, this is an area where congressionally directed spending totaling $3.2 million, or more than half of our funding, inhibits our ability to issue and 

entertain competitive funding opportunities for tribes. 

We are also requesting $4.0 million dollars for the Renewable Energy Production 

Incentive, which will create an incentive similar to the renewable production tax 

credits available to investor-owned utilities for public power providers. 

DEPARTMENTAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Departmental Energy Management Program seeks to improve energy and 

water efficiency, promote renewable energy use, and manage utility costs in DOE 

facilities and operations. The Department owns or leases about 11,000 buildings at 

more than 50 sites across the United States. The fiscal year 2005 request for Department Energy Management Program activities of $1.97 million, about the same 

as the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, will allow continued facility audits to identify 

energy conservation opportunities; provide funding for best practices identification 

and dissemination; and accomplish energy conservation retrofits through direct 

funding and alternative financing. 
14 

NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION

PROGRAM

This is the third year we seek funding for the Competitive Solicitation Program 

as part of the President’s National Climate Change Technology Initiative. The competitive solicitation process will seek innovative, novel, high-impact climate change 

technology options that can complement and enrich the existing portfolio of climate 

change-related research and applied technology. By stimulating and strengthening 

Federal research in this area, the program hopes to inspire private sector interest 

and international cooperation in a sustained collaborative program of research investment aimed at accelerating technology development and advancing the administration’s climate change goals. The Department is requesting $3 million in fiscal 

year 2005 for this initiative. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

This Facilities and Infrastructure budget addresses capital requirements for capital projects, equipment and plant maintenance at the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL). NREL provides state-of-the-art research facilities, user facilities, analysis, and management of R&D contracts for the Solar, Wind, Geothermal, 

Biomass, and Hydrogen programs within the Energy Supply budget, and does the 

same for the programs in the Energy Conservation budget and superconductivity research in the Office of Electricity Transmission and Distribution. NREL is home to 

1,100 researchers, engineers, analysts, and administrative staff, plus visiting professionals, graduate students, and interns on a 300-acre campus in Golden, CO, occupying five large research buildings and over 200,000 square feet of research and administrative space in a neighboring office park. 

The fiscal year 2005 request of $11.5 million will provide $4.8 million for operation and maintenance funded activities and $6.7 million for continued construction 

of the Science and Technology Facility. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

Program Direction provides the technical direction and oversight resources needed 

to successfully implement EERE renewable energy programs. The budget requests 

covers Federal staff, as well as associated properties, equipment, supplies, and materials required to support the management and oversight of programs. Areas funded by these requests include information systems and technology equipment; travel; 

public information activities; support service contractors; and crosscutting performance evaluation, analysis and planning. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request for Program Direction in the Energy Supply 

account is $20.7 million, which is $8.3 million more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The increase in fiscal year 2005 will fund activities to develop and 

strengthen EERE’s program management and project management practices at both 

Headquarters and field offices. A new Project Management Center that includes the 

Golden Field Office and other EERE field organizations is responsible for project 

management of research and development partnerships, laboratory contract administration including the management and operating contract for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and providing procurement, legal, business management, 

and information resource management. This Project Management Center initiative 

allows our Laboratories to devote more time to real research as opposed to management oversight functions, and will help our program dollars remain focused on research, development, and deployment. 

The proposed increase will also provide full funding for the renewable energy programs’ share of landlord services at the Golden Field Office and its fair share of Information Technology services and local-area network operations. 

The budget request also includes $3 million to provide analytical and technical 

support services to the cross-cutting Climate Change Technology Program, a multiagency research planning and coordination activity led by DOE. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, we believe the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget request for 

renewable energy technologies reflects a robust, balanced and consistent approach 

toward meeting the Nation’s energy goals of increased energy security through utilization of diverse domestic supplies, greater freedom of choice of technology, and reduced financial costs and environmental impacts of energy utilization. 

This completes my prepared statement, and I am happy to answer any questions 

the subcommittee may have. 
15 

OFFSHORE WIND

Senator DOMENICI. I have a series of questions, but your testimony kind of interrupted my thoughts and suggested that I ask 

you a question. When you mentioned offshore activities, we’ve run 

into a lot of arguing about people wanting more say-so about where 

these great big fields of windmills are located. In fact, we almost 

got an amendment on the floor. They were all waiting for me to do 

it and I guess I let them down to give local authority to decide yes 

or no. 

I’m not asking you that question, but I’m saying, is there a significant growth in the complaints about where you should locate 

these fields and tell me a little bit about what’s happening? 

Mr. GARMAN. Sure. Today the regulatory structure is very, very 

difficult to navigate. There are a variety of State and local agencies 

that one has to deal with if one wants to put offshore wind in place. 

Offshore wind has such great promise because it is a tremendous 

resource that’s located very close to the population and load centers, particularly on the northeast coast of the United States, and 

we believe wind energy could be very competitive there. 

But today, unlike if you’re trying to develop offshore leasing for 

oil and gas and you deal with only one agency, the Minerals Management Service as the lead agency to develop offshore wind you 

have to deal with several agencies. The Army Corps of Engineers 

is the lead agency, but it is very, very difficult to deal with the regulatory structure. 

There is a provision in the energy bill, however, that would vest 

authority with the Department of the Interior to begin to manage 

offshore leasing for wind similar to the way they manage it for offshore outer continental shelf leasing. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, sir, you mentioned the northeast. 

What’s the issue off the shore of Massachusetts? 

Mr. GARMAN. The Cape Wind Project is a project that is probably 

economically viable today, but there is, of course, concern, 

NIMBYism, some call it, about the impact of the wind turbines on 

the horizon. I think wind turbines are aesthetically beautiful, but 

that’s me. Not everybody agrees. 

So we are actually developing the larger technology that could be 

offshore at such a distance that it couldn’t be seen from shore, and 

I think that could help ameliorate many of the concerns that people 

have about the aesthetics. 

Senator DOMENICI. There isn’t any need that it be right close, but 

does it get more expensive as you go out? 

Mr. GARMAN. It does because the water is deeper. But particularly in the Northeast, less so on the West Coast, you have shallow 

water that extends 20 or more kilometers offshore. The limit today 

is about 30 meters. If you go deeper than that, we don’t quite have 

the technology today to install wind turbines. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. Thank you very much. Dr. Orbach. 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. ORBACH, DIRECTOR 

Dr. ORBACH. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want 

to thank you for your support over the years. I look forward to 
16 

working with you to ensure that our Nation stays at the leading 

edge of science and technology for energy security. 

The Office of Science 2005 budget request is $3.4 billion, an increase of $72 million, or 2.2 percent over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation when congressionally-directed projects are taken into 

account. This request allows the Office of Science to carry forward 

with the Department’s and the administration’s priorities in critical 

areas of science. 

It enables us to begin our planning for the future of science in 

America through important progress on the priorities set out in the 

Facilities for the Future of Science report and in the Office of 

Science strategic plan. It increases the operation of our user facilities from 92 percent to 95 percent of optimum, enhancing our leverage for our construction investment. The full details of our budget 

request are provided in the written statement I have submitted. 

By title, let me talk about the highlights of our budget. It will 

keep our Nation on the path to fusion power, with important investments in ITER and other fusion programs. It will enable investments in leadership-class machines for high-end computation, 

essential for America’s open scientific technological research and 

economic development. 

The President’s request for the Office of Science will fund vital 

research enabling the hydrogen economy. The President’s request 

provides funding for long-lead procurement of the LINAC coherent 

light source, an X-ray free-electron laser, which will truly provide 

a new window on nature. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Finally, this request provides the funding needed to initiate 

project engineering design activities for the GTL facility for the 

production and characterization of proteins and molecular tags, 

which promises to accelerate genomics research. 

I would be delighted to answer any of your questions and I hope 

that my testimony can be submitted for the record. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. ORBACH

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today about the Department of Energy’s Office of Science fiscal year 2005 

budget request. The Department appreciates the support of the Chairman and the 

Members of the committee over the past years and I look forward to working with 

you to ensure that our Nation stays at the leading edge of science and technology. 

The Office of Science fiscal year 2005 budget request is $3.4 billion, a $68.5 million decrease from the fiscal year 2004 appropriation levels. When $140.8 million 

for fiscal year 2004 congressionally-directed projects is set aside, there is an increase 

of $72.3 million in fiscal year 2005. This request makes investments in: Advanced 

Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), Basic Energy Sciences (BES), Biological and 

Environmental Research (BER), Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), High Energy Physics (HEP), Nuclear Physics (NP), Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Safeguards 

and Security, Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists and Science Program Direction. 

It allows us to increase support for high priority scientific research, increase operations at our key scientific user facilities, keep major science construction projects 

on schedule, and support new initiatives. This request, coming at a time of tight 

overall Federal budgets, is also a demonstration of the administration’s support for 

basic research and the role that fundamental science plays in keeping our Nation 

strong and secure. 
17 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE FISCAL YEAR 2005 PRESIDENT’S REQUEST 

[B/A in thousands] 

Fiscal Year 2003 

Comparable 

Approp. 

Fiscal Year 2004 

Comparable 

Approp. 

Fiscal Year 2005 

President’s 

Request 

Science: 

Advanced Scientific Computing Research .................................. $163,185 $202,292 $204,340 

Basic Energy Sciences ................................................................ 1,001,941 1,010,591 1,063,530 

Biological & Environmental Research ........................................ 494,360 641,454 501,590 

Congressionally-directed projects ...................................... (51,927 ) (140,762 ) ..........................

Core Biological and Environmental Research ................... (442,433 ) (500,692 ) (501,590 ) 

Fusion Energy Sciences .............................................................. 240,695 262,555 264,110 

High Energy Physics ................................................................... 702,038 733,631 737,380 

Nuclear Physics ........................................................................... 370,655 389,623 401,040 

Science Laboratories Infrastructure ............................................ 45,109 54,280 29,090 

Science Program Direction .......................................................... 137,425 152,581 155,268 

Workforce Development for Teachers & Scientists ..................... 5,392 6,432 7,660 

Small Business Innovation Research/Technology Transfer ........ 100,172 .......................... ..........................

Safeguards and Security ............................................................ 61,272 56,730 67,710 

Subtotal, Science .................................................................... 3,322,244 3,510,169 3,431,718 

Use of prior year balances .................................................................. .......................... ¥10,000 ..........................

Total, Science ......................................................................... 3,322,244 3,500,169 3,431,718 

Total, excluding Congressionally-directed projects ................ (3,270,317 ) (3,359,407 ) (3,431,718 ) 

I am proud to tell you that the Department of Energy was ranked the most improved cabinet-level agency in the most recent scorecard to assess implementation 

of the President’s Management Agenda (PMA). The scorecard, which evaluates 

agency performance in the areas of human capital, competitive sourcing, financial 

management, e-government, and budget/performance integration, was issued by the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in January and recognized the Department as one of the agencies ‘‘leading the pack with regard to management improvement.’’ 

The Department has made a strong commitment to a results-driven, performancebased approach to management of itself and its government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories. Laboratory contracts are being renegotiated so that mutually 

agreed upon performance measures will result in increased contractor authority and 

accountability, while lessening the burden of DOE day-to-day oversight of activities. 

In January of this year, the Department announced that it will compete the management and operating contracts for seven of the DOE laboratories. 

In September 2003, the Department issued its updated Strategic Plan and incorporated this Plan and the Performance Plan into the fiscal year 2005 budget request. The performance measures included in this budget were developed with input 

from our scientific advisory committees and OMB. A website (www.sc.doe.gov/measures) has been developed to more fully explain the new measures within the context 

of each program. 

SCIENCE PLANS AND PRIORITIES

When I joined the Office of Science after a career as a university scientist and 

administrator, I came with an appreciation for the four key roles that the Office 

plays in the U.S. research effort. We provide solutions to our Nation’s energy challenges, contributing essential scientific foundations to the energy, national, and economic security missions of the DOE. We are the Nation’s leading supporter of the 

physical sciences, investing in research at over 280 universities, 15 national laboratories, and many international research institutions. We deliver the premier tools 

of science to our Nation’s science enterprise, building and operating major research 

facilities for open access by the science community. We help keep the United States 

at the forefront of intellectual leadership, supporting the core capabilities, theories, 

experiments, and simulations to advance science. 

This fiscal year 2005 budget request will set us on the path toward addressing 

the challenges that face our Nation in the 21st Century. SC has recently released 

‘‘Facilities for the Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook’’ which sets an ambitious agenda for scientific discovery over the next two decades. The priorities established in this plan—which is clearly not a budget document—reflect national priorities set by the President and the Congress, our commitment to the DOE missions, 
18 

and the views of the U.S. scientific community. Pursuing these priorities will be 

challenging, but they hold enormous promise for the overall well-being of all of our 

citizens. We have recently released an updated Office of Science Strategic Plan that 

is fully integrated with the Facilities Plan, the Department’s Strategic Plan, and the 

President’s Management Agenda—including the R&D Investment Criteria and 

OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool. The fiscal year 2005 budget request begins 

to implement these plans. 

I am increasingly mindful that the health and vitality of U.S. science and technology depends upon the availability of the most advanced research facilities. DOE 

leads the world in the conception, design, construction, and operation of these largescale devices. These machines have enabled U.S. researchers to make some of the 

most important scientific discoveries of the past 70 years, with spin-off technological 

advances leading to entirely new industries. More than 19,000 researchers and their 

students from universities, other government agencies (including the National 

Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health), private industry, and 

those from abroad use DOE facilities each year. These users are growing in both 

number and diversity. 

Because of the extraordinarily wide range of scientific disciplines required to support facility users at national laboratories, and the diversity of mission-driven research supported by the SC, we have developed an interdisciplinary capability that 

is extremely valuable to some of the most important scientific initiatives of the 21st 

Century. There is also a symbiotic relationship between research and research tools. 

Research efforts advance the capabilities of the facilities and tools that in turn enable new avenues of research. 

Excluding funds used to construct or operate our facilities, approximately half of 

our research funding goes to support research at universities and institutes. Academic scientists and their students are funded through peer-reviewed grants, and 

SC’s funding of university research has made it an important source of support for 

graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in the physical sciences during their 

early careers. 

Mindful of the role that the Office of Science plays in supporting the physical 

sciences and other key fields, I would now like to briefly outline some specific investments that we are proposing in the Fiscal Year 2005 Request. 

SCIENCE PROGRAMS

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$202.3M; Fiscal Year 2005 Request— 

$204.3M 

The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program significantly advances scientific simulation and computation, applying new approaches, algorithms, 

and software and hardware combinations to address the critical science challenges 

of the future, and provides access to world-class, scientific computation and networking facilities to the Nation’s scientific community to support advancements in 

practically every field of science and industry. The ASCR budget also supports the 

Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program—a set of coordinated investments across all Office of Science mission areas with the goal of 

achieving breakthrough scientific advances via computer simulation that were previously impossible using theoretical or laboratory studies alone. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes $204.3 million for ASCR to advance 

U.S. leadership in high performance supercomputing and networks for science and 

to continue to advance the transformation of scientific simulation and computation 

into the third pillar of scientific discovery. The request includes $38.2 million for 

the Next Generation Computer Architecture (NGA) research activity, which is part 

of a coordinated interagency effort that supports research, development and evaluation of new architectures for scientific computers that could help enable continued 

U.S. leadership in science. Enhancements are supported for ASCR facilities—the 

Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC). The request also includes $8.5 million for the new Atomic 

to Macroscopic Mathematics research effort to provide the research support in applied mathematics needed to break through the current barriers in our understanding of complex physical processes. 
19 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$1,010.6M; Fiscal Year 2005 Re- quest—$1,063.5M 

The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program is a principal sponsor of fundamental 

research for the Nation in the areas of materials sciences and engineering, chemistry, geosciences, and bioscience as it relates to energy. This research underpins the 

DOE missions in energy, environment, and national security; advances energy-related basic science on a broad front; and provides unique user facilities for the scientific community and industry. For fiscal year 2005, the Department requests $1.1 billion for BES including $208.6 million to continue to advance nanoscale science through atomic- and molecular-level studies in materials sciences and engineering, chemistry, geosciences, and 

energy biosciences. This supports Project Engineering Design (PED) and construction of four Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRC’s) and a Major Item of 

Equipment for the fifth and final NSRC. NSRC’s are user facilities for the synthesis, 

processing, fabrication, and analysis of materials at the nanoscale. The request also 

includes $80.5 million for construction and $33.1 million for other project costs for 

the Spallation Neutron Source, and $54.1 million for research, development, PED, 

and long lead procurement of the Linac Coherent Light Source, a revolutionary xray laser light source. With these tools, we will be able to understand how the compositions of materials affect their properties, watch proteins fold, see chemical reactions, and design matter for desired outcomes. The fiscal year 2005 budget request also includes $29.2 million for activities that 

support the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. This research program is based 

on the BES workshop report ‘‘Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy,’’ 

which highlights the enormous gap between our present capabilities and those required for a competitive hydrogen economy. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$641.5M; Fiscal Year 2005 Request— $501.6M 

The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program advances energy-related biological and environmental research in genomics and our understanding of 

complete biological systems, such as microbes that produce hydrogen; in climate 

change, including the development of models to predict climate over decades to centuries; developing science-based methods for cleaning up environmental contaminants; in radiation biology, providing regulators with a stronger scientific basis for 

developing future radiation protection standards; and in the medical sciences, by developing new diagnostic and therapeutic tools, technology for disease diagnosis and 

treatment, non-invasive medical imaging, and biomedical engineering such as an artificial retina that will restore sight to the blind. For fiscal year 2005, the Department requests $501.6 million for BER. The fiscal year 2004 appropriation includes 

$140.8 million of one-time Congressionally-directed projects, for which no additional 

funds are being requested in fiscal year 2005. 

Research on microbes through the Genomics: GTL program, addressing DOE en- ergy and environmental needs, continues to expand from $63.5 million in fiscal year 

2004 to $67.5 million in fiscal year 2005. The request also provides $5 million for 

initiation of Project Engineering Design (PED) activities for the GTL Facility for the 

Production and Characterization of Proteins and Molecular Tags, a facility that will 

help move the Genomics: GTL systems biology research program to a new level by 

greatly increasing the rate and cost-effectiveness with which experiments can be 

done. DOE, through the Genomics: GTL program, will attempt to use genetic techniques to harness microbes to consume pollution, create hydrogen, and absorb carbon dioxide. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$262.6M; Fiscal Year 2005 Request— 

$264.1M 

The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program advances the theoretical and experimental understanding of plasma and fusion science, including a close collaboration 

with international partners in identifying and exploring plasma and fusion physics 

issues through specialized facilities. This includes: (1) exploring basic issues in plasma science; (2) developing the scientific basis and computational tools to predict the 

behavior of magnetically confined plasmas; (3) using the advances in tokomak research to enable the initiation of the burning plasma physics phase of the Fusion 

Energy Sciences program; (4) exploring innovative confinement options that offer 
20 

the potential of more attractive fusion energy sources in the long term; (5) focusing 

on the scientific issues of nonneutral plasma physics and High Energy Density 

Physics; (6) developing the cutting edge technologies that enable fusion facilities to 

achieve their scientific goals; and (7) advancing the science base for innovative materials to establish the economic feasibility and environmental quality of fusion energy. 

When the President announced that the United States would join in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project he noted that ‘‘the results of ITER will advance the effort to produce clean, safe, renewable, and commercially available fusion energy by the middle of this century.’’ To this end, the Department continues its commitment to the future of Fusion Energy Science research 

with a request of $264.1 million, slightly above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. 

Within that amount, $38 million is requested for preparations for ITER in fiscal 

year 2005, $30 million more than in fiscal year 2004. Of this $38 million, $7 million 

is for scientists and engineers who will support the International Team and for the 

qualification of vendors that will supply superconducting cable for ITER magnets. 

The remaining $31 million will be used to support refocused experiments in our 

tokamak facilities and for component R&D in our laboratories and universities that 

is closely related to our ongoing program but which is focused on ITER’s specific 

needs. The researchers and facilities that we support will not be doing less work 

because of ITER, but some of their time and effort will be directed to different, 

ITER-related, work than they were doing before. 

Fabrication continues on the National Compact Stellarator Experiment (NCSX), 

an innovative confinement system that is the product of advances in physics understanding and computer modeling. In addition, work will be initiated on the Fusion 

Simulation Project that, upon completion, will provide an integrated simulation and 

modeling capability for magnetic fusion energy confinement systems over a 15-year 

development period. The Inertial Fusion Energy research program will be redirected 

toward high energy density physics research based on recommendations that will 

come from the recently established Interagency Task Force on High Energy Density 

Physics. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$733.6M; Fiscal Year 2005 Request— $737.4M 

The High Energy Physics (HEP) program advances our understanding of the basic 

constituents of matter, including the mysterious dark energy and dark matter that 

make up most of the universe; the striking imbalance of matter and antimatter in 

the universe, and the possible existence of other dimensions. Collectively, these investigations will reveal the key secrets of the birth, evolution, and final destiny of 

the universe. HEP expands the energy frontier with particle accelerators to study 

fundamental interactions at the highest possible energies, which may reveal previously unknown particles, forces or undiscovered dimensions of space and time; explain how everything came to have mass; and illuminate the pathway to the underlying simplicity of the universe. For fiscal year 2005, the Department requests $737.4 million for the HEP program, an increase from fiscal year 2004. The highest priority in HEP is the operation, upgrade and infrastructure for the two major HEP user facilities at the Fermi 

National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator 

Center (SLAC), to maximize the scientific data generated. 

In 2005, the Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) facility will be complete and 

the beam line will be commissioned. The fiscal year 2005 budget request also supports research and design activities for a new Major Item of Equipment, the BTeV 

(‘‘B Physics at the TeVatron’’) experiment at Fermilab that will extend current investigations, using modern detector technology to harvest a data sample more than 

100 times larger than current experiments. Research and development work continues in fiscal year 2005 on the proposed Supernova Acceleration Probe (SNAP) experiment for the DOE/NASA Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM). 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$389.6M; Fiscal Year 2005 Request— $401M 

The Nuclear Physics (NP) program supports innovative, peer reviewed scientific 

research to advance knowledge and provide insights into the nature of energy and 

matter, and in particular, to investigate the fundamental forces which hold the nucleus together, and determine the detailed structure and behavior of the atomic 

nuclei. Nuclear science plays a vital role in studies of astrophysical phenomena and 
21 

conditions of the early universe. At stake is a fundamental grasp of how the universe has evolved, an understanding of the origin of the elements, and the mechanisms of supernovae core collapse. The program builds and supports world-leading 

scientific facilities and state-of-the-art instruments necessary to carry out its basic 

research agenda. Scientific discoveries at the frontiers of Nuclear Physics further 

the Nation’s energy-related research capacity, which in turn provides for the Nation’s security, economic growth and opportunities, and improved quality of life. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request of $401 million gives highest priority to exploiting the unique discovery potentials of the facilities at the Relativistic Heavy Ion 

Collider (RHIC) and Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) by increasing operating time by 26 percent compared with fiscal year 2004. R&D funding 

is provided for the proposed Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA) and 12 GeV upgrade of 

CEBAF, which is located at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. 

Operations of the MIT/Bates facility will be terminated as planned, following 3 

months of operations in fiscal year 2005 to complete its research program. This facility closure follows the transitioning of operations of the Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory 88-Inch Cyclotron in fiscal year 2004 from a user facility to a dedicated 

facility for the testing of electronic circuit components for use in space (using funds 

from other agencies) and a small in-house research program. These resources have 

been redirected to better utilize and increase science productivity of the remaining 

user facilities and provide for new opportunities in the low-energy subprogram. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$54.3M; Fiscal Year 2005 Request— 

$29.1M 

The Science Laboratories Infrastructure (SLI) program supports SC mission activities at SC laboratories by addressing needs related to general purpose infrastructure, excess facilities disposition, Oak Ridge landlord, health and safety improvements and payment in lieu of taxes (PILT). 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request supports three ongoing line item construction 

projects at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and nine projects to clean-up/remove 84,000 square feet of excess space to reduce operating costs, and environment, 

safety and health liabilities, and to free up land for future use. The request also 

supports activities to maintain continuity of operations at the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), including Federal facilities in the town of Oak Ridge and PILT for local 

communities surrounding Oak Ridge. PILT is also provided to communities surrounding Brookhaven and Argonne East. 

We have continued to work cooperatively with the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

teams as they have conducted audits of our laboratories. NRC has completed its audits; OSHA is expected to complete its audits in mid-March 2004. The laboratories 

are preparing cost estimates to meet the requirements as identified by those agencies, and we plan to provide this information to Congress by May 31, 2004. Health 

and safety improvements to address OSHA- and NRC-identified deficiencies and recommendations at Office of Science laboratories are expected to be completed in fiscal 

year 2004. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$56.7M; Fiscal Year 2005 Request— 

$67.7M 

Safeguards and Security activities reflects the Office of Science’s commitment to 

maintain adequate protection of cutting edge scientific resources and assets. The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes $9.8 million for Pacific Northwest Site Office 

safeguards and security activities, which were transferred from the Office of Environmental Management. In fiscal year 2005, Safeguards and Security will enable 

the Office of Science laboratories to meet the requirements of Security Condition 3 

level mandates for the protection of assets. The request also provides the laboratories with the ability to maintain requirements of increased Security Condition 2 

level for 60 days. The funding includes the increase needed to meet expectations of 

the revised Design Basis Threat approved by the Secretary in May 2003. In addition, critical cyber security investments will be made to respond to the ever changing cyber threat. 
22 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$6.4M; Fiscal Year 2005 Request— $7.7M 

The mission of the Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists program 

is to continue the Office of Science’s long-standing role of training young scientists, 

engineers, and technicians in the scientifically and technically advanced environments of our National Laboratories. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request of $7.7 million provides $1.5 million for a 

Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development activity. About 90 participating teachers will gain experience and enhance their skills at five or more DOE 

laboratories in response to the national need for science teachers who have strong 

content knowledge in the classes they teach. A new $500,000 Faculty Sabbatical Fellowship activity will provide sabbatical opportunities for 12 faculty from minority 

serving institutions (MSI’s). This proposed activity is an extension of the successful 

Faculty and Student Teams (FaST) program where teams of faculty members and 

two or three undergraduate students, from colleges and universities with limited 

prior research capabilities, work with mentor scientists at a National Laboratory to 

complete a research project that is formally documented in a paper or presentation. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$152.6M; Fiscal Year 2005 Request— $155.3M 

The mission of Science Program Direction is to provide a Federal workforce, 

skilled and highly motivated, to manage and support basic energy and science-related research disciplines, diversely supported through research programs, projects, 

and facilities under the Office of Science’s leadership. 

Science Program Direction consists of two subprograms: Program Direction and 

Field Operations. The Program Direction subprogram is the single funding source 

for the SC Federal staff in Headquarters responsible for directing, administering, 

and supporting the broad spectrum of scientific disciplines. This subprogram also includes program planning and analysis activities which provide the capabilities needed to evaluate and communicate the scientific excellence, relevance, and performance of SC basic research programs. 

The Field Operations subprogram is the centralized funding source for the SC 

Federal workforce in the field who are responsible for providing business, administrative, and specialized technical support to SC and other DOE programs. Our service centers in Chicago and Oak Ridge provide primary support to SC laboratories 

and facilities, including Ames, Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven National 

Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Fermilab, Princeton Plasma Physics 

Laboratory, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, and Stanford Linear 

Accelerator Center. 

Secretary Abraham approved the Office of Science Restructuring (OneSC) on January 5, 2004. OneSC was initiated in July 2002 to embrace the changes envisioned 

by the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) to accomplish government programs 

more economically and effectively by creating a new, more efficient, and productive 

SC organization. It will also provide a management environment for SC employees 

in which their success and high performance can continue in the face of changing 

resources, requirements, and societal needs. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request of $155.3 million represents a 1.8 percent increase over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. This increase is reflected in salaries 

and benefits to support a total SC workforce of 1,014 full-time equivalents (FTE’s). 

Compared to fiscal year 2004, the fiscal year 2005 request is flat or lower in our 

other major budget categories, such as travel, training, support services, and other 

related expenses. We will continue to leverage resources and rely on building good 

business practices by streamlining operations, improving financial controls, and reengineering business processes in support of the PMA and the OneSC structure. 

CONCLUSION

The Office of Science occupies a unique and critical role within the U.S. scientific 

enterprise. We fund research projects in key areas of science that our Nation depends upon. We construct and operate major scientific user facilities that scientists 

from virtually every discipline are using on a daily basis, and we manage civilian 

national laboratories that are home to some of the best scientific minds in the world. 

Our researchers are working on many of the most daunting scientific challenges 

of the 21st Century. These include pushing the frontiers of the physical sciences 
23 

through nanotechnology and exploring the key questions at the intersection of physics and astronomy. We are also pursuing opportunities at the intersection of the 

physical sciences, the life sciences, and scientific computation to understand how the 

instructions embedded in genomes control the development of organisms, with the 

goal of harnessing the capabilities of microbes and microbial communities to help 

us to produce energy, clean up waste, and sequester carbon from the atmosphere. 

The Office of Science is also pushing the state-of-the-art in scientific computation, 

accelerator R&D, plasma confinement options and a wide array of other technologies 

that advance research capabilities and strengthen our ability to respond to the rapidly changing challenges ahead. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity to discuss the 

SC’s research programs and our contributions to the Nation’s scientific enterprise. 

This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might 

have. 

Senator DOMENICI. Is this your product? 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes, it is, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Facilities for Future of Science 20-Year Outlook. I think it’s terrific. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The document entitled, ‘‘Facilities for the Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook’’ can be found at http:// 

www.sc.doe.gov/sub/FacilitieslForlFuture/20-YearOutlooklscreen.pdf.] 

Dr. ORBACH. Thank you. 

Senator DOMENICI. I’m very sorry that it doesn’t get more use 

and more exposure and maybe you might just tell me, how does it 

get around? 

Dr. ORBACH. Well, we’ve been distributing it at each of the meetings that I attend around the country. We have made major press 

announcements and we have submitted it to scientific organizations not only in the United States but also abroad. 

Also our current budget request enables us to begin the top six 

of our priorities at different stages depending on R&D, so we’re beginning to put it into play. 

Senator DOMENICI. Great. 

Dr. ORBACH. Thank you for your comment. 

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Magwood, would you proceed with kind 

of dispatch on your statement, because we’ve got a lot of questions. 

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, DIRECTOR 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Be happy to, Mr. Chairman. I do have a written 

statement for the record. Let me very briefly summarize my remarks because I know you’re very familiar with our program activities. 

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

I want to take a look back. When you think about where we 

started from back in 1998, when you and I spoke about the pretty 

dire situation facing the nuclear energy program run by the Federal Government, at that time our research budget plummeted to 

zero; students entering nuclear engineering programs had gone 

down to 500 from 1,500 just a few years earlier; and many countries that had seen the United States as a principal partner for nuclear energy research and development had turned away from us 

and had begun to think of the United States as being basically a 

past partner. 
24 

Over the last several years, this has turned around significantly. 

I think there’s been a lot of success to look back on. Looking at it 

today, the number of nuclear engineering students now are 1,400 

in universities across the country. This is a huge accomplishment 

considering where we were a few years ago. 

Senator DOMENICI. How many? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. One thousand, four hundred. Almost as—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Studying what? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Nuclear engineering. So that’s almost completely 

reversed from the climate of the 1990’s. 

Senator DOMENICI. But now we went like that and we’re going 

to stop growing. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. No, we want to keep growing. We think we’re in 

good shape. As a matter of fact, we are actually starting new programs in nuclear engineering across the country at schools like the 

University of South Carolina, South Carolina State and even—I’m 

sorry that Mr. Reid’s not here—University of Nevada Las Vegas is 

looking at starting a new nuclear engineering program. 

On our side, the research that we’re pursuing in Generation IV 

nuclear power systems has really taken off. We’re working with our 

international partners very closely and we’re very optimistic about 

the direction that that work has taken. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

You may know, Mr. Chairman, that I was recently elected chairman of the Generation IV International Forum and also the OECD 

steering committee on nuclear energy, and in those positions I’ve 

been able to really leverage our activities with those of our international partners; and we think that the ability to work with our 

international partners to pursue advanced technologies, including 

the possible pursuit of a project at our Idaho site to look at an advanced hydrogen electricity production reactor, is something that’s 

well within our grasp. 

So I’ll just leave it at that. We’ve appreciated your leadership 

over the years and look forward to any questions you have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, and Members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure 

to be here to discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget submission for DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. 

The program has made a great deal of progress over the past several years. From 

the time, not so many years ago, when it appeared that the United States might 

abandon advanced nuclear research and development, we have been successful in 

reasserting U.S. leadership in the world. Representing the United States, I have 

been elected by my international colleagues to serve as the chair of two important 

international bodies—the OECD Steering Committee on Nuclear Energy and the 

Generation IV International Forum. When it appeared that nuclear power’s era had 

ended in the United States, nuclear utilities have turned their programs around, 

making more energy last year than at any time in history and launching into very 

serious discussions to explore the construction of new plants for the first time in 

decades. 

Recent developments have been encouraging. The Department has launched the 

process of establishing a central laboratory for nuclear research and development— 

the Idaho National Laboratory. We are also exploring the possible construction of 

a pilot Generation IV nuclear plant at our new lab that will demonstrate highly efficient electricity production and pave the way to realize the President’s vision of a 

future hydrogen economy. 
25 

The Department’s fiscal year 2005 request for the nuclear energy program proposes a $410 million investment in nuclear research, development and infrastructure for the Nation’s future that is designed to continue this progress. This budget 

request moves forward the Department’s commitment to support the President’s priorities to enhance the Nation’s energy independence and security while enabling significant improvements in environmental quality. Our request supports development 

of new nuclear generation technologies and advanced energy products that provide 

significant improvements in sustainability, economics, safety and reliability, and 

proliferation and terrorism resistance. 

We are committed to efficiently managing the funds we are given. We have abandoned outdated paradigms to integrate the Idaho Operations Office with our headquarters organization, enabling us to manage our responsibilities in the field to 

achieve greater quality and efficiency than would otherwise be possible. We are enhancing our expertise in critical areas such as project management through training 

and certification of existing staff and the acquisition of experienced, proven managers. We continue to implement the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) by 

further integrating budget and performance, improving Program Assessment Rating 

Tool (PART) scores for our research and development programs, and linking major 

program goals in the performance plans for our Senior Executives and technical 

staff. These improvements are challenging and time-consuming, but we feel they 

must be done to assure our program’s ability to make the best use of the taxpayer 

dollars. 

While we have made great progress in all these areas, much remains to be done. 

Our fiscal year 2005 request moves us in the right direction and I will now provide 

you a full report of our activities and explain the President’s request for nuclear energy in detail. 

GENERATION IV NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS

Our Generation IV effort continues to make significant progress. Since the Generation IV International Forum and the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) issued their joint report, ‘‘A Technology Roadmap for Generation 

IV Nuclear Energy Systems’’, the members of the Forum have expanded to include 

Switzerland and the European Union. The now 11 members (Argentina, Brazil, 

Canada, the European Union, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic 

of South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States) have organized into interest groups associated with each of the six selected Generation IV systems and are negotiating international legal agreements to enable advanced nuclear 

research to be conducted on a multilateral basis. 

We hope to complete these negotiations later this year and move forward with 

these countries to develop advanced reactor technologies for commercial deployment 

in the 2015 to 2030 timeframe. Generation IV concepts offer significant improvements in sustainability, proliferation resistance, physical protection, safety and economics. These advanced systems will not only be safe, economic and secure, but will 

also include energy conversion systems that produce valuable commodities such as 

hydrogen, desalinated water and process heat. These features make Generation IV 

reactors ideal for meeting the President’s energy and environmental objectives. 

As indicated in our recent report to Congress on our implementation strategy for 

the Generation IV program, while the Department is involved in research on several 

reactor concepts, our efforts and this budget proposal place priority on development 

of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The NGNP is based on the union 

of the Very-High-Temperature Reactor concept in the Generation IV Roadmap with 

advanced electricity and hydrogen production technologies. We are exploring the potential of an international, public-private project to build and operate a pilot NGNP 

at the Department’s Idaho site. While the Department has not made a decision to 

proceed with this effort, such a project could validate the potential of this technology 

to contribute to meeting to goals of the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. If successful, this technology could produce hydrogen at a cost that is competitive with 

gasoline and electricity and with advanced natural gas-fired systems. 

The Idaho National Laboratory and several other labs will also explore a range 

of other Generation IV concepts principally the Supercritical Water-Cooled Reactor, 

the Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor and the Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor. Our efforts will 

focus on establishing technical and economic viability, and developing core and fuel 

designs, and advanced materials for these concepts. We are also working with our 

colleagues in the Office of Science to assemble a joint Future Energy Advanced Materials Initiative aimed at the development of new materials for advanced fission 

and fusion energy systems. The fiscal year 2005 request enables progress on this 

broad front. With your support, and the leveraging of our resources with those of 
26 

our international partners, we expect to make continued progress toward developing 

world-changing technologies. 

NUCLEAR HYDROGEN INITIATIVE

Hydrogen offers significant promise as a future energy technology, particularly for 

the transportation sector. The use of hydrogen in transportation will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, enhancing national security. Significant 

progress in hydrogen combustion engines and fuel cells is making transportation 

using hydrogen a reality. Today, through electrolysis, we can convert water to hydrogen using electricity. We believe that for the future, Very-High-Temperature Reactors coupled with thermo-chemical or high-temperature electrolytic water splitting 

processes offer a more efficient technology for production of large quantities of hydrogen without release of greenhouse gases. The goal of the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative is to develop economic, commercial-scale production of hydrogen using nuclear energy. With funding of $9 million in fiscal year 2005, the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative 

will progress toward the development and demonstration of closed, sulfur-based cycles, such as the sulfur-iodine process. These processes have been demonstrated on 

a bench scale at somewhat lower temperatures and pressures than would be required for economic hydrogen production, but they show considerable promise, especially when they are considered for mating to Very-High-Temperature Reactor systems. We will also explore high-temperature electrolysis, which uses electricity to 

split high-temperature steam into hydrogen and oxygen, similar to a fuel cell operating in reverse (specifically a solid-oxide fuel cell, SOFC). High-temperature electrolysis requires much less fundamental R&D, but the ability of the process to scale 

economically must be demonstrated. 

Finally, a major effort will be pursued in fiscal year 2005 to explore materials for 

hydrogen production processes which must endure high temperatures and very corrosive environments while maintaining structural integrity at low costs. Included in 

this effort will be our work to explore new membranes that can increase the efficiencies of the hydrogen production processes. 

ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE INITIATIVE

Of the issues affecting future expansion of nuclear energy in the United States 

and worldwide, none is more important or more difficult than that of dealing effectively with spent nuclear fuel. After a long and difficult process, the United States 

is moving forward with a geologic repository, and the Department is on schedule to 

submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the end of 

2004. 

Research on improving ways to treat and utilize materials from spent nuclear fuel 

will allow the Department to optimize the first repository, and delay—and perhaps 

even eliminate—the need for future repositories. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, with an investment of $46 million for fiscal year 2005, will continue the 

progress made in the development of proliferation-resistant treatment and transmutation technologies that can reduce both the volume and toxicity of spent nuclear 

fuel. These technologies would support both national security and energy independence by reducing inventories of commercially-generated plutonium while recovering 

residual energy value from spent nuclear fuel. If successful, these same technologies 

offer benefits of enhancing national security by reducing inventories of commercially-generated plutonium and enhancing energy independence by recovering the 

energy value contained in spent nuclear fuel. 

The program has already enjoyed considerable success. We have proven the ability 

of our UREX technology to separate uranium from spent fuel at a very high level 

of purity and also shown that a derivative, UREX∂, can separate a combined mixture of plutonium and neptunium that can serve as the basis for a proliferation-resistant fuel for light water reactors. 

The Department’s research efforts are leading to the demonstration of proliferation-resistant fuel treatment technologies to reduce the volume and radioactivity of 

high level waste, and the development of advanced fuels that would enable consumption of plutonium using existing light water reactors or advanced reactors. We 

have tested proliferation-resistant nitride and metal transmutation fuels in the Advanced Test Reactor and are currently testing mixed-oxide fuels such as would be 

derived from the UREX∂ process. 

For the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative to be successful, advanced fuel treatment 

and transmutation research and development must be integrated with the development of Generation IV nuclear energy systems, particularly with those reactor technologies that can produce very high energy neutrons that would be needed to trans-
27 

mute a wide variety of toxic radioactive species. We have organized our national 

labs, universities, and international collaborations in a manner that will enable this 

work to proceed in a coordinated manner. 

NUCLEAR POWER 2010

The President’s Budget supports continuation of Nuclear Power 2010 in fiscal year 

2005 to demonstrate, in cost-shared cooperation with industry, key regulatory processes associated with licensing and building new nuclear plants in the United States 

by the end of the decade. The requested funds of $10 million would support the activities associated with achieving NRC approval of early site permits and the development of Combined Construction and Operating License applications. (It is also 

critical that the Department identify the business conditions under which power 

generation companies would add new nuclear capacity and determine appropriate 

strategies to enhance such investment. In fiscal year 2005, the Department will continue to evaluate and develop strategies to mitigate specific financial risks associated with the deployment of new nuclear power plants.) 

In December, the Department issued a solicitation inviting proposals from teams 

led by power generation companies to initiate New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects. Under these cost-shared projects, power companies will conduct 

studies, analyses, and other activities necessary to select an advanced reactor technology and prepare a site-specific, technology-specific Combined Operating License 

application. These projects will provide for NRC design certification and other activities to license a standardized nuclear power plant design. The Department expects 

to award at least one project in this fiscal year. The focus of activities in fiscal year 

2005 for these projects will be on development of the Combined Operating License 

application. 

UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT

The Department is very pleased with the progress we have made in reversing the 

decline in nuclear engineering in the United States. With significant support and 

encouragement from this body and your colleagues in the House of Representatives, 

we have played a large role in completely reversing the decline in undergraduate 

enrollments in this area of study that began in 1993 and continued through 1998. 

In 1998, the United States saw only around 500 students enroll as nuclear engineers—down from almost 1,500 in 1992. After several years of focused effort, the 

United States now has over 1,300 students studying nuclear engineering. That number is set to increase further, as strong programs—such as at Purdue and Texas 

A&M—continue to grow and we see new programs start at schools such as South 

Carolina State University, the University of South Carolina, and the University of 

Nevada-Las Vegas. 

The growth of nuclear energy in the United States is dependent on the preservation of the education and training infrastructure at universities. The research conducted using these reactors is critical to many national priorities. Currently, there 

are 27 operating university research reactors at 26 campuses in 20 States. These 

reactors are providing support for research in such diverse areas as medical isotopes, human health, life sciences, environmental protection, advanced materials, lasers, energy conversion and food irradiation. 

The most exciting development in University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance is the Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and Education (INIE) 

Program established in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year 2003, two additional university consortia were awarded, bringing the total to six INIE grants, providing support 

to 24 universities in 19 States across the Nation. The consortia have demonstrated 

remarkable collaborative efforts and strong formation of strategic partnerships between universities, national laboratories, and industry. These partnerships have resulted in increased use of the university nuclear reactor research and training facilities, upgrading of facilities, increased support for students, and additional research 

opportunities for students, faculty and other interested researchers. We are very 

pleased that the President’s Budget includes $21 million for the University Reactor 

Infrastructure and Education Assistance program for fellowships, scholarships, nuclear engineering research, and for critical support to university research reactors, 

all of which will help address this shortage of well-trained nuclear scientists. (We 

have modified the structure of this program for fiscal year 2005. I am pleased to 

report that the President’s request includes a small but important element to provide scholarships and graduate fellowships to students studying the vital and toooften overlooked discipline of health physics. The Department is concerned that the 

Nation may soon not have the trained health physicists who are needed to assure 

the safety of all nuclear and radiological activities. With this budget, we begin build-
28 

ing a program to reverse the negative trends in this field as we have already done 

in nuclear engineering.) 

In another change, we will transfer responsibility for the shipment of spent research reactor fuel to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which 

is to become the Department’s central expertise in the management of spent fuel. 

One final note in this regard, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that you have noticed that 

no funding is requested for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) in fiscal 

year 2005. While this program has successfully spurred U.S. nuclear energy R&D, 

we believe that the time has now come to integrate the program into our mainstream R&D programs. We will continue to make peer-reviewed NERI awards to 

university-based researchers who work in areas relevant to our Generation IV, Nuclear Hydrogen, and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative programs. With this step, we 

will engage NERI researchers at universities in the exciting, first-class research we 

are pursuing in cooperation with countries all over the world. 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

This budget request also includes $69.1 million to maintain critical research, isotope and space and national security power systems facilities at Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, and 

Brookhaven National Laboratory in a safe, secure, and cost effective manner to support national priorities. The fiscal year 2005 budget request also includes $20.6 million to continue baseline operations and begin construction of the Uranium-233 project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This project is aimed at stabilizing materials left over from the 

Cold War to address a Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board recommendation, 

while extracting isotopes from the uranium that are needed for very promising medical research. 

INL—DOE’S COMMAND CENTER FOR NUCLEAR R&D

This budget supports the Secretary’s realignment of the mission of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to focus the future of the site on 

nuclear research and development. The Department is in the process of establishing 

the Idaho National Laboratory, which will combine the resources of the INEEL and 

the Argonne-West site. As the Department’s leading center of nuclear research and 

development, a core mission of this laboratory is advanced nuclear reactor and fuel 

cycle technologies, including the development of space nuclear power and propulsion 

technologies. The new Idaho National Laboratory will play a vital role in the research and development of enabling technologies for the Next Generation Nuclear 

Plant, which will support the Department’s long-term vision of a zero-emissions future free of reliance on imported energy. 

The Department issued a request for proposals in February to find a management 

team to reduce costs and build expertise at the INL. The Department’s nuclear energy program involves the collective talents of universities, the private sector, international partners and many of our other national laboratories—Argonne, Los Alamos, Sandia and Oak Ridge among them. However, the rebuilding of the Department’s nuclear power research and development program will be centered at INL. 

While environmental cleanup remains an important focus at the Idaho site, real 

progress is being made that will aid in the expansion of nuclear research and development. 

Developing a central research laboratory is a major step forward for the nuclear 

energy program. We will join the other key energy programs at the Department by 

having a central, dedicated research site at which we can centralize our infrastructure investments and build the expertise needed to accomplish our program goals. 

A central lab also helps us minimize the shipment of nuclear materials across the 

country and allows us to bring our nuclear materials together in a single, secure 

location. We also expect that our new lab will become a major player in the education of the next generation of nuclear energy technologists that this Nation will 

need to assure our energy security in the future. 

CONCLUSION

This concludes my prepared statement. Your leadership and guidance has been 

essential to the progress the program has achieved thus far and your support is 

needed as we engage the tasks ahead. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. Well, the fact that 

we’ve started at nothing and put these things in is a good thing 
29 

to repeat, but it’s pretty pathetic when you note that most of them 

were things everybody knew we needed. It wasn’t like this was a 

vision from on high, and every year because they didn’t come out 

of the administration made it harder and harder to fund them. And 

now when we get a tighter and tighter budget, it’s, you know, 

they’re the easiest ones to choke. 

So, you know, you’re getting 20 and 30 percent cuts in yours, 

while over here on the side they’re saying we’re for nuclear energy, 

right? You don’t have to comment. You work for the administration. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Senator Murray, I note you’re on a tough time schedule and I’m 

most appreciative you would come today so I yield to you. 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY FACILITIES

Senator MURRAY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your tremendous work on this committee over the 

years and your leadership in many directions. I just have a couple 

of questions for Dr. Orbach today. Dr. Orbach, you note the Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL. In my State it’s one of the 

Department of Energy’s multi-program laboratories and is under 

your stewardship at the—as Director of Science. 

PNNL is a very valuable asset to the State of Washington and 

it’s going to be an enduring asset to the Tri-Cities community after 

Hanford clean-up is completed. I think you know there’s been considerable concern over the schedule for the cleaning up of the 300 

area and the replacement of the many facilities that currently 

house approximately 1,000 staff at PNNL. That space, I think it’s 

700,000 square feet, represents a third of PNNL’s total laboratory 

space. 

The Tri-Party Agreement required clean-up of the Columbia 

River corridor including that 300 area by 2018. As I understand it, 

current proposed clean-up contracts assume a 2012 or 6-year earlier completion date. That would require those 1,000 PNNL employees to exit the 300 area facility by 2007. This budget, the fiscal 

year 2005 budget, has no funding for replacement facilities in the 

300 area and I see no scenario where new facilities can be in place 

by fiscal year 2007. 

I noticed in your written testimony you talk a great deal about 

facilities and infrastructure and planning, but I don’t see any plan 

from you or DOE on how those facilities at PNNL are going to be 

replaced. As owner of PNNL, Mr. Orbach, what are you doing to 

lead the effort in the Department to seek an aggressive program 

to replace those facilities at PNNL, which is your laboratory? 

Dr. ORBACH. Thank you, Senator, for the question. We are as 

concerned as you are over the 1,000 staff members who have been 

so productive for our country. I have visited PNNL often and it is 

a magnificent laboratory and your assessment of its future is mine 

as well, and also the community’s. 

We have put together some funding from our own budget from 

2003 and from fiscal year 2004, and there are funds in the fiscal 

year 2005 budget which we believe can help in this process, but it 

will require a reprogramming to use the fiscal year 2003 and fiscal 
30 

year 2004 funds and so I hope you will help us in the reprogramming request. 

Senator MURRAY. So would you support a reprogramming in the 

fiscal year 2004 budget for that? 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes. 

Senator MURRAY. You do, okay. 

Dr. ORBACH. We may require it for 2003, 2004, and for 2005 we 

will reassess our options. 

Senator DOMENICI. Did you ask him if they had? 

Senator MURRAY. I was about to. I will. 

Senator DOMENICI. Good. 

Senator MURRAY. Had you—— 

Dr. ORBACH. And I want to say also we’re working very closely 

with the contractor, Battelle, to work together to provide the facilities for the staff who will be displaced from the 300 area. Our target date is October 2007, which as we understand it, would be the 

latest that the Office of Environmental Management could begin 

the clean-up in order to satisfy the river corridor agreement that 

it has by 2012. And we believe that by working with Battelle, we 

can achieve the facilities that are required to house the staff. They 

will be new facilities, they will be more efficient facilities, and in 

the long run we hope that this will be a very positive outcome for 

the laboratory. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, we need to get a reprogramming request 

from you as soon as possible then to get this going because in order 

to replace your facility there we’re going to have to have some planning in place fairly quickly. And, Mr. Chairman, I really am concerned about DOE’s initial inability to coordinate its clean-up and 

its science programs, and I think we have to be very concerned 

about DOE’s planning process for both the labs and the clean-up 

sites. 

I know that the Secretary’s office has become engaged in this 

matter and I’ve personally spoken with Mr. McSlarrow and I appreciate the Secretary and Mr. McSlarrow’s involvement. I wish it 

hadn’t risen to that level, but I do think we need direction from 

you, reprogramming requests, and to get this going because 2007 

is not that far off when we’re talking about an entire facility or 

large facility there that needs to be—we need to know where we’re 

going with that, so I want to hear more from you on this. 

Dr. ORBACH. You’re absolutely right, Senator, and I have just 

met with Dr. Len Peters, the director at PNNL, and we’ve talked 

about the need to get moving quickly in order to begin the planning 

and construction phase. It’s my view that if we start now that we 

can in fact meet that October 2007 date. 

Senator MURRAY. When do we expect to see the reprogramming 

request from you? 

Dr. ORBACH. We need to process it through the Department and 

I’m hopeful that we can get it to you within a month. 

Senator MURRAY. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very 

much. I have some other questions. I will submit them for the 

record and look forward to working with you on this. 

Senator DOMENICI. You understand if we get that, unless there’s 

something I’m not aware of, I will hurry up. It comes to me and 

my friend in the House and we’ll try to—— 
31 

Senator MURRAY. I appreciate that very much. 

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. Try to hurry it up. 

Dr. ORBACH. Thank you. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator DOMENICI. Senator, would you like to inquire, Senator 

Craig? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for running late. 

Senator DOMENICI. I haven’t asked any questions yet, but I 

would like to yield to you for a few remarks. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, why don’t we move right ahead into the 

questioning? You proceed with questions and then I’ll come to questions. That would be appropriate. 

Senator DOMENICI. I was going to make an observation since this 

was the first time off the Senate floor this year that we have your 

presence at a committee hearing and I want the record to reflect 

that we have a very distinguished Senator here. He has a big 

record. Yesterday he completed work on a bill where he spent more 

time, took more amendments, defeated more amendments, all in 

pursuit of the bill that he wanted, that many wanted, only to find 

that in the end he had to vote against the bill. 

Senator, I had been leaving for a little while and taking naps, 

so when I came in, my staff said, it’s very important you be here 

for the last vote because it’s an important thing for your constituency, as you might recall, you were there. And I walked in and 

made the wrong vote. I voted aye because I had been wanting to 

help pass that bill. It turned out everything had kind of blown up 

and you were advising everyone to vote no. How many no votes? 

Everybody? 

Senator CRAIG. Ninety-something, yes. I don’t think it was a 

demonstration of my power whatsoever. I wish it were, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DOMENICI. It was. 

Senator CRAIG. But I will tell you, in the words that I’ve been 

here working with you and a good many other of our friends, I’ve 

learned a few lessons, and I’ve also learned that something that 

goes bad does not necessarily get better and that you have an opportunity to stop something and that’s what I did yesterday. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. 

Senator CRAIG. Because it had grown worse than we had hoped 

it would be and because of the rules of the Senate, something those 

who want to obstruct can obstruct absolutely. We found that on a 

couple of issues that you and I had been working on in recent times 

and some of our friends on the other side I think have determined 

that this is a year of total obstructionism, and so we’re going to 

have to work our way through those problems. Thank you. 

Senator DOMENICI. I do want to tell you, Senator, I’m most appreciative of all your work that you’ve put into the energy bill, and 

there’s a nice story out today that the Minority Leader expects a 

victory on the floor and so it’s just a matter of when. No, there are 

going to be some Senators like the ones you mentioned that wanted 

to obstruct that bill, but how many days are they going to get on 
32 

it to make our leader frustrated? I don’t know. I don’t think it’s 

going to frustrate him if they take a few days because he’s made 

up his mind that he wants to send this bill to the House so that 

the Senate can at least go on record that they’ve produced one. 

SCIENCE PRIORITIES

Having said that, let me move quickly. Dr. Orbach, can you explain to me the department’s priorities contained in this 20-year 

plan and how they were selected? Can you do that very quickly? 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We began an initial 

process in my office through our Associate Directors who headed 

each of our six programs. That set of recommendations is important because it began first with the research money. We took into 

account the energy bill authorization level and subtracted from the 

out-years the cost of doing research. The reason I stress that is 

that these facilities are not meant to displace our ability to do research. Research comes first. They then provide us the ability to 

do that. 

With the recommendations from the Associate Directors, we went 

out to our advisory committees, and what you see today reflects the 

advice, priorities that the advisory committee set with regard to 

the importance of the science. This is a science-driven 

prioritization. 

I then had over 50 recommendations from the advisory committees and I had to make them fit under the energy bill’s authorization levels and I had to make them fit also with regard to time, 

and when we got done we had 28 facilities that survived. 

I was in the unenviable position of having to prioritize across 

fields, but the response of the community has been very positive 

and I believe that the scientific community is very supportive of 

this prioritization. 

Z MACHINE APPLICATION TO THE SCIENCE PROGRAM

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. Now let me ask you 

a question about something technical and see if you can agree to 

do something for us. Sandia National Laboratory has developed a 

power plant concept known as the Z machine. You must have 

heard of it. It has made all kinds of news, including the front page 

of Time magazine. Shortly after we had agreed to pay for NIF over 

in California because the Z hadn’t quite made it, we got a big announcement that Z was ready to go. What we’ve got now is about 

$3 billion invested in NIF and we’ve got Z going, a little cheap machine. 

This machine is the world’s most powerful x-ray source, and extensive experiments have led the technology to make breakthroughs that lead to record fusion neutron yields. Although this 

program has been funded by NNSA, and that’s part of the nuclear 

preparedness program of the country, the low cost and high efficiency seem attractive to the development of commercial fusion 

power. In fact, this facility has been identified by the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee as one of the three promising approaches to internal fusion energy. 

I would greatly appreciate it if you would visit Sandia and spend 

some time with the scientists associated with Z and would be will-
33 

ing to visit the facility. After you’ve done that and had the opportunity to evaluate it, I would be interested in your thoughts on its 

application to the science program. Can you do that? 

Dr. ORBACH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’d be delighted. I’ve been 

briefed on the Z-Pinch machine. It is a magnificent accomplishment 

and I am scheduled to visit Sandia on the 24th of May. 

Senator DOMENICI. That’s great. 

Dr. ORBACH. And I will be spending a good portion of my time 

there to talk to the people on the Z-Pinch. They have some very 

clever ideas for renewing it with a liquid wall, which might help 

in the fusion energy area. 

GENOMES TO LIFE PROGRAM

Senator DOMENICI. I have a question with reference to ITER, but 

I’ll just submit that and I’ll move on to Genomes to Life. This 

project focuses on the utilization of genome maps and understanding of genome, or genomic functions in seeking solutions to 

DOE missions. Funding increases by $4 million to $67 million from 

its inception. It’s accurate to say that the entire program was created by virtue of a discussion which very few people know about 

which took place in my office with a very distinguished scientist 

named Charles DeLisi. You may or may not know him but he was 

with the NIH. 

He decided he didn’t like the NIH because they didn’t like genome research, believe it or not. Think of that. They covet it today 

as their great baby, but they literally didn’t want to do it, so he 

left and went to the Energy Department. He came to my office and 

talked me into funding it. Believe it or not, when I got it funded, 

NIH decided that they should too, so it turned out—you wonder 

why DOE and NIH are in it, that’s why, because I introduced a 

bill, put it all in DOE, and that brought the people who are for 

NIH to my office and we changed the bill so they both got funding. 

Great things happened much quicker than expected in producing 

the genome mapping of the human system. You’re aware of that. 

PROTEIN AND MOLECULAR TAGS FACILITY

I note that you plan to start project engineering and design for 

dedicating a facility, a facility for the production and characterization of protein and molecular tags. I understand that you will conduct a competition for the site of that facility. What’s the status of 

that competition? How will this benefit the Genomes to Life program? 

Dr. ORBACH. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for 

your support—— 

Senator DOMENICI. You’re welcome. 

Dr. ORBACH [continuing]. Of genomics and the Genomes to Life 

program. It has been a tremendous success. What this project does 

is to take us from the structural elements that we have been able 

to study through our sequencing to the dynamics of how cells actually function, and this particular factory will produce, as you noted, 

proteins for our scientists in the United States which are tagged. 

We are currently in the final stages of preparing the competition 

amongst all of the DOE laboratories for the facility, and we are 

working towards the formal RFP as we speak. 
34 

GENOME SCIENCE

Senator DOMENICI. How do you generally, for 2 minutes, think 

genome is going? The evolution of the genome science, is it going 

well? 

Dr. ORBACH. It’s going wonderfully. The relationship with NIH is 

as you described it. The DOE has the ability to create these largescale machines using, as you said in your opening remarks, the 

physical sciences that we have available. This is truly a factory. 

This will produce proteins that are tagged so there will be a common way of identifying them and visualizing them in cellular function. Your assistance and really initiation of this project has had 

phenomenal impact. 

Senator DOMENICI. You know, it’s interesting when people look 

around and read from time to time some experts tell us, Greenspan 

testifies and my friend, Senator Craig, gets a hold of it and goes 

to the floor and gives a speech because Greenspan says productivity went up 8.2 percent and it doesn’t bother him because he 

doesn’t have too much hair, but people that have got a lot of hair, 

they go bald-headed when they hear such a thing. That’s incredible. 

But I’ll give you an example. We produced the entire mapping of 

the protoplasm of the human genome in half the time predicted 

when we started the program, half. It was supposed to take 20-plus 

years, it took 10. Why? Well, because the machines that we used 

to do it, computers, were never imagined to have the capacity in 

such a short time that they had. That’s a perfect example of productivity. The productivity was incredible in producing the mapping of the human genome, wasn’t it? It was so big that it caused 

us to produce the most complex set of information in half the time, 

which is the genome mapping of the human body. 

I think we haven’t even come close to its utility, is that correct? 

Dr. ORBACH. Absolutely, and what you’ve said is true in spades. 

The sequencing facility we have in Walnut Creek used to cost $2 

a base pair to sequence. It now costs two-tenths of a cent, so it’s 

a factor of 1,000 increase in productivity that this factory has 

achieved. It can now sequence two human genomes a year. 

Senator DOMENICI. Entirely? 

Dr. ORBACH. Entirely, so that 10 years is now compressed into 

6 months. 

ADVANCED REACTOR HYDROGEN CODE GENERATION PROJECT

Senator DOMENICI. Just a couple more. This one has to do with 

Senator Craig and I. Mr. Magwood, general funding under the title 

of nuclear energy, last year as part of the 2004, $15 million was 

included in the Generation IV initiative so the Department could 

begin the research, development, design work on an advanced reactor hydrogen code generation project at Idaho National Laboratory. 

Senator Craig and I sent a letter to Secretary Abraham urging 

him to make a competitive solicitation for this project. The response we received, signed by the Secretary, reassuring Senator 

Craig and me that the Department intended to undertake this design competition this year. Do you recall that, Senator? 

Senator CRAIG. I do. 
35 

Senator DOMENICI. Now, can you please tell us what you have 

prepared for the budget and the schedule for this solicitation, and 

what you believe your funding requirements will be for 2005? Are 

the funds requested sufficient to support the engineering design of 

at least two competing concepts as spelled out in H.R. 6 prior to 

selecting the final choice? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Mr. Chairman, we have been working very hard 

over the last several months since the 2004 appropriation was 

passed to put in place the kind of program that you’re describing. 

We do expect to have some sort of solicitation available for the industry and others to look at this fiscal year, fiscal year 2004, and 

we believe that the funding that we have available in fiscal 2004, 

and what we have requested in fiscal 2005, which by the way is 

an increase for this activity of about $41⁄2 million over the 2004 request, 2004 appropriation rather, is sufficient to move forward. 

Obviously, if we move forward with a major project, significantly 

more funds will be needed, but at this stage of the game, we believe that what we’ve asked for is enough. 

WORLD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON ORDER

Senator DOMENICI. I have two other questions for you, Mr. 

Magwood, and then I’ll proceed to yield to Senator Craig. One, 

could you get for us at your earliest convenience a current status 

of the construction of nuclear power plants in the world? Get us a 

report that says as of this date, whatever date that is, three plants 

are being built in Taiwan, two in China, one somewhere else, so 

we would know just how many plants the world is building, and 

if you can, tell us what their status is and what kind they are, we’d 

appreciate it. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Be happy to do that. 

[The information follows:] 
36 

WORLD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS OF JANUARY 1, 2004 

Country Name Location Type 1 Capacity (MWe) 

Year of 

Expected 

Commercial 

Operation 2

Comments 

USA ........................................................ Browns Ferry 1 ................................... Decatur, AL ......................................... BWR ............................ 1,065 2007 Approximately $1.7 billion is being 

invested over five years to return this unit, which has not operated since 1985, to service. 

Argentina ............................................... Atucha 2 ............................................. Buenos Aires ....................................... PHWR .......................... 962 NA Suspended indefinitely. China ..................................................... Tianwan 1 ........................................... Jiangsu ............................................... VVER ........................... 1,000 2004 China ..................................................... Tianwan 2 ........................................... Jiangsu ............................................... VVER ........................... 1,000 2005 China—Taiwan ..................................... Lungmen 1 ......................................... Taipei .................................................. BWR ............................ 1,300 2006 China—Taiwan ..................................... Lungmen 2 ......................................... Taipei .................................................. BWR ............................ 1,300 2007 India ...................................................... Kaiga 3 ............................................... Karnataka ........................................... PHWR .......................... 202 2007 India ...................................................... Kaiga 4 ............................................... Karnataka ........................................... PHWR .......................... 202 2007 India ...................................................... Kudankulam 1 .................................... Tamil Nadu ......................................... VVER ........................... 917 2007 India ...................................................... Kudankulam 2 .................................... Tamil Nadu ......................................... VVER ........................... 917 2008 India ...................................................... Rajasthan 5 ........................................ Rajasthan ........................................... PHWR .......................... 202 2007 India ...................................................... Rajasthan 6 ........................................ Rajasthan ........................................... PHWR .......................... 202 2008 India ...................................................... Tarapur 3 ............................................ Maharastra ......................................... PHWR .......................... 490 2007 India ...................................................... Tarapur 4 ............................................ Maharastra ......................................... PHWR .......................... 490 2006 Iran ........................................................ Bushehr 1 ........................................... Bushehr .............................................. PWR ............................ 915 2005 Japan ..................................................... Hamaoka 5 ......................................... Shizuoka ............................................. BWR ............................ 1,325 2005 Japan ..................................................... Higashidori 1 ...................................... Aomori ................................................. BWR ............................ 1,067 2005 Japan ..................................................... Shika 2 ............................................... Ishikawa ............................................. BWR ............................ 1,304 2006 North Korea ........................................... LWR–Project 1 .................................... Kumho ................................................. PWR ............................ 1,040 NA Construction suspended pending a 

decision, to be made before 12/1/ 04, on whether support for this project by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) should continue. 

Romania ................................................ Cernavoda 2 ....................................... Cernavoda ........................................... PHWR .......................... 655 2007 Russia ................................................... Balakovo 5 .......................................... Saratov ............................................... VVER ........................... 950 2008 Russia ................................................... Kalinin 3 ............................................. Tver ..................................................... VVER ........................... 950 2004 Russia ................................................... Kursk 5 ............................................... Kursk ................................................... RBMK .......................... 925 2006 Russia ................................................... Rostov 2 ............................................. Rostov ................................................. VVER ........................... 950 2007 South Korea ........................................... Ulchin 5 .............................................. Ulchin ................................................. PWR ............................ 950 2004 South Korea ........................................... Ulchin 6 .............................................. Ulchin ................................................. PWR ............................ 950 2005 
37 

Ukraine .................................................. Khmelnitski 2 ..................................... Neteshin .............................................. VVER ........................... 950 2004 Ukraine .................................................. Rovno 4 .............................................. Kuznetsovsk ........................................ VVER ........................... 950 2004 

Total ......................................... ............................................................. ............................................................. .................................... 24,130 ................

1 BWR–Boiling Water Reactor; PWR–Pressurized Water Reactor; PHWR–Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor; LMFBR–Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor; VVER–Soviet-designed PWR; RBMK–Soviet-designed boiling water, graphite-moderated, pressure-tube reactor. 2 NA–Not Announced. 

Sources: IAEA Power Reactor Information System; Uranium Information Centre/World Nuclear Association; Nuclear News 2004; organization press releases/web pages. 
38 

WORLD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ON ORDER AS OF JANUARY 1, 2004 

Country Name Type 1 Capacity 

(MWe) 

Year of 

Expected 

Commercial 

Operation 2

China .............................................. Lingdong 1 ..................................... PWR ............................. 1,000 2012 

China .............................................. Lingdong 2 ..................................... PWR ............................. 1,000 2012 

China .............................................. Sanmen 1 ....................................... PWR ............................. 1,000 2012 

China .............................................. Sanmen 2 ....................................... PWR ............................. 1,000 2012 

Finland ........................................... Olkiluoto ......................................... PWR ............................. 1,600 2009 

India ............................................... Kaiga 5 ........................................... PHWR ........................... 489 NA 

India ............................................... Kaiga 6 ........................................... PHWR ........................... 490 NA 

India ............................................... Rawatbhata 7 ................................ PHWR ........................... 490 NA 

India ............................................... Rawatbhata 8 ................................ PHWR ........................... 491 NA 

Japan .............................................. Fuikishima 7 .................................. PWR ............................. 1,325 2009 

Japan .............................................. Tomari 3 ......................................... PWR ............................. 912 2009 

Japan .............................................. Fuikishima 8 .................................. PWR ............................. 1,325 2010 

Japan .............................................. Higashidori 1–2 ............................. BWR ............................. 1,320 2011 

Japan .............................................. Shimane 3 ...................................... BWR ............................. 1,375 2011 

Japan .............................................. Tsuruga 3 ....................................... PWR ............................. 1,500 2011 

Japan .............................................. Higashidori 2 .................................. BWR ............................. 1,320 2012 

Japan .............................................. Ohma .............................................. BWR ............................. 1,350 2012 

Japan .............................................. Tsuruga 4 ....................................... PWR ............................. 1,500 2012 

Pakistan ......................................... Chashma 2 ..................................... PWR ............................. 300 2011 

South Korea .................................... Shin Kori 1 ..................................... PWR ............................. 950 2008 

South Korea .................................... Shin Kori 2 ..................................... PWR ............................. 950 2009 

South Korea .................................... Shin Wolsong 5 .............................. PWR ............................. 950 2009 

South Korea .................................... Shin Kori 3 ..................................... PWR ............................. 1,350 2010 

South Korea .................................... Shin Wolsong 6 .............................. PWR ............................. 950 2010 

South Korea .................................... Shin Kori 4 ..................................... PWR ............................. 1,350 2011 

South Korea .................................... Ulchin ll ................................... PWR ............................. 1,350 2015 

South Korea .................................... Ulchin ll ................................... PWR ............................. 1,350 2015 

Total .................................. ......................................................... ...................................... 28,987 

1 BWR–Boiling Water Reactor; PWR–Pressurized Water Reactor; PHWR–Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor. 

2 Not Announced. 

Source: Uranium Information Centre/World Nuclear Association. 

ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE INITIATIVE

Senator DOMENICI. You know, Mr. Magwood, some of us in this 

Congress are very happy that the President and the Secretary have 

finally come around. They’re talking about trying to stop proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the broadest sense, stop 

the proliferation of the great scientists, you know about that. We’re 

trying to stop the flow of plutonium, got a big program going, highly enriched uranium, we’ve bought a bunch of it from them, a lot 

of things, cost a lot of money, but we’ve started. 

Now, I am very concerned. With that going and the threat of nuclear proliferation, what’s the basis for reducing funding for this account, Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, from $66 million to $46 million? Would you update the committee as to what you hope to 

achieve this year, when you expect to have a project ready for deployment? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First, I should say that the 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative really has shown tremendous 

progress over the last several years and continues to show 

progress. For example, we have successfully demonstrated on a laboratory scale the separation of pure uranium from spent fuel, to 

the point of 99.999 percent purity. 
39 

We’ve also demonstrated on a laboratory scale the separation of 

a mixed neptunium/plutonium fuel that we believe could form the 

basis of a new proliferation-resistant recyclable fuel for the future, 

and this work is going to continue in increasing scale in fiscal 2005. 

So our primary missions for this program will continue. We will 

continue to make progress. The reduction that you spoke of is primarily because we are deferring the project of a large commercialscale facility for UREX∂ until we’ve gained greater confidence that 

this technology is really viable commercially. 

That said, there are—we are going to continue to fund our primary missions for the program. That will continue. 

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Craig. 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me use 

my time both to ask questions and make in positioning those questions somewhat of an opening statement, and I’ll address my questions at you, Bill, and I do thank all the rest of you for being here. 

ADVANCEMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

Bill, your prepared statement starts off by talking about the 

times not so many years ago when this country was very close to 

abandoning advanced nuclear reactor research and development. I 

remember those years very well. As a matter of fact, the chairman 

and I wrote a letter to the then-Secretary of Energy, Federico Pen ̃ a, 

and we told him this in our letter, and I’m going to quote from that 

letter, that was 1997. 

The Chairman and I said, the coming fiscal year will mark a notable event in the history of your agency and its predecessors. For 

the first time since the establishment of the Atomic Energy Commission more than 40 years ago, the United States Government 

has no program to further the development of nuclear energy for 

the production of energy. This change, in the view of many, of the 

technology’s critics is long overdue. However, in the view of many 

members of the Senate and in the view of the Nation’s energy experts, the lack of a strong and reliant nuclear energy research and 

development program represents a major gap in the Department of 

Energy’s research and development agenda. 

The year is now 2004. We’ve traveled a long way on nuclear energy since I signed that letter along with the chairman. I appreciate your efforts in the progress we’ve made and I mean that most 

sincerely, but I must suggest to you that the state of our nuclear 

energy program is nearly as fragile and vulnerable today as it was 

when we sent that letter in 1997, and I will further suggest that 

the nuclear energy budget proposal for fiscal year 1995 is as—is 

a—2005—is a discredit to the progress that we’ve made. I believe 

the chairman has made similar strong statements. 

INEEL SOLICITATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

That’s the basis of my following questions, the question that the 

chairman just asked was my first question, and I appreciate him 

asking it. So, having heard that answer, Bill, let me ask you this 

question. Since you will be issuing a solicitation, why have you not 

engaged the experts at the Idaho labs, the INEEL and Argonne, 

that are supposedly DOE’s command center of nuclear R&D? To 
40 

my knowledge, you have not engaged anyone in the lab in this initiative yet. Is that true? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. In the actual solicitation? 

Senator CRAIG. In the process. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. In the process, not yet, and that’s because we are 

still working within my office to put a plan on the table where we 

can sit down with those lab scientists and discuss the ins and outs 

and the particulars of it. It’s been my experience that before sitting 

down with the scientists who are trying to deal with very technical 

issues, it’s been my job to set the framework as to how to accomplish a particular mission, and that’s proven successful in the past 

and that’s what we’re implementing this time. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I thank you for that, because the Office of 

Nuclear Energy is currently responsible, I think is the lead program office for the INEEL. Because you have this lead, most of the 

costs for supporting the INEEL’s infrastructure being transferred 

over to the nuclear energy budget, my conclusion is that the nuclear energy budget is not growing sufficiently to support the infrastructure that your program is becoming responsible for at Idaho. 

I think this leads to a very dangerous situation. You can either 

not support the infrastructure adequately, a program that some 

would say already exists, or you can raid your small research budget to support the infrastructure. Over time, the nuclear energy program might reach a point where it is doing very little research but 

is merely supporting an aging infrastructure. Either way, it is a 

bad situation for nuclear energy, for Idaho, and for the country 

from my perspective. 

We even had a recent example, I think, with the Advanced Test 

Reactor, the only operating test reactor in Idaho and one of the few 

in the DOE complex. What happened? It was shut down because 

the safety documentation was not up to date. Lack of resources, 

lack of initiative, down goes the reactor. Question: Do you believe 

the budget you are requesting is sufficient to fully support the 

Idaho infrastructure as well as research you are charged with 

doing? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Senator, I would say that clearly—you use the 

word fragile—and I clearly agree with that. I think that the program is at a fragile state at this point in history, but nevertheless, 

still poised for some considerable growth. In the case of the infrastructure and research program that we’ve laid out for fiscal 2005, 

I do believe that it’s sufficient to meet the primary missions that 

we’ve set out for ourselves. 

We have a long way to go to build this laboratory. It’s going to 

be a long, hard process that we think will take 10 years to really 

accomplish. So while this fiscal year 2005 budget request is a first 

step, a fragile first step, it is only the first step, and I think that 

what we do in fiscal years 2006 and beyond will probably be more 

important to the future of the laboratory than what we’ve done in 

2005. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I guess my greatest concern, one last comment—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Sure. 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. Mr. Chairman, it is that tearing 

down and then building back can be a very expensive process, one 
41 

that I doubt this country could afford to do or would be willing to 

do. Sustaining and building on a sustained base is something that 

we can afford to do and should. 

Now finally, I have many concerns, I think, with DOE’s request 

for the proposals for the Idaho lab. This is not, I think, the forum 

to explore all of those concerns, but let me say this. The Idaho congressional delegation will be sitting down with the Secretary. We 

are very concerned about DOE’s draft RFP. It does not reflect, we 

believe, the principles necessary to build a sustainable new mission. We—and I say this, Mr. Chairman—I know that Los Alamos 

is facing a recompetition in its operating contract in the near term. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. 

Senator CRAIG. I think that we have at stake some very important issues to address with DOE as we craft RFP’s for the sustainability and growth of these laboratories. So I say that as now not 

just an observer, but one who’s fully engaged in an RFP that—the 

devil is in the details, and we’re very much focused on the details. 

I thank you very much, Bill, to all of you thank you much. Mr. 

Chairman, thank you. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM DIRECTION

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Garman, did we fail to ask you something that is important in your opinion that you want put on the 

record? 

Mr. GARMAN. I would like to mention one thing, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DOMENICI. Please do. 

Mr. GARMAN. And I appreciate the opportunity. You said something a little earlier about gaining control of the program and understanding and being able to be accountable for the things we 

spend—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. 

Mr. GARMAN [continuing]. And to assure the taxpayers are receiving value for their dollars. I think the committee will note that 

we have sought an increase in funding for program direction, which 

is not a very popular thing to do and a very difficult thing to talk 

OMB, much less the Congress, into doing. 

But we’ve done that and we were successful in making our case 

to OMB and we think it’s important, because quite frankly, we 

heard what you said in your direction to us in prior conference reports that we must have an increased vigilance in project management and that we take project management very, very seriously. 

And candidly, in the past we ceded some of our responsibilities to 

contractors and others that we need to re-federalize to ensure that 

we’re doing a good job. More money will actually get to the lab at 

the bench doing R&D, which is the important thing, and so I do 

leave you with that plea and thank you for that opportunity. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, thank you. Thank you to all three of 

you and for the record, I’d like to close with two things. First, it’s 

my understanding that Senator Stevens from Alaska has questions 

he’s going to ask of you. They’re going to be submitted. Please answer them as quickly as you can. I ask that any other questions 

submitted to you by me or any other members of the committee receive your response within 2 weeks, and again, I said if you can’t 

do it, tell us so we don’t sit over here getting mad at you for not 
42 

doing your work. The record will be left open for 2 weeks for members to submit questions, so watch for them also. 

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

Senator Craig, I would just like to talk with you a moment about 

the status of nuclear power in the world and what a terrible mistake the United States has made, is making. You know, there is 

nobody, no country trying to build a Yucca facility, just America. 

France has 87 percent of its facility from nuclear. Countries have 

lots of nuclear power. So I ask for the record for conversation, that 

we be able to talk about what’s even happening today, how many 

new reactors are being built. 

Senator CRAIG. Good point. 

Senator DOMENICI. Lots of them. I don’t mean 50, but I can check 

off six or eight that I know about. What are we doing? Nothing. 

Every year we have a fight over how much is enough for Yucca and 

we all with bated breath wonder, is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) going to really license them, aren’t they? 

And if you go to Europe or France and you’d say, I’d like to see 

your spent fuel rods. Oh, fine, we’ll take you. They put you in a 

bus and blindfold you—no they don’t, but they could—and say, 

we’re here and let you out. You walk into this beautiful building, 

looks like a great schoolhouse, modern schoolhouse, and once you’re 

in the doors, they say, now you can look all around. And you look 

around and you say, this is where all the nuclear waste is, and you 

say, well, what are you talking about. Well, now you can just look 

down and you look down and it’s all in the floor in casks, glass 

casks. Spent fuel rods are in there and the whole thing is filled 

with glass of some kind and you walk all over the place and there’s 

no radioactivity escaping, it never will, and they may take it out 

of there in 100 years. They plan to get it out in 50 but they’re wondering how crazy, why do we want to do that and just disturb everybody. It’s very safe. 

Here we sit with the tail end of this tiger haunting us, the greatest engineers in the world. This morning we read we’re following 

old Rover around up there on the red planet, right? Trying to find 

out how much water was up there, how many thousands of years 

ago, and America can’t find a way to dispose of in a safe manner 

high-level waste so you can build some nuclear reactors. 

To me, one of the most astounding failures on the part of talent 

and leadership that the world has ever seen, and we’re all worried 

about energy. Now we’re going to run out of the next one, which 

is natural gas. We’ve already run out of crude oil, now pretty soon 

natural gas, and then pretty soon after that, who knows? But we’ve 

got 15 big power plants in a row waiting there, where’s my natural 

gas, right, 15, I think, or 13, up almost 1,000 kilowatts each. Not 

a single one plans to use coal, geothermal, nothing, all natural gas. 

Well, to me, we have a little bit of a role up here when we’re in 

the Senate for a while, we’re only here a few years. But I tell you, 

I’m going to continue to make the point and try to make the proposition wherever I can that the United States must get on with this, 

and frankly I wouldn’t be at all adverse right now, as late as it is, 

to pick a site for interim storage and do it. You know, Senator, 

we’ve come that close. 
43 

Senator CRAIG. Oh, yes. 

Senator DOMENICI. If we didn’t have the President we had at 

that point, we would already be building interim storage some 

place and it wouldn’t have been the least bit dangerous to anybody 

except those who want to run around and claim that the world’s 

dying because there’s radioactivity coming out of spent fuel. So obviously you can’t help but get my lecture. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, Mr. Chairman, for those of us who worry 

about a variety of issues when it comes to energy, I so totally agree 

with you that we’ve not only made some missteps and some poor 

judgement over time because of the political pressures involved, 

but we’ve been unwilling to lead. 

The reason I was late coming here, as I was sitting down with 

the new Minister for Energy from Canada. Canada loves us at the 

moment and they’ll continue to love us more because we’re not developing energy and they are and they’re anxious to send it south. 

And I’m glad they’re our northern neighbors, because if we cannot 

rely on ourselves, thank goodness we’ve got them to rely on. 

But the consequence of doing that is that the $35 billion that 

flows north today will be $40, then $50, then $60, then $80, then 

$100 billion a year and more, and that’s not good business that 

some of that can’t stay here. That’ll be our companies north of the 

border working with Canadians and Canadian companies. 

CLIMATE CHANGE

But lastly, I found it fascinating, I was in Milan this winter for 

the climate change conference. The world has significantly changed 

since I was in Belgium a few years ago where I was almost—put 

it this way—a riot almost occurred, we almost were succumbed by 

eggs and pies in the face and all of that. Today the world recognizes a folly so defined. The Minister of Energy for Italy, now that 

Italy has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, suggests that they can’t meet 

it. In fact, their gases today, emissions, are a factor of 5, 4 or 5 percent higher than they were at the time. You cannot grow today in 

the world using hydrocarbons without greater emissions and nobody wants to die, economically speaking. 

I met with the Minister of Environment for Japan. Japan was at 

6 percent above 1999 gas emissions at the time they signed it. They 

are now 13 percent and she opined as to how they could not meet, 

and they’ve even become an aggressive nuclear reactor developer. 

So it is significant out there that politics sometimes mislead us 

dramatically, but the reality is that those emissions levels cannot 

be met, because we’re driving the world toward greater use of hydrocarbon, and unless we advance the technologies of their utilization, we don’t meet anywhere near those standards unless we just 

turn our economy off. 

Lastly, we met the 1999 standards about 6 months ago, 8 months 

ago in this country, and the reason we did was because we were 

in a recession and we reduced our employment by 2.5, almost 3 

million jobs, and we met the standard or were right at it. That’s 

the bad news, so you see they can be met, and for those of us who 

went to the floor and spoke of those realities, guess what? We were 

right. I don’t like to be right on those kinds of issues, but we were. 
44 

Now, the good news is that we come back—as we come back online, and we are, our unit of utilization of hydrocarbons is less per 

unit of production. Our emissions are less per unit of production 

coming back online because the technologies we are applying are 

newer. We’re not using less hydrocarbon, we’re using it differently, 

and those of us who have advocated technology and the application 

of technology over the years again are right as it relates to economic growth development and jobs. 

And the combination of the two, and that’s what the chairman 

has always driven toward, the development of hydrocarbons and 

the combination of nuclear energy, is the right combination. So 

we’re not going to give up on this fight. I hope the chairman is 

right that the Minority Leader will support us in the policy you’ve 

developed. Our new hurdle will be the House again and we’ll work 

closely over there to see if we can’t get something accomplished 

this year, but thank you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman. It’s 

greatly appreciated. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Senator. I just want 

to say, what one should do as you listened to all statements just 

made by the good Senator from Idaho, we probably ought to conclude our remarks by saying we speak of nuclear because it has not 

contributed any of the pollutants we’re worried about, zero. So it’s 

not like we were for it because we did it once and it’s our baby. 

It’s because the pollutants that we’re worried about and the pollutants that are going to ruin China come from coal, come from those 

kinds of products which they’re going to all have to produce because everybody’s scared of nuclear. Nuclear produces none excepting fear and trauma from those who are scared and question what 

we do with the waste. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

TWENTY YEAR FACILITY PLAN

Question. Given the strong support demonstrated by the Secretary for your 20 

year facility plan can you help me understand how this budget supports these new 

priorities? 

Answer. The 20-year facility plan is not a budget document and reflects a most 

aggressive and optimistic view of future funding for the Office of Science. Affordability of these facilities will depend upon many factors in the future, and the list 

of facilities may change as science priorities evolve and mature. In the fiscal year 

2005 request, funding is provided for the top 5 facility priorities in the plan as follows: ITER $7,000,000; Ultrascale Scientific Computing capability $38,212,000; 

Joint Dark Energy mission $7,580,000; Linac Coherent Light Source $54,075,000; 

and Protein Production and Tags $5,000,000. We consider the above facilities to be 

near-term priorities for the next decade. 

INTERNATIONAL THERMONUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL REACTOR (ITER)

Question. Can you explain why the Department purposefully ignored congressional direction in this regard? 

Answer. We believe the Department has not ignored Congressional direction because the fiscal year 2005 budget request does not reduce the overall level of domestic fusion research to any significant extent as a result of ITER preparations. Where 

appropriate, domestic fusion experimental, theoretical and enabling technology re-
45 

search is reoriented more toward the needs of ITER. This research is performed by 

existing fusion scientists and engineers. Only a very small amount, on the order of 

$1 million of the ITER preparations request of $38 million, is for industrial preparations at this time. This reorientation of fusion research has resulted in some shifts 

in priorities, such as reducing facility operating time and focusing technology more 

on the near-term, but overall the domestic fusion research is not reduced to any significant extent. 

Question. Can you please update the subcommittee on the ongoing negotiations 

to pick a location for the project? 

Answer. The ongoing negotiations are centered on the two host candidates, Japan 

and EU. These two governments are communicating with each other and trying to 

find a solution. On the periphery, all of the negotiating parties are still discussing 

various technical aspects of the two candidate sites; however, this is not likely to 

be decisive as both sites are considered to be fully acceptable. 

Question. What does the funding curve look like for this large international 

project? 

Answer. Assuming the site negotiations are successful and the ITER International 

Agreement is completed, fiscal year 2006 would be the earliest time to start the 

ITER construction project. According to a preliminary cost and schedule estimate— 

which has yet to be validated according to the project management guidelines for 

capital assets set out in DOE Order 413.3 and OMB Circular A–11—the profile of 

the U.S. funding share would begin in fiscal year 2006, peak around fiscal year 2010 

at about $190 million, and end in fiscal year 2013. 

Question. How much funding is the United States expected to provide on an annual basis going forward and how does that compare with our international partners on this project? 

Answer. The U.S. contributions to the project, mainly in the form of hardware, 

but also including some personnel to work on the project and some cash for common 

expenses, would be about 10 percent of that required for the total project. That is 

essentially the same as all of the non-host partners. 

WHO CONTROLS THE HYDROGEN INITIATIVE?

Question. Who is ultimately responsible for the overall hydrogen initiative, and 

what controls will be implemented to ensure the taxpayers are getting best deal for 

the research dollars? 

Answer. Within the Department of Energy, the Offices of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EE), Fossil Energy (FE), Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE), and Science (SC) participate in the hydrogen initiative. As stated in 

the DOE Hydrogen Posture Plan, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy leads the effort and is responsible and accountable for DOE’s success or failure 

in carrying out the Plan. 

The Hydrogen Posture Plan includes performance-based milestones that will be 

used to track progress of the hydrogen initiative. Based on a recommendation by 

the National Academies, the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies 

Program is establishing an independent systems-analysis activity to help prioritize 

research, evaluate program risks, and ensure that results meet requirements. The 

Program will undergo periodic peer reviews of its plans and research such as the 

one just recently performed by the National Academies. 

The approach of the Department’s four offices working together has been to: 

—Update internal planning documents annually to support the administration’s 

request for the President’s Hydrogen Initiative; 

—Ensure EE, FE, NE and SC budget submissions to OMB support the DOE Posture Plan and that there are no gaps or redundancies in requested budgets; 

—Plan solicitations and evaluate proposals; and 

—Evaluate funded research. 

No conflicts have arisen between the four DOE offices participating in the hydrogen initiative thus far. Should conflicts arise in the future, the Under Secretary for 

Energy, Science and the Environment will ensure program and budget integration, 

as all of the Assistant Secretaries and Directors of the four offices involved in the 

effort at DOE report to the Under Secretary. 

The Department also works closely with the Department of Transportation, which 

currently has a small role, but whose participation will grow more important as hydrogen technologies advance toward commercialization. 
46 

R&D VS. FUNDING FOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Question. How is DOE deciding on and managing the balance between funding 

for the necessary research for the required breakthroughs and funding for demonstration projects using current technology platforms? 

Answer. A continuum of research and development, from basic science to demonstration, will be needed to develop a long-term hydrogen economy. 

Basic science will be performed in areas that are only conceptual but have the 

potential for making major impacts. An example would be photoelectrochemical production of hydrogen (direct solar conversion without the intermediate step of electrolysis). Although conversion efficiencies are orders of magnitude too low, the potential benefit is great because of the large renewable resource available. This research may take decades to come to fruition. 

Exploratory and applied research will be done in areas where there is proven performance but a large gap still exists between current technology and what is needed 

to meet consumer requirements. An example is hydrogen storage, where approaches 

such as metal hydrides are proven, but we still need improvement factors of two 

to three times current values to meet our requirements. As performance improvements are made, cost targets become more important. 

Demonstrations are appropriate when technology has matured to the point that 

system integration issues must be addressed and performance under real-world operating conditions must be evaluated. Further research or significant progress may 

still be needed to reduce cost, but system performance must be validated. Demonstrations may uncover operating issues not previously considered, such as performance in certain climates, and will guide and refocus future R&D efforts. 

The National Academies’ hydrogen report recommended that the Department shift 

away from some development areas towards more exploratory work. Exploratory research involves the application of novel ideas and new approaches to ‘‘established’’ 

research topics, and is likely to catalyze more rapid advances than basic research 

and more innovative advances than applied research. The Department is doing this 

through the Hydrogen Storage Grand Challenge, which includes the establishment 

of three ‘‘Centers of Excellence’’ led by national laboratories along with multiple university and industry partners. This could be a model for ‘‘expert’’ centers focusing 

on other priority research areas. 

CENTERS FOR EXCELLENCE IN HYDROGEN

Question. How do you plan to fund your soon-to-be announced centers for excellence in hydrogen storage, and future R&D efforts? 

Answer. Funding for the Hydrogen Storage Grand Challenge solicitation was requested in the fiscal year 2004 budget. However, due to the number of and funding 

associated with Congressionally-directed projects in the fiscal year 2004 hydrogen 

account, no funds are available to start the Centers of Excellence and other projects 

selected under the Grand Challenge this year. These efforts will be initiated in fiscal 

year 2005 with fiscal year 2005 funds, subject to the availability of funds. 

STORAGE CENTERS

Question. Will you start any activity this year for these storage centers to begin 

the important groundwork? 

Answer. No. Due to the number of and funding associated with Congressionallydirected projects in the fiscal year 2004 hydrogen account, no funds are available 

to start research in the Centers of Excellence and other projects selected under the 

Grand Challenge this year. 

OMB FUNDING REQUEST

Question. Your [EE] budget has an unusually large funding increase for Program 

Funding within the Renewable section. Funding increased by 67 percent from $12.3 

million in fiscal year 2004 to $20.7 million. How did you get this funding request 

by OMB and how do you intend to use the funding? 

Answer. Of the proposed $8.4 million increase, $3 million is for a new activity, 

the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP). These funds will generally be 

used for support services in developing a CCTP strategic plan and conducting analyses. 

Excluding this new activity, the increase we request is $5.4 million, or 44 percent. 

Much of this proposed increase is in direct response to the committee’s exhortations 

that EERE emphasize better stewardship through stronger project management and 

increased competition in contracting. 
47 

We plan to spend $3.6 million to hire additional Federal staff in order to move 

away from the practice of using the laboratories to oversee their own contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants. We believe these inherently Federal activities 

should be performed by Federal employees. Our fiscal year 2005 budget request includes an increase of 22 FTE over the budgeted level of 84 FTE for fiscal year 2004, 

mostly for project management staff at the Golden Field Office. 

It is important to note that hiring Federal staff instead of using laboratory personnel for these 22 FTEs will allow more of EERE’s funding to be devoted to actual 

R&D activities. In fact, we calculate that filling these 22 FTE positions using laboratory personnel would cost roughly $5.8 million, compared to $3.6 million for Federal staff. This action will therefore ‘‘save’’ an estimated $2.2 million in program 

funding, which is captured in the Program Direction budget line. We do not show 

the ‘‘savings’’ by program in the budget justification materials because program 

budgets generally do not include a line item corresponding to overhead costs for laboratory staff to manage contracts. These costs are built into each budgetary line as 

appropriate. The entire amount of the ‘‘savings’’ within each program is redirected 

from formerly unstated program overhead costs to actual program activities that 

contribute to program goals. 

Of the remaining portion of the increase ($1.8 million), $1.2 million will be used 

to sustain the current on-board staff level of 84 FTE. The remaining $0.6 million 

will be used mostly for support services, information technology investments, consolidation of legacy business practices and systems, and management services for 

implementing our strategic management system. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY BUDGET

Question. Based on this anemic budget should the committee assume that the nuclear energy is no longer a priority for this administration? 

Answer. The President’s budget request increases the funding for the Department’s nuclear energy program by 1.2 percent to about $410 million for fiscal year 

2005. This budget advances the policy direction for the Nation’s energy security established by the National Energy Policy and allows the Department’s priority efforts 

in programs such as Generation IV and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative to proceed 

vigorously. The Department’s request more than doubles the fiscal year 2004 request for each of these programs, demonstrating the administration’s commitment 

to dealing with not just the short-term issues of the energy market, but longer-term, 

strategic issues. 

In addition, the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget also lays the groundwork for 

one very important element of the administration’s effort to expand our future use 

of nuclear energy with the creation of a new national laboratory, the Idaho National 

Laboratory. This new laboratory’s central mission is to pursue research, development, demonstration and education associated with nuclear energy. 

Two of the Department’s nuclear R&D programs have ended with the fiscal year 

2005 budget. 

—We request no funding for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) for 

fiscal year 2005, but the activity will continue as an annual competitive research grants program for university researchers that is tied to mainline programs such as Generation IV and Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. We believe that, 

to be relevant, the NERI program must be tied more closely to the Department’s 

mainline nuclear energy programs. We also believe that NERI’s greatest benefit 

is in its support for the Nation’s university nuclear technology programs. The 

restructuring of NERI addresses both of these important concerns. 

—The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization program has accomplished the most 

important mission it was designed for: addressing many of the aging material 

and generation optimization issued which have been identified as the key longterm issues facing current operating plants. We are confident that industry will 

continue supporting the research objectives highlighted by NEPO because these 

objectives are consistent with industry’s interest in the long-term, reliable, and 

economic operation of existing nuclear power plants. 

We are requesting less for two other programs: 

—The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative requires less funding in fiscal year 2005 because the Department has decided against the rapid development of commercial-scale UREX∂ technology. Instead, we are focusing on longer-term, higherpayoff research at laboratory scale in next-generation fuel cycle technologies including advanced aqueous and pyroprocessing spent fuel treatment, advanced 

transmutation and Generation IV fuels, and detailed systems analysis and modeling. 
48 

—The Department has requested only minimal funding for the Nuclear Power 

2010 program in fiscal year 2005 to enable the continuation of ongoing licensing 

demonstration and related analysis projects. Future requirements for the program will be reviewed as Congress completes work on comprehensive energy 

legislation and the Department assess the responses and requirements associated with its recent solicitation related to New Plant Licensing Demonstration 

Projects. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES/NUCLEAR POWER 2010

Question. Can you please update me on the status of the Nuclear Power 2010 program and explain to me how this money will be used and how it will benefit the 

companies participating in this program? 

Answer. The Nuclear Power 2010 program is a joint government/industry costshared effort to identify sites for new nuclear power plants, develop advanced nuclear plant technologies, evaluate the business case for building new nuclear power 

plants, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes. These efforts are designed 

to pave the way for an industry decision by the end of 2005 to order a new nuclear 

power plant which will be built and begin commercial operation early in the next 

decade. 

As an initial step in the demonstration of the untested regulatory processes, the 

Department has established cost-shared cooperative projects with three nuclear 

power generating companies to demonstrate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) Early Site Permit (ESP) licensing process. Under these cooperative projects, 

each of the three power generation companies (Dominion, Exelon, and Entergy) prepared and submitted, in the fall of 2003, an ESP application to the NRC. The program will support the analysis and regulatory interactions required to allow the 

NRC to issue Early Site Permits to all three sites during fiscal year 2006. 

In fiscal year 2003, the Department initiated a cost-shared project with an additional power company, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), to evaluate the environmental, seismic and geo-technical suitability of a commercial nuclear plant site in 

Alabama. This project is expected to be completed in October 2004 and will provide 

important input for a TVA decision to proceed with ordering and building a new nuclear power plant. 

The remaining critical untested regulatory process is the combined Construction 

and Operating License (COL) process. The COL process is a ‘‘one-step licensing’’ 

process which results in resolution of all health and safety issues associated with 

construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant. The importance of this 

new ‘‘one-step licensing’’ process is that all regulatory and licensing issues are resolved before a power company makes a major investment and begins construction 

of the plant. In fiscal year 2003, the Department initiated a cost-shared project with 

industry to develop generic guidance for the COL application preparation and to resolve generic COL regulatory process issues. This project will be completed in fiscal 

year 2005. 

In November 2003, the Department solicited power company proposals to initiate 

New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects. Under these cost-shared 

projects, power companies will conduct the necessary activities to select an advanced 

reactor technology and prepare a license application to build and operate a new nuclear power plant. These projects will also provide for NRC design certification of 

a standardized nuclear power plant design. The Department expects to receive two 

or three and proposals from industry teams. 

This work and a variety of smaller studies in cooperation with a range of industry 

partners will advance the public/private effort aimed at the deployment of new nuclear power plants around the beginning of the next decade. 

Question. Do you have an estimate as to how much time the DOE proposed contribution of $10 million will save companies in this licensing process? 

Answer. The Nuclear Power 2010 cooperative licensing demonstration projects 

with the power generation companies has made it possible for the companies to seek 

Early Site Permits (ESPs) and begin planning for a combined Construction and Operating License (COL). Successful demonstration of the licensing processes will encourage future decisions to build new nuclear plants by elimination of industry concerns over regulatory risk and reduction in the overall license process duration. It 

is estimated an overall reduction of at least 1 year in the ESP licensing application 

and approval process can be realized from the current projection of 41⁄4 years. Similar time savings is expected to be realized in the COL licensing process. The savings 

for COL applicants are in addition to more than 2 years in savings projected to be 

realized as a result of having certified standardized Generation III∂ designs available. 
49 

Perhaps more important than the funding provided to support this work is the 

Department’s partnership with the industry in exploring the development of new 

nuclear power plant projects. Without such aggressive government support, which 

flows from the National Energy Policy and public encouragement provided by senior 

administration officials, it is possible that industry would be more hesitant to pursue these activities. 

Question. Do you have an estimate as to what you believe the companies will expend over the next year? 

Answer. As part of the Nuclear Power 2010 program cost-shared projects, power 

companies are expected to invest an amount at least equal to DOE spending. For 

ongoing activities in fiscal year 2005, industry is expected to spend at least $4.5 million on the Early Site Permit Demonstration projects and an additional $1.8 million 

for generic activities and guidance development for COL applications. 

The Department expects to have a firm estimate of industry planned expenditures 

for fiscal year 2005 and the overall requirement for the licensing and development 

of Generation III∂ designs after assessing the industry responses to its recent solicitation for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration projects. This solicitation 

was issued in November 2003 and we expect to receive responses from industry in 

spring 2004. The most recent industry estimates provided to the Department project 

an industry cost-share of approximately $60 million to $80 million per year through 

2010 to obtain a combined Construction and Operating License and complete associated first of a kind engineering activities. 

IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY

Question. Following the establishment of the Idaho National Laboratory, what 

role do you see for the other laboratories that currently contribute to the nuclear 

energy program? 

Answer. We anticipate that several of the Department’s national laboratories will 

continue to play key roles in implementing the Office of Nuclear Energy Science and 

Technology’s research and development agenda. While the Idaho National Laboratory will develop a prominent and central role in the nuclear energy technology program, the expertise and capabilities of several other labs—chiefly Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory—will be essential in the success of our research efforts. 

Question. Do you have a transition plan and budget estimate prepared that will 

guarantee the success of the nuclear research into the future and continue to draw 

on the experience of the other national laboratories? 

Answer. The execution of our nuclear energy R&D programs is guided by multiyear program plans that have been jointly developed by our Federal and national 

laboratory personnel. These program plans identify R&D activities will evaluate undertaking over the next 10 years and include estimates of the out-year budgets necessary to carry out those efforts. The continued participation of the national laboratories in executing the multi-year program plans is essential to the overall success 

of the programs. As an example, the attached chart displays the organization of the 

Department’s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative programs—note that this organization highlights important roles for several 

national laboratories. We expect that this approach will endure as these programs 

progress. 

The attached chart illustrates the program integration for the Generation IV and 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiatives. 
50 

Question. Can you explain what would happen if full funding of $48 million isn’t 

provided for costs associated with the restructuring of the Idaho National Lab restructuring plan? 

Answer. The $43.8 million identified in the President’s budget request for Laboratory Transition and Restructuring will assure that all current INEEL personnel remain employed through the contract transition period, thus enabling the new contractors to hire the staff that best fit their very different requirements. Without this 

funding, we would not be in a position to facilitate an effective transition of the laboratory staff. 

Question. Would funding shortfalls delay the Idaho upgrades or will this put the 

entire nuclear energy R&D effort at risk with further delays? 

Answer. Shortfalls in the restructuring request could require the Department to 

explore taking funds taken from the infrastructure or other programs at the site including the nuclear energy R&D efforts. Alternatively personnel could be terminated 

before the new contractors have an adequate opportunity to review their qualifications. 

Question. The Budget Request includes $46 million for ‘‘one-time costs associated 

with restructuring the Idaho lab.’’ Since EM was the previous landlord for this Lab, 

why aren’t these one-time costs being paid by EM, instead of NE? 

Answer. Most of the workers who may not find immediate employment with either new contractor will be support personnel who perform landlord type functions 

that benefit the entire site. As NE is now the site landlord, it falls to NE to fund 

this work since that office controls the affected functions. 

Question. The Idaho Lab will have a difficult challenge establishing its research 

programs. In the past, the Idaho Lab could tax EM programs for LDRD to fund internal research. Now those EM funds are being swept into another contract. I am 

hearing that future EM funds can not be taxed to support the new INL. Is this correct and can you explain that logic? 

Answer. The Idaho Cleanup Contract is designed to only fund those activities that 

directly support accelerated cleanup. As the cleanup work is not expected to continue indefinitely, it is not appropriate for the lab to rely on the cleanup contractor 

to fund ongoing research activities. 

Question. Aren’t you worried that the new INL will have too small a base of funding to derive any meaningful LDRD funding? 

Answer. We believe that there will be adequate the funding available for LDRD 

projects in the future as the INL becomes a world class research center for nuclear 

technology development. 

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS

Question. How can progress in university programs be maintained when the overall pot of R&D funds, for universities and labs is slashed? 
51 

Answer. Over the past several years, the Department has had a substantial positive impact on the Nation’s university nuclear engineering programs as evidenced 

by increasing student enrollments, re-establishing stronger academic programs, improving the performance and use of their research and training reactors, and attracting minorities to the nuclear engineering discipline. The University Programs 

budget for fiscal year 2005 is essentially equal to our fiscal year 2004 appropriation 

when it is considered without the one-time funding of $2.5 million for spent fuel 

transportation. In fiscal year 2005 the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management will assume responsibility for university reactor spent fuel transportation and, 

therefore, the University Programs budget reflects the transfer of this activity. 

Funding for faculty and student research at our Nation’s nuclear universities remains constant for fiscal year 2005. 

In fiscal year 2005, the Department will integrate researchers from the Nation’s 

universities into the Department’s mainline nuclear energy R&D activities. The Department will use competitive, peer-reviewed solicitations focused on the university 

community to select the best ideas for meeting the technology challenges of our various research efforts. Funding for this university-based research will be derived from 

the Department’s primary nuclear energy R&D programs, including the Generation 

IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, and the 

Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. Overall, the proposed funding for university R&D is 

$1.8 million higher in fiscal year 2005 than fiscal year 2004. 

Question. I was pleased that additional regional consortia, now six in total, were 

created to enable students to have access to important research reactors. But how 

does addition of new consortia match with proposed 10 percent cut in the university 

program budgets? 

Answer. The six consortia, under the Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and 

Education (INIE) program, are an unqualified success. Funding for this important 

and highly successful program is essentially equal to the level of fiscal year 2004, 

which supported the increase from four to six consortia. 

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES—ENRICHMENT

Question. In written response to questions in last year’s review of the fiscal year 

2004 budget, you stated: 

‘‘The Administration places a high priority on ensuring nuclear nonproliferation 

safeguards are in place and that access to sensitive technology is controlled. The information available to the Department indicates that URENCO has acted responsibly with regard to the control of sensitive technology and the employment of nonproliferation safeguards. 

‘‘The Department believes that LES’s plans for the deployment of centrifuge technology in the United States are of considerable national benefit. Deployment of an 

LES plant will help assure the important energy security objective of maintaining 

a reliable and economical U.S. uranium enrichment industry. 

‘‘The Department believes there is sufficient domestic demand to support multiple 

commercial uranium enrichment plant operators in the United States and that competition is important to maintain a viable, competitive domestic uranium enrichment industry for the foreseeable future.’’ 

Does this response from the Department still stand? 

Answer. Yes, we understand that URENCO continues to follow nonproliferation 

safeguards and controls on access to sensitive technology in accordance to agreements with the U.S. Government regarding to LES’ deployment of centrifuge technology. 

The Department also continues to believe there is sufficient domestic demand to 

support multiple commercial uranium enrichment plant operators in the United 

States and that competition is important to maintain a viable, competitive domestic 

uranium enrichment industry for the foreseeable future. Currently, domestic uranium enrichment capacity is less than half of U.S. nuclear fuel requirements. Over 

the next two decades, U.S. demand for electricity is forecasted to grow by 50 percent. Without the deployment of reliable and economical advanced technology and 

assuming nuclear power maintains its current share of demand, the share of U.S. 

nuclear fuel requirements met by foreign suppliers could rise to 80 percent in 20 

years. 

RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS

Question. Is the Department’s policy of requiring that researchers, who require 

new radiopharmaceuticals, pay the full production costs coordinated with the Na-
52 

tional Institutes of Health such that vital research in improved applications of 

radiopharmaceuticals is continuing at a rapid pace? 

Answer. The Department’s program requires that researchers pay for isotope development and direct production costs. Isotope production costs are accrued on a 

batch basis. The Department must obtain funding for the direct production cost for 

each batch before production can commence. Research customers have not been able 

to purchase the required isotopes in the manner currently required by the Department. Recognizing this and the impact this approach could have on medical research, the Department has engaged with the NIH. We are working with that agency to develop an approach to address this issue and to ensure that vital isotopebased medical research is not impeded. 

Question. Are the two agencies, DOE and NIH in agreement that this is the appropriate place for these costs to be borne? 

Answer. There have been positive discussions at the staff level. The Department 

continues to seek an agreement with the NIH that will lead to a resolution of this 

issue. 

BARTER ARRANGEMENTS

Question. As part of DOE’s fiscal year 2005 budget request for its Nuclear Energy 

Program, DOE is proposing to employ a ‘‘barter arrangement’’ to support the continuation of the technetium-99 activities currently being undertaken by USEC at 

the Portsmouth Site. Please describe the nature of the ‘‘barter arrangement’’ that 

DOE is contemplating? 

Answer. At the end of fiscal year 2004, substantial quantities of both USEC and 

the Department’s uranium inventories will remain contaminated with technetium99 above the commercial standard for use as feed in a uranium enrichment process. 

Currently, processing the uranium at Portsmouth is the only economical means to 

remove enough technetium-99 contamination to allow it to be used as feed to the 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Because the cost to continue the technetium-99 

removal activities is between one-third and one-half the replacement or market 

value, both USEC and the Department may benefit from the continuation of this 

program. A barter arrangement would help achieve realization of the full economic 

value of the uranium. 

Question. Has DOE completed its evaluation of the need for additional legal authority to carry out the proposed ‘‘barter arrangement?’’ If so, please provide a copy 

of the evaluation. If not, when will this evaluation be completed? When it is completed, please provide a copy. 

Answer. The Department has performed an informal evaluation and concluded 

that an additional authorization is not needed. Under section 3(d) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Department is to effectuate programs that encourage the ‘‘widespread participation in development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful 

purposes.’’ All of the material, with the exception of Freon, that is currently being 

contemplated for barter is ‘‘source material’’ as defined by section 11(z) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). Under section 63 of the AEA the Department is authorized 

to distribute source material, and under section 66 of the AEA the Department is 

‘‘authorized and directed . . . to effectuate the provisions of this Act’’ to purchase 

or otherwise acquire supplies of source material. In addition, under section 161(g) 

of the AEA the Department is authorized to acquire, sell, lease, grant and dispose 

of real and personal property that the Department has acquired in connection with 

carrying out functions under the AEA or property that will be used to carry out objectives under the AEA. Pursuant to these existing authorities, the Department is 

authorized to enter into any of the barter arrangements that are currently being 

contemplated. 

Question. What products or services is DOE contemplating using as ‘‘barter’’ 

under the proposed arrangement? Is DOE considering the option of transferring uranium from DOE’s stockpile to USEC as part of a ‘‘barter arrangement?’’ 

Answer. The products or services being considered for a possible barter arrangement are excess assets related to the Department’s former uranium enrichment program, or services that are incidental to activities necessary to the final disposition 

of that programs legacy. The selection of materials is subject to negotiation and 

agreement by the other party. 

Question. Section 3112 of the 1996 USEC Privatization Act includes a provision 

that explicitly requires DOE to undertake an evaluation of the impact of any sales 

or transfers of natural or low-enriched uranium on, among other things, the domestic uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment industry. In the event that any 

‘‘barter arrangement’’ were established employing uranium from DOE’s stockpile, 

would DOE agree that the provision in section 3112(d) would apply to any such 
53 

transfer? Does DOE consider a ‘‘sale or transfer’’ to include a ‘‘barter’’? If so, please 

provide the analysis to support this conclusion. 

Answer. The Department is not currently considering proposing to barter material 

that is subject to subsection 3112(d). However, if the Department were to use material subject to 3112(d), it would comply with the provisions of 3112(d). ‘‘Sale or 

Transfer’’ is a broad term which encompasses arrangements in addition to normal 

commercial sales such as barter transfer. 

The Secretary is sensitive to his responsibility for the domestic uranium industry 

as detailed in the USEC Privatization Act and subsection 1014 of the Energy Policy 

Act of 1992, and has carefully considered the proposed activities. In addition to restoring the economic value to contaminated uranium inventory, any barter proposal 

would sustain 154 workers employed during fiscal year 2005 in the domestic uranium industry. 

Question. Section 3112(d) also requires the recipient of any such uranium sales 

or transfers to pay the ‘‘fair market value of the material.’’ In a barter arrangement, 

how would DOE address this ‘‘fair market value’’ requirement? 

Answer. The Department is not contemplating a barter of material that is subject 

to subsection 3112(d). However, the barter would be an arms’ length transaction for 

value that would take into consideration the ability to monetize the asset in a fashion adequate to meet the financial needs necessary to provide the services at the 

Portsmouth facility. 

CERAMIC ION TRANSPORT MEMBRANES PROJECT

Question. For the past 7 years the DOE-Office of Fossil Energy (FE) and Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) have supported a development 

project that uses ceramic Ion Transport Membranes (ITM) to produce hydrogen from 

natural gas. Selected through a competitive solicitation in 1997, the ITM Syngas 

project has been co-funded since that time by DOE-FE (75 percent), and DOE-EERE 

(25 percent). However the fiscal year 2004 funding for the project was reduced by 

EERE from $1.3 million to $200 thousand. The ITM Syngas project is currently in 

Phase 2 with the objective of operating a Sub-scale Engineering Prototype (SEP) 

that will demonstrate full conversion of natural gas to synthesis gas. Achieving this 

objective is critical to gaining the technical understanding to proceed to the project’s 

next phase, a pre-commercial demonstration of the ITM Syngas technology. From 

the beginning of the project, EERE had committed to supporting the project through 

the end of Phase 2, and financial participation through completion of the SEP demonstration is necessary to maintain the project on schedule. After demonstrating full 

product conversion in the ITM Syngas process, smaller units could be developed that 

would be amenable to distributed hydrogen production. 

In view of this critical stage of the ITM Syngas project, will DOE-EERE revise 

its fiscal year 2005 budget to provide $1.3 million for the project? 

Answer. The ITM Syngas project was one of several hydrogen production projects 

for which EERE funding was reduced in fiscal year 2004 due to a shortfall caused 

by the large number of Congressionally-directed projects. The Department plans to 

meet its total obligations identified in the ITM cooperative agreement, subject to 

Congressional appropriations, the extent of fiscal year 2005 Congressionally-directed 

projects, and the results of the annual merit review that helps to guide our 

prioritization of research projects. EERE will determine its fiscal year 2005 contribution to the project following the completion of the fiscal year 2005 appropriation 

process. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

BIOMASS R&D AND NATIONAL LABORATORIES

Question. Mr. Garman, you mention in your written testimony that the Department is interested in working with industry and the National Laboratories to reach 

your goals of a large-scale biorefinery and advanced technologies to transform the 

Nation’s domestic biomass resources into high value power. I believe that our National Labs provide a valuable service and conduct important research. What are 

you doing to ensure that this research and development is not overly entangled with 

the industries which fund such activities? 

Answer. Our National Bioenergy Center facilitates the coordination of biomass research and development across the National Laboratories. The Center is focused on 

enabling long-term research needed to convert a wide variety of domestic biomass 

resources to fuels, chemicals, and heat and power in a sustainable manner. Through 

partnerships with industry, the Department fosters the nearer term research and 
54 

development that leverages the National Laboratories’ foundational, enabling work. 

The public/private partnerships advance biomass conversion processes and integrate 

them into commercial systems and facilities for testing and performance validation. 

The National Laboratories are involved with industry’s research and development 

through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs). These 

CRADAs are carefully constructed to avoid duplicative efforts and to ensure that our 

participation is an appropriate Federal role. 

BIOMASS R&D AND UNIVERSITIES

Question. What role do you see our Nation’s universities playing in this ongoing 

research and development? 

Answer. Universities play an important role in the Biomass Program. One example is the Biomass Refining Consortium for Applied Fundamentals and Innovation 

(CAFI). With support from the National Laboratories, Federal Government, and industry, this group of universities focuses on various possible pretreatment technologies to identify options that enable the integrated industrial biorefinery. In addition, universities are collaborating with the National Laboratories on a variety of 

research projects as listed below: 

—Colorado School of Mines.—Impact of Water Structure Modifying Agents and 

Cellulase Mutations on Cellulase-Cellulose Interactions, 

—University of Arkansas.—X-Ray Crystallographic Studies of Cellulases, 

—Purdue University.—Building A Bridge To The Corn Ethanol Industry FollowOn Project—Phase II, 

—University of Colorado.—Boulder, Mechanistic Model Development for Biomass 

Thermochemical Conversion Process, 

—Cornell University.—Molecular Modeling of the Interaction of Cellulose with 

Cellulases and Catalysts, 

—Cornell University.—Improving T. fusca Cellulases by Protein Engineering, 

—Dartmouth University.—The Role of Biomass in America’s Energy Future, 

—University of Pittsburgh.—Biorefinery Optimization Software. 

Universities are also funded in fiscal year 2004 through the following congressionally-directed projects: Iowa State University, Iowa State University Center for Catalysis, Purdue University & the Midwest Consortium for Sustainable Biobased 

Products and Bioenergy, University of Louisville, Louisiana State University Agriculture Center, Mississippi State, and the University of North Dakota. While we do 

not support continuation of Congressionally directed projects, we expect that many 

universities would receive funds through a competitive awards process. 

The Biomass Program continues to fund multi-disciplinary programs at universities to develop graduate programs that focus on biomass. The approach is to foster 

collaboration among various departments including business, science, and engineering. The Biomass Program also sponsors research internships at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory involving undergraduate and graduate students majoring in science and engineering. These internships allow the students to gain handson research experience under the guidance of prominent researchers. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

FUNDING A COMMERCIAL BIOMASS PLANT

Question. A biotechnology company is interested in building a commercial bio-ethanol production facility in the State of Idaho. This plant would use agricultural 

wastes—primarily wheat straw—as its feedstock. Using an enzyme-based process, 

the plant would convert the carbohydrates from the wheat straw into hydrocarbons 

for ethanol. The construction of this plant would demonstrate the long-term viability 

of using agricultural products to provide both energy and chemicals that have thus 

far been derived from petroleum. The success of this project will create new jobs in 

the agriculture, energy, technology, research, and construction sectors in Idaho and 

elsewhere. It will contribute to accomplishing the President’s goal of reducing the 

greenhouse-gas intensity of the economy because the CO2 emitted by burning ethanol is roughly equal to the CO2 absorbed by growing the wheat—meaning that 

burning ethanol created from this process would add no net CO2 to the atmosphere. 

Completion of this facility would also demonstrate a realistic way to begin reducing 

our Nation’s dependence on foreign oil. 

This cutting-edge project would be eligible for the loan guarantee program described in the energy bill conference report. Because that bill has not been sent to 

the President by the Congress, and because this project can serve multiple national 
55 

interests simultaneously, I seek your assistance in identifying existing authorities 

that would ensure the rapid construction of this facility. 

Please identify any existing programs, funds or authorities that could be used by 

this company to secure financing and commence construction on this vitally important project. 

Answer. The Department of Energy does not have any program funding available 

to support this effort at this time. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducts 

a loan guarantee program under Section 9006 of the Farm Bill that has funded 

small grain-based ethanol plants. However, because the proposed plant is a firstof-a-kind facility with a high degree of technical and financial risk, this project may 

not receive funding under the USDA program. The Department is unaware of any 

other Federal programs that would fund this project. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

ALASKA EXAMINATION OF GEOTHERMAL SITES

Question. In September 2003, Assistant Secretary David Garman and Dr. Roy 

Mink traveled to Alaska to examine geothermal sites, determine their viability for 

electricity production, and to assess ways in which the Department of Energy can 

assist in developing this energy resource. What steps has the Geothermal Technologies division and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy taken 

towards this end? 

Answer. The Geothermal Technologies Program has reached out to help Alaska 

define its geothermal resource and to begin building a base for development of that 

resource. A database of potential geothermal resources has been developed that targets two areas in Alaska for possible power plant developments (Akutan and Unalaska). 

The Program is also providing assistance to private developers, one working with 

the Native Corporation to establish a basis for development of a power plant at 

Akutan and another developer who has an interest in working with the Native Corporation for a potential power plant at Dutch Harbor (Unalaska). We are also working with the Kotzebue Electric Association to evaluate existing geothermal data and 

provide a basis to evaluate potential use of geothermal thermal energy to protect 

the town sewer system from freezing. 

As a result of the September 2003 trip, the Geothermal Technologies Program has 

included additional funding opportunities for Alaska. The Geothermal Outreach 

funding opportunity announcement (State Energy Program) closes on April 6, 2004. 

The Geothermal Resources Exploration and Definition funding opportunity announcement will be released on March 18, 2004, and the Power Plant Development 

funding opportunity announcement will be released near the end of March 2004. 

These announcements will provide up to $5 million of geothermal funding in fiscal 

year 2004. DOE also provided $100,000 to the Alaska Division of Energy to support development of a working group to promote geothermal energy awareness in Alaska. 

ASSISTANCE TO ALASKA COMPANIES

Question. Given the extraordinarily high cost of energy in rural Alaska, many utility companies are exploring the possibility of harnessing wind energy to supply 

rural communities with electricity. What assistance is the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy providing to these companies? 

Answer. The Department of Energy supports wind power projects in Alaska 

through several local and State organizations. There are ongoing wind projects with 

Kotzebue Electric Association, the City of Unalaska, and TDX Corporation (St. Paul 

Island) that are aimed at providing lower cost energy alternatives to rural Alaskan 

communities. Through the Department’s Tribal Energy Program, renewable energy 

studies are underway for Southeast Alaska, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region, 

and the Bristol Bay region. National Wind Technology Center personnel provide expert technical support to these projects by supplying anemometers, evaluating the 

wind resources, conducting wind workshops, and sponsoring local representatives to 

attend technical workshops. 

EVALUATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS

Question. In February 2003, the Department of Energy and the Department of the 

Interior released a report evaluating renewable energy resources on public lands. 

Alaska was excluded from this report. Will the Department of Energy undertake a 

similar evaluation of renewable energy resources on public lands in Alaska? 
56 

Answer. The Geothermal Technologies Program is working with the United States 

Geological Survey on a limited geothermal resource assessment for the western 

United States, including Alaska. Comprehensive energy legislation pending in the 

Congress requires thorough annual assessments of all renewable energy resources, 

including solar, wind, biomass, ocean, geothermal, and hydroelectric, in all 50 

States. 

TIDAL ENERGY PROJECTS COST IN ALASKA

Question. The use of tidal energy is currently being explored in Alaska. As you 

know, the coast of Alaska has exceptional energy producing potential. Tidal energy 

projects have high capital costs. Is the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy exploring opportunities to harness tidal energy? 

Answer. The Department is not currently funding research in tidal energy. Since 

there are only two areas of the Nation with a significant tidal flux (Cook Inlet, Alaska; Bay of Fundy, Maine) the application of tidal energy is not considered widely 

applicable. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM IN ALASKA

Question. Please describe in detail the Department of Energy’s (DOE) renewable 

energy program in Alaska. 

Answer. Some of the activities DOE is funding in renewable energy in Alaska are 

described below. All of these projects were Congressionally directed. We strongly 

support competitive awards to ensure that the Department’s program goals are advanced and taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. 

Biomass 

The Department is supporting an ethanol production facility with Sealaska Corporation in Ketchikan that will utilize wood residues produced from various forest 

industry operations in a process to produce fuel grade ethanol. Regional Biomass 

Energy Program funds support a biomass energy specialist at the State level who 

assists developers with regulatory and utility issues, provides technical assistance, 

and in some cases provide financial assistance. The Regional Biomass Program also 

contributed to the Dutch Harbor Fish Oil Demonstration Project which demonstrated blending fish oil with diesel oil to power engine generator sets that provides electricity to the town of Dutch Harbor. 

Wind 

DOE has been supporting wind power projects in Alaska for several years through 

various local and State organizations. There are ongoing wind projects with 

Kotzebue Electric Association, the City of Unalaska, and TDX Corporation (St. Paul 

Island) that are aimed at providing lower cost energy alternatives to rural Alaskan 

communities. National Wind Technology Center personnel provide expert technical 

support by supplying anemometers, evaluating the wind resources, conducting wind 

workshops, and sponsoring local representatives to attend technical workshops. The 

Department has also tested cold weather wind turbines to mitigate performance 

problems in extreme-cold climates (e.g. icing on blades and gear box freezing). 

Geothermal 

The Department assisted the Alaska Energy Authority in completing a statewide 

assessment of geothermal resources. The assessment concluded that geothermal resources near the community of Akutan have the potential to displace a substantial 

portion of the 4.3 million gallons of diesel per year used for generating power and 

heat in the community and fish processing plant. The Department has also supported site specific feasibility investigations. This past September, Assistant Secretary Garman accompanied the Geothermal Program Manager to Alaska to examine several geothermal sites to determine their viability for electricity production. 

The Geothermal Technology Program is supporting a geothermal working group to 

promote geothermal energy awareness in Alaska. This group will be visiting Nevada 

on a trade mission to learn about successes and procedures used by Nevadans to 

develop geothermal energy. 

Hydropower 

The Department has supported a number of hydropower technology development 

efforts in Alaska over the years. Currently, DOE is supporting the Alaska Village 

Electric Corporation in a hydropower feasibility study at Scammonbay, and a Power 

Creek hydro-electric project in Anchorage. 
57 

State Energy Program 

The State Energy Program provides base-level funding for Alaska to maintain energy specialists in State government. Funding is used to conduct resource assessments, fund projects, and provide technical assistance and workshops. 

Tribal Energy Program 

Renewable energy studies are underway for Southeast Alaska, the YukonKuskokwim Delta region, and the Bristol Bay region. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HARRY REID

FOR INSPIRATION AND RECOGNITION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (FIRST)

Question. In the fiscal year 2004 Conference Report we carried language encouraging the Department to support competitors in the For Inspiration and Recognition 

of Science and Technology (FIRST) robotics competition, a brainchild of Dean 

Kamen, the inventor of the Segway and several other remarkable devices. Do you 

mind describing what the Department has done to follow-up on this direction? 

Answer. Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) scientists and engineers provided 

significant support to students of William Floyd High School, Mastic Beach, NY, in 

the form of technical guidance and assistance in the fabrication of the components 

to build a robot. BNL is providing the funding necessary to purchase the competition kits for Longwood High School, Middle Island, NY, and Port Jefferson High 

School, Port Jefferson, NY, to participate for the FIRST event. Additionally, special 

times for operation of the machine shop were provided by BNL. The FIRST competition is exciting and rewarding with the per team costs typically running between 

$10,000 to $15,000. The Office of Science provided $20,000 to BNL to support these 

three high school teams’ participation in the FIRST event. 

IOWA ENVIRONMENTAL/EDUCATION PROJECT

Question. Is the Iowa Environmental/Education Project, something that has been 

described to me as a giant, $200 million roadside terrarium, a worthy investment 

of Federal funds that will generate useful, cutting edge science or is it just a huge 

waste of Federal taxpayer dollars? 

Answer. This Congressionally directed project will develop an environmental and 

‘‘green energy’’ education center on a 30 acre Environmental Protection Agency 

Brownfield site in Coralville, Iowa. It will not be a cutting edge research facility. 

The project includes an indoor tropical rain forest, aquarium, educational center, 

and galleries on the prairie eco-system, Midwest geology, and agriculture. 

USER FACILITIES

Question. We have a large capital investment in the Office of Science user facilities that serve many users at universities and laboratories. Are we operating these 

facilities at maximum capacity in the fiscal year 2005 budget to meet the needs of 

these scientists? 

Answer. Overall, Office of Science user facilities are operating at 95 percent of optimum in the fiscal year 2005 request, 3 percent better than in fiscal year 2004. 

(This metric is straightforward but perhaps too simplistic, and we are working to 

develop a more sophisticated metric for the fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget.) It 

is always difficult to find the right balance among competing priorities for facility 

operations, research, construction, etc. We are satisfied that we have allocated the 

funding in the request to achieve the best balance possible. 

INTERNATIONAL THERMONUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL REACTOR (ITER)

Question. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am pleased that the United 

States has resumed its participation in the ITER (‘‘EATER’’) project. However, the 

dollar levels look somewhat low, particularly in light of our commitment to fund 10 

percent of the total. Are the funds in the budget adequate to fulfill our international 

requirements? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2005 budget request for ITER is adequate because the 

funds are for preparations for a subsequent ITER construction project. The plan is 

for the construction project to start in fiscal year 2006, at which time the U.S. funding requirement would increase significantly. 

Question. As a follow-up, the U.S. participation seems fairly modest compared to 

that of several of the international partners. Are you satisfied that it appears that 
58 

the United States will be just a junior partner in ITER. Is a larger role something 

we should aspire to? 

Answer. The Department is satisfied that the 10 percent role is appropriate for 

the United States. With the exception of the host, all of the ITER Parties would be 

at approximately the same level of participation. Each Party would receive the same 

benefits in terms of equal access to the scientific and technological results from 

ITER, as well as an equal role in planning the ITER scientific program. Accordingly, 

a larger financial contribution for the United States is not considered necessary. 

Question. Dr. Orbach, as I understand it, the Department is getting ready to select a site for a U.S. ITER Project Office. Could you please explain the process for 

that selection? 

Answer. The process for selection of the host for a U.S. ITER Project Office consists of review by an independent Evaluation Committee of Federal and non-Federal 

employees. This process will be managed by the Chicago Operations Office. The conclusions of the Evaluation Committee will be forwarded to the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences for selection of the host by the director of that office. 

Question. Given the importance of the ITER project to fusion research and to the 

fusion community, has an expert independent review board been appointed to guide 

that selection? 

Answer. We are in the process of identifying members of such a board. 

FUNDING FOR CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER

Question. I see that you have a $2 million request for funding for the Concentrating Solar Power portion of the solar energy budget. While I realize this is an 

improvement from the $0 you requested last year it is a far cry from what I expected given that your office, the National Academy, and many other national organizations all now agree that CSP has merit and promise. Despite your words to the 

contrary, are you giving up on Concentrating Solar Power? 

Answer. We are not giving up on Concentrating Solar Power (CSP). As you pointed out, last year we did not request any funding for CSP. In light of recent studies 

we sought from an independent engineering firm, a draft of which was reviewed by 

the National Research Council, we propose $2 million to support a more thorough 

investigation of the appropriate R&D course needed to realize the potential for CSP. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request will be used to maintain CSP facilities at 

Sandia National Lab, to provide analytical support to States, and to develop a comprehensive program plan to help inform the fiscal year 2006 budget development 

process and a longer term R&D plan. 

Question. If not, what do we need to do to get this program back on track? 

Answer. DOE will develop a Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) program plan 

which will use recommendations from the independent review studies and take a 

systems approach to identify the highest value technology R&D investments. These 

findings will then be used to inform the fiscal year 2006 budget development process 

and a longer term R&D plan. 

NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY

Question. In the last three conference reports we have carried language directing 

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to deploy some of their technologies in Nevada in partnership with industrial and university partners. It is my 

understanding that this effort is working out well for everyone involved, but I would 

be interested in your thoughts. 

Answer. As a matter of principle and administration policy, we do not support 

earmarks. Nevertheless, over the past 2 years, the Department has worked closely 

with NREL and various State interests in order to make the most effective use of 

these directed funds. A competitive process was used to select projects that would 

bring laboratory, university, and industrial partners together in the State of Nevada 

to help develop the solar, geothermal, wind, and related hydrogen resources in the 

Southwest. Per fiscal year 2004 Congressional direction, the Department will continue these efforts and look for additional opportunities to form alliances between 

Nevada’s university system, other Nevada State agencies, and industry to establish 

centers of renewable energy expertise in the State. The ‘‘RE Centers of Expertise’’ 

will likely include, but not be limited to, research and development, training for future workers in renewable energy, and technology demonstration and performance 

validation. 
59 

BIOMASS RATIONALE FOR CUTS

Question. Biomass seems to have taken a substantial cut in the fiscal year 2004 

request. By all accounts this program has been very successful. Why are you cutting 

back at this time? 

Answer. 

FUNDING SUMMARY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Program/Activity Fiscal Year 

2004 Request 

Fiscal Year 

2004 Comparable Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 

2004 Earmarks 

Fiscal Year 2004 Unencumbered 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 

2005 Request 

Biomass Program (EWD and Omnibus Appropriation) .......................................................... 69,750 86,471 42,805 43,666 72,596 

Biomass Program (Interior) ................................. 8,808 7,506 .................... 7,506 8,680 

Total, Biomass Program ........................ 78,558 93,977 42,805 51,172 81,276 

Excluding all the Congressionally-directed projects in fiscal year 2004, we are actually seeking $30 million more in fiscal year 2005 than was appropriated last year 

toward the research and development (R&D) goals established in our program plan 

and budget submissions. Our R&D goals have been developed in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Laboratories and the Biomass R&D 

Advisory Board established by Congress. 

In order to fund Congressionally-directed projects in fiscal year 2004, we have had 

to modify our program goals. Furthermore, we will experience delays in achieving 

our key milestones and the broader market acceptance of power, fuels and products 

derived from biomass. We urge the committee to provide us the flexibility to spend 

Biomass funds in accordance with our program plans, which will provide the best 

potential for producing long-term positive returns on the taxpayers’ investment. 

HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTOR PROGRAM

Question. Do you think that the High Temperature Superconductor program 

should be moved back into your organization, particularly in light of the wholesale 

redirection of funds away from superconductors that the Electricity Transmission 

and Distribution program has undertaken? 

Answer. The new Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution (OETD) has 

voiced its strong support for High Temperature Superconductivity (HTS). The funding of the High Temperature Superconductor Program is not a result of the office 

in which the program is housed, but rather the fact that Congress appropriated 

$10.972 million less for transmission and distribution R&D in fiscal year 2004 than 

in fiscal year 2003, the year before the new office was created. Of the $69.467 million appropriated for R&D within OETD, $25.75 million was for Congressionally Directed Activities, leaving only $42.49 million ($6.285 million less than in fiscal year 

2003) for all R&D work. 

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT IN ALASKA

Question. What percentage of the division’s budget will be dedicated to providing 

financial assistance to geothermal development in Alaska? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget for the Geothermal Technologies Program is 

$26 million. The program provides opportunities for Alaskan entities to participate 

in open and competitive funding opportunity announcements. Current and upcoming 

opportunities are valued at a total of $5 million, or 19 percent of the program’s 

budget. Alaskan proposals will be considered alongside others in open competition. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

GENOMICS: GTL FACILITIES

Question. Dr. Orbach, I understand you have recently published a strategic plan 

for new facilities supporting DOE’s missions. PNNL, along with other research Institutions in the State of Washington, is very interested and, indeed, believe we 

have a strong research infrastructure to be the location of one of the GTL facilities 

in your strategic plan and facilities plan. 
60 

What is your position on the schedule for the various facilities with the genomics 

program, including the proteome analysis facility? 

Answer. Our 20-year facilities plan lays out the time sequence of the scientific 

user facilities, including those advocated by our Genomics program. As the 

Genomics program evolves we hope to be able to proceed with the construction and 

operation of the Genomics facilities. PNNL, along with other research institutions 

in the State of Washington should be in a strong position to successfully compete 

for one or more of these facilities. I should also note that while the facilities plan 

lists four large Genomics facilities, it is conceivable that evolving scientific needs 

and the competitive solicitation process for each facility could lead to us to fund 

multiple distributed facilities at a smaller scale. As available funding allows, we intend to let the science drive the ultimate makeup of these facilities. 

ULTRA HIGH-SPEED SUPER COMPUTERS

Question. The Department of Energy has recently announced an aggressive computing program, including ultra high-speed super computers. What is your position 

on competition? 

Answer. The Department believes that competition is critical to ensuring effective 

stewardship of the taxpayers’ investment in science as well as selection of the best 

ideas to ensure the scientific leadership of the country. We have just announced a 

solicitation to the Office of Science laboratories to begin installation of a leadership 

class computer for open science. The award will be made on the basis of peer reviewed open competition. 

HYDROGEN IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

Question. What are the unique assets that research institutions and the natural 

resources of the Pacific Northwest provide that will make hydrogen a reality in the 

Northwest? 

Answer. The Pacific Northwest uses renewable energy resources to produce much 

of its energy. These resources can be tapped to produce hydrogen. Hydropower is 

a carbon free source of inexpensive electricity that can produce hydrogen via electrolysis. Wind can also be harnessed to create hydrogen via electrolysis, with Washington and Oregon alone possessing over 8,000 megawatts of developable wind generation potential. 

The Northwest is home to many organizations with the ability to play a part in 

developing a hydrogen infrastructure. These include State and city governments, the 

Bonneville Power Administration, fuel cell developers (Ballard, Avista labs, IdaTech, 

etc.), major regional universities, heavy truck and aerospace manufactures, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. 

TIME SCALE FOR HYDROGEN IN NORTHWEST

Question. In what time scale do you see hydrogen being a viable source of energy 

in the Northwest? 

Answer. Hydrogen is not a source of energy, but an energy carrier that can be 

produced from multiple energy resources. Because of the many technical and cost 

hurdles associated with a transition to a hydrogen economy, we don’t expect wide 

scale use of hydrogen—in the Northwest or elsewhere—before 2020. 

INDUSTRY-LABORATORY COOPERATION

Question. Can you tell me more about industry’s role in research development and 

demonstration projects in the effort to develop a more robust grid; specifically efforts 

underway involving national laboratory and industry cooperation? 

Answer. Industry-laboratory partnerships enable the full development and/or deployment of new and promising technologies that form the cornerstone of DOE’s efforts to modernize the Nation’s Electric Transmission infrastructure. 

Within the High Temperature Superconductivity’s (HTS’s) Strategic Partnership 

Initiative (SPI), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), IGC SuperPower, Waukesha Electric Systems, Southwire Company, and American Superconductor are the primary partners working together to 

develop High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) wire, and four types of HTS electric power equipment prototypes, including cables, motors, generators and transformers. This technology will enable distribution and transmission cables that have 

three to five times the capacity of conventional copper cables and higher efficiency 

(especially useful in congested urban areas), and power equipment with half the energy losses and half the size of conventional equipment. 
61 

Examples of current research and development projects—all involving DOE-Industry cost sharing—include the Boeing Phantom Works with Argonne National Laboratory to design, fabricate and test a 35 kilowatt hour superconducting flywheel energy storage system as a power risk management system that will give power users 

and utilities a full-scale device to manage both cost and reliability risks; the General 

Electric HTS Generator Project involving LANL and ORNL to install a 100 MVA 

prototype generator; the IGC SuperPower project with LANL to develop and install 

a transformer component at a HTS substation; and the Long Island Power Authority 

project with LANL involving the installation of a HTS cable system. 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has the lead for the national laboratory/ 

industry/university consortium that was formed to support cutting-edge research in 

Transmission Reliability R&D, provided support on the summer 2003 Blackout Investigation, and is integral to projects for developing reliability tools. 

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is part of the national laboratory/industry/university consortium that was formed to support research on Transmission Reliability R&D to transform the Nation’s distribution system. PNNL conducts evaluations of the technological and institutional aspects of recent reliability 

events on the Nation’s electric power system, and is the lead for research activities 

in real-time monitoring and control of the power grid. PNNL partners with the 

GridWise Alliance, in which IBM, SEMPRA, the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland Interconnection (PJM) and others work to modernize the Nation’s electric distribution system in potentially revolutionary ways. 

In fiscal year 2004, PNNL has provided support on the summer 2003 Blackout 

Investigation. PNNL supports development of communication and control architectures and technologies, as well as the integration of multi-vendor distributed energy 

resources into the distribution system. PNNL supports development of technologies 

for improved load/demand management while responding to market prices and electricity supply/demand conditions. 

Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) participates in a national laboratory/industry/ 

university consortium to support research on Transmission Reliability R&D. SNL 

also works to develop advanced superconductors based on the sol-gel chemical deposition process. For energy storage, SNL develops improved energy storage system 

components including power conversion electronics and modular multi-functional energy storage systems. 

Argonne National Laboratory performs research and development for the HTS 

Program Activity. Argonne utilizes unique expertise in ceramics and materials 

science to improve conductor performance and to investigate deposition processes, 

such as metal-organic chemical vapor deposition. Argonne also performs research on 

superconducting electric motors, transmission cables, and flywheel electricity systems. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DOMENICI. So that’s it. We stand in recess. Thanks. 

[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(63) 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:32 p.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Domenici, Bennett, Craig, Reid, and Feinstein. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR LINTON F. BROOKS, UNDER SECRETARY 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

ADMIRAL FRANK L. BOWMAN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NAVAL 

REACTORS PROGRAM 

DR. EVERET H. BECKNER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, DEFENSE 

PROGRAMS 

PAUL M. LONGSWORTH, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

Senator DOMENICI. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to 

order. 

Today, the subcommittee will take testimony on the fiscal year 

2005 budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration. We will receive testimony from Under Secretary and Administrator of NNSA, Ambassador Linton Brooks; Deputy Administrator 

for Naval Reactors, Admiral Frank Bowman; Deputy Administrator 

for Defense Programs, Dr. Everet Beckner; Deputy Administrator 

for Nuclear Nonproliferation, Paul Longsworth. 

It is a pleasure to have all of you here. I look forward to your 

testimony today. For the NNSA, the President has requested $9 billion, an in- crease of 4.4 percent from the current year funding level of $8.6 billion. As a percentage, this is a considerable increase above the 1.2 

percent growth in discretionary funding for Department of Energy. 

Ambassador Brooks, your responsibilities include the important 

job of maintaining our shrinking nuclear stockpile and to ensure 

that it serves its essential mission of deterrence. Funding priorities 

in this account include continuation of the stockpile refurbishment 
64 

activities as well as conducting important stewardship activities to 

ensure safety and reliability, a vital necessity in the absence of underground testing. 

Your budget also continues to make the National Ignition Facility, NIF, a top priority. I am deeply concerned that the fiscal year 

2005 budget has slipped the target date for ignition back to 2014 

as a result of numerous technical challenges, including the cryogenic targets. To date, we have spent $2.5 billion with another $4 

billion that will be spent over the life of the program. I don’t believe it is prudent to continue to throw good money after bad. I will 

do everything in my power to ensure that program managers deal 

with the most pressing technical issues before we allow the program to go any further. In addition, I will work to ensure there are 

clear and verifiable programmatic milestones. 

I was surprised to see the request that nearly $500 million is 

provided for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. The Department 

should not assume such large sums in its budget without Congressional approval or direction. What we are really talking about is a 

stockpile plan. A successful report validates design feasibility and 

need and does not force the inclusion of such a large amount of 

money. I want it explained to this committee, unequivocally, so 

what we are doing and what we are authorizing and what we are 

not doing and what we are not authorizing. Because nobody on this 

committee is voting to do this. We are voting to study it if it wins 

but not to do it. To study it is a small amount of money. If we do 

it it is a lot of money. 

The budget also provides $124 million, a 21 percent increase 

above current year funding in the safeguards and security accounts 

to respond to the new design basis threat. That new security requirements, that these new ones are driving costs to such a high 

level it is diverting limited resources from other cash-strapped programs within DoE. While I recognize the need to protect this special nuclear material I fear that there is not a plan to consolidate 

the nuclear material across NNSA complex in order to lower our 

security costs and at the same time minimize terrorist threats. 

Ambassador Brooks, I am somewhat disappointed that the administration has failed to provide the nuclear stockpile report that 

was required in the 2004 Energy and Water Bill. This is an important priority within this bill and I would appreciate it if you would 

take the message back to the Forrestal Building and to the Pentagon that we are eagerly awaiting that report. Soon this committee will begin developing our budget priorities. Failure to 

produce the stockpile report will have serious consequences for 

your funding priorities next year. I need not spend any more time; 

you had better answer it, acknowledging that what I am talking 

about is right and you had better promise us to fix it or we will 

have big troubles between you and this committee, I assure you. 

This should have already been done. 

Finally, I am very discouraged with the funding cuts proposed in 

2005 for the Mesa Facility at Sandia and the CMR replacement facility at Los Alamos. Shortfalls of a serious budget nature will 

delay these construction projects, adding to the costs and limiting 

the lab’s ability to perform critical stockpile work. 
65 

Now, I understand you are short of money. You get told by the 

OMB what to do but some of this, you know, we are not going to 

do what you ask us just because OMB let you, we are going to do 

what we think and not let you do some of the things that they have 

told you that you can do. I will have my turn on these laboratories 

when I ask you the questions. 

I will just make a statement ad lib now, that everything that I 

can now read about America in the globalization and jobs would indicate that what this country needs more than anything else is new 

technology breakthroughs. And we need them quick. We need new 

things that follow on the computer with new technologies. And if 

I understand correctly, those come in the fields of micro-engineering, probably, and nano-science, and the center for those should 

have been Mesa. Maybe it still will be but if we delay it so long 

it will not be. 

In addition to maintaining the nuclear stockpile, you at the 

NNSA also have the important challenge of preventing the spread 

of nuclear material, technology and expertise that could be used to 

develop and use weapons of mass destructions. The Office of Nuclear Non-Proliferation works very hard to secure weapons-grade 

material and prevent the sale of technology used by countries to 

develop nuclear weapons. 

Mr. Ambassador, I must compliment you and Mr. Longsworth 

and his staff for the role DoE played in disarming Libya, as well 

as uncovering the proliferation activities operated by Pakistan’s top 

nuclear weapons scientist, Abdul Khan. We congratulate you on 

that. And we only fail to understand how Abdul Khan, with what 

we know he has already done, is still free. If somebody else in the 

world had done that, God knows what would have happened. 

Another top priority for the office is to ensure the success of the 

U.S./Russian MOX program that will dispose of 34 tons of plutonium from each of the Russian and U.S. stockpiles. I am very 

pleased, Senators, to have been part of that. Senator Reid, you remember when I helped put it together and went to Russia with 

President Clinton, but I am very, very concerned about the lack of 

progress in these negotiations. How long ago did this start? 1998. 

U.S. negotiations to work with the Russians where we to try to find 

an acceptable solution so we can break ground on this project and 

we are hung up over what I think are trivial negotiating issues. I 

recently told the White House that maybe they ought to put some 

bigger people in the position of negotiating. How a little issue of 

indemnification can hold this up is beyond me. Now I find that indemnification has occurred between Russians and us and some 

other program where the liability potential might have been more 

severe than this, and the Russians came to the table. They would 

not have got that one done, if I would have had anything to do with 

it, until they get this one done. This is a way to get rid of a huge 

chunk of nuclear-grade plutonium. 

Admiral Bowman, thank you for your participation in what may 

be your last hearing before the subcommittee. I appreciate your 

steady hand. The Naval Reactors Program continues to serve as 

the world’s gold standard for safe and reliable operations of nuclear 

power. I am interested to know how your office has been handed 

the responsibility of producing the next generation of space reac-
66 

tors. Traditionally this has fallen to the Office of Nuclear Energy, 

which has developed some expertise in these unique engineering 

systems. I surmise that part of the reason it went where it did is 

that you have more expertise than they had in the area. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Dr. Beckner and Mr. Longsworth, I appreciate your participation 

and welcome your input. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

Good morning—this hearing will come to order. 

Today, the subcommittee will take testimony on the fiscal year 2005 budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

We will receive testimony from Under Secretary and Administrator of the NNSA, 

Ambassador Linton Brooks; Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors, Admiral 

Frank Bowman; Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, Dr. Everet Beckner; 

and Deputy Administrator for Nuclear Nonproliferation, Paul Longsworth. 

You have all testified before this subcommittee before and it is a pleasure to have 

you here again. I look forward to your testimony today. For the NNSA, the President has requested $9 billion, an increase of 4.4 percent from the current year funding level of $8.6 billion. As a percentage, this is a considerable increase above the 1.2 percent growth in discretionary funding for Department of Energy. 

Ambassador Brooks, your responsibilities include the important job of maintaining 

our shrinking nuclear stockpile and to ensure that it serves its essential mission of 

deterrence. Funding priorities in this account include continuation of the stockpile 

refurbishment activities as well as conducting important stewardship activities to 

ensure safety and reliability—a vital necessity in the absence of underground testing. 

Your budget also continues to make the National Ignition Facility (NIF) a top priority. I am deeply concerned that the fiscal year 2005 budget has slipped the target 

date for ignition back to 2014 as a result of numerous technical challenges, including the cryogenic targets. To date, we have spent $2.5 billion with another $4 billion 

that will be spent over the life of the program. I don’t believe it is prudent to continue to throw good money after bad. I will do everything in my power to ensure 

that program managers deal with the most pressing technical issues before we allow 

the program to go any further. In addition, I will work to ensure there are clear 

and verifiable programmatic milestones. 

Like many of my colleagues, I was surprised to see in the budget request that nearly $500 million is provided for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) in 

out-year funding. I want be absolutely clear, without a stockpile plan and a successful report that validates design feasibility and need; the Department should not assume such large sums in its budget without Congressional approval or direction. This budget also provides a $124 million increase (21 percent above current year 

funding) in the Safeguards and Security Account in order to respond to the new Design Basis Threat. The new security requirements are driving costs to such a high 

level, it is diverting limited resources from other cash-strapped programs within 

DOE. While, I recognize the need to protect this special nuclear material, I fear that 

there is not a plan to consolidate special nuclear material across the NNSA complex 

in order to lower our security costs and eliminate potential terrorist threats. 

Ambassador Brooks, I am disappointed that the administration has failed to provide the nuclear stockpile report that was required in the fiscal year 2004 Energy 

and Water bill. This is an important priority within this bill and I would appreciate 

it if you would take the message back to the Forrestal building and to the Pentagon 

that we are eagerly awaiting that report. Soon this subcommittee will begin developing our budget priorities. Failure to produce the stockpile report will have serious 

consequences for your funding priorities next year. 

Finally, I am discouraged with the funding cuts proposed for fiscal year 2005 for 

the MESA facility at Sandia and the CMR Replacement facility at Los Alamos. Serious budget shortfalls will delay these construction projects adding to the overall cost 

and limiting the labs ability to perform critical stockpile work. 

In addition to maintaining the nuclear stockpile, the NNSA also has the important challenge of preventing the spread of nuclear material, technology and expertise that could be used to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. The Office 
67 

of Nuclear Nonproliferation works very hard to secure weapons-grade material and 

to prevent the sale of technology used by countries to develop nuclear weapons. 

Ambassador Brooks, I must compliment you, Mr. Longsworth and his staff for the 

role DoE played in disarming Libya as well as uncovering the proliferation activities 

operated by Pakistan’s top nuclear weapons scientist Abdul Khan. 

Another top priority for that office is to ensure the success of the U.S./Russian 

MOX program that will dispose of 34 tons of excess plutonium from each of the Russian and U.S. stockpiles. This is an important project from a proliferation standpoint, but I am concerned about the lack of progress in negotiations. I have worked 

hard to push U.S. negotiators to work with the Russians to find an acceptable solution that will allow us to break ground on this important project and forever dispose 

of the plutonium. 

Admiral Bowman, thank you for your participation in what may be your last hearing before this subcommittee. I appreciate your steady hand on the rudder. The 

Naval Reactor program continues to serve as the world’s gold standard for safe and 

reliable operations of nuclear power. 

Admiral, I am interested to know how your office has been handed the responsibility of producing the next generation of space reactors. Traditionally, this responsibility has fallen to the Office of Nuclear Energy, which has developed an expertise 

in designing these unique energy systems. 

Dr. Beckner and Mr. Longsworth, I appreciate your participation in this hearing 

and welcome your input. 

Now, I will yield to Senator Reid for any opening statement he would like to 

make. 

Senator DOMENICI. Now I yield to Senator Reid for comments 

and then we will proceed. Senator Reid. 

Senator REID. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I welcome 

you back after the recess. I hope your recess went well. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. It did. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

Senator REID. Ambassador Brooks, by and large I believe you 

and your team are doing a good job. I have met with you on occasion and you have always been forthcoming in spite of the rocky 

start that you and I had regarding your confirmation. I think you 

have been candid with me and I have tried to be with you. I have, 

as with Senator Domenici, a long tenure on this subcommittee; we 

go back to the days of Dr. Victor Reis where we were trying to 

come up with a stockpile stewardship program. And I think we 

came up with one to have a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile, 

clearly the safest and most secure of any in the world. And even 

though I fought Senator Domenici initially on establishing the entity which you lead, Senator Domenici was right; I think it has been 

a tremendous step forward. And General Gordon did such a remarkably good job, he has very large shoes to fill, as you know. He 

had a commanding personality and his great record, I think, added 

the prestige needed to get this new entity started. 

So, I have reviewed your testimony, budget request, and I will 

bet there is not a hearing that I have attended, or will attend during this budget cycle, that they would not love to have OMB sign 

off on what you have gotten. I do not know of an entity that has 

been treated better than yours that I have seen this whole year. 

Your problem is not an inadequate budget request, your problem 

is going to be holding on to what you already have. This subcommittee may be as much as $1.7 billion in the hole due to a combination of inadequate funding requests, especially the Corps of 

Engineers, budget gimmicks that certainly are just amateurish and 

the budget committees have chosen not to accept these gimmicks. 
68 

Holding NNSA harmless may not be possible unless the subcommittee is given a sizeable increase in its allocation. I read an 

article during the recess that suggests, Mr. Chairman, you have secured a commitment from the Majority Leader and the Chairman 

of the Budget Committee that our subcommittee will remain 

healthy at the end of the budget process. I certainly hope so. It is 

not just this subcommittee, it is the entire Senate that benefits. 

And having said that, the entire country benefits from giving us a 

better budget mark than what we have. And if that is the case, 

Senator Domenici, you deserve every accolade that you can get, and 

I would be the leading cheerleader for this if your efforts are successful. 

Second, Ambassador Brooks, you are going to hear a lot, as you 

already have heard, from the chairman of this subcommittee about 

a number of things. One of the things I know he is frustrated about 

is the National Ignition Facility. And as we look back at the ability 

of that project to go forward, I have to say that project would not 

have gone forward but for Senator Domenici. I was ready to can 

that whole thing. But Senator Domenici and I try to work together 

on this subcommittee as much as we can and as a result of our 

working together we let this project go forward. And Senator 

Domenici, having been the lead person on this, I on a number of 

occasions will set aside my personal feelings about what is going 

on because of his initial involvement in this. So what I am saying 

is that I think you are going to have to take a closer look at NIF 

because Senator Domenici certainly is going to take a close look at 

it. We know there have been some problems in the latest snafu, 

and I think that this is something that we have to look at closely 

because I know the chairman is going to look at it closely. NIF has 

a large number and unless we get our budget allocation changed 

we are going to have to look there for some of the money to take 

care of other things. 

Third, you are requesting expanded funding for a number of very 

controversial items: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Modern Pit 

Facility, Advanced Nuclear Concepts Program. Last year, the 

House of Representatives, without a word of dissent to be heard 

anywhere in the House, slashed funding for these programs. The 

Senate bill fully funded them; there was an amendment offered on 

the Senate floor to cut the funding. It failed although it had support of most of the Democratic Caucus. The point I am making is 

that you need to tread very carefully here. Congressional support 

for these programs is not very strong and I would encourage you 

to be very candid on a regular basis with your plans and intentions 

for all these programs. The memo you sent the laboratories regarding the Advanced Concepts Program last year, the one that seemed 

to indicate that it was okay to move forward as planned regardless 

of Congressional guidance, concerns us all. I am willing to give you 

the benefit of the doubt that you are not encouraging your contractors to ignore our intent but I strongly suggest that you and your 

staff work very closely with us up here on these initiatives. 

I am a little concerned, maybe even put off, by the notion that 

you have included a half-a-billion dollars in your out-year spending 

plan as what you call a ‘‘placeholder’’ for bunker busting pending 

White House and Congressional decisions. I am not sure that we 
69 

can allow this to go forward. This is a large ‘‘placeholder.’’ Many 

of us remain unconvinced that this is an appropriate path. 

Finally, on the subject of working with us here in Congress, our 

Conference directed you to submit the Revised Stockpile Plan to us 

with fiscal year 2005 budget request. We carried these words because we were beyond being fed up with waiting for the Plan halfa-year ago. The budget request has been here for nearly 2 months 

and we still have no sign of the Revised Stockpile Plan. We set that 

date in consultation with your staff so we can use that document 

to assist our financial decision-making. I am not interested in the 

story about how complicated it is to get such an important document signed or how many people over at the White House or NNSA 

need to read it, polish it, refine or rewrite it; it is just way overdue 

and we need to get the document up here. I might even suggest 

that we write a bill that fences off every dollar above current year 

levels for NNSA until this is provided. And I hope this gets the 

White House’s attention. And I am convinced, Ambassador, that 

this is not you personally holding this up and you need not comment on that. But sometimes we get a little put-off by someone 

who is a Secretary or an Administrator such as you are who comes 

here and says to us privately, well, I’m not the one holding this up. 

And you are the person that we look to. 

So, I want to thank each of your deputies for being here; Dr. 

Beckner, Admiral Bowman, Mr. Longsworth, we appreciate that 

very much. 

The chairman’s not here so the acting chairman, Senator Bennett, I would ask permission of the chair to be able to submit questions in writing and would ask that you, the witnesses, get back 

to the subcommittee within 10 days. We have a little parliamentary problem on the floor that I am going to work on. 

Senator BENNETT [presiding]. Without objection. 

Senator REID. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Senator Reid, very much. 

When the Chairman returns I will make it clear that I hope to 

have more than a single round of questioning because I have a 

number of concerns that I want to raise and a number of issues 

that I think have to be made very clear for the record. 

I assume you know the history of southern Utah with respect to 

nuclear testing in Nevada. It goes back to the 1950’s and the 

1960’s, and Utahans were not only let down by their government, 

quite frankly, Utahans were lied to by their government. Things 

that were done in those periods in retrospect are incomprehensible. 

Students were let out of school and taken out to the schoolyard to 

stand in the open air and look for the flash of the above-ground 

test and then watch the cloud as it went over. And the incidence 

of cancer and other problems that occurred among people who lived 

down-wind from the Nevada testing site has been well documented 

and Congress has taken actions with it and I will not review all 

of that past. But I think if you are not familiar with that past you 

should be and therefore understand why the people of southern 

Utah, in particular, are very suspicious of anything the government 

says about nuclear testing, above-ground or below-ground, and for 
70 

that reason, Mr. Chairman, I intend to use this opportunity to ask 

a number of questions, quite pointed. I expect that I will get direct 

answers so that they will be firmly on the record and there will be 

no ambiguity about some of this. 

Now, while I speak with that background as the Senator representing Utah, I want to make it clear that my concern for the 

safety of the people of Utah is not limited to Utah. I, as a Senator, 

must be concerned about the safety of all of the people who will be 

down-wind from any test that will occur, and that would include 

not only everybody in the United States but given the jet stream 

and the way we now understand the weather goes around the 

world, accidents or sloppiness in testing in Nevada can affect far 

more than just Utah. So while I speak here as the Senator for Utah 

I want to make it clear that I want to be sure that health and safety for everyone in America, and to the degree it gets beyond our 

shores, to the rest of the world becomes the primary concern. And 

I know that none of you were involved in the things that were done 

back in the 1950’s and 1960’s when the government lied to its citizens in that part of the world and that is fine. 

But that means that we must be even more circumspect and 

more penetrating in our attempts to make sure that this administration does not repeat, in any way, either inadvertently or deliberately, the things that have happened in the past. There is still 

a great deal of skepticism among those who live in southern Utah 

about any government pronouncement on this issue and that is 

why, Mr. Chairman, I intend to be fairly penetrating in the question period. And I said before you came I hope we will have more 

than one round so that I will have time to explore all of this properly. 

Senator DOMENICI [presiding]. Senator, if we do not finish and 

you need some more, we would turn the committee over to you and 

you can spend the whole afternoon. 

Shall we proceed? Do you need to make an opening statement, 

Senator? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I do, Mr. Chairman. I hate to tell you. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, we were not going to have them but I 

got out of here and it got started. So we have got to let you. 

Senator BENNETT. When you relinquished the gavel for 30 seconds I took advantage of it. 

Senator DOMENICI. Go ahead. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator DOMENICI. We want to be brief. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. I will try very hard to be brief but I think 

as Mr. Brooks knows I have very strong views on the proposed nuclear program and I wanted to make a couple of comments about 

it. Ambassador Brooks was nice enough to spend some time with 

me in my office, and I appreciate that very much, and went over 

his views of what the program is. The more I read about the program the more I believe it is something else and I would characterize that something else by saying it is a reopening of the nuclear 

door. 
71 

Just where you sit last year Secretary Abraham sat. He said we 

have no intentions of proceeding with new nuclear weapons. Secretary of Defense, at a Defense Appropriations hearing, came before us and said that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is a 

study, it is nothing more and nothing less. And then, if you look 

to follow the money, I think you see that it is much more than that. 

This year’s budget request includes the $27.5 million for the Earth 

Penetrator, the $9 million for the so-called Advanced Weapons Initiative, and the $30 million for the Modern Pit Facility to make up 

to 450 new pits, which as you know we discussed and you said 

there was no way of knowing whether we need this kind of improvement in the Pit Facility. And the Revised Stockpile Plan has 

not yet been presented to the best of my knowledge. But if you look 

at the Congressional Research Service, they now report that the 

administration’s own long-term budget plan includes $485 million 

for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator between 2005 and 2009. 

I think that number casts doubts on the contention that this is just 

a study and that all we are doing is just a study. Because I do not 

believe there can be a commitment of nearly $500 million for just 

a study. And I think it means that the administration is determined to develop and field a new generation of nuclear weapons. 

And this Senator is strongly opposed to that. 

I think by seeking to develop new nuclear weapons, and as indicated in the Nuclear Posture Review, a new doctrine that considers 

nuclear weapons in the same category as conventional weapons, 

the United States is sending a message that nuclear weapons have 

a future battlefield role and utility. And by doing so I believe we 

are going to make our Nation and our allies less secure, not more 

secure. And if the United States opens the door to the development, 

testing and deployment of new nuclear weapons. So I am just here 

to kind of follow this thing along and I am going to try to oppose 

it at every step of the road because I do not believe the American 

people want to support a new generation of nuclear weapons. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Craig has also submitted a prepared 

statement which will be included in the record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

The DOE’s nuclear weapons programs are of great interest to the Nation and to 

this subcommittee. DOE is a significant national security agency. Both the Chairman and Ranking Member of the subcommittee have parts of the nuclear weapons 

complex located in their States. 

Idaho has a stake in these programs, too. As Admiral Bowman is aware, there 

isn’t a single element of nuclear fuel that gets discharged from a Naval reactor that 

does not end up in Idaho. The fuel is examined in Idaho and then stored there for 

the long term. This work is the reason why Navy cores now last ‘‘the life of the 

ship.’’ 

Naval Reactors is now being tasked to provide this kind of expertise to space nuclear reactors. Idaho can bring much more to this enterprise than simply being the 

resting place for the Navy’s spent fuel. I ask our witnesses to consider that, as they 

go about deciding how to approach this new space nuclear mission. 

DOE also has the job of stopping the proliferation of nuclear materials which is 

an important one in the world we face. I believe that DOE should more closely coordinate its nuclear nonproliferation missions with those of DOE’s Office of Nuclear 

Energy. People around the world want cheap, abundant energy. They might decide 
72 

nuclear energy is the way to get there. If they decide to build nuclear reactors, I 

am confident that this country can design reactors that do not cause the spread of 

enriched materials around the globe. Scientists at the Idaho National Lab can contribute to solving this challenge. 

Finally, I would ask all of our witnesses to consider the issue of economic security. 

A prosperous world will be more secure. A world where resources are scarce and 

people are in conflict will be a more dangerous world. Energy security is a key part 

of national security of global security. I challenge each of you to think more broadly 

about the role of energy technology in our national security. It is an essential element, and we need to devote the resources to it. 

Greater support for energy technology should be part of the appropriations bill we 

craft. For our national security, we also need to pass a comprehensive energy bill 

as soon as possible. The chairman of the subcommittee has worked diligently on 

that, as have I. We will continue to do so. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, let me first say, so there is no misunderstanding, I do not favor a new round of the development of 

nuclear weapons. I think I am just as firm on that as is the distinguished Senator from California. But I do believe research is not 

static with reference to nuclear activity. And so we will go into this 

a little more and ask whether we can actually ask our great scientists to just close their minds to these issues and say they cannot 

study them even if they fall right before their face. So we will have 

our arguments. The California Senator can contend we are building 

new weapons; I will contend we are researching them. She can contend we are paying for $500 million worth; I will say we are going 

to vote for a small number and no more in the language of dollars, 

and the language will say what it is for and no more. So with that, 

I would like to proceed. 

What is your pleasure? Shall we start with the Ambassador? All 

right, Mr. Ambassador, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR LINTON F. BROOKS

Ambassador BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

the Members for their support for our national security efforts. I 

have prepared some detailed written testimony I would like to submit for the record, and I would like to summarize that now. And 

I would like it if Admiral Bowman could follow me and talk about 

the Naval Reactors portion which I will not cover. 

Senator DOMENICI. On the record. 

Ambassador BROOKS. As you said in your opening statement, the 

fiscal year 2005 request totals just over $9 billion, which is a 4 percent increase over 2004 and is consistent with the long-range plan 

presented to the Congress last year. For weapons activities we’re 

seeking $6.5 billion. That will maintain the safety and reliability 

of the nuclear weapons stockpile, enhance stockpile surveillance in 

the engineering base, refurbish and extend the service life of warheads, maintain an R&D base and support the required facilities 

and infrastructure. I am pleased with the ability of the Stockpile 

Stewardship Program to certify the safety, security and reliability 

of our aging nuclear weapons and I’m pleased that we can do that 

without having to consider returning to underground nuclear testing. And, the cutting edge scientific and engineering tools that we 

are requesting in this budget will let us continue these certification 

efforts with the same kind of confidence. 

We are extending the life of several existing weapons; that lifeextension program is proceeding well. This year, we will complete 
73 

the life-extension for the W87 ICBM warhead and we expect to 

meet DOD schedules for the submarine launched ballistic missile 

W76, the B61 bomb and the W80 cruise missile. The National Ignition Facility will perform its first Stockpile Stewardship experiment this year using four of its eventual 192 laser beams. We have 

recently devised a strategy that will ensure ignition experiments 

begin in 2010 as previously planned. During the question and answer period we can explain technically why that now appears feasible. 

Our Advanced Simulation Computing Program will deliver two 

new machines, one this year, one next year, which will be the fastest computers in the world and, more importantly, will help us provide important data on the health of the stockpile. 

The Nuclear Posture Review gave infrastructure equal priority 

with offensive and defensive forces. We have two accounts in the 

budget that are essential to our ability to maintain such an infrastructure. Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities provides the 

funding to operate and maintain our facilities over the long-term. 

In contrast, there’s a Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization 

Program which is a get-well program the Congress authorized designed to eliminate maintenance backlogs this decade. We expect 

to meet our goal of eliminating those backlogs and have the socalled FIR-program go out of existence shortly after the end of the 

decade. These two programs are fixing the backlog and restoring 

the weapons complex. They’re crucial and I urge the committee to 

fully support them. 

Now, these programs will allow us to maintain the stockpile for 

the next decade. Nuclear Posture Review recognized the need over 

the long-run to design and build a Modern Pit Facility. That’s a 

poor term, it might better be called a Pit Rework Facility. It’ll support the pit remanufacturing needs of the stockpile. It’s important 

to understand we need this facility even if the United States never 

produces another nuclear weapon of any kind. All existing plutonium pits will ultimately need to be rebuilt due to aging effects 

caused by the radioactive decay of plutonium. Last year’s conference requested that we delay issuing the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement in selecting a site for the Modern Pit Facility 

pending the submission of the Revised Stockpile Plan that was referred to in several of the Members’ opening statements. This decision to delay site selection doesn’t affect our very limited efforts at 

Los Alamos to manufacture a W88 pit nor to reestablish the capability that we’ve not had in almost 15 years. We’re on schedule to 

produce a War Reserve pit for our Trident-2 missile by 2007. 

Now, I have no reason to doubt the ability of the Stockpile Stewardship Program to continue to ensure the safety, security and reliability of the enduring stockpile. But we must maintain our ability 

to carry out a nuclear weapons test in the event of some currently 

unforeseen problems that can’t be resolved by other means. Our fiscal 2005 request allows us to meet the requirements of the Defense 

Authorization Act to achieve by October 2006, a readiness to conduct an underground test within 18 months. The President has 

made it very clear we have no intention of resuming testing. Our 

plan is to improve test readiness posture, a prudent hedge against 

the possibility of a problem arising in the stockpile that can’t be 
74 

confirmed or fixed or certified without a nuclear test. I also want 

to make it clear that much of the money that we are requesting 

goes to ensure, through very detailed analysis, the absolute safety 

of any hypothetical future nuclear test. We are extremely conscious 

of our safety responsibilities and intend to ensure that if it ever becomes necessary to resume nuclear testing we can do so safely. 

ADVANCED CONCEPTS

The programs I have described let us maintain the stockpile and 

correct unforeseen problems. The Nuclear Posture Review also 

highlighted the importance of ensuring the weapons complex can 

adjust to changing requirements of nuclear deterrence in the coming decade. We’re requesting $9 million, about one-tenth of 1 percent of our budget, for research on advanced concepts and we’re requesting, as has been mentioned by several Members, $27 million 

to continue the Nuclear Earth Penetrator feasibility study. 

There’s been a great deal of discussion on the implications of 

these programs and I’d like to comment on them in a little more 

detail. Some of the discussion has been based on a misunderstanding of our intent. In his opening statement, the Ranking 

Member specifically noted one reason for that, a poorly written 

memorandum that I sent in December. I’d be delighted to submit, 

for the record, that memorandum, a criticism of it by another committee and my response, in order to make it clear that what we 

have here is poor drafting and not an attempt to thwart the will 

of the Congress. 

We intend to use our Advanced Concepts funds to investigate—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Are you going to make those a part of the 

record? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir, if I may. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes, please do. 

[The information follows:] 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC, December 5, 2003. 

PETE NANOS, 

Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

MICHAEL ANASTASIO, 

Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 

C. PAUL ROBINSON, 

President, Sandia National Laboratory. 

On November 24, 2003, President Bush signed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. Section 3116 of this law repealed the 1994 law prohibiting the Secretary of Energy from conducting research and development that could 

lead to the production of a new, low-yield nuclear weapon (i.e., Section 3136 of Public Law 103–160—the so-called PLYWD restriction). The administration had sought 

to remove this restriction because of the chilling effect it has had on nuclear weapons research and development. 

On behalf of the administration, I would like to thank you and your staff for helping to support this important effort, we are now free to explore a range of technical 

options that could strengthen our ability to deter, or respond to new or emerging 

threats without any concern that some ideas could inadvertently violate a vague and 

arbitrary limitation. (Of course, testing, acquisition or deployment of any nuclear 

weapon—low-yield or otherwise—or commencement of weapons engineering development or subsequent phases, requires authorization by Congress). 

Along these lines, I expect your design teams to engage fully with the Department 

of Defense to examine advanced concepts that could contribute to our nation’s secu-
75 

rity. Potentially important areas of such research include agent defeat and reduced 

collateral damage. 

In addition, we must take advantage of this opportunity to ensure that we close 

any gaps that may have opened this past decade in our understanding of the possible military applications of atomic energy—no novel nuclear weapons concept developed by any other nation should ever come as a technical surprise to us. 

Repeal of the PLYWD restriction on nuclear weapons research and development 

represents, in part, an endorsement by Congress of our efforts to begin to address 

the nuclear weapons stockpile in accordance with the recommendations of the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review to meet the security needs of the 21st century. We should not fail to take advantage of this opportunity. 

LINTON F. BROOKS, 

Administrator. 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC, January 22, 2004. 

The Honorable LINTON F. BROOKS, 

Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585. 

DEAR AMBASSADOR BROOKS: We are deeply concerned by the tenor and substance 

of your December 5, 2003, memorandum to the directors of the three National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) weapons laboratories. You are well aware of 

our reservations about embarking on significant new nuclear weapons design initiatives under the advanced concepts proposal, and this issue was a significant point 

of disagreement with the Senate during the Energy and Water Development conference negotiations last fall. These issues continue to command much of our attention and will do so in our consideration of the Department’s fiscal year 2005 budget 

request. 

Therefore, we were troubled to read your guidance that the weapons laboratories 

are now ‘‘free to explore a range of technical options that could strengthen our ability to deter, or respond to new or emerging threats, without any concern that some 

ideas could violate a vague and arbitrary limitation.’’ Your memo also encourages 

your ‘‘design teams to engage fully with the Department of Defense’’ and ‘‘to take 

advantage of this opportunity to ensure that we close any gaps that may have 

opened this past decades in our understanding of the possible military applications 

of atomic energy . . .’’. 

You should be very well aware of our concerns about this advanced concepts work 

on new nuclear weapons, and of the language in the fiscal year 2004 conference report for Energy and Water Development Appropriations that fences two-thirds of 

the advanced concepts funding pending submission to Congress and Congressional 

review of a revised nuclear weapons stockpile report. However, your guidance memo 

to the weapons laboratories contained no mention of this funding restriction—the 

only message conveyed to the weapons laboratories is that of unbridled enthusiasm 

for new weapons designs and for seeking new military missions for nuclear weapons. 

Having had several discussions with you on advanced concepts, we took you at 

your word that you were willing to redefine the scope of the Advanced Concepts 

work to address our concerns. Unfortunately, it is now apparent to us that those 

were hollow assurances and that the NNSA is determined to charge forward with 

unrestricted efforts on advanced nuclear weapons concepts. Nothing in your direction to the weapons researchers communicates any sense of the measured and 

thoughtful steps that must be taken by the NNSA before Congress is comfortable 

with the direction the Department is proposing. In addition, your memo also makes 

us question the sincerity of your commitment to address our concerns regarding the 

schedule and sizing of the proposed new Modern Pit Facility. 

Although we find your actions unhelpful, they are at least instructive in gauging 

the actual intent of the Advanced Concepts work proposed by the Administration; 

we will view future proposals from the Department with this memorandum in mind. 

Sincerely, 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, 

Ranking Minority Member. 

DAVID L. HOBSON, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. 
76 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC, January 27, 2004. 

The Honorable PETER J. VISCLOSKY, 

Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR MR. VISCLOSKY: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 2004, which expresses concerns over my December 5, 2003, memorandum to the Directors of the 

three National Nuclear Security Administration weapons laboratories. Your letter 

clearly conveys that, in your view, my memorandum fails to take into account the 

concerns of the Congress with regard to advanced concepts development. 

I have reviewed the memorandum in question and agree some of the wording 

could lead to misinterpretation of my intent. I regret any misunderstanding. The 

memorandum was sent to document the removal of the prohibition on conducting 

research and development that ‘‘could’’ lead to development of a new, low-yield nuclear weapon. As my memorandum stated, the removal of this provision in the fiscal 

year 2004 Defense Authorization Act allows us to explore advanced concepts without 

an artificial constraint. Repeal of this restriction was strongly supported by the 

House Armed Services Committee. 

My memorandum did not direct the conduct of specific research aimed at developing new weapons. We intend to use the advanced concept money to investigate 

new ideas, not necessarily new weapons. For example, the first two million dollars 

of the fiscal year 2004 funding will be used for examining the feasibility of adapting 

an existing weapons carrier and existing nuclear warheads to achieve a delivery system with greater assurance that the intended nuclear mission could not be compromised by either component failure or adversary attack; i.e., greater reliability for 

nuclear missions. Because the remaining funds will not be available until we have 

submitted a revised nuclear weapons stockpile report and the Congress has had 

time to review that report, we have not yet determined how the remaining funds 

will be used. We will, as my December memorandum states, be engaging closely 

with the Department of Defense on how best to use these funds. Appropriate uses 

might include examining the feasibility of improving design margins of existing warheads in order to ensure still greater reliability in the absence of nuclear testing 

or examining other features to improve safety further. 

In your letter, you expressed two additional concerns. First, you noted that I did 

not indicate that two-thirds of the advanced concepts money is fenced until we submit a revised nuclear weapons stockpile report and the Congress has had time to 

review that report. I did not include that provision because I had personally delivered to each of the laboratory directors a copy of both the bill and the committee 

report and had highlighted that provision to them. 

You also expressed doubt about the Administration’s plans with respect to the 

Modern Pit Facility. To remove any doubt on our plans, I have enclosed a draft 

press release for your consideration which will be released on Wednesday, January 

28, 2004, indicating our intent to delay issuing the final Environmental Impact 

Statement and, thus, our intent to delay identifying a preferred site for the facility. 

At the same time, I respectfully repeat what I have said in previous conversations 

on this matter which is, if the United States never develops another nuclear weapon, a Modern Pit Facility will still be required. I would welcome the opportunity to 

review my reasoning with you or to arrange a briefing with your staff. 

Finally, I want to make it absolutely clear that it was not my intent to mislead 

the Committee, and I regret any inference you may have drawn that I have done 

so. You and other members of the Subcommittee have concerns with some of the 

approaches that the Administration is advocating. Such disagreements are inherent 

in the process of developing an overall U.S. position on these important issues. I 

strongly support the President’s program for nuclear deterrence and believe that the 

proposals we have made in the nuclear area are overwhelmingly in the national interest. But, I also understand the importance of not misleading Congress. I regret 

that the wording of my December 5, 2003, memorandum may have led to the incorrect assumption that I had done so in this case. I have not. I appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention and will ensure that future correspondence does not 

lead to similar misunderstandings. 

I would be happy to discuss any of these points with you personally at your convenience. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me or C. 

Anson Franklin, Director of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. 

Sincerely, 

LINTON F. BROOKS, 

Administrator. 
77 

Ambassador BROOKS. We intend to use Advanced Concepts funds 

to investigate new ideas, not necessarily new weapons. For example, with that portion of the Advanced Concepts money which is not 

held in abeyance pending the Stockpile Plan, we will begin to examine the feasibility of adapting an existing nuclear weapon to provide a Cruise Missile capability that involves enhanced safety and 

use control. We are also looking at improving warhead design margins in order to ensure high confidence in warhead reliability. 

We’re also in discussion with the Air Force on examining the utility 

of nuclear weapons against chemical and biological agents, although we’ve made no decisions to study this area. Specific uses of 

the proposed 2005 funds will be determined jointly with the Department of Defense. 

Perhaps the single most contentious issue in our budget is continued funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study. The 

study is to determine whether existing warheads, either the B61 

bomb or the B83 bomb, could be adapted without nuclear testing 

to improve our ability to hold at risk hardened and deeply buried 

facilities. I want to make several points about this effort. 

First, there’s a clear military utility to this weapon. A classified 

Defense Department report was submitted to the Congress last 

year on this subject and remains valid. 

Secondly, despite this obvious utility to the capability, we will 

move beyond the study stage only if the President approves and if 

funds are authorized and appropriated by Congress. We included 

funds in our out-year projections only to preserve the President’s 

option. There won’t be any decision made until the study is completed. What we are asking the Congress to do this year is approve 

the continuation of the study. The law is extremely clear that beginning development and engineering requires Congressional approval and there’s no one in the administration who has any doubt 

about that feature of the law. 

Finally, even if the study shows that it’s feasible and the President decides to pursue it and the Congress decides to fund it, this 

weapon does not represent a change from our policy of deterrence. 

Deterrence requires that we be able to hold at risk something that 

an adversary values. Now, I refer you once again to the classified 

report where we and the Department of Defense speak in specific 

detail on the potential deterrent benefits of this weapon. 

As the Congress evaluates our request it’s important to understand that while there have been press accounts of administration 

plans to develop low-yield weapons, there are no such plans. Further, nothing we will do is intended to lower the nuclear threshold 

or blur the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. 

Indeed, the intent of the Nuclear Posture Review is to place greater 

emphasis on conventional weapons rather than nuclear weapons. 

I repeat, as I have said to this committee before, only the President can authorize the use of nuclear weapons and no President 

would make that decision except in the gravest of circumstances. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Let me turn now to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. We’re asking for $1.35 billion to support activities to reduce the global danger. We’re not doing this alone; our G8 partners have committed 
78 

to spend $10 billion to help decrease the global proliferation threat 

over the next 10 years. The largest program in this area involves 

the disposition of surplus U.S. and Russian plutonium. As you 

mentioned in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, one of the 

key obstacles we encountered is a disagreement with Russia regarding liability protection for plutonium disposition work performed in that country. At the present time, this disagreement has 

resulted in a 10-month delay in the start of construction of the 

Mixed Oxide, or MOX, Fuel Facility in Russia as well as the facility 

in the United States. This issue is being worked at the highest levels of the administration; the President’s 2005 budget request supports construction of both MOX facilities starting in May of next 

year and I am hopeful that we will resolve the liability issue shortly, as soon as the new Russian government is fully organized. 

Senator DOMENICI. Who is your negotiator? 

Ambassador BROOKS. The Under Secretary of State for Arms 

Control, John Bolton, has been the primary lead; the Secretary of 

State has also been involved. 

In addition to disposing of existing stocks of surplus weaponsgrade plutonium, we’re working hard to stop more from being produced by shutting down the last three plutonium production reactors in Russia and replacing them with fossil fuel plants. That will 

result in halting annual production of about 1.2 metric tons of 

weapons-grade plutonium, roughly a bomb a day. We are preparing 

preliminary designs for the fossil fuel replacement plants, and validating cost estimates and we expect to complete these designs by 

the end of the calendar year, at which time we’ll be able to provide 

the Congress with revised and firm cost estimates. 

Given recent threats to the United States, it has become increasingly clear that protecting and securing nuclear materials and detecting nuclear materials destined for the United States at foreign 

ports, airports, and border crossings is a high priority. Our budget 

request for material protection, control, and accounting, which includes our Second Line of Defense Program and our Mega-Ports 

Program, is $238 million. Of that, $15 million will go toward moving ahead with our Mega-Ports Program to train law enforcement 

officials and equip key international ports with radiation detection 

equipment. We expect to complete work at ports in Greece and The 

Netherlands by late summer in 2004. In addition, also under Material Protection, we have made a number of improvements in the security of the Russian Nuclear Navy and are now focused on improving security at Strategic Rocket Forces sites. 

In fiscal year 2005, we will assume, NNSA will assume, responsibility for the Off-site Source Recovery Project. The requested program funding is $5.5 million, with a total cost of about $40 million 

to substantially reduce the risk of source materials within the 

United States being used for radiological dispersion devices. And, 

we’re working closely with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Our budget reflects our continued support for the International 

Atomic Energy Agency and it reflects a renewed emphasis on retrieving material with weapons potential from research reactors 

worldwide. We’ve been working to secure materials in Russia and 

Eurasia for over a decade and our programs have now expanded 
79 

worldwide. We’ve worked to return both U.S.- and Russian-origin 

highly enriched uranium to convert civilian reactor cores to use 

low-enriched uranium, which is of less proliferation concern, and to 

secure and remove vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials. 

Our efforts are paying off. By the end of this year almost half of 

the 98 targeted reactors will have been converted to use low-enriched uranium fuel. In 2002, the Department assisted in the removal of vulnerable nuclear material from Yugoslavia. In 2003, we 

helped return 17 kilograms of Russian-origin highly-enriched uranium from Bulgaria, and 14 kilograms of Russian highly-enriched 

uranium from Romania. We’re now working with Libya and have 

recently helped remove highly-enriched uranium from that country 

as well. In Iraq, the Department is securing and disposing of vulnerable radiological sources. To help coordinate all this, last year 

we established a Nuclear and Radiological Threat Reduction Task 

Force to combat the threat posed by so-called dirty bombs. This 

task force is identifying and securing high risk radiological materials and developing an action plan to mitigate these vulnerabilities 

overseas. 

Senator DOMENICI. Who will lead that committee? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Mr. Longsworth will be in overall charge. 

In all this we have strengthened the security of our Nation and 

I believe we’re making the world safer. 

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Ambassador, I know you have a lot to say 

but you told us you were going to be brief. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir, I’ve got two more points to make 

and then I’ll quit, if I may. 

Senator DOMENICI. All right. 

Ambassador BROOKS. I want to just mention safeguards and security. That’s one of Secretary Abraham’s and my highest priorities. Our request includes an increase over the past to deal with 

the safeguards and security consequences of the Design Basis 

Threat and I believe that we are well on track to meet the Secretary’s guidance to have improvements in place by the end of next 

year. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Finally, let me just say that our budget is consistent with the 

President’s policy to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons. It supports continued progress in certifying our nuclear deterrent and reducing the danger from proliferation. And it will enable us to continue to maintain the safety and security of the stockpile through 

the 21st century. 

This concludes my statement. After you’ve heard from Admiral 

Bowman I’m ready for your questions, sir. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR LINTON F. BROOKS

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request 

for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This is my second appearance before this committee as the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, and 

I want to thank all of the Members for their strong support for our important national security responsibilities. 
80 

OVERVIEW

The NNSA has four fundamental and unique responsibilities for U.S. national security: 

—Stewardship of the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, 

—Reducing the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 

—Providing reliable and safe propulsion for the U.S. Navy, 

—Management of the national nuclear security complex, which includes both security for our facilities and materials to protect our employees and our neighbors, and sustaining the facilities infrastructure. 

In the fourth year of this administration, with the strong support of the Congress, 

the NNSA programs have achieved a level of stability that is required for accomplishing our long-term missions. As the post-Cold War era evolves, the NNSA is 

managing the Nation’s nuclear warheads according to the guidance in the Nuclear 

Posture Review. The Department of Energy (DOE), through the NNSA, works to assure that the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe, secure, reliable, and 

ready, and to extend the life of that stockpile in support of Department of Defense 

(DOD) military requirements. Our Nation will continue to benefit from the security 

that results from an effective nuclear deterrent, with confidence that the nuclear 

weapons complex is ready and prepared to respond rapidly and effectively if required. 

Stockpile Stewardship activities are carried out without the use of underground 

nuclear testing, continuing the moratorium initiated by the United States in 1992. 

I am pleased with the continuing ability of the Stockpile Stewardship Program to 

certify to the President, through the Annual Certification Assessment Report, the 

safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile using science-based 

judgments using cutting edge scientific and engineering tools as well as extensive 

laboratory and flight tests. We are gaining a more complete understanding of the 

stockpile each year. Computer codes and platforms developed by our Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASCI) program are now used routinely to address three-dimensional issues in weapons performance, contributing to continuing certification, 

baseline studies, as well as supporting the upcoming refurbishment workload. 

The NNSA maintains a robust infrastructure of people, programs, and facilities 

to provide specialized scientific and technical capability for stewardship of the nuclear weapons stockpile. This past year, Los Alamos National Laboratory manufactured the first certifiable W88 pit since the closure of Rocky Flats in 1989. Los Alamos remains on-track to certify a war reserve W88 pit by 2007. Also, in the past 

year, we began the irradiation of Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rods in a 

TVA reactor, restoring a key nuclear manufacturing technology. We also continue 

our facilities recapitalization effort. There is a notable improvement across the nuclear weapons complex, and NNSA is delivering on our promise to the Congress to 

stabilize our deferred maintenance in fiscal year 2005. 

The Nation continues to benefit from advances in science, technology and engineering fostered by the national security program activities, including cutting edge 

research and development carried out in partnership with many of the Nation’s colleges, universities, small businesses and minority educational institutions. The University of Rochester’s Omega laser is a key facility in NNSA’s Inertial Confinement 

Fusion program. It provides experimental capability for Stockpile Stewardship as 

well as a user facility for training tomorrow’s scientists and engineers. Overall, the 

NNSA programs, including three national laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and 

the production facilities across the United States employ nearly 2,300 Federal employees and approximately 35,000 contractor employees to carry out this work. 

In June 2002, the United States championed a new, comprehensive nonproliferation effort known as the Global Partnership. World leaders committed to raise up 

to $20 billion over 10 years to fund nonproliferation programs in the former Soviet 

Union. The NNSA contributes directly to this effort by carrying out programs with 

the international community to reduce and prevent the proliferation of nuclear 

weapons, materials and expertise. The security of our Nation and the world are enhanced by NNSA’s ongoing work to provide security upgrades for military and civilian nuclear sites and enhanced border security in Russia and the Former Soviet 

Union. In the past year, we have completed comprehensive materials protection control and accountability upgrades at 17 Russian nuclear facilities, and began efforts 

to install security upgrades at vulnerable Russian Federation Strategic Rocket 

Forces sites. With the support of the Congress, we are implementing an aggressive 

Megaports initiative to enhance global nuclear material detection at 15 major seaports shipping large volumes of container traffic to the United States. We are reducing the world’s stocks of dangerous materials such as plutonium through NNSA- 
81 

sponsored Fissile Materials Disposition programs in the United States and Russia 

as well as through elimination of Russian plutonium production. 

The Nation benefits from NNSA’s work in partnership with the Department of 

Homeland Security to develop and demonstrate new detection technologies to improve security of our cities. Perhaps the most tangible benefits to the Nation following the 9/11 terrorist attacks are the ‘‘first responder teams’’ of highly specialized 

scientists and technical personnel from the NNSA sites who are deployed across the 

Nation to address threats of weapons of mass destruction. These teams work under 

the direction of the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation to respond to nuclear emergencies in the United States and around 

the world. In the past year, these teams have provided support to such diverse 

groups and locations as New York City, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Olympic Planning 

in Athens, and the Government of Thailand. Our teams have participated in major 

training and exercise events in the United States and overseas. They have developed new capabilities, including Triage, that enables our first responders to rapidly 

determine if an item of interest includes special nuclear material in yield-producing 

quantities. 

The NNSA also works in partnership with the DOD to meet their needs for reliable and militarily effective nuclear propulsion for the U.S. Navy. In the past year, 

the Naval Reactors Program has completed 99 percent of the reactor plant design 

for the VIRGINIA-class submarine, and supported ‘‘safe steaming’’ of another 2 million miles by our nuclear-powered ships. They have continued their unsurpassed 

record of ‘‘clean up as you go’’, including remediating to ‘‘green grass’’ the former 

S1C prototype Site at Windsor, Connecticut, and completing a successful demonstration of the interim naval spent fuel dry storage capability in Idaho. 

NNSA BUDGET SUMMARY 

[In Millions of Dollars] 

Fiscal Year 

2003 

Comparable 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Original 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Adjustments 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Comparable 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 

2005 

Request 

Office of the Administrator ..................................................... 330 340 ¥3 337 334 

Weapons Activities ................................................................... 5,961 6,273 ¥39 6,234 6,568 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................ 1,224 1,328 ∂6 1,334 1,349 

Naval Reactors ........................................................................ 702 766 ¥4 762 798 

Total, NNSA ................................................................ 8,217 8,707 ¥40 8,667 9,049 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request totals $9.0 billion, an increase of $382 million 

or 4.4 percent. We are managing our program activities within a disciplined 5-year 

budget and planning envelope. We are doing it successfully enough to be able to address emerging new priorities and provide for needed funding increases in some of 

our programs within an overall modest growth rate—notably Safeguards and Security, Nuclear Weapons Incident Response, and Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization—by reallocating from other activities and projects that are concluded or 

winding down. 

The NNSA budget justification contains the required 3 years of budget and performance information, as well as similar information for 5 years as required by Sec. 

3253 of the NNSA Act, as amended (Title XXXII of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000, Public Law 106–65, 50 U.S.C. 2453). This section, entitled Future-Years Nuclear Security Program, requires NNSA to provide to Congress 

each year at the time the budget is submitted the estimated expenditures necessary 

to support the programs, projects and activities of the NNSA for a 5-fiscal-year period, in a level of detail comparable to that contained in the budget. Since the inception of NNSA, the Future Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) has been provided as a separate document supporting the budget request. Starting with this 

budget, NNSA will meet this statutory requirement by including outyear budget and 

performance information as part of a fully integrated budget submission. 
82 

FUTURE YEARS NUCLEAR SECURITY PROGRAM (FYNSP) 

[In Millions of Dollars] 

Fiscal 

Year 

2005 

Fiscal 

Year 

2006 

Fiscal 

Year 

2007 

Fiscal 

Year 

2008 

Fiscal 

Year 

2009 

Total 

Office of the Administrator ........................................................ 334 340 347 353 360 1,734 

Weapons Activities ..................................................................... 6,568 6,881 7,216 7,353 7,492 35,510 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................... 1,349 1,381 1,410 1,441 1,465 7,046 

Naval Reactors ........................................................................... 798 803 818 834 850 4,103 

Total, NNSA ................................................................... 9,049 9,405 9,791 9,981 10,167 48,393 

BUDGET AND PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

There are three areas of the NNSA budget where mission priorities require us to 

request significant increases in funding for fiscal year 2005. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY/DESIGN BASIS THREAT

Protecting NNSA people, information, materials, and infrastructure from harm or 

compromise is one of our most serious responsibilities and highest priorities. The 

fiscal year 2005 budget request for NNSA’s Safeguards and Security Program is 

$706.9 million, an increase of 21 percent over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level, that 

is needed to implement a new Design Basis Threat (DBT) at all NNSA sites and 

facilities. The Secretary of Energy issued the new DST in May 2003, as a result of 

a post-September 11 analysis of the threats against which we must protect DOE 

sites and materials across the country. Implementation plans based on vulnerability 

assessments for each of the sites are in final preparation. These will delineate the 

upgrades and associated costs plan to upgrade service weaponry, extend explosive 

impact zones, consolidate nuclear material, and make additional improvements of 

a classified nature to bring NNSA facilities into full compliance with the new DBT 

by the year 2006. The fiscal year 2005 NNSA budget includes $107.9 million ($89.6 

in Safeguards and Security and $18.3 million in Secure Transportation Asset) to address the new DBT. NNSA will shortly submit a request for fiscal year 2004 reprogramming and appropriation transfer to allow this important work to continue 

on schedule. The fiscal year 2006 funding request for DBT implementation will be 

addressed during this spring’s programming process. 

In recent months we have had some highly publicized occurrences at some NNSA 

sites. In each instance, NNSA and DOE have taken immediate and aggressive actions to address these occurrences and to ensure that any potential vulnerability is 

mitigated as soon as possible and that longer term fixes are put into place as appropriate. Because of these problems, we have chartered two external review groups 

to provide an independent assessment of our management of security. While I am 

confident that there has been no compromise of classified material and that no nuclear material is at risk, I believe security can and should be improved. The Secretary and I have both made it clear that we will not tolerate any reduction, perceived or real, in our protective force readiness or in our ability to protect the complex. Funding for Safeguards and Security in NNSA has increased over 70 percent 

during this administration, which is strong indicator of the priority we place on this 

responsibility. The Secretary and I join together in making it well known that we 

will not tolerate any reduction, perceived or real, in our protective forces and our 

abilities to protect the complex. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is essential to 

NNSA’s ability to maintain a responsive robust infrastructure. I am pleased to note 

that its mission and performance is commended in the recent preliminary assessment by the National Research Council on DOE’s facility management. The fiscal 

year 2005 budget request for FIRP is $316.2 million. This increase follows a 2-year 

period of flat funding. The request restores the program to our previously requested 

FYNSP levels; it places the program back on our previously planned schedule and 

reflects our commitment to fulfill the direction of the Congress to end the program 

by 2011. 
83 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

The third growth area in the fiscal year 2005 budget request is the Nuclear Weapons Incident Response Programs. The fiscal year 2005 request of $99.2 million reflects an increase of 11 percent over the fiscal year 2004 level, recognizing the greatly increased number of deployments of these assets within the United States and 

abroad. The long term sizing of this effort in terms of dollars and people continues 

to evolve along with its critical role in homeland security. We have relocated this 

account separately within the Weapons Activities appropriation to provide additional visibility into these programs and funding request. 

At this time, I would like to focus on the remainder of the President’s budget request for NNSA Weapons Activities including Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator accounts. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

The fiscal year 2005 budget request for the programs funded within the Weapons 

Activities appropriation is $6.568 billion, an increase of 5.4 percent over fiscal year 

2004 due largely to the increase in security and facilities infrastructure. Within 

Weapons Activities, the budget structure has been changed in response to Congressional concerns to align Directed Stockpile Work funding with individual weapon 

systems, and to highlight Nuclear Weapon Incident Response as a separate line. 

The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) guidance directed that NNSA maintain a research and development and manufacturing base that ensures the long-term effectiveness of the Nation’s stockpile; and, support the facilities and infrastructure that 

are responsive to new or emerging threats. The NPR also directed NNSA to begin 

a modest effort to examine concepts that could be deployed to further enhance the 

deterrent capabilities of the stockpile in response to the national security challenges 

of the 21st century. 

The United States is continuing work to refurbish and extend the life of the B61, 

W76 and W80 warheads in the stockpile. Within the fiscal year 2005 request of $1.4 

billion for Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), funding for the life extension programs 

increases by 7 percent to $477.4 million. This reflects the expected ramp up in the 

three systems with First Production Units scheduled in fiscal year 2006–2009, and 

the completion of life extension activities for the W87. In fiscal year 2005, DSW 

funding will support research and development of advanced weapon concepts to 

meet emerging DOD needs that will enhance the nuclear deterrent, and to ensure 

a robust and capable NNSA for the Future. The NPR highlighted the importance 

of pursuing advanced concepts work to ensure that the weapons complex can provide nuclear deterrence for decades to come. In fiscal year 2005, $9.0 million is requested to support the modest research and development effort in the Advanced 

Concepts Initiatives (ACI) to meet emerging DOD needs and to train the next generation of nuclear weapons scientists and engineers. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) is the most mature concept being studied in this program. Funds 

for the RNEP study are included in the fiscal year 2005 budget as a separate line 

item from the rest of the advanced concepts study activity. A request for $27.6 million is also included for the continuing RNEP feasibility, design definition and cost 

study. The RNEP study was requested by the Nuclear Weapons Council in January 

2002. 

The RNEP study is to determine whether either of two existing warheads—the 

B61 or the B83—can be adapted without resuming nuclear testing to improve our 

ability to hold at risk hardened, deeply buried facilities that may be important to 

a future adversary. The request for advanced concepts funding is to investigate new 

ideas, not necessarily new weapons. For example, we are currently examining the 

feasibility of adapting an existing weapons carrier and existing nuclear warheads 

to achieve a delivery system with greater assurance that the intended nuclear mission could not be compromised by either component failure or adversary attack, thus 

giving greater reliability for nuclear missions. Appropriate uses for additional work 

in advanced concepts might include examining the feasibility of warheads with improved design margins, easier manufacturing, greater longevity and improved safety. Any of these ideas would only be pursued for future development if directed to 

do so by the President and the Congress. 

Progress in other parts of the Stockpile Stewardship Program continues. The fiscal year 2005 request for Campaigns is $2.4 billion, essentially level with fiscal year 

2004. This request funds a variety of Campaigns, experimental facilities and activities that continue to enhance NNSA’s confidence in moving to ‘‘science-based’’ judgments for stockpile stewardship, and provide cutting edge technologies for stockpile 

certification and maintenance. 
84 

While there is no reason to doubt the ability of the Stockpile Stewardship Program to continue to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear deterrent, the Nation must maintain the ability to carry out a nuclear weapons test in 

the event of some currently unforeseen problems that cannot be resolved by other 

means. Within the guidance provided by the Congress, we are beginning to improve 

our readiness posture from the current ability to test within 24 to 36 months to an 

ability to test within approximately 18 months. The fiscal year 2005 budget request 

of $30 million supports achieving an 18-month readiness by September 2005. But 

let me be clear, there are no plans to test. 

National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) remains on budget and schedule. The fiscal year 2005 request of $130.0 million continues construction installation and commissioning of laser beams. Once complete 

in 2008, the 192-laser beam facility will be capable of achieving temperatures and 

pressures found only on the surface of the sun and in exploding nuclear weapons. 

We are anticipating the first Stockpile Stewardship experiments in 2004 using four 

laser beams. As a result of recent technical advances in capsule design, target fabrication and computer simulations, we expect to begin the fusion ignition campaign 

in fiscal year 2009 with a goal of achieving fusion ignition in fiscal year 2010. The 

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign request for fiscal year 2005 is 

$741.3 million, an increase of nearly 3 percent over fiscal year 2004. Working with 

IBM and Cray Research, the program expects delivery of Red Storm in fiscal year 

2004 and Purple in fiscal year 2005. These will be the world’s fastest machines, operating at 40 and 100 Teraops, respectively, and they will continue to revolutionize 

supercomputer capabilities and three-dimensional modeling. Having these machines 

on-line will begin to redress the capacity and capability issues raised in the September 2003 JASONs report required by the Congress. 

The NPR recognized a need, over the long run, for a Modern Pit Facility (MPF) 

to support the pit manufacturing needs of the entire stockpile. NNSA’s fiscal year 

2005 request for the Pit Manufacturing Campaign is $336.5 million, an increase of 

13 percent over fiscal year 2004, but with some changes since the last budget request. We delayed the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the MPF in 

order to address Congressional concerns that it is premature to pursue further decisions on an MPF at this time. The decision to delay the final EIS also delays identification of a preferred site for constructing the MPF. 

This decision will in no way affect the W88 pit manufacturing and recertification 

program underway at Los Alamos, which is reestablishing the technological base to 

manufacture pits and which thereby will inform many of the technology decisions 

which will be contained in the eventual MPF design. 

Readiness Campaigns are requested at $280.1 million in fiscal year 2005, a decrease of about 14 percent. The decrease is attributable mainly to continuing 

progress in construction of the Tritium Extraction Facility that is funded within this 

account. 

NNSA’s Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities activities operate and maintain current facilities and ensure the long-term vitality of the NNSA complex 

through a multi-year program of infrastructure construction. About $1.5 billion is 

requested for these efforts, a slight decrease from fiscal year 2004 that is attributable to a 20 percent decline in funding needed to support line-item construction 

project schedules. Three new construction starts are requested. 

In fiscal year 2005 the President’s budget provides a total of $201.3 million for 

the Office of Secure Transportation, which is responsible for meeting the Department’s transportation requirements for nuclear weapons, components, special nuclear materials and waste shipments. 

The remainder of the Weapons Activities appropriation funding is for Nuclear 

Weapons Incident Response, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization, and 

Safeguards and Security, discussed earlier in this statement. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program works to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and materials to terrorist organizations and rogue states. The administration is requesting $1.35 billion to support activities to reduce the global weapons of mass destruction proliferation threat, about a 1 percent increase over comparable fiscal year 2004 activities. This reflects a leveling off of growth in these important programs that have increased over 60 percent in the past 4 years. 

Given recent threats to the United States, it has become increasingly clear that 

protecting and securing nuclear materials and detecting nuclear and radioactive material at foreign ports, airports, and border crossings is a very high priority. The administration’s leadership in the Global Partnership is one way that we are trying 
85 

to address these issues. The fiscal year 2005 request for programs supporting the 

Partnership is $439 million. This includes a fiscal year 2005 request of $238 million 

for the International Nuclear Material Protection and Cooperation (MPC&A) Program, which supports Second Line of Defense activities and the Mega-ports Program. The Mega-ports Program was jump-started with $99 million appropriated in 

fiscal year 2003. Progress is continuing, and with the $15 million requested in fiscal 

year 2005, we will have work underway or complete at 9 of the 15 planned international ports. The $15 million in fiscal year 2005 is requested to train law enforcement officials and equip key international ports with radiation detection equipment 

to detect, deter, and interdict illicit trafficking of nuclear and other radioactive materials. We are scheduled to complete work at ports in Greece and the Netherlands 

by the summer of 2004. We have made a number of security improvements to Nuclear Navy sites in Russia and we are now focusing resources on securing Strategic 

Rocket Forces sites. In addition to this work, we are also pursuing a dialogue with 

countries we believe are of particular concern. We hope that these activities will 

lead to broader MPC&A cooperation in the coming years. 

The largest activity funded by this appropriation is the Fissile Materials Disposition program. We are working to design and build facilities to dispose of inventories 

of surplus U.S. weapons-grade plutonium and highly-enriched uranium, and supporting concurrent efforts in Russia to obtain reciprocal disposition of similar materials. 

One of the key obstacles encountered this year is a disagreement with Russia regarding liability protection for plutonium disposition work performed in that country. This has resulted in a 10-month delay in the planned start of construction of 

a MOX Facility in Russia as well as a similar facility in the United States. The liability issue is being worked at high levels of the administration. The President’s 

fiscal year 2005 budget request seeks $649 million for this program to begin construction of both the U.S. and Russian MOX facilities in May 2005, as we work to 

resolve the liability issue by this spring. Our outyear funding profiles reflect the administration’s full commitment for proceeding with plutonium disposition. 

Not only are we pursuing the disposition of weapons-grade plutonium but also we 

are working hard to stop more from being produced. NNSA has assumed the responsibility from the DOD for shutting down the last three plutonium production reactors in Russia and replacing them with fossil fuel plants by 2008 and 2011. This 

will result in the cessation of the annual production of 1.2 metric tons of weaponsgrade plutonium. Under the Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production 

Program, we have selected the Washington Group International and Raytheon Technical Services to provide oversight for Russian contractors who will actually be performing the work. The fiscal year 2005 request for this effort is $50.1 million. 

In fiscal year 2005, NNSA assumes responsibility for the Off-site Source Recovery 

Project from the Office of Environmental Management. The requested program 

funding is $5.6 million, with a projected cost of about $40 million over the next 5 

years to substantially reduce the risk of these source materials being used for radiological dispersion devices. The program works closely with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to prioritize source recovery. 

The Russian reactor safety efforts under the International Nuclear Safety Program were completed successfully in 2003. The remaining $4 million for emergency 

management and cooperation efforts was shifted to the Nonproliferation and International Security Program. These funds provide for the orderly shutdown of the BN 

350 reactor in Kazakhstan ($1.5 million) and continue activities to strengthen international emergency cooperation and communications ($2.5 million). The Accelerated 

Materials Disposition initiative was not supported by the Congress in fiscal year 

2004 and in consideration of overall NNSA priorities, is not requested in the fiscal 

year 2005 budget or outyears. 

NAVAL REACTORS

The NNSA is requesting $798 million for the Naval Reactors Program in fiscal 

year 2005, an increase of about 4 percent. This program continues to be a prime 

example of how to manage unforgiving and complex technology. The Naval Reactors 

Program provides safe and reliable nuclear reactors to power the Navy’s warships. 

It is responsible for all naval nuclear propulsion work, beginning with technology 

development, through reactor operations, and ultimately to reactor plant disposal. 

The budget increase will support 70 percent completion of the design of the next 

generation nuclear reactor on an aircraft carrier, and continue work on the Transformational Technology Core, which will deliver a significant energy increase to future submarines, resulting in greater operational ability and flexibility. The request 

includes $6.2 million for a new construction start, the Materials Development Facil-
86 

ity Building, in Schenectady, NY. The TTC facility is estimated at $20.4 million, and 

it is expected to be completed in 2008. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

NNSA is in the final implementation phase of a re-engineering effort that follows 

the principles of the President’s Management Agenda to modernize, integrate, and 

streamline operations. As a result, at the end of fiscal year 2004, NNSA will achieve 

its goal of a 15 percent reduction in Federal personnel since fiscal year 2002. It is 

likely that the Congress will receive a request for reprogramming in fiscal year 2004 

to fund the remainder of these realignment and reengineering activities. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request of $333.7 million is about 1 percent below the 

fiscal year 2004 appropriation. This reflects cost avoidance due to reduction of about 

300 positions since 2002, and no further request for incremental funding needed to 

accomplish re-engineering in NNSA HQ and field organizations. The budget request 

assumes that personnel reductions are achieved, restructuring finished, and associated employee transfers are complete at the end of fiscal year 2004. 

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (NN) and Nuclear Weapons Incident Response programs have been excluded from staff reductions due to increased program 

requirements in those areas. NNSA is not requesting a separate funding control for 

the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation because it is no longer necessary to 

assure that Federal hiring goals are met for these activities that are experiencing 

rapid mission growth. Based on hiring to date in fiscal year 2004, it is projected that 

this organization will meet or exceed its managed staffing plan goal of 244 by fiscal 

year 2005. A single funding control for the appropriation is necessary to facilitate 

NNSA’s corporate efforts to rebalance the NN’s office transition from reliance on 

support service contractors to permanent Federal staff. 

MANAGEMENT ISSUES

I would like to conclude by discussing some of NNSA’s management challenges 

and successes. We are all aware of the management difficulties that beset the weapons laboratories last year. The contractors and NNSA/DOE have made many 

changes to the laboratories’ management and reporting/oversight requirements in 

response to the problems. Soon their contracts are coming up for renewal. Secretary 

Abraham has outlined the Department’s strategy for competing the Management 

and Operating contracts for our nuclear design labs in accordance with Section 301 

of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2004 (Public 

Law 108–137). On April 30, 2003, the Secretary announced that we intend to compete the Los Alamos National Laboratory contract on a full and open basis to have 

a contract in place by September 30, 2005, when the old contract expires. 

On January 21, 2004, the Secretary reiterated his decision concerning Los Alamos 

National Laboratory. At that time, he also announced his decision to compete the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory contract, as well as three other DOE laboratories, but indicated that the precise timing and form of these competitions were 

under consideration. 

NNSA, with the concurrence of the Secretary, is establishing a Source Evaluation 

Board (SEB) for the Los Alamos competition. I have named Tyler Przybylek as the 

Chairman of that SEB and he is in the process of identifying members and advisers 

to the SEB. We see no obstacle to meeting the Secretary’s schedule for competing 

and awarding a new contract or managing Los Alamos. 

On the ‘‘success’’ side, I am proud that the Department of Energy was ranked first 

among cabinet-level agencies in the most recent scorecard to assess implementation 

of the President’s Management Agenda. The scorecard, which evaluates agency performance in the areas of human capital, competitive sourcing, financial management, e-Government, and budget/performance integration, was issued by OMB. We 

at NNSA take very seriously the responsibility to manage the resources of the 

American people effectively and I am glad that our management efforts are achieving such results. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I am confident that we are headed in the right direction. Our budget request will support continuing our progress in protecting and certifying our nuclear deterrent, reducing the global danger from proliferation and weapons of mass 

destruction, and enhancing the force projection capabilities of the U.S. nuclear 

Navy. It will enable us to continue to maintain the safety and security of our people, 

information, materials, and infrastructure. Above all, it will meet the national security needs of the United States of the 21st century. 
87 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. A statistical appendix follows that 

contains the budget figures supporting our request. My colleagues and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions on the justification for the requested budget. 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION APPROPRIATION AND PROGRAM SUMMARY 

[In Millions of Dollars] 

Fiscal Year 2003 Comparable 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 2004 

Original 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 2004 Adjustments 

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 2005 

Request 

Office of the Administrator ........................................... 330 340 ¥3 337 334 

Weapons Activities ......................................................... 5,961 6,273 ¥39 6,234 6,568 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .................................. 1,224 1,328 ∂6 1,334 1,349 

Naval Reactors .............................................................. 702 766 ¥4 762 798 

Total, NNSA ...................................................... 8,217 8,707 ¥40 8,667 9,049 

FUTURE YEARS NUCLEAR SECURITY PROGRAM (FYNSP) SCHEDULE 

[In Millions of Dollars] 

Fiscal 

Year 

2005 

Fiscal 

Year 

2006 

Fiscal 

Year 

2007 

Fiscal 

Year 

2008 

Fiscal 

Year 

2009 

Total 

Office of the Administrator ........................................................ 334 340 347 353 360 1,734 

Weapons Activities ..................................................................... 6,568 6,881 7,216 7,353 7,492 35,510 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................... 1,349 1,381 1,410 1,441 1,465 7,046 

Naval Reactors ........................................................................... 798 803 818 834 850 4,103 

Total, NNSA ................................................................... 9,049 9,405 9,791 9,981 10,167 48,393 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES APPROPRIATION 

[In Thousands of Dollars] 

Fiscal Year 2003 Comparable 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 2004 

Original 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 2004 Adjustments 

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 2005 

Request 

Weapons Activities: 

Directed Stockpile Work .............................. 1,259,136 1,340,286 ¥13,630 1,326,656 1,406,435 

Science Campaign ...................................... 260,867 250,548 ∂23,300 273,848 300,962 

Engineering Campaign ............................... 270,502 344,387 ¥79,472 264,915 242,984 

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High 

Yield Campaign ...................................... 499,230 517,269 ¥3,018 514,251 492,034 

Advanced Simulation and Computing 

Campaign ............................................... 674,453 725,626 ¥4,250 721,376 741,260 

Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign ...................................................... 261,807 298,528 ¥1,738 296,790 336,473 

Readiness Campaign .................................. 270,147 247,097 ∂81,819 328,916 280,127 

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities ......................................................... 1,480,872 1,664,235 ¥123,590 1,540,645 1,474,454 

Secure Transportation Asset ....................... 168,548 162,400 ¥948 161,452 201,300 

Nuclear Weapons Incident Response ......... 81,114 0 ∂89,167 89,167 99,209 

Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program .......................................... 235,474 240,123 ¥1,368 238,755 316,224 

Safeguards & Security ................................ 558,161 585,750 ¥3,280 582,470 706,991 

Subtotal, Weapons Activities ................. 6,020,311 6,376,249 ¥37,008 6,339,241 6,598,453 

Use of Prior Year Balances ........................ ¥29,981 ¥74,753 ¥2,000 ¥76,753 0 

Security Charge for Reimbursable Work .... ¥28,985 ¥28,985 ∂0 ¥28,985 ¥30,000 

Total, Weapons Activities ....................... 5,961,345 6,272,511 ¥39,008 6,233,503 6,568,453 
88 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION APPROPRIATION 

[In Thousands of Dollars] 

Fiscal Year 2003 Comparable 

Appropria- tion 

Fiscal Year 2004 

Original 

Appropria- tion 

Fiscal Year 2004 

Adjustments 

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable 

Appropria- tion 

Fiscal Year 2005 

Request 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation: 

Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development ....................................................................... 256,092 231,997 0 231,997 220,000 

Nonproliferation and International Security ................... 130,873 110,107 ∂3,977 114,084 124,000 

International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation .................................................................... 333,029 258,487 0 258,487 238,000 

Russian Transition Initiatives ........................................ 39,081 39,764 0 39,764 41,000 

HEU Transparency Implementation ................................ 17,118 17,894 0 17,894 20,950 

International Nuclear Safety ........................................... 33,570 3,977 ¥3,977 0 0 

Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production ... 49,221 49,735 ∂15,300 65,035 50,097 

Accelerated Material Disposition .................................... 894 0 0 0 0 

Fissile Materials Disposition .......................................... 445,528 652,818 0 652,818 649,000 

Offsite Source Recovery Project ...................................... 2,172 0 ∂1,961 1,961 5,600 

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............... 1,307,578 1,364,779 ∂17,261 1,382,040 1,348,647 

Use of Prior Year Balances ............................................ ¥84,125 ¥45,000 ¥3,000 ¥48,000 ................

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .................... 1,223,453 1,319,779 ∂14,261 1,334,040 1,348,647 

NAVAL REACTORS APPROPRIATION 

[In Thousands of Dollars] 

Fiscal Year 

2003 

Comparable 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Original 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Adjustments 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Comparable 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 

2005 

Request 

Naval Reactors Development (NRD): 

Operations and Maintenance ......................................... 666,927 723,100 ¥4,264 718,836 761,211 

Program Direction ........................................................... 24,043 26,700 ¥148 26,552 29,500 

Construction .................................................................... 11,226 18,600 ¥110 18,490 7,189 

Subtotal, Naval Reactors Development ..................... 702,196 768,400 ¥4,522 763,878 797,900 

Less Use of prior year balances .................................... 0 ¥2,000 ................ ¥2,000 0 

Subtotal Adjustments ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

Total, Naval Reactors ................................................. 702,196 766,400 ¥4,522 761,878 797,900 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR APPROPRIATION 

[In Thousands of Dollars] 

Fiscal Year 

2003 

Comparable 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Original 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Adjustments 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Comparable 

Appropriation 

Fiscal Year 

2005 

Request 

Office of the Administrator Program Direction ....................... 330,314 339,980 ¥3,154 336,826 333,700 
89 

FUNDING BY GENERAL GOAL 

[Dollars in Millions] 

Fiscal Year 

2003 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Fiscal Year 

2005 $ Change Percent Change Fiscal Year 2006 Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2009 

General Goal 1, Nuclear Weapons Stewardship: 

Directed Stockpile Work .................................................................................... $1,259 $1,327 $1,406 ∂$79 ∂6.0 $1,521 $1,648 $1,778 $1,812 Science Campaign ............................................................................................ 261 274 301 ∂27 ∂9.9 301 308 328 341 Engineering Campaign ..................................................................................... 271 265 243 ¥22 ¥8.3 268 226 284 237 ICF and High Yield Campaign .......................................................................... 499 514 492 ¥22 ¥4.3 521 535 437 441 Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign ............................................ 674 721 741 ∂20 ∂2.8 782 826 834 848 Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign ............................................... 262 297 336 ∂39 ∂13.1 324 314 155 158 Readiness Campaign ........................................................................................ 270 329 280 ¥49 ¥14.9 331 307 357 376 Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities .................................................... 1,481 1,541 1,474 ¥67 ¥4.3 1,600 1,753 1,839 1,916 Nuclear Weapons Incident Response ................................................................ 81 89 99 ∂10 ∂11.2 100 101 98 101 Secure Transportation Asset ............................................................................. 169 161 201 ∂40 ∂24.8 185 186 190 195 Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program ................................... 235 239 316 ∂77 ∂32.2 373 426 472 476 Safeguards and Security .................................................................................. 529 553 677 ∂124 ∂22.4 575 586 580 591 Office of the Administrator ............................................................................... 279 283 277 ¥6 ¥2.1 282 288 293 299 Use of PY Balances .......................................................................................... ¥30 ¥77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Goal 1, Nuclear Weapons Stewardship ............................................... 6,237 6,513 6,845 ∂332 ∂5.1 7,163 7,504 7,646 7,791 

General Goal 2, Control of Weapons of Mass Destruction: 

Nonproliferation and Verification Research & Development ............................ 256 232 220 ¥12 ¥5.2 229 235 246 248 Nonproliferation and International Security ..................................................... 131 114 124 ∂10 ∂8.8 119 120 120 120 International Nuclear Material Protection and Cooperation ............................. 333 258 238 ¥20 ¥7.8 244 250 258 260 Russian Transition Initiative ............................................................................ 39 40 41 ∂1 ∂2.5 42 43 43 44 HEU Transparency Implementation ................................................................... 17 18 21 ∂3 ∂16.7 21 21 20 20 International Nuclear Safety ............................................................................. 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production ..................................... 49 65 50 ¥15 ¥23.1 56 59 60 67 Accelerated Materials Disposition .................................................................... 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fissile Materials Disposition ............................................................................. 382 653 649 ¥4 ¥0.6 661 673 685 697 Offsite Source Recovery Project ........................................................................ 2 2 6 ∂4 ∂200.0 9 9 9 9 Office of the Administrator ............................................................................... 54 57 57 0 0 58 59 60 61 Use of PY Balances .......................................................................................... ¥20 ¥48 0 .................. .................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Goal 2, Control of Weapons of Mass Destruction .............................. 1,278 1,391 1,406 ∂15 ∂1.0 1,439 1,469 1,501 1,526 
90 

FUNDING BY GENERAL GOAL—Continued 

[Dollars in Millions] 

Fiscal Year 

2003 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Fiscal Year 

2005 $ Change Percent Change Fiscal Year 2006 Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2009 

Goal 3, Defense Nuclear Power (Naval Reactors) ..................................................... 702 762 798 ∂36 ∂4.7 803 818 834 850 

Total, NNSA ................................................................................................... 8,217 8,667 9,049 ∂382 ∂4.4 9,405 9,791 9,981 10,167 

NNSA Program Direction expenditures funded in the Office of the Administrator appropriation have been allocated in support of Goals 1 and 2. Goal 1 allocation includes Federal support for programs funded by the Weapons Activities appropriation, as well as NNSA corporate support, including Federal staffing at the site offices. Goal 2 allocation includes Federal support for all Nuclear Nonproliferation programs. Program Direction expenditures for Naval Reactors, supporting 

Goal 3, are funded within the Naval Reactors appropriation. 

FUNDING SUMMARY BY SITE 

[In Millions of Dollars] 

Fiscal Year 

2003 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Fiscal Year 

2005 Office of 

the Admin 

Fiscal Year 

2005 Weapon 

Activities 

Fiscal Year 

2005 Nuclear 

Nonprolif 

Fiscal Year 

2005 Naval 

React 

Total Fiscal 

Year 2005 

Chicago Operations Office: 

Ames Laboratory ...................................................................................................................................... 0.2 0.2 .................... .................... 0.2 .................... 0.2 Argonne Nat. Laboratory ......................................................................................................................... 24.7 19.2 .................... 1.9 20.5 .................... 22.4 Brookhaven National Laboratory ............................................................................................................. 25.4 44.5 .................... 1.6 33.3 .................... 34.9 Chicago Operations Office ...................................................................................................................... 209.5 428.4 .................... 25.2 446.3 .................... 471.5 New Brunswick Laboratory ...................................................................................................................... 1.5 1.1 .................... .................... 1.1 .................... 1.1 

Idaho Operations Office: 

Idaho National Laboratory ....................................................................................................................... 59.5 58.0 .................... .................... 2.0 56.0 58.0 Idaho Operations Office .......................................................................................................................... 1.4 1.1 .................... 1.4 .................... .................... 1.4 

Kansas City Site Office: 

Kansas City Plant ................................................................................................................................... 390.3 403.8 .................... 378.0 1.4 .................... 379.5 Kansas City Site Office ........................................................................................................................... 6.2 6.2 6.0 .................... .................... .................... 6.0 

Livermore Site Office: 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ................................................................................................ 1,048.7 1,004.1 .................... 963.3 70.4 .................... 1,033.7 Livermore Site Office ............................................................................................................................... 12.8 16.1 16.5 .................... .................... .................... 16.5 

Los Alamos Site Office: 

Los Alamos National Laboratory ............................................................................................................. 1,410.0 1,415.6 .................... 1,395.6 123.6 .................... 1,519.2 Los Alamos Site Office ............................................................................................................................ 12.0 14.6 15.9 .................... .................... .................... 15.9 

National Engineering Technology Laboratory ................................................................................................... 1.7 0.0 .................... .................... .................... .................... 0.0 
91 

NNSA Service Center: 

Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. ............................................................................................................... 2.4 1.2 .................... .................... 1.2 .................... 1.2 General Atomics ...................................................................................................................................... 10.8 11.0 .................... 13.1 0.2 .................... 13.3 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory .................................................................................................. 5.2 4.0 .................... .................... 4.1 .................... 4.1 Naval Research Laboratory ..................................................................................................................... 22.3 13.3 .................... 11.0 .................... .................... 11.0 NNSA Service Center (all other sites) ..................................................................................................... 487.8 467.2 98.7 232.2 83.4 .................... 414.4 Nonproliferation and National Security Institute .................................................................................... 0.1 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................University of Rochester/LLE .................................................................................................................... 46.8 62.6 .................... 45.5 .................... .................... 45.5 

Nevada Site Office: 

Nevada Site Office .................................................................................................................................. 104.1 92.5 17.5 45.7 7.4 .................... 70.6 Nevada Test Site ..................................................................................................................................... 247.7 285.4 .................... 282.9 1.0 .................... 283.9 

Oak Ridge Operations Office: 

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Engineering .................................................................................. 7.8 8.8 .................... 7.1 .................... .................... 7.1 Oak Ridge National Laboratory ............................................................................................................... 110.6 95.8 .................... 7.5 136.9 .................... 144.4 Office of Science and Technical Information ......................................................................................... 0.1 0.1 .................... 0.1 .................... .................... 0.1 Y–12 Site Office ...................................................................................................................................... 9.6 16.3 11.7 .................... .................... .................... 11.7 Y–12 National Security Complex ............................................................................................................ 734.3 728.2 .................... 727.0 61.0 .................... 788.0 

Pantex Site Office: 

Pantex Plant ............................................................................................................................................ 413.0 431.1 .................... 463.5 10.3 .................... 473.8 Pantex Site Office ................................................................................................................................... 9.9 10.8 11.6 .................... .................... .................... 11.6 

Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office: 

Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory .............................................................................................................. 351.6 396.2 .................... .................... .................... 401.2 401.2 Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office ........................................................................................................... 7.8 8.2 .................... .................... .................... 8.7 8.7 

Richland Operations Office: 

Richland Operations Office ..................................................................................................................... 0.4 0.8 .................... 1.3 .................... .................... 1.3 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory ................................................................................................... 132.5 85.6 .................... 4.4 70.1 .................... 74.5 

Sandia Site Office: 

Sandia National Laboratories ................................................................................................................. 1,306.8 1,376.7 .................... 1,167.7 144.3 .................... 1,312.0 Sandia Site Office ................................................................................................................................... 8.6 12.1 12.5 .................... .................... .................... 12.5 

Savannah River Operations Office: 

Savannah River Operations Office .......................................................................................................... 14.0 26.5 .................... .................... 32.4 .................... 32.4 Savannah River Site Office ..................................................................................................................... 3.5 3.1 2.9 .................... .................... .................... 2.9 Savannah River Site ............................................................................................................................... 305.3 303.3 .................... 238.9 55.5 .................... 294.4 

Schenectady Naval Reactors Office: 

Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory .............................................................................................................. 269.5 282.0 .................... .................... .................... 308.2 308.2 Schenectady Naval Reactors Office ........................................................................................................ 6.3 6.7 .................... .................... .................... 7.0 7.0 

Washington DC Headquarters .......................................................................................................................... 501.3 688.2 137.9 577.5 41.9 13.8 771.1 Other ................................................................................................................................................................. 5.7 7.0 2.4 .................... .................... 3.0 5.4 

Subtotal, NNSA ................................................................................................................................... 8,360.4 8,842.0 333.7 6,598.5 1,348.6 768.4 9,078.7 
92 

FUNDING SUMMARY BY SITE—Continued 

[In Millions of Dollars] 

Fiscal Year 

2003 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Fiscal Year 

2005 Office of 

the Admin 

Fiscal Year 

2005 Weapon 

Activities 

Fiscal Year 

2005 Nuclear 

Nonprolif 

Fiscal Year 

2005 Naval 

React 

Total Fiscal 

Year 2005 

Adjustments ..................................................................................................................................................... ¥143.5 ¥176.2 0.0 ¥30.0 0.0 0.0 ¥30.0 

Total, NNSA ......................................................................................................................................... 8,216.9 8,665.8 333.7 6,568.5 1,348.6 768.4 9,048.7 
93 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL FRANK L. BOWMAN

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. Are you next, Admiral? 

Admiral BOWMAN. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Please proceed. 

Admiral BOWMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, as you said, Mr. 

Chairman, maybe one last time before this committee in my last 

8 years as Director of Naval Reactors. 

Sir, with your permission I would like to submit a detailed statement for the record. 

Senator DOMENICI. Please do. 

Admiral BOWMAN. And also the normal environmental, radiation 

and occupational safety health reports. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The reports referenced above will be retained in 

committee files.] 

Admiral BOWMAN. Let me begin by thanking you and the committee for the support you’ve continued to provide the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, and Senator Domenici, especially, on a 

personal note, your support of me and my program for these years. 

Many of the impressive capabilities of our nuclear-powered ships 

were developed with funding that was supported by you. As you 

know, nuclear propulsion provides the mobility, the flexibility and 

the endurance that today’s Navy needs to meet a growing number 

of important missions with fewer and fewer ships. 

Today our 10 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers continue to be the 

centerpiece of U.S. military presence worldwide in support of our 

interests and commitments. In war they deliver strike sorties, protect friendly forces and engage in sustained combat operations. 

Our 54 operational attack submarines are the envy of navies 

around the world. Because of their stealth, endurance, mobility, 

firepower and multi-mission flexibility they guarantee access to the 

world’s oceans and littorals, monitor those who may act counter to 

our interests and conduct reconnaissance in preparation for conflict. In the event of hostilities they conduct Tomahawk strike missions, deploy and support special operations forces, and destroy 

enemy ships and diesel submarines. 

Our 14 Trident ballistic missile submarines, down from 18 as a 

result of the last NPR, are the most survivable and efficient leg of 

our strategic deterrent arsenal and continue to represent a cornerstone of our national security. 

And then finally, the deep-diving, nuclear-powered research submarine, NR–1, provides unique military mission support to the 

Navy and valuable oceanographic research to the scientific community. 

When I testified before this committee last year, Mr. Chairman, 

our Armed Forces had been engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom 

for 3 weeks. I reported then that our nuclear-powered warships 

were playing a leading role in combat operations. My written, detailed statement reports more details of the superb performance of 

our ships and their crews. Today our nuclear-powered fleet is deployed around the world, protecting our interests, deterring aggression and continuing to fight terrorism. At the center of this new 
94 

surge Navy, our nuclear-powered warships are ready for any and 

all missions our Nation’s leaders may direct. 

As we look to the near future, the first of the Virginia-class attack submarines will be delivered this summer, remarkably close 

to the schedule established over a decade ago. You recall that the 

operational requirements document for that Virginia-class was approved some 4 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. As such, the 

Virginia-class is the first submarine designed specifically for postCold War missions. It’s designed to prevail in both the littorals and 

the open ocean. 

Our work also continues on the design of the nuclear propulsion 

plant for the CVN–21, the next generation class of aircraft carriers. 

The modern technologies of this design will enable increased war 

fighting capability and operational availability with lower life cycle 

costs. 

We’re also continuing work on the Transformational Technology 

Core (TTC). It will use new core materials, new reactor materials, 

to achieve a greater energy density, more energy in the reactor 

without increasing the size, weight or space and at a reasonable 

cost for future Virginia-class submarines. That TTC core is a direct 

outgrowth of the Programs advanced reactor technology work, 

funded by this committee. It will also be a stepping stone for future 

reactor development. 

Though new designs are important, Naval Reactors’ number one 

priority is ensuring that the men and women at sea defending our 

Nation are operating safe, effective and reliable nuclear propulsion 

plants. Most of Naval Reactors’ funding is devoted to this. 

With your vital support, I’m confident we will continue to build 

on our success. Naval Reactors’ fiscal year 2005 DOE budget request is for about $798 million, an increase of 3 percent after inflation compared to fiscal year 2004. The funding increase mainly 

supports the continued development of the Transformational Technology Core. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, as the Director of Naval Reactors for the last 71⁄2

years, I can assure you that the ongoing support of your committee 

is one of the most important factors in our success story. The 

unique capabilities inherent in nuclear power have played a vital 

role in our Nation’s defense over the past 50 years. This legacy is 

as strong and vibrant today as ever. Our Navy continues to face 

a growing need for power projection and forward presence far from 

home, which places even greater demands on our nuclear fleet. 

With your continued support Naval Reactors’ success will continue 

far into the future. Our record is strong, the work is important, and 

the funding needs have been very carefully scrubbed by me personally. 

Mr. Chairman, other members of the committee, I thank you 

very much for your continued support. 

[The statement follows:] 
95 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL FRANK L. BOWMAN

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on Naval Reactors’ Fiscal Year 2005 

Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration budget request in 

what will be my last of 8 years as Director, Naval Reactors. 

Let me also thank you for the faith you continue to demonstrate in the Naval Reactors Program. Through your steadfast support, our nuclear fleet remains deployed 

around the world today, prosecuting the Global War on Terrorism while protecting 

our interests and deterring aggression. Nuclear propulsion continues to prove itself 

essential by providing the flexibility, speed, endurance, and multimission capability 

required for the United States Navy to meet its global commitments. The nuclear 

propulsion plants, developed with funding supported by this subcommittee, enable 

many of the impressive capabilities our nuclear-powered ships possess. Let me begin 

by discussing the capabilities and accomplishments of the nuclear-powered Fleet— 

the Program’s principal product. 

TODAY’S NUCLEAR-POWERED FLEET

Our nuclear fleet includes 10 of our Nation’s 12 aircraft carriers, each of them 

providing 41⁄2 acres of sovereign U.S. territory from which we can rapidly begin and 

sustain continuous combat operations, without having to negotiate basing rights 

on—and overflight rights across—foreign soil. Nuclear power enhances the capability of these warships to surge and to sprint where needed and arrive on station 

ready for round-the-clock power projection and other combat operations. Sustained 

high-speed capability enables a rapid response to world circumstances, giving the 

Combatant Commanders the ability to surge these ships from one crisis to the next 

without dependence on slower fleet tankers. 

Our 54 operational attack submarines (SSN’s) possess the inherent characteristics 

of stealth, endurance, mobility, firepower, and multimission flexibility. They provide 

guaranteed access to the world’s oceans and littorals, monitor those who may act 

counter to our interests, and conduct reconnaissance in preparation for conflict. Our 

SSN’s can covertly monitor an adversary’s actions without the risk of political or 

military escalation—a particularly valuable capability since adversaries understand 

and can sometimes avoid other methods of reconnaissance. If tensions escalate, 

these SSN’s can provide Tomahawk strikes or deliver special operations forces from 

their undisclosed locations without warning, inside an adversary’s defensive umbrella. Our ‘‘high-tech’’ SSN’s make our Navy the envy of other navies throughout 

the world. 

This summer, the Navy will deliver the first-of-the-class USS VIRGINIA to the 

Fleet, close to the shipyard’s schedule that was established over a decade ago. Floatoff and christening occurred in August 2003 and the reactor was taken critical for 

the first time on January 27, 2004. Final construction work is being completed, and 

shipboard acceptance testing is ongoing. When the reactor went critical for the first 

time, the actual control rod position was virtually the same as predicted by our 

analysis over 6 years ago—within 0.2 percent. 

The VIRGINIA Class Operational Requirements Document, approved in September 1993, called for the ship to be the first nuclear-powered submarine designed 

for post-Cold War missions. Specifically, VIRGINIA is built to dominate the littorals 

without sacrificing undersea dominance in the open ocean. In a single platform, the 

VIRGINIA class will combine a unique mix of stealth, endurance, agility, and firepower to fulfill vital national security roles, even in areas denied to other U.S. assets. There are nine follow-on VIRGINIA-class submarines under contract, five of 

which are in the multiyear contract authorized by Congress last year. 

The remaining ships in the nuclear fleet include 14 strategic ballistic missile submarines (SSBN’s), four former SSBN’s being converted to guided missile/multimission submarines (SSGN’s), and one deep submergence vehicle (NR–1). Our 14 TRIDENT ballistic missile submarines are the survivable leg of our strategic deterrent 

arsenal and therefore provide the cornerstones of our national security at the lowest 

cost. The four TRIDENT submarines now undergoing conversion to SSGN’s will exploit the submarine’s tremendous mission volume and 22 large interfaces with the 

sea to deploy futuristic payloads and special operations forces. These multi-mission 

stealth platforms will provide the combatant commanders with littoral warfare and 

land-attack capabilities that will be truly transformational. The deep-diving, nuclear-powered research submarine NR–1 provides unique military mission support 

to the Navy and valuable oceanographic research to the scientific community. 

Now I’d like to discuss our work in a little more detail. Naval Reactors’ No. 1 priority has always been and continues to be providing safe, effective, and reliable nuclear propulsion to the men and women who are at sea, defending our national interests. Most of our funding goes to that purpose. 
96 

Today, Naval Reactors supports 104 reactor plants (one more than the number 

of commercial reactors in the United States) in 83 nuclear-powered warships, the 

NR–1, and 4 training and test reactor plants. The ships are welcomed in more than 

150 ports of call in more than 50 countries. In all, we have operated safely for more 

than 5,500 reactor years and steamed over 130 million miles. 

Naval Reactors’ technical support for these ships is more important than ever. 

Today, the average age of a nuclear-powered warship in our Navy is 18 years, but 

it will increase to more than 24 by 2012. As these ships age, the technical work necessary to maintain their performance places a greater demand on Naval Reactors’ 

DOE budgets. This challenge is my primary concern. As I said earlier, your support 

remains vital, and I am confident we will continue to build on our successes. 

On March 8 of this year, the Secretary of Energy assigned to Naval Reactors a 

project to develop, design, deliver, and operationally support a civilian nuclear reactor for space exploration missions under NASA’s Project Prometheus. Since this 

work is exclusive of our core naval nuclear propulsion work and is assigned as a 

DOE civilian project to NR, NASA will budget for and fund this work throughout 

the effort. Our initial work will begin this year to establish a working relationship 

with our new partners at NASA and to define the elements of the reactor design. 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET REQUEST

Naval Reactors’ fiscal year 2005 DOE budget request is $797.9 million, an increase of about 3 percent (after inflation) compared to fiscal year 2004. One of the 

major activities enabled by this modest increase is continued development of the 

Transformational Technology Core. Additionally, this increase supports continuing 

development of a production-line system for the preparation of dry storage of spent 

nuclear fuel. This production-line system is needed to meet a court-ordered obligation to move all spent fuel stored in Idaho into dry storage by 2023 and to be among 

the early shipments of fuel to the national spent fuel repository. Finally, this increase supports ongoing facility upgrades at Program sites. 

The majority of the Naval Reactors fiscal year 2005 DOE budget request funds 

our work in sustaining 104 operational reactors. This work involves continual testing, analysis, and monitoring of plant and core performance especially as these 

plants age. The nature of our business demands a careful, measured approach to 

developing and verifying nuclear technology; designing needed components, systems, 

and processes; and implementing them in existing and future plant designs. Demanding engineering challenges and long lead times to fabricate the massive, complex components require many years of effort before technological advances can be 

introduced into the Fleet. 

Most of this work is accomplished at Naval Reactors’ DOE laboratories. These laboratories have made significant advancements in extending core lifetime, developing 

robust materials and components, and creating an array of predictive capabilities. 

These advancements allowed the Navy to extend the service life and intervals between major maintenance periods for nuclear-powered warships to reduce ship offline time for maintenance. Increasing ship availability also increases the Navy’s 

warfighting capabilities and supports the Navy’s ability to surge when needed. 

For example, a recent Navy decision to delay a major overhaul and refueling of 

the aircraft carrier, USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70), was made possible in part by 

our continual monitoring of core performance and subsequent analysis to establish 

that the ship had sufficient nuclear fuel remaining to safely operate during this extended period. This decision enabled the Navy to fund nearer term priorities without adversely impacting the Fleet. 

New plant development work at the Program’s DOE laboratories is focused on 

continuing the reactor design for the CVN–21 aircraft carrier. Design for the CVN– 

21 nuclear propulsion plant is well underway. CVN–21 is the first new aircraft carrier designed since the 1960’s NIMITZ class. The CVN–21 reactor plant will build 

on technology developed for the three generations of submarines designed since 

NIMITZ. Compared to the NIMITZ-class propulsion plant, the CVN–21 propulsion 

plant will provide three times the electrical generation and distribution capacity, 

and will require about 50 percent fewer Reactor Department personnel. This modern 

technology will enable increased warfighting capability and operational availability, 

while lowering life-cycle costs. 

Another aspect of DOE laboratories’ development work is the Transformational 

Technology Core (TTC). The TTC is a direct outgrowth of the Program’s advanced 

reactor technology work. The TTC will use new core materials to achieve a significant increase in core energy density (that is, more energy in the core without increasing reactor size, weight, or space). The TTC will be forward-fitted into the VIRGINIA-class submarines, which will be the mainstay of the submarine fleet for fu-
97 

ture decades, without the need to redesign the ship. The importance of TTC is becoming more evident as we depend on our SSN’s more in the current national security environment. The goal is to achieve at least a 30 percent increase in energy. 

We are also prudent stewards of the environment. The four prototype reactors at 

the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) in Idaho are defueled and in an environmentally 

benign, safe layup condition; site and reactor plant dismantlement work is planned 

for future years. The two shutdown prototype reactors at the Kesselring site in New 

York have been inactivated and defueled, and major dismantlement work was completed in fiscal year 2003. Other dismantlement work at Kesselring Site is continuing. Dismantlement work and unrestricted radiological release at the Windsor 

site in Connecticut are complete, and approval from the EPA and the State for 

chemical release for unrestricted future use and property transfer is expected later 

this year. 

NAVAL REACTORS FISCAL YEAR 2005 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET DETAIL

Naval Reactors’ technical budget request is categorized into four areas of technology: Reactor Technology and Analysis; Plant Technology; Materials Development 

and Verification; and Evaluation and Servicing. This approach supports the integrated and generic nature of our DOE research and development work. The results 

of Naval Reactors’ DOE-funded research, development, and design work in the following technology areas will be incorporated into future ships and retrofitted into 

existing ships. 

—The $232.1 million requested for Reactor Technology and Analysis will continue 

work on the design for the new reactor for CVN–21. These efforts also support 

a portion of the design of the TTC, a new high-energy core that is a direct outgrowth of the Program’s advanced reactor technology work. TTC will support 

national security demands by providing additional energy for one or a combination of: 

—Extended ship life, 

—More operating hours per operating year, 

—Higher ship transit speed, 

—Increased available energy to enable future innovations, such as the ability 

to recharge off-board undersea and air autonomous vehicles, or any other use 

for energy yet to be conceived. 

The increasing average age of our existing reactor plants, along with future 

extended service lives and reduced maintenance periods, place a greater emphasis on our work in thermal-hydraulics, structural mechanics, fluid mechanics, 

and vibration analysis. These factors, along with longer-life cores, mean that for 

years to come, both the reactor plants and the reactor cores will be operating 

beyond our previously proven experience base. To counter this, our improved 

analysis tools and understanding of basic nuclear data will allow us to predict 

performance more accurately and thereby better ensure safety and reliability 

throughout the extended life. 

—The $155.5 million requested for Plant Technology provides funding to develop, 

test, and analyze components and systems that transfer, convert, control, and 

measure reactor power in a ship’s power plant. Reactor plant performance, reliability, and safety are maintained through a full understanding of component 

performance and system condition over the life of each ship. The request supports both the goal of enhancing steam generator performance and the goal of 

reducing lifecycle costs by eliminating the need for expensive inspection and 

maintenance. In addition, development work for improving VIRGINIA steam 

generator performance is needed for the plant to exploit the additional energy 

available from the TTC. Naval Reactors is developing components to address 

known limitations or to improve reliability of instrumentation and power distribution equipment by replacing obsolete equipment that is increasingly difficult to support. Additional technology development in the areas of chemistry, 

energy conversion, plant arrangement, and plant components will continue to 

improve reactor performance and support Fleet operational requirements. 

—The $150.8 million requested for Materials Development and Verification funds 

material analyses and testing to provide the high-performance materials necessary to ensure that naval nuclear propulsion plants meet Navy goals for extended warship operation and greater power capability. More explicitly, materials in the reactor core and reactor plant must perform safely and reliably for 

the extended life of the ship. Testing and analyses are performed on the fuel, 

poison, and cladding materials to verify acceptable performance, as well as to 

develop materials with increased corrosion resistance and lifetime capability. 

Testing and development of reactor plant materials also leads to improvements 
98 

such as more resilient materials that we are incorporating into our newest designs. 

Funds in this category also support a portion of Naval Reactors’ work at the 

Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), a specialized materials testing facility operated 

by the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology that we use to 

test reactor core and plant materials specimen. The specimen are subsequently 

examined at the Expended Core Facility (ECF) at NRF or the Radioactive Materials Laboratory at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory to obtain data used to support both core and plant materials development. This enhanced knowledge of 

materials performance has been key to technical breakthroughs in extending 

core life. Although Naval Reactors is not responsible for ATR, it is important 

to our continued efforts to understand material behavior. ATR is more than 35 

years old now, and I understand that the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Science and Technology has identified a need for increased funding to keep 

it viable for years to come. I support this funding. —The $172.0 million requested for Evaluation and Servicing sustains the operation, maintenance, and servicing of land-based test reactor plants and part of 

Naval Reactors’ share of ATR operations. Reactor core and reactor plant materials, components, and systems in these plants provide important research and 

development data and experience under actual operating conditions. These data 

aid in predicting and subsequently preventing problems that could develop in 

Fleet reactors. With proper maintenance, upgrades, and servicing, the two operating test reactor plants and the ATR will continue to meet testing needs for 

quite some time. 

Evaluation and Servicing funds also support the implementation of a dry 

spent fuel storage production-line that will allow us to put naval spent fuel currently stored in water pits at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering 

Center and at ECF into dry storage. Additionally, these funds support ongoing 

cleanup of facilities at all Naval Reactors sites to minimize hazards to personnel 

and reduce potential liabilities due to aging facilities or changing conditions. 

PROGRAM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

In addition to the budget request for the important technical work discussed 

above, infrastructure and administrative funding is required for continued support 

of the Program’s operation and infrastructure. Specifically, the fiscal year 2005 

budget request includes: 

Facility Operations.—Fifty-point-eight million dollars are requested to maintain 

and modernize the Program’s facilities, including the Bettis and Knolls laboratories 

and ECF, through Capital Equipment purchases and General Plant Project upgrades. 

Construction.—Seven-point-two million dollars are requested to refurbish and replace Program facilities. This includes funding for the construction of the ECF Dry 

Cell project in Idaho, a project that will significantly improve Naval Reactors’ ability 

to process naval spent fuel for dry storage. The requested funding also supports construction of a replacement industrial facility building at the Knolls Atomic Power 

Laboratory to consolidate non-irradiated material development fabrication and characterization (i.e., determining material properties) activities, which are currently located in five separate, aging buildings. 

Program Direction.—Twenty-nine-point-five million dollars are requested to fund 

Naval Reactors’ DOE personnel at Headquarters and the Program’s field offices, including salaries, benefits, travel, and other expenses. This staff maintains oversight 

of the Program’s extensive day-to-day technical and administrative operations, while 

continuing to ensure compliance with environmental, safety, and other regulatory 

requirements—all of which, notwithstanding our excellent record, necessitate substantial effort. 

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS, GOALS, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Naval Reactors has a long history of operating with the highest levels of integrity 

and operational accountability. The Naval Reactors Program has always been dedicated to continual improvement. We use semiannual reviews of short and long-range 

plans to adjust and refine work priorities. Work is broken up into thousands of discrete ‘‘deliverables,’’ each assigned to an individual responsible for completion of the 

task on schedule. Monthly financial reports from contractors are used to compare 

actual performance against projected performance. Additionally, Naval Reactors 

Headquarters closely oversees its management and operating contractors through 

periodic reviews, formal audits, performance appraisals, and close integration with 

our resident field offices. 
99 

For the fiscal year 2003 end-of-year performance results, my Program met or exceeded all major performance targets. We ensured the safety, performance, reliability, and service life of operating reactors for uninterrupted support of the Fleet. 

We exceeded 90 percent utilization availability for our training and test reactor 

plants. As of today, U.S. nuclear-powered warships have safely steamed over 130 

million miles. Naval Reactors developed new technologies, methods, and materials 

to support reactor plant design, which included attaining the fiscal year 2003 goal 

of 99 percent design completion of the next-generation submarine reactor. We continued design of the propulsion plant for the next-generation aircraft carrier, which 

is on schedule to meet the planned ship construction start in fiscal year 2007. Additionally, Naval Reactors maintained its outstanding radiation protection program 

and its environmental performance: no Program personnel have ever exceeded the 

applicable annual or lifetime Federal limits for radiation exposure, and Program operations had no adverse impact on health or on the quality of the environment. 

Naval Reactors has met or expects to meet or exceed all fiscal year 2004 performance targets, which are to achieve 90 percent utilization availability for operation 

of our training and test reactor plants; to safely steam on nuclear power about 2 

million more miles; to complete the next-generation submarine reactor design 

deliverables (design is complete); to complete 60 percent of the CVN–21 reactor 

plant design; to have no personnel exceed the annual Federal limit for radiation exposure; and to have no adverse impact on human health or the quality of the environment. 

CONCLUSION

The ongoing support of the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on 

Energy and Water Development is one of the most important factors in our success 

story. The subcommittee has recognized the requirements and demands the Program confronts daily: a continuing need for power projection and forward presence 

far from home, which strains our limited number of nuclear ships; an aging nuclear 

fleet; and the funding required to meet these commitments today and in the future. 

The unique capabilities inherent in nuclear power have played a vital role in our 

Nation’s defense over the past 50 years. With your support, this legacy will continue 

far into the future as the Nation meets each new threat with strength and resolve. 

Naval Reactors’ record is strong, the work important, the funding needs modest. 

Thank you for your support. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well Admiral, I’ll just tell you the truth. We 

serve around here as elected officials and we meet people who give 

their lives to the government and do services for our people. And 

sometimes we run into some that we do not know what to tell them 

in terms of how much we appreciate them. We use the typical 

words but they are not enough. But we really think the United 

States Navy’s use of nuclear power is one of the most fantastic 

achievements of mankind. And when they have done it since Nautilus without one single nuclear mistake and have had as high as 

123, I think, nuclear reactors floating around the oceans of the 

world, it is tremendous. And you are in charge of that and you 

made it go along just like it had been, or better. We do not need 

any accolades or thanks from you because they all run the other 

direction. 

Admiral BOWMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Now, who is next? The other two do not need 

to testify? 

Ambassador BROOKS. No sir, that’s why I was so long, I was 

doing for all three of us. 

Senator DOMENICI. All right. Well, I am going to ask a few questions and yield to you two Senators and if we do not finish we will 

submit the rest of them. 
100 

ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR

Mr. Brooks, I do not have this question written up but I would 

like you to do something again for me. I have been a budgeteer, 

until this year, part of the budget process for 28 years, Chairman 

10 times, maybe. Now, you are asking us to approve how much 

money for the research on the penetrating warhead? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Twenty-seven-point-five million dollars. 

Senator DOMENICI. Now, the Senator from California says that 

you have $500 and some million. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Four-hundred-and-eighty-four. 

Senator DOMENICI. Four-hundred-and-eighty-four million dollars 

that you are going to spend and she says that is why she will not 

vote for it, among the reasons, because that is what you are going 

to spend, that is what you are going to do. Tell me why that number is in there at all. 

Ambassador BROOKS. One of the things we tried to do starting 

3 years ago was to get to true 5-year budgeting so that when we 

submitted a budget to the Congress we submitted a 5-year plan 

that really meant something. That’s important for the Congress 

and it was also important for us because otherwise you would start 

things that you couldn’t finish. When we prepared this 5-year plan 

we had no idea, and we don’t know now, whether the research will 

show this is feasible or whether the President will decide to pick 

it up. But if he does, we wanted to have the wedge to support the 

funding in the out-years. So we put the money in there because it 

was our interpretation of the right thing to do in terms of making 

sure the Congress knew the implication of the research that we 

were doing and making sure that if the President did so choose, 

after the completion of the study, that we had preserved his options financially. It was not intended to suggest that we made a decision, let alone that we think that you’ve made a decision. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well I’ll tell you, Mr. Ambassador, you get hit 

both ways. If you leave it out somebody says you are underselling 

the program and it costs a lot more than 27 or 24. And if you put 

it in as the outside you get beat over the head because that is what 

you are going to spend. But we have to figure out a way, in the 

next 5 or 6 weeks, 7, to make the case that putting that number 

in does nothing with reference to this program in terms of its future, that its future is capsulized in the funding as described to be 

used that you ask for right now. I am willing, in this bill, to fight 

it out. If we lose, we lose, if we win, I am willing to put any kind 

of language in that says that is it. There is no other expenditure. 

You do it and no more. And before you do anymore you must get 

concurrence. Now, that is all right with you, right? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. That’s completely what the law 

says. 

NIF

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. Now, let me move to Dr. Beckner. I understand, Dr. Beckner, that NIF is still at least 6 years and $1 billion away from completion of this project. Is it accurate to say that 

NIF is both the largest laser and the most expensive diagnostic tool 
101 

in the NNSA stockpile? When we develop any technology, we need 

to ask ourselves, is this outcome worth the cost? Right? 

Dr. BECKNER. A fair question. 

Senator DOMENICI. If you do not achieve ignition, the American 

people have purchased a laser that is 25 times more expensive 

than the Z Machine, which proved its worth 1 year too late. It came 

into existence one year after we started funding NIF. It is proceeding along as a much cheaper machine but I think we need to 

understand that the project is viable before we spend billions more 

on the life of this program. 

So my question to you, how much money are you willing to spend 

above ignition? Excuse me, how much money are you willing to 

spend to achieve ignition and at what point do you say, we have 

spent too much? 

Dr. BECKNER. Our present plan shows the expenditures out 

through the year 2010 in the budget that we’ve submitted, and it’s 

close to a billion dollars, as you’ve said. I believe we need to get 

to that point in order to, in any sense, have a chance at achieving 

ignition. You can’t do it with a smaller laser, based on everything 

that we know today. That’s only part of the answer, however. The 

second part really is that absent ignition, we require this laser for 

a large number of applications that are specific to the sustenance 

and the study of phenomena associated with nuclear weapons 

themselves. In other words, it is a very significant element of 

Stockpile Stewardship. Ignition, of course, is important, make no 

mistake about it, and we will use it aggressively to achieve that 

goal. But we do have this additional reason to need NIF. And I 

don’t want us to forget that. 

Senator DOMENICI. Do you mean for the Stockpile Stewardship? 

Dr. BECKNER. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well of course, that is why we put it in there. 

Dr. BECKNER. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. But if it does not work it does not matter 

where we put it, right? 

Dr. BECKNER. Well, there are many things you can do with a 

laser without achieving ignition, that’s my point. We will use it for 

those other things. 

Senator DOMENICI. But will those help with Stockpile Stewardship? 

Dr. BECKNER. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. And would we need $5 or $6 billion to achieve 

that? 

Dr. BECKNER. No, I think we would not have embarked upon this 

mission if we did not believe we had a reasonable opportunity to 

achieve ignition. 

Senator DOMENICI. Ignition. 

Dr. BECKNER. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. So let me go on. If the 2005 budget specifies 

that NIF ignition has been delayed until 2014, that gives me great 

concern regarding the project. Delaying the ignition start date is 

contrary to news that the project is ahead of schedule. I understand that the laser installation is 18 months ahead of schedule 

and the beam light infrastructure was achieved nearly 3 years 

ahead of schedule. As a result of these conflicting statements, I am 
102 

very skeptical as to the actual status of NIF. To date, $2.5 billion 

has been spent and another billion required before we know whether or not this project will work. I do not share this all or nothing 

attitude because the costs are very high and the budget is very 

slim. So I believe we need a more measured approach to address 

the significant technical measures and technical challenges that lie 

ahead. 

George Miller, the NIF Associate Director, is he here today? 

Dr. BECKNER. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator DOMENICI. Is he still doing this job? 

Dr. BECKNER. Yes he is. 

Senator DOMENICI. Did he move out there? 

Dr. BECKNER. Yes. George is an employee of Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, whoever sees him, give him my regards. 

Thank you. 

Dr. BECKNER. I’ll do that. 

Senator DOMENICI. Terrific guy. He is the Associate Director, he 

stated that the most significant technical challenge he has is the 

full ignition of the lasers. I believe the first cluster, which is 48 lasers, or one-quarter of the total, would certainly give a clear indication of whether ignition is feasible. Is that what you think? 

Dr. BECKNER. I believe it’s more complicated than that. 

Senator DOMENICI. You what? 

Dr. BECKNER. It’s more complicated than that. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. 

Dr. BECKNER. Let me back up to your earlier statement. First of 

all, I’ve met with the staff of this committee as well as the other 

three committees to clarify our recent decisions to change course on 

some of the milestones in order to pull back the ignition target to 

2010, as opposed to 2014. And we’ve done that because of our realization that this committee and the other committees as well have 

a very strong view that we must maintain that schedule. We had 

allowed it to move out because of priorities in other elements of the 

program and without the full understanding that this was unacceptable. So we have changed that plan and we’ve done it also because we’ve had some technical progress in target design which 

makes it now possible to do that. So we are very much aware of 

the committee’s determination that we stay on target with ignition. 

That’s the first part. 

Secondly, we agree with you that we need more milestones for 

this committee and the other committees of the Congress to track. 

We’re going to put those in place; we will provide them to you annually; and we’ll report to you at regular intervals to be sure that 

you are satisfied with the progress of the program. 

Now, the third part of your question regarding demonstration of 

significant events at the time we have one cluster operational, I 

think is not likely to be—we would not want to see that as an end 

point. That’s my concern. We certainly see that as a very important 

target in program progress and we have that as a goal. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I am going to yield here shortly because 

I understand these Senators have more interest than just NIF. But 

I am not finished with you, even if we have to do it another day. 

I have two questions. First, I want everybody here to know that I 
103 

know him very well; he worked in my State and, you know, I have 

been with him many times when he was not in such a hard position. And he smiles no matter what, when he was doing the other 

work or this so, I guess it does not really matter. He has got a good 

brain. 

Dr. Beckner, I would like you to put together a budget and a 

schedule that will accelerate the installation and testing of the first 

cluster in fiscal year 2005. Can you do that? 

NIF PLAN

Dr. BECKNER. I can certainly put together the plan. I don’t know 

the results of your instructions but we’ll certainly be responsive to 

your request. 

[The information follows:] 

It is not possible to complete the first cluster milestone in fiscal year 2005 without 

a significant increase in the Total Project Cost. Procurement logistics and lead times 

limit our ability to complete the scope of work required to accelerate the first cluster 

into fiscal year 2005. The ability does exist to marginally accelerate the first cluster 

and project completion dates if the funding profile is changed without increasing the 

Total Project Cost (TPC). 

The first cluster milestone is currently scheduled for completion in June 2006 

with Project completion in September 2008. We believe it is possible to accelerate 

these dates by modifying the funding profile for the project beginning in fiscal year 

2005. The first cluster milestone could be accelerated by 1 to 3 months, and the 

project completion date could be accelerated by 3 to 5 months, by moving $59 million from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006. Of the $59 million 

total, $27 million would be required in fiscal year 2005 and $32 million required 

in fiscal year 2006. 

Please let me know if you would support such a change in the funding profile in 

order to achieve the schedule acceleration described. This would allow the ignition 

campaign to begin sooner and support the goal of ignition in fiscal year 2010. I ask 

you to recognize that if we must achieve the change within the FYNSP plans, it will 

likely be at the expense of other activities which are vital to the Stewardship mission. We will not proceed with additional planning until we receive your input. 

Senator DOMENICI. Now, I want to state, and then I yield and 

will come back for a number of questions. I want to say, you know 

how I feel right now, Dr. Beckner, is that I have been hoodwinked. 

And not a little hoodwink, a big one. Because I think what we are 

going to get out of this is a big civilian tool that can be used at 

that laboratory for a lot of research. And we are going to run 

around saying that is the best research laser facility the world has 

ever seen. And I tell you, if I see that coming, they better not be 

asking me for any money because I would close it down. Because 

that is not fair. We never intended to spend $5 to $6 billion to 

build a laser facility for a laboratory that would provide civilian research and visitations from around the world. So I know you all 

look at this and say well, it is going to do something. And it is sure 

going to be extraordinary. But that is not why I agreed to pay for 

it. 

Dr. BECKNER. I understand. 

Senator DOMENICI. I agreed in a very, very highly debated, that 

this was going to reach ignition and that would be the best part 

of science-based stewardship. Think of that. The best part. Now 

right now we are moving with Z also. 

Dr. BECKNER. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. And we are. 

Dr. BECKNER. Yes sir. 
104 

Senator DOMENICI. And nobody is going to stop us from doing 

that. It may do three-quarters of the work but it is a little tiny 

weeny $100 million project and it may do three-quarters of your 

work, or more. So, in any event, we will make sure that everybody 

understands that. 

Now, Senator Bennett, you are next. We are going on time of arrival, and then the Senator from California. 

NUCLEAR TESTING

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Brooks, I think I heard the answers to my questions in your 

statement but let us go over them again so that they are very clear. 

There is a moratorium currently in place. Is that correct? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. 

Senator BENNETT. And testing is not imminent, is that correct? 

Ambassador BROOKS. That’s correct. 

Senator BENNETT. You said that there is no anticipation of testing at any foreseeable time in the future. Is that correct? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes. 

Senator BENNETT. None that you can now foresee? 

Ambassador BROOKS. That’s correct. 

Senator BENNETT. And that the testing will not happen unless 

the President makes a very public finding and the Congress acts 

in funding that finding. Is that correct? 

Ambassador BROOKS. That’s correct. 

Senator BENNETT. So the newspaper stories, I think I heard you 

say, are not correct? That say that nuclear testing is now imminent 

as a result of the vote we took last year? 

Ambassador BROOKS. I haven’t seen stories that blamed me for 

that one, but in any event, if there are such stories they’re not correct. 

Senator BENNETT. Not you, they blame us. So there is no testing 

pending at the present time? 

Ambassador BROOKS. No sir. 

Senator BENNETT. Or in the future circumstances that you currently can see? 

Ambassador BROOKS. No sir. 

Senator BENNETT. All right. 

Ambassador BROOKS. But I don’t want to mislead the committee. 

If I find a problem that can only be verified through testing I would 

not hesitate to recommend to the Secretary and he would not hesitate to recommend to the President that we test. I have no reason 

to believe I’m going to find that problem, but it is a hedge against 

the possibility of finding that problem that we’ve asked for the 

money to ensure that we are ready if that contingency occurs. We 

have no reason to believe it’s going to occur. 

Senator BENNETT. All right. Here is a postcard that is currently 

circulating. I am sure you have seen it. I get copies of it. I cannot 

respond to most of them because they do not put return addresses 

on them, they just send them in. And it says, for those that are 

not familiar with it, ‘‘This is an underground nuclear test.’’ And it 

shows an obvious spew into the atmosphere. Would you comment 

on that, because it has great currency right now. 
105 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. The United States started doing 

only underground tests following the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 

1963. In 1970, a test called Baneberry vented. That is to say, although we thought it would all be contained, it was not. Radioactivity was spread off the test site to an area north and west of the 

site, all within Nevada; there was no radioactivity above background levels detected in Utah, although there had, obviously been 

fallout in Utah and indeed worldwide and from the atmospheric 

tests of the 1950’s and 1960’s. After Baneberry, we took a 6-month 

moratorium on underground tests. Now, in the context of today, 

when we haven’t tested for over 10 years, that doesn’t sound like 

much but in the 1970’s when we had a very robust test program 

that was a significant step. We made a number of both analytic 

and technical corrections. What had happened was, there was a fissure, a crack in the Earth that we had not detected. So first, we 

required that for future tests we drill more exploratory holes to 

make sure we find fissures. We put together an evaluation panel 

that included both testing experts and geologic experts to evaluate 

the containment design of each test and then we required that 

those findings be peer-reviewed, in accordance with standard scientific procedures. We set up a series of environmental monitoring 

stations and those networks operated continuously. 

Now, that was a long time ago. But we have not had a repeat 

of Baneberry. We had some far less significant events, three I believe, in the 20-some odd years following that, two of which resulted in nothing leaving the test site. We are confident that with 

the combination of the corrective actions we put in place then and 

the greater scientific understanding that we have now of geology 

and hydrology, and the greater formality that we build into all aspects of nuclear safety, and the funding that the Congress has 

given us in the last 2 years to make sure we do careful safety analysis, that if, at some future date, the President decides we need to 

do an underground test there will be a policy debate, but there 

won’t be any public health issue because we are confident that we 

will make sure that we do not have a repeat of that 1970 event. 

Senator BENNETT. So just to summarize what you have told me, 

since this occurred in 1970, for the intervening quarter of a century, there has never been a reoccurrence of something like this 

postcard? 

Ambassador BROOKS. There certainly has been nothing like that. 

As I said previously there has been minor venting, but nothing like 

Baneberry. 

Senator BENNETT. How many tests are we talking about? If we 

had three occasions, is that three out of thirty or? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Between 1970, in 22 years, oh, I don’t 

know. I’d have to give you that for the record, a couple hundred. 

Senator BENNETT. Couple hundred? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. Let me supply that for the record 

to make sure I’m giving you the right answer. 

NUCLEAR TESTS SINCE BANEBERRY

Senator BENNETT. I would appreciate knowing that, for the 

record, so that, we are within 1 percent? 

Ambassador BROOKS. I think so sir, yes sir. 
106 

Senator BENNETT. And I would like to know the date of the last 

one. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. I’d be more than happy to supply 

that. 

[The information follows:] 

There were 384 underground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site since the 1970 

Baneberry test. 

The last underground nuclear test was conducted at the Nevada Test Site on September 23, 1992. 

Senator BENNETT. So that if it was 15 years ago there is a little 

bit higher sense of confidence than if it was 5 years ago, when the 

last leak. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. 

Senator BENNETT. I would appreciate it. 

Ambassador BROOKS. It was more than 11 years ago because 

we’ve done no testing in the last 11 years. 

NUCLEAR RESEARCH

Senator BENNETT. Okay. You say you want to do research, that 

there is no pressing indication now that that research would lead 

to testing, indeed, there is nothing you have in your mind that 

would suggest that it would lead to testing. But you want to do the 

research anyway. Are you aware of research that is being done outside of the United States that you feel you want to catch up with? 

Is that part of the impetus here? 

Ambassador BROOKS. There are multiple impetuses. We don’t 

want to be surprised by developments outside of the United States. 

That’s one reason for looking at advanced concepts and making 

sure that you understand what the laws of physics will allow. But 

I think we also want to make sure that we are paying attention 

to maintaining the safety and reliability of the existing stockpile. 

So I think there are multiple reasons why we want to look. I don’t 

rule out that someday the President will want us to have a capability that we don’t have. Nuclear Earth Penetrator, in my view, 

both as a matter of practice and as a matter of law, is a capability 

we sort of have now, we’re just trying to make it better. So that’s 

a somewhat special case. But the principle reason for advanced 

concepts and the projects that we have looked at are primarily, I 

think, motivated by making sure we’re not overlooking an opportunity to improve safety, security and reliability. There’s a secondary motivation to make sure that we are not subject to technological surprise by someone outside this country. We know that 

there is a vigorous program in Russia. We don’t understand everything we’d like to and I can’t, in an open hearing go into what we 

do understand. Some of the things they’re doing we don’t completely understand so it would be useful to make sure we understood the technology. But I think we’re more motivated by safety, 

security, and reliability than by sort of a technological keeping up 

with others. 

Senator BENNETT. All right. But I want to get back to one of the 

things you said when you outlined the reasons for looking at existing warheads to see if they can be adapted. Clear military utility 

would move only if the President approves and Congress funds. 

And number three caught my attention because I have not seen it 
107 

before. Maybe I have not been paying attention. When you say this 

is not a change in our policy, that this is deterrence. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. 

Senator BENNETT. If that is the case, that means, for example, 

this would not have been used in Iraq. Let’s assume there was a 

circumstance where this particular weapon that you are researching, or this adaptation, let me get the words right, that this adaptation of a weapon that you are researching, might strike the Joint 

Chiefs as being a good weapon to use in Iraq. Under no circumstances would that be considered a deterrent to anyone else 

who might attack us. So you are saying it is the position of this 

administration that the weapon would not be used in that circumstance, even if it were available. 

Ambassador BROOKS. We have, as a matter of policy, in every administration I am familiar with, been very careful not to make dogmatic statements about what a President will or will not do in support of national security. And I don’t want to be the one to break 

that tradition. Let me explain what I did mean. 

Senator BENNETT. Okay. I will accept that. You do not need to 

go any farther than that. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Okay. 

Senator BENNETT. But, just to make the comment, that if indeed 

this President or some future President, we are going to decide who 

is going to be President, come November, this President or some future President were to come to Congress while I was sitting in Congress and say, okay, we have done the research, we think this is 

a viable weapon, we want now to fund it and we are going to use 

it in a situation quite like Iraq, this Senator would not vote in 

favor of that. My view of a deterrent and the use of the nuclear 

stockpile through the Cold War, is that it is never used unless the 

other side puts you in a position where you do it. You never use 

it as an offensive weapon, you never use it in order to project 

American power. You use it held in reserve as part of the deterrent 

capacity of the United States of America, which is the Polaris submarines and their nuclear weapons and all of the rest of them. The 

Polaris submarine has never fired a nuclear weapon in an offensive 

way and it is there to say to a potential aggressor, if you proceed 

with your aggression, this is what awaits you. 

Ambassador BROOKS. That’s correct. 

Senator BENNETT. And just for the record, that is how I would 

view, if such a weapon at some point by some future President 

were ever proposed. In the context of what you have said I would 

view that as having to have that same kind of restriction that I 

currently see on Polaris weapons, Polaris missiles and so on. I will 

not put you into that box. I understand that you cannot make that 

firm statement because you are a member of the administration. 

But I can make that statement because I am answerable to the 

people of Utah, all of whom have a very great concern, which I 

most thoroughly share, that we do not want to disarm this country, 

we do not want to do anything that will harm our national security. But in the end we want to make sure that as we move down 

the road to protect our national security we do not, in any way, endanger the health and safety of any of our citizens, regardless of 

the state in which they live. I am assuming you could support that. 
108 

Ambassador BROOKS. I’m confident I can speak for the President 

on this one. We agree with that. We have no interest in harming 

the health and safety of anybody, sir. 

Senator BENNETT. We just may give you a little help legislatively 

at some future point. I have not made up my mind firmly as to 

what I might do in terms of legislation that I will offer. But I appreciate your assurance and we want to do everything we can on 

this side to make sure that that assurance is not forgotten by 

whomever replaces you in whatever kind of administration that 

might come along. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Senator. I do not know how long 

you are going to stick around but I have some different views than 

you. I am not going to make them until it is my turn. Senator? 

ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Brooks, I just want to get some of the figures. I think we 

have anticipated that the Nuclear Earth Penetrator figure, 5-year 

figure, is $484 million. Does that take us up to phase 6.3? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Actually I think it takes us beyond 6.3. So 

those numbers assume decisions we can’t make without your permission. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay, at 6.3, according to the Defense Authorization Bill, the Earth Penetrator needs authorization from 

Congress? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes ma’am. 

FUNDING SCHEDULE FOR DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

Senator FEINSTEIN. So it is somewhere, I would like to know for 

the record, how much will be spent up to that point. What is the 

5-year figure on the battlefield low-yield nuclear weapons? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, give me the advance concepts. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Do you remember? Is it $9 million a year? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Number for 5 years? 

Dr. BECKNER. I think it actually goes a bit beyond that. 

Ambassador BROOKS. I’ll get it for the record, Senator. 

[The information follows:] 

FUNDING SCHEDULE BY ACTIVITY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal Year 2003 Fiscal Year 2004 Fiscal Year 2005 

Directed Stockpile Work: 

Stockpile Services Advanced Concepts ............................................ ........................ 6,000 9,000 

Stockpile Services Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator ....................... 14,577 7,435 27,557 
109 

FYNSP SCHEDULE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal Year 

2005 

Fiscal Year 

2006 

Fiscal Year 

2007 

Fiscal Year 

2008 

Fiscal Year 

2009 

FYNSP 

Total 

Stockpile Services Advanced Concepts .............. 9,000 14,425 14,874 14,595 29,472 82,366 

Stockpile Services Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Research and Development ................. 27,557 94,955 145,371 128,431 88,416 484,730 

FUNDING SCHEDULE FOR PIT MANUFACTURING AND CERTIFICATION

CAMPAIGN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. And the 5-year figure for the pit facilities. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes ma’am. May I get that for the record 

as well? Although I may have that here. 

[The information follows:] 

FUNDING SCHEDULE BY ACTIVITY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal Year 2003 Fiscal Year 2004 Fiscal Year 2005 

Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Modern Pit Facility ........ 4,242 10,810 29,800 

FYNSP SCHEDULE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal Year 

2005 

Fiscal Year 

2006 

Fiscal Year 

2007 

Fiscal Year 

2008 

Fiscal Year 

2009 

FYNSP 

Total 

Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign 

Modern Pit Facility ......................................... 29,800 43,291 94,570 101,434 105,168 374,263 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Now, as I understand it, the Advanced 

Weapons Concept will not require Congressional approval prior to 

going into the engineering phase. Is that correct? 

Ambassador BROOKS. I’m always reluctant to give away prerogatives but I didn’t think so. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Defense Authorization Bill, page 855. 

Ambassador BROOKS. I mean. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And it is just the, unfortunately, just the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. 

Ambassador BROOKS. The Advanced Concepts work is really less 

far along. I mean, as a practical matter for us to take something 

that came out of an Advanced Concept and do something significant with it, at a minimum we would require Congressional lineitem funding. Whether we would need, I mean, you’re correct that 

the National Defense authorization bill speaks specifically of 6.3, 

other legislation speaks of production. That unambiguously requires a separate decision by Congress. If you’re asking a technical, 

legal question I’d like to get back to you for the record. If you’re 

asking a practical question, of course nothing that we do in Advanced Concepts can move into any sort of meaningful program 

without the Congress because we have to come back to you for 

money. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am trying to find out is how much are we 

going to spend, up to the point of engineering build on these pro-
110 

grams. What is the total 5-year cost up to that point of these three 

programs, RNEP, Advanced Concepts, Pit? 

Ambassador BROOKS. All right. May I provide that for the record 

to make sure I’m precise? 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—See preceding tables.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would appreciate it. Now, we have discussed this and—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Senator, would you yield for a moment? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Of course. 

Senator DOMENICI. First step, I would like to make the point and 

seek your thoughts, Senator. Here we have the Penetrator and 

whatever we are doing with reference to its research, and we are 

going to look carefully at building a plant to make pits. If this idea 

had never been invented we would still be doing this. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You mean the pit? 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. 

Senator DOMENICI. It has nothing to do with it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. To field old warheads that are in stock, right. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. So, you know, when we talk about and 

add them up, the public assumes that they are in some way related 

so that all this money that we’re spending for the Pit is related to 

this work for the Penetrator, they are unrelated. I mean, you are 

out there thinking about how many more years can we not have 

a Pit, right? It has nothing to do with whether we build 

Penetrators, right? 

Ambassador BROOKS. That’s correct. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You are correct, Mr. Chairman, as always. 

However, there is one thing. The money for the Pit is huge. And 

it is based on 450. 

Senator DOMENICI. Correct. It might be too much. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And it may well be very much too much because a study has not been completed yet to let us know whether 

it is 30 or 40 years or whatever we would need the Pit. 

Ambassador BROOKS. May I make a correction? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Of course, please. 

Ambassador BROOKS. We are required, under the National Environmental Policy Act, and we do an analysis, we have to be able 

to look everybody in the eye and say there’s no plausible alternative that has been excluded. So, the Environmental Impact 

Statement that we’ve now suspended work on, analyzes between a 

capability of 125 pits a year and 450 pits a year. I think it would 

be, I don’t want to prejudge decisions that haven’t been made, but 

it’s very hard for me to see, based on what we know, that we’re 

going to be anywhere near that upper limit. But I’ve got to make 

sure that the analysis is broad enough, because if there’s an option 

that’s outside this analysis, I’m in violation of the law because I 

haven’t examined all analyses. So I would urge you not to look at 

the upper limit of what we’re analyzing under the National Environmental Policy Act and assume that that’s a program. The lower 

level is probably roughly right. I could explain why now but it 

would be easier if you’d let me send you a paper. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would appreciate that. For somebody like 

me, when you indicate a capacity of 450 pits, you send a major sig-
111 

nal that a whole major new program is going into place. At 125, 

it may be a servicing unit, you know, based on what you need to 

do to replenish and fix old stock. But I am very suspicious. I think 

I know where you are going and I think it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think to spend all this money on the Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which as I understand it will produce 1.5 million tons of radioactive debris that is going to spew out with no present way of 

controlling it is beyond sanity. I mean, I do not know why anyone 

would even want to do that. 

FALLOUT

Let me ask you this: is there any known way, from a physics 

point of view, because I have spent some time now, with Dr. Drell, 

of containing the radioactive fallout from 100 kiloton nuclear bunker buster? 

Ambassador BROOKS. There’s no way that I know of. I don’t know 

of anyone in the administration who advocates that and nothing in 

our proposal for the Earth Penetrator or for the previous B61–11, 

which was the previous administration’s less robust penetrator, 

was ever intended to suggest that you can contain fallout; you 

can’t. I have no idea how you would do that. And, as I think you 

and I have discussed before, if I have said or anyone in this administration has said, anything that suggests that we believe that nuclear use is anything other than absolutely horrible and a decision 

a President would only take in the most severe circumstances, then 

we have misspoken. The issue that we have is, there are facilities 

in the world that are beyond our ability to threaten except with nuclear weapons. We think it is possible that the country may decide 

it wants to threaten those facilities anyhow. We think we ought to 

spend some money to find out if this country can have that option 

by finding out whether I can take an existing weapon and threaten 

those facilities. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. Just for the sake. But you know 

you cannot contain the fallout. 

Ambassador BROOKS. That’s correct. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And you know how big you have got to get 

to get down deep enough let alone have the sufficient casing to enable the weapon to go down that deep. Therefore you are going to 

have tremendous radioactivity. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So why does it become even a viable option? 

If used in North Korea you jeopardize Japan, you jeopardize South 

Korea. Who in their right mind would ever do this? 

Senator DOMENICI. Senator, would you yield? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Of course. 

Senator DOMENICI. Senator, the problem with the argument is, 

I have heard you here and I do not think you are for disarmament, 

are you, of our nuclear weapons? Do you want to get rid of them 

all? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I will tell you, I am for no first use. 

Senator DOMENICI. That is not my question. Do you want us to 

have some or not have some? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am not for the Nuclear Posture Review. 

You asked a question. 
112 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That cites seven nations against whom we 

would countenance a first use of nuclear weapons. I am not for 

that. 

Senator DOMENICI. I understand. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Therefore, when we are going to spend a 

half-a-billion dollars up to engineering to develop a 100-kiloton nuclear bunker buster, which you cannot contain the radiation, I have 

got to wonder well, who is smoking something? Why are we doing 

this if you cannot contain the radiation? 

Senator DOMENICI. Senator, I do not know who is smoking it, but 

let me tell you. There is more radiation exposure, uncontrollable, 

from existing nuclear weapons than from the underground bunker 

possibility. So the logic is, we should not have any of those because 

there is no way to control a nuclear explosion, the radioactivity, 

from the hydrogen bombs we have. And I do not know today how 

many we have but down from many thousands to a controllable 

number. But the issue is not an issue of damaging the world. Because if that is the issue, we have got to get rid of all of our nuclear 

weapons in the event that we are saying we do not want to harm 

anything. They are there so that nobody will ever use them. That 

is why they are there. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But that is not the issue. The issue is, these 

are new classes of nuclear weapons. 

Senator DOMENICI. But the argument that they are going to pollute the world more than the weapons we have is not a valid argument. The rest of your arguments are valid but not the pollution 

argument. 

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE

Senator FEINSTEIN. You were out of the room when Senator Bennett made a very interesting point, and the point was one of deterrence, and what is, in effect, a deterrent. And a nuclear arsenal of 

missiles may well be some form of deterrent. A nuclear Earth 

Bunker Buster, I do not see as a deterrent. And if we are going to 

build tactical battlefield nuclear weapons, God help our sons and 

daughters that go on that battlefield. So I become very upset. And 

Ambassador, you say the included out-year funds are only to preserve a President’s option. And then, if you think about the option, 

how would a President ever, ever say, use a 100-kiloton—Hiroshima was 15 kilotons—use a 100-kiloton nuclear Earth Penetrator 

and have no way to control the nuclear fallout, the radioactive fallout? 

Ambassador BROOKS. May I try it? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Of course. 

Ambassador BROOKS. First of all, part of the problem in open 

hearings is that we can’t talk about specific yields. But let me just 

make the technical point that if there is a bunker that you want 

to hold at risk, it takes far more energy if it bursts in the air to 

hold that at risk than it does if you can get it just a little way into 

the ground. So it is quite possible that a penetrator can be of lower 

yields. But the more general point, I think, is the problem we’ve 

always had with nuclear deterrence, Senator. On the one hand, nobody can think of a situation in which a rational human being 
113 

would want to use nuclear weapons. On the other hand, in order 

to deter, we have to tell people who think differently than we that 

if they did something that was so serious that it would warrant retaliation, we’re capable of doing it. It is the case that increasingly, 

we believe, facilities can be put where we cannot reach them with 

existing nuclear or conventional capabilities. It is the case, we believe, that at least some dictators—I don’t want to suggest any 

country, I would simply point out that the popular countries to talk 

about lately are countries in which it’s clear the leadership, whatever else they value, doesn’t care about the suffering of their people. And their people are, in fact, victims. So we need to be able 

to tell those leaders there is nothing you can do that is beyond the 

reach of American power. And, a whole different Department is 

spending a whole different set of money on working to improve 

that. My job is to say, suppose conventional doesn’t work, can we 

do something with a nuclear weapon and then, if we can, then 

there’s the question is it worth both the financial and the policy 

cost? It’s a perfectly fair debate but I guess I don’t accept the view 

that it’s only worth spending this money if we’re prepared, as soon 

as we have this, to go out and start using it casually. I think this 

is an example of improving the deterrent, just like the various 

things, many of them contentious at the time, that we did during 

the Cold War, as an example, of improving deterrent. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I will not belabor it. I appreciate the time. 

I profoundly differ with you. 

Senator DOMENICI. You what? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I profoundly differ. I think morally, ethically, 

to create weapon systems that are so bizarre and so catastrophic 

goes beyond the moral code. I really do. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes ma’am, with the greatest respect, and 

I think to have only the ability to destroy cities and kill people has 

its own set of problems. 

Senator DOMENICI. Let us proceed. Let us make sure we understand here where some of us are. But I am profoundly concerned 

if we have nuclear weapons at all. I wish we could get rid of them 

all. I wish we could find a way that we do not need them and that 

we could prove that nobody else would ever have them, which is 

going to be the issue, so that we could get rid of them. I am terribly 

concerned that the damage that one of them might do, that we do 

have, and I am not supporting anything, ever, that says we should 

have more nuclear weapons in our arsenal. I should not say ever 

but right now we are building them down, not upward. In fact, we 

are having a terrible time building them down as fast as we can 

because we cannot get rid of the pollution that is coming out of 

them. I mean, we cannot get rid of plutonium fast enough as we 

destroy Russian nuclear weapons. We cannot find a way to do it. 

You are in charge of one now, we cannot even get them to agree 

on something so we can get rid of them, right? 

MOX

I am going to just close by saying the biggest change in American 

policy, overruling policy since President Carter said we will build 

a MOX refinery in America. And we had said no, never, never. He 
114 

said, we will build it if the Russians will build it because we will 

both get rid of plutonium that way. Right? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. So we made a profound change in our policy. 

I would have never been against the MOX but I mean, the President’s decided against it, I would give you the reasons, I think you 

would not agree that his reasons were right. The reason was to 

build MOX you enhanced the production of fissile material to 

produce bombs. Turned out nobody in the world ever did it, so 

probably the fear was not there. So here we come along and what 

changes it? The Russians change it because they are going to do 

it, we say we will do it. Now we cannot get it done because we cannot get an agreement, right? That is a tough one for you. 

Ambassador BROOKS. That’s right, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. So, I am on the side of trying to get 

rid of this stuff. I do not want them to use it again, I do not want 

us running around, leaking around, being transferred around. So, 

my record is pretty good on that. 

Now, I want to just be parochial and I want to tell you that I 

do not like the idea of the Los Alamos schools being treated differently all of a sudden than they have been for a long time. If you 

want to treat them differently, Mr. Ambassador, then we ought to 

start treating them differently and give them an opportunity to be 

treated differently over a long period of time. Either buy them out 

or something be done elsewhere but just say this year they do not 

get funded and so you did not put it in the budget, you know I have 

to find it somewhere so I will. But I am just telling you I do not 

think it is the right way to do it. And you have to get a team and 

let us get started finding out how do we solve this problem, not just 

the budget issue. 

Z MACHINE

The Z Machine, very quickly, I just want to make sure that I am 

correct, that it is being maintained and the little bit of money that 

is needed for it is going to be there and that is moving ahead? 

Dr. BECKNER. Yes sir. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. And everybody is satisfied with its performance? 

Dr. BECKNER. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Is it a good piece of equipment for the price? 

Dr. BECKNER. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Will not take the place of what we expected 

NIF to do, right? 

Dr. BECKNER. No sir. It is not of adequate size to do that. 

Senator DOMENICI. But if NIF fails it may do what a failed NIF 

will do? 

Dr. BECKNER. That’s a possibility and we certainly intend to continue to support that program and to have milestones in that program so that we can measure its progress. 
115 

NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Longsworth, have you read the ‘‘Wall 

Street Journal’’ article, how the Pakistani nuclear ring managed to 

skirt export laws? 

Mr. LONGSWORTH. Yes, I have. 

Senator DOMENICI. Are you receiving adequate international cooperation in stopping the activities outlined in this article? 

Mr. LONGSWORTH. We are working very diligently on that. In 

fact, we’ve asked for an increase in our budget this year to address 

those kinds of issues. 

Senator DOMENICI. You haven’t got everything you need yet? 

Mr. LONGSWORTH. Well, we hope to if we get this increase we’ve 

asked for in our budget, yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Ambassador, what is the likelihood that 

the liability issue will be resolved in a timely fashion so we can 

move ahead with construction so we can get rid of some of that plutonium that is sitting around in Russia and America? 

Ambassador BROOKS. I am hopeful that we will get it resolved 

soon but the last 12 years have told me predicting Russia is risky. 

And I just don’t know. The problem is not in this country; the problem is in the Russian Federation. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. So it is high enough that we ought to 

encourage our President, if we can, to ask the Kremlin to get with 

it on this one? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. This Libya situation. We added $5 million, I 

think, in the Senate to initiatives focused on removing nuclear 

weapons useable material from volatile sites around the world. I 

understand your office was able to make use of this earmark to 

quickly respond in the Libyan situation? 

Mr. LONGSWORTH. Yes sir. Let me just say, we would not have 

been able to respond quickly without that authorization. 

Senator DOMENICI. I am glad we did it. The role your office and 

the Department played in removing the nuclear materials, can you 

explain that in a minute or two? 

Mr. LONGSWORTH. Yes sir. We had three missions into and out 

of Libya. The first mission was using the money you just referred 

to to immediately remove the core of their nuclear weapons capability; their nuclear fuel cycle capability. We removed key components, not all of the components, but the components that would, 

if we had not been invited back, have posed the most serious proliferation concern. The second shipment was a fairly large shipment which has just arrived back in the United States of the remaining centrifuge parts. The third shipment was to remove the 

HEU fuel, fresh fuel, from the Tajura reactor. That was sent back 

to the Russian Federation. That material was under IAEA safeguards, so it was accounted for and they were legally allowed to 

have it, but they agreed to remove it at our request and it went 

back to Russia. It will be recycled back into civilian low-enriched 

fuel. 

Senator DOMENICI. Good. Well, Senator, do you have any other 

questions? 
116 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I have one quick question. When we discussed, and I will just put it in a general category, the warhead 

redesign, the general fixing that may have to be done, does that 

come out of any of these programs’ budget? The Advanced Concepts, the Pit, the Earth Penetrator? 

Mr. LONGSWORTH. If we look at problems with fixing an existing 

warhead that’s usually done as part of the Life Extension Program, 

which is a separate line item. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is in another? 

Mr. LONGSWORTH. Yes ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So nothing in this goes for that? 

Mr. LONGSWORTH. In general that’s correct, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Senator DOMENICI. That is a very good hearing because you 

came. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Senator DOMENICI. We will have another big fight, huh? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, I welcome it. 

Senator DOMENICI. The thing is, we get a second round, they 

may win it before. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You never know, you never know. 

Senator DOMENICI. See and then ours might not be terribly relevant because they already won in Armed Services. If they lose—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, we will try with the House. 

Senator DOMENICI. We lose in Armed Services we are in terrible 

shape. You will win. 

NUCLEAR STOCKPILE REPORT

Nuclear Stockpile Report. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Ambassador, I noted in the opening 

statement that you talked about it and I am very disappointed that 

the Departments of Defense and Energy have not produced the 

Stockpile Report as requested. I think the distinguished Senator 

who is here because of what she worries about, ought to be very 

concerned that we do not have that report. Priorities of the future 

seem to be very much dependent upon it. So, Mr. Ambassador, it 

is the fault of the government of the United States that we do not 

have it, right? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Should have been done. 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Will it be done? 

Ambassador BROOKS. Yes sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. When? 

Ambassador BROOKS. I don’t know. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, that is not good enough. 

Ambassador BROOKS. I don’t want to make promises to the Senator that I can’t keep. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. But give me some talk. Are you working on it? Who is holding it up? 
117 

Ambassador BROOKS. The Secretary of Defense said it would be 

submitted in the spring. Spring started 2 days ago. It is being 

worked on, literally, as we speak, but because of the importance I 

think this will have to be personally approved by the President and 

I can’t predict how long that will take. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. I am going to wrap up the hearing in 

just a minute. And Senators that are here or not here that want 

to submit questions, please do so. Thank you. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

REVISED NUCLEAR STOCKPILE PLAN

Question. I noted in my opening statement, I am disappointed that the Department of Defense and Department of Energy have not produced the stockpile report 

requested in the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Development bill. I believe this 

report is critical in establishing the priorities of the administration. This report was 

requested to be delivered with the President’s budget. However, that deadline has 

come and gone and we still don’t have our report. When do you expect that this committee will receive a copy of this report? 

Answer. The Departments of Defense and Energy understand the importance of 

completing this plan promptly and providing it to the Congress. Both departments 

are working together to complete this complex task. I anticipate that the plan will 

be forwarded to the Hill in the Spring. 

Question. We are beginning to put together our budget priorities and the failure 

to produce the report will have significant consequences for your budget priorities. 

Will you convey that message back to the Department? 

Answer. Yes, sir. I have already done so. 

ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR

Question. I was surprised to see in the budget request that nearly $500 million 

is provided for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) in out-year funding. 

I believe many members are concerned that you have already made a decision on 

the need for this type of weapon without any input from Congress. Would you like 

to clarify what the President’s budget provides for this project and outline the role 

Congress will play in the future development of this weapon? 

Answer. We have not decided whether to proceed with the Robust Nuclear Earth 

Penetrator beyond the 6.2/2A study that is currently underway. Our fiscal year 

2006–2009 funding estimates are only placeholders within the FYNSP, based on 

predecisional data and in no way represent a signal that we intend to proceed with 

the RNEP. That study will be competed by the end of fiscal year 2006, and will cost 

an estimated $71 million from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2006. 

Consistent with section 3143 of the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 108–314, and section 3117 of the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 108–136, the administration may request congressional approval to proceed with phase 6.3 (engineering development) in the first 

quarter of fiscal year 2007. This request is contingent on the identification of a feasible and affordable design using either the B61 or B83; the determination by the 

Department of Defense that the design meets military requirements; and the approval of the joint DOD/DOE Nuclear Weapons Council. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

Question. Ambassador Brooks the new Design Basis Threat has elevated the security requirements at DOE and NNSA sites. The President’s budget requests a 

$106.9 million increase (8.6 percent) in the Safeguards and Security budget. As a 

result of the increased security requirements, we are able to spend less on important research. TA–18 in Los Alamos is a good example of the need for the NNSA 

to consolidate the special nuclear material in safer, better defended areas. I would 

like the NNSA to undertake a study that will be the basis for a plan to develop 
118 

a clear understanding of our future security needs and the benefit of consolidating 

the special nuclear material across the complex. Can you do this study and report 

to me on your findings? 

Answer. We have already begun the study you requested on the benefits of consolidating nuclear materials with a focus on security. This effort is being conducted 

jointly by the NNSA and the Office of the Under Secretary for Energy, Science, and 

Environment and should be completed in Fall 2004. I will provide you with the report of this effort by December 31, 2004. We’re also not waiting for the results of 

the reports to take action to consolidate nuclear materials as we identify opportunities to do so for increased security, on efficiency of security arrangements. 

Question. How are you planning to handle the transfer of TA–18 at Los Alamos? 

Answer. The Secretary has directed the NNSA to begin a near term shipping campaign that will move approximately 50 percent of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Area (TA–18) Category I and II Special Nuclear Material to Nevada. 

This campaign will begin in September and last approximately 18 months. NNSA 

will immediately start preparing the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) to support 

storage of these nuclear materials while scheduling packaging and transportation 

resources. The movement of these materials will be handled by NNSA’s Office of Secure Transportation. In parallel, the design modifications to DAF to assume program responsibilities will continue, and the modifications will be made in the next 

several years to receive the additional material to support the associated missions. 

Question. What is the timetable for this decision? 

Answer. We will begin the shipping campaign this September. Between now and 

then Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Office of Secure Transportation and Nevada personnel will identify, characterize and pack materials in approved shipping 

containers for transfer to the Device Assembly Facility in Nevada. 

Question. If TA–18 is moved from Los Alamos, will Los Alamos still maintain the 

mission associated with this facility? 

Answer. Yes, Los Alamos will continue to perform the vital Category I and II mission work associated with TA–18 at the Device Assembly Facility at the Nevada 

Test Site. LANL will retain security Category III and IV missions at Los Alamos 

and TA–18 program personnel will remain on-site. These people will relocate to 

DAF, as necessary to conduct experiments with Category I and II materials. Experiments with Category III and IV will occur at another LANL location. NNSA and 

LANL are working to identify locations for these activities and will issue a separate 

ROD pending completion of this assessment. 

LOS ALAMOS SCHOOLS

Question. I would like an answer as to why the budget has failed to provide the 

necessary and authorized funding for the Los Alamos School system. You may be 

interested to know that the $8 million that has been included in previous budgets 

makes up a third of the total school budget. I would also point that many of the 

scientists who support your stewardship programs also have strong views about the 

education of their children. If you hope to continue to recruit top people to this Lab, 

this funding will help achieve your goal. What was the justification for not funding 

the Los Alamos Schools or the Los Alamos Foundation? 

Answer. I understand and appreciate the importance that a high quality education system provides for the recruitment and retention of quality scientists and 

engineers at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The administration however doesn’t 

feel that the President’s budget for stockpile stewardship activities is the proper 

funding vehicle for this activity. NNSA recently submitted a report to the Congress 

on Los Alamos schools and funding options that could take the place of the annual 

authorization and appropriations approach. Option 1 would rely on the State of New 

Mexico and the citizens of Los Alamos County to ensure that adequate funding is 

available for the schools. Option 2 would reestablish a charitable foundation funded 

by annual appropriations for a limited period of time so that Los Alamos Schools 

would receive approximately $8 million annually from the endowment. Finally, Option 3 would allow the M&O contractor for LANL to support the school system by 

modifying the provisions in Appendix N of the contract. Currently under Appendix 

N, Los Alamos provides a few million dollars to the school systems in the vicinity 

of Los Alamos County. 

RUSSIAN HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU)

Question. Mr. Longsworth, the administration has consistently identified the need 

to reduce the hundreds of metric tons of Highly Enriched Uranium stocks in the 

Russian Federation as a critical part of our non-proliferation efforts. In fiscal year 

2003, the committee provided $14 million for the Accelerated Materials Disposition 
119 

(AMD) Program to meet those commitments. However, no progress has been made 

since that appropriation and your fiscal year 2005 request eliminates funding for 

the AMD Program. Therefore, the only current U.S./Russian program to address the 

dangerous stockpiles of HEU is the existing HEU agreement and the research reactor initiatives. This later projects result in the equivalent of one-tenth of a metric 

ton per year. Unfortunately, this will not have the address the long-term strategic 

objectives of HEU disposition. Has the administration abandoned its efforts to accelerate reduction in Russian HEU stockpiles beyond what is covered in the HEU deal? 

Answer. No, the administration has not abandoned its efforts to accelerate the reduction of Russian HEU stockpiles. Several initiatives were identified by the Experts Group on Nuclear Materials, with two initiatives approved for immediate action that are being pursued: (1) Purchase of low enriched uranium (LEU) derived 

from HEU to be used as a U.S. strategic LEU reserve, and (2) Purchase of HEU 

for use in U.S. research reactors. We have been pursuing these initiatives with varied success, and some progress has been made. 

For the first initiative, we have been advocating expansion of the HEU disposition 

from Russia by blending down additional HEU to LEU and then using this LEU 

to establish a U.S. Strategic LEU Reserve so as not to adversely affect the current 

enrichment market. Because of House budget concerns regarding the up-front cost 

of the strategic reserve approach, Congress did not fund this initiative in fiscal year 

2004. Following the guidance of the Appropriations Committee, the funding for 

these initiatives has been subsumed into the base program for Reactor Fuel return. 

Concurrently, in order to address Congressional concerns, DOE is developing a more 

comprehensive approach that would make these initiatives acceptable as separate 

line items. As part of this development, we are also addressing the long-term strategic objective that Ambassador Brooks has requested that includes both a followon strategy for negotiating the extension of the HEU purchase agreement beyond 

2013 as well as interim strategies for expanding beyond the 500 MTs included in 

the current agreement. 

With respect to the second initiative, the contract with the Russians for the purchase of HEU for the research reactor initiative has been negotiated with only two 

points of contention remaining: (1) the price to be paid for the HEU material; and 

(2) transportation method. The price problem exits because there is no commercial 

market basis for HEU sales that can be used to establish a fair price. Currently negotiations are underway to establish a fair price. The transportation concerns should 

be resolved without much delay once price is agreed upon. 

In addition to the specific purchase contract for HEU for U.S. research reactors, 

we are still engaging the Russians in developing the framework for accelerated disposition of HEU in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding that would act as 

an umbrella agreement for additional purchases or other initiatives. It should be 

noted that, in addition to our direct actions on these initiatives, we are also cooperating with and providing appropriate support to other organizations to engage the 

Russians in identifying other options that are acceptable both to the Russian Federation and the United States. 

As you can see, we have not abandoned our efforts to accelerate reduction of Russian HEU stockpiles, but we have encountered obstacles associated with the economics of these approaches that we are working to resolve. We appreciate the continued support of Congress in these endeavors. 

In addition to the two programs you have mentioned, my office also includes the 

Material Consolidation and Conversion (MCC) Project, which supports the conversion of HEU, which is not from weapons, to LEU. This HEU is excess to the needs 

of the sites where it is currently located and is transferred to one of two down blending sites in Russia for conversion to LEU. The MCC Project began in fiscal year 

1999 and to date has supported the down blending of almost 5 metric tons of HEU. 

We are currently engaging the Russian Federation in discussions to increase the 

rate of conversion under the MCC Project. 

Question. Could more be done to remove more HEU material from poorly defended 

facilities in Russia? 

Answer. Yes, more can be done to remove additional HEU material from poorly 

defended facilities in Russia. One part of this effort would be to attempt to purchase 

more material. This aspect was discussed in the previous question. 

The MPC&A and MCC programs are other avenues that could be followed. The 

MCC Project was designed to support the transfer of HEU from less secure sites 

in Russia to more secure sites and to down blend that material to LEU. We are actively engaged with the Russian Federation to try to accelerate that process. 
120 

MOX PROGRAM

Question. I am deeply concerned about the future of the Russian/U.S. MOX program that will remove 34 metric tons of plutonium from the respective stockpiles. 

I have personally contacted Secretary Powell to urge the State Department to find 

an acceptable resolution in order to keep this program on track. 

It is my understanding that negotiations regarding the liability concerns have yet 

to be resolved. What is the likelihood that the liability issue will be resolved in a 

timely fashion allowing the construction of the Russian and U.S. facilities to go forward in the near future? 

Answer. The United States and Russia have yet to resolve liability protections 

that will be needed for the U.S. Government and its contractors for plutonium disposition work in Russia. If this issue cannot be resolved in the near future, the start 

of construction of the Russian MOX program will be further delayed. Because the 

United States and Russian programs are to proceed in parallel, any further delays 

in the Russian effort will mean additional delays in the U.S. program as well. However, this would in no way indicate a lessening of the administration commitment 

to this effort. 

Question. How will the recent reelection of President Putin affect these negotiations? 

Answer. Given that President Putin will not fully stand-up his new government 

until May 7, it is too early to comment definitively on how the reorganization of the 

Russian Government will affect these negotiations. 

Question. Ambassador Brooks, are you aware of any changes within the administration including the State Department or within the White House that might indicate a change in policy or a reluctance to finalize this deal? 

Answer. I believe that the administration is committed to moving forward with 

this important nonproliferation program. The liability issue is being addressed at 

the highest levels of the government. 

LOWER LIABILITY STANDARD

Question. I understand that Russia has signed a liability agreement with our G– 

8 partners that does not provide the same level of protection as the United States 

is seeking as part of the Cooperative Threat Reduction plan. How is this affecting 

the negotiations? 

Answer. Russia and some of our G–8 partners have accepted, in another context, 

a less comprehensive liability provision than what the United States has under the 

Cooperative Threat Reduction plan. Specifically, this provision does not cover the liability of an individual who intentionally causes a nuclear accident or the liability 

resulting from a non-nuclear accident. Russia has been insisting on a similar reduced scope for the liability provisions for the MOX program. 

EMERGING THREAT—PAKISTAN

Question. The Nonproliferation budget seems to assume a general status quo in 

future funding. It reflects an expectation that our primary nonproliferation concern 

will remain Russia and its former republics. However, in light of the news over the 

past several months regarding Libya, Iran and Pakistan, are you concerned that 

this budget places too great a focus on Russian stockpiles and doesn’t adequately 

fund efforts to address proliferation in other countries? 

Answer. The budget appropriately focuses on Russia where most of the weaponsusable material of proliferation concern is located. However, it also includes funds 

for activities in other countries. As those latter activities develop we will revisit the 

appropriate balance between work in Russia and work outside of the former Soviet 

Union (FSU). 

Question. Does this budget adequately provide for this new reality and how will 

your office respond to these threats? 

Answer. We are working very carefully to develop prudent and effective activities 

that address proliferation concerns outside of the FSU, and will carefully monitor 

these activities to ensure that they are adequately funded. 

Question. Would additional resources accelerate your ability to contain the emerging proliferation threats? 

Answer. As our work outside of the FSU develops, we will certainly keep you informed about its progress and whether additional funding would be helpful. We will 

continue to work with the administration and Congress to assess priorities and develop budgets. 

Question. Mr. Longsworth, on the front page of the Wall Street Journal this morning is an article that explains how Pakistani officials were able to avoid export laws 
121 

that prohibit the sale of material and technology that can be used in the development of nuclear weapons. This article details a very complicated scheme that took 

advantage of weak export controls in various countries to avoid detection. It is obvious from this article your job of tracking and preventing the proliferation of technology and material is a terrific challenge. 

Mr. Longsworth, have you read this article and do you agree with the characterization of the Pakistani efforts? 

Answer. Yes. It is a fair characterization of what occurred, as far as we know it. 

Though it’s clear that A.Q. Khan was deeply involved with the procurement and 

supply effort, it is not known if his actions were in some way associated with his 

official duties or if he was abusing his official position, knowledge, and connections 

for personal benefit only. In any event, the United States and Pakistan are now dismantling the A.Q. Khan network responsible for proliferating nuclear weapons-related technologies, and we are working with our interagency colleagues and Pakistan on steps to bring its export control system in line with international standards. 

Question. Also, are you receiving adequate international cooperation in stopping 

the activities outlined in this article? 

Answer. Yes. We have underway an increasingly coordinated international effort 

to detect and destroy these proliferation networks. We are working in the Nuclear 

Suppliers Group to tighten up controls on sensitive materials and technologies. We 

are also working on enhanced targeting techniques and more in-depth training of 

inspection and enforcement personnel and conducting more industry outreach to 

sensitize the private sector on the importance of some of these technologies. 

In addition, we have recently started export control assistance to the government 

of Pakistan. 

LIBYA

Question. Last year the Senate added $5 million for initiatives focused on removing nuclear weapons-usable material from vulnerable sites around the world. I understand that your office was able to make use of this earmark to quickly respond 

to Libya’s decision to open their weapons program to outside review. Please explain 

the role your office and the Department of Energy played in removing the nuclear 

threat from Libya. 

Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is participating in an interagency effort to remove materials and equipment from Libya and assist the Libyan government with its efforts to eliminate its 

weapons of mass destruction programs. We have been involved in three removal 

missions to date. For the first two missions, a U.S. team composed of representatives from DOE/NNSA headquarters staff, our National Laboratories, and the interagency community helped remove nuclear materials, equipment (such as finished 

components for centrifuges, specialized materials and manufacturing equipment for 

centrifuge construction, as well as components for a uranium conversion facility), 

and highly sensitive nuclear weapons design documents from Libya. 

The third mission in Libya repatriated to Russia approximately 17kg of 

unirradiated highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel from a research reactor in Libya. 

Coordinated with the Russian Federation and the International Atomic Energy 

Agency (IAEA) under the Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return program, this effort has been, and continues to be, a crucial part of our efforts to secure at-risk 

weapons usable nuclear materials around the world. 

The funding Congress provided to NNSA was critical for our work in Libya. It 

gave my organization the flexibility and capability needed to support the mission 

to assist Libya in its effort to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to create them. We continue to need authority and flexibility to carry out our 

mission outside the former Soviet Union and not constrain our ability to address the 

threats at targets of opportunity. 

This swift movement suggests the seriousness with which the U.S. Government 

treats proliferation threats. Congressional support is fundamental to the success of 

these efforts. The expedited removal of this material from Libya certainly advanced 

the U.S. national security goals and represents a tremendous success for our nonproliferation efforts. 

RUSSIA—UNCOSTED BALANCE & ACCESS ISSUES

Question. It appears from your budget that there remain large amounts of 

uncosted balances associated with the Russian programs. I assume that these balances remain due to the fact that your Russian counterparts are unenthusiastic 

about allowing U.S. teams in to either dispose of or secure their precious nuclear 

stockpile. A GAO report from last year noted that DOE was having better luck than 
122 

DOD in gaining access to sites that contain special nuclear material. Has there been 

any improvement with relations that will allow you to secure Russian material? 

Answer. We have made significant progress with the Russian Ministry of Atomic 

Energy (MinAtom), especially at ‘‘civilian’’ facilities with less stringent access restrictions imposed by MinAtom. Barring any unanticipated delays, we expect to 

complete the security upgrade phase of our cooperation at four sites within the next 

16 months Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant (NCCP), Institute of Physics 

and Power Engineering (IPPE), Research Institute for Atomic Reactors (RIAR), 

Lytkarino. This will mark a significant step forward for our program. 

We are making progress at some of these sites—contracts for upgrades have and 

will continue to be signed at places like Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk-26, and Mayak. We 

will continue to focus our efforts on providing upgrades to sites containing materials 

of concern to which we have access in order to reduce the threat as quickly as possible, while we negotiate access to or a suitable alternative assurance for the remaining weapons sites. Additionally, we are working on a pilot project that could 

improve our access to sensitive MinAtom facilities. 

With the Ministry of Defense, we have signed comprehensive contracts for the last 

two Navy warhead sites, which finish the major contracts upgrading 50 Navy-related sites—39 warhead sites and 11 fuel sites. We are cooperating with the Strategic Rocket Forces to upgrade the security of a total of 17 approved nuclear sites 

located at 11 different Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) bases. Currently, 

we have contracts in place (varying from vulnerability assessments to rapid upgrades) for the first 13 sites. We have had fewer access issues with the Ministry 

of Defense and cooperation continues to be very good. 

These improvements in our relations with the Russians are allowing our work to 

proceed and begin a drawdown of our uncosted balances as security upgrades to the 

Ministry of Defense and MinAtom facilities are completed over the next several 

years. 

Question. How and when do you expect to commit the available appropriated balances? 

Answer. As a result of a number of recent successful contractual negotiations, we 

expect to commit the majority of International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (MPC&A) non-Megaport appropriated balances by the end of this fiscal 

year. With the Russian Ministry of Defense, we have signed comprehensive contracts for the last two Navy warhead sites, which finish the major contracts upgrading 50 Navy-related sites—39 warhead sites and 11 fuel sites. We are cooperating 

with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces to upgrade the security of a total of 17 

approved nuclear sites located at 11 different ICBM bases. Work at sensitive 

MinAtom facilities continues, but the pace is limited mostly by the need to negotiate 

access to facilities. We are making progress at some of these sites. Contracts for upgrades have and will continue to be signed at places such as Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk– 

26, and Mayak. Agreement has been reached with Greece and we are nearing agreement with Kazakhstan to implement a Second Line of Defense program in those 

countries. In Kazakhstan alone we expect to complete installations of radiation detection equipment at approximately 20 sites over the next year. 

The ability to commit funds for the Megaports program has so far been limited 

by the pace of successful negotiations with host countries. We are currently negotiating with several countries and expect those negotiations to result in a number of 

agreements, which will allow us to commit funds for the installation of radiation detection equipment at these ports. 

As of March 31 the current total funding for the MPC&A program with carryover, 

is $655 million. This consists of Start of Year uncosted balances of $378 million plus 

Year to Date Approved Funding Profile of $277 million. Of the $655 million in 

MPC&A, $124 million is allocated to the Megaports program and $75 million to the 

Radiological Threat Reduction (RTR) Program (Radiological Dispersion Devices and 

MPC&A Activities in Iraq). Both Megaports and the RTR programs are less than 

2 years old, and are working feverishly to ramp up. 

We consider that the real measure of funding is commitments to contractors, that 

is, signed contracts should be considered ‘‘costed’’ as the U.S. Government has ‘‘committed’’ to provide funding for deliverables that are underway. Given the length of 

time it takes to complete sensitive nonproliferation work in foreign countries, we 

have begun to track funds that have been committed but not yet costed as a more 

accurate measure of true requirements. We have made changes to the DOE accounting system to track these obligations and expect our first preliminary report of 

uncosted commitments in coming weeks. We expect that the April 2004 report to 

Congress on uncosted ‘‘commitments’’ will show that our true uncosted balances are 

under control. 
123 

Question. Are there alternatives that the Russians have suggested, other than 

providing full access to sensitive facilities, which may accomplish U.S. objectives? 

Answer. We are currently working with the Russians on a pilot project that could 

improve our access to sensitive MinAtom facilities. This project incorporates a new 

strategy for access that was negotiated by the MPC&A acceleration working group, 

convened by Secretary Abraham and Minister Rumyantsev last year. If this pilot 

effort is successful, it is anticipated that this will allow MPC&A upgrades to be carried out at Russian sites that were previously too sensitive to support cooperative 

work with the Department of Energy to improve nuclear material security. The first 

site visit of this project has been completed and contracts have been signed. A second visit will take place early this summer. 

COOPERATION WITH OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

Question. The current light water reactor fuel cycle in widespread use was developed prior to today’s emphasis on safeguards to prevent proliferation from the civil 

nuclear energy cycle. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been 

forced to establish new safeguards into an existing cycle and into the existing facilities. The AFCI program is exploring new options for fuel cycles that would reduce 

waste, enhance more efficient use of nuclear fuel and reduce proliferation concerns. 

Do you concur that review of proliferation aspects of new fuel cycles should be 

coordinated among the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy and 

the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Nuclear Nonproliferation? 

Answer. Yes, in fact we are coordinating just such an effort between Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, and the National Nuclear Security Administration. Our joint Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection (PRPP) Working 

Group is an excellent example of our coordination. Under PRPP, we are bringing 

together experts from all facets of the nuclear fuel cycle. Beyond the safeguards and 

physical protection experts, we also are engaging the engineers who design all the 

components and processes of the entire fuel cycle. Such an approach will ensure that 

the ideas to enhance PRPP actually will be applied and used to reduce proliferation 

concerns. 

REMOVAL OF ADDITIONAL HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU)

Question. There are a number of programs within your office including the Reduced Enrichment Research and Test Reactor Program charged with developing 

technologies to reduce the threat of proliferation and increase the amount of low enriched uranium that is used in research reactors worldwide. What barriers exist to 

more rapid progress on removing HEU from research reactors? 

Answer. The Reduced Enrichment Research and Test Reactor (RERTR) Program 

has a number of technological and political limitations that slow the speed by which 

progress can be accelerated, regardless of the amount of funding provided for the 

program. The development of low enriched uranium (LEU) fuels suitable for conversion of reactors requires the following steps, which comprise the primary challenges 

facing the program: analyses of the performance and safety characteristics of research reactors undergoing conversion; determination of the detailed technical specifications of the LEU fuel assemblies for each reactor; and regulatory approval of the 

conversions. 

Once LEU conversions are determined to be technically feasible, adequate incentives need to be identified to make the conversions happen. Countries that have 

HEU fuel stockpiles are often aware that they have a ‘‘valuable’’ commodity and it 

can be difficult to persuade them to release the fuel. Incentives are often case-dependent and could include, for instance, removal of spent fuel, supply of fresh LEU 

fuel, or facility upgrades. Negotiated government-to-government agreements may be 

required to implement the incentives. 

Question. Are you resource constrained? 

Answer. Yes, in that the facilities, equipment, and trained personnel that can perform the necessary fuel development are limited. We are actively addressing this situation through international collaboration to study the characteristics of the new 

LEU fuels to determine if there are any limitations to the use of the proposed fuel. 

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (R&D) FUNDING

Question. The Proliferation and Verification R&D account has been reduced by 

$11 million. This account performs a critical role in developing nuclear detection 

technologies, including space-based surveillance. Our ability to detect, monitor and 

verify the transfer, production or testing of special nuclear material will be critical 

to preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and putting U.S. citizens 
124 

at risk. Why has this account been reduced and will this budget cut allow for the 

research, testing and deployment of new detection technology? 

Answer. Our budget request for the Nonproliferation and Verification R&D Program is, in fact, $16 million higher than our request in fiscal year 2004. This reflects, in particular, the need to begin the development of new space-based nuclear 

explosion monitoring sensors to replace the capability on the Defense Support Program satellites which are due to be retired before the end of the decade. 

In the appropriation for fiscal year 2004, the Congress added $29.5 million to our 

request for the R&D program for critical research in nuclear and radiological national security and for particular projects important to the members. Our fiscal year 

2005 budget request was formulated last fall, before we knew the details of the Congressional action on our fiscal year 2004 request. Consequently, that result did not 

figure into the baseline level for fiscal year 2005 funding request. We appreciate the 

confidence expressed by the Congress in the importance of our R&D program. 

Question. If this account received level funding at the fiscal year 2004 level, how 

would you spend the additional funding and how would it assist in detection? 

Answer. We agree that the need to improve the Nation’s ability to detect proliferation and testing of nuclear weapons and materials is becoming ever more important 

in the world today given the proliferation challenges facing us. If the level appropriated by the Congress for our R&D program in fiscal year 2004 were continued, 

we would be able to pursue further demonstration of new detection methods and 

begin to realign our program to address the expanding proliferation threat. We 

would focus our research to develop methods to more confidently detect and characterize enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of plutonium in areas of concern 

around the world. We would also increase our effort to provide the scientific basis 

for attributing the source of any detected nuclear materials. 

We would also seek to accelerate our nuclear explosion monitoring R&D program 

by achieving our goals to calibrate new seismic monitoring stations sooner and enable our partnering agencies to meet their monitoring requirements. We also anticipate a change to those requirements in the near future, to achieve a much lower 

threshold of yield to detect any nuclear explosions. At this time, this challenge 

would be addressed only at a lower level of effort until the seismic calibration program is completed. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR FUEL MARKETS

Question. There are a number of utilities that are concerned about the amount 

of available nuclear fuel there is in the international market. Recently, several companies have found their contracts with Russian suppliers are not being honored and 

they are forced to find other sources to meet their fuel needs. As a result of this 

tight market, fuel prices are rising and there are few opportunities to increase production. In fact, the limited number of nuclear fuel vendors makes OPEC look like 

a free and open market. Are you familiar with these concerns and, if so, are there 

any opportunities in either the U.S. or Russian stockpiles of HEU that would provide an opportunity to down blend in order to add more supply to the market? 

Answer. We are familiar with these concerns and have been monitoring the situation closely. I believe the question should address the supply situation for natural 

uranium, not fuel-grade low enriched uranium, of which there is no shortage. Tight 

supplies of natural uranium feed are responsible for the price increases. The connection is that utilities must provide natural uranium feed to the fuel supplier in order 

to get fuel. 

Supplies into the natural uranium market were interrupted when the Russian 

supplier Techsnabexport (Tenex) cut off supplies of natural uranium to Globe Nuclear Services and Supply (GNSS) as of January 1, 2004. The problem was not only 

the cut-off of supply to GNSS but the short notice provided by Tenex. Tenex notified 

the world on November 3, 2003, just 2 months prior to the cutoff, that supplies 

under contract to GNSS would not be honored. As a result, beginning in January 

2004 GNSS has been unable to supply natural uranium under contracts to U.S. utilities. 

The Department of Energy and the U.S. Government have communicated to Russia our concern on the possible supply shortfalls to U.S. utilities. In that regard, 

Secretary of Energy Abraham was informed by former Minister, now Director 

Rumyantsev of the Russian Atomic Energy Agency, that Tenex is now in negotiations with several U.S. utilities to supply uranium with a view to resolving the 

GNSS shortfall. DOE also understands that the uranium would be provided at the 

same prices and delivery times as under original contracts with GNSS. 

Unfortunately, the Honeywell facility in Metropolis, IL, which is the only U.S. facility for converting uranium to the gaseous form for the next stage of uranium proc-
125 

essing (i.e. enrichment), had to cease production on December 22, 2003, due to an 

accident. It appears that Honeywell has implemented procedures and other changes 

at the plant, so that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could allow the plant to 

resume operations, which have already begun the process of re-starting. With that 

and the supply of natural uranium now being negotiated with Tenex, we expect balance to be restored to the natural uranium market. 

Nevertheless, it appears that the market is coping with the temporary supply 

shortfall. We suspect that utilities have exercised provisions for supply flexibilities 

in their contracts with uranium vendors to alleviate at least some of the shortfall. 

The Department, of course, continues to closely monitor the situation. 

Since this is primarily a commercial, not a non-proliferation, issue, I would suggest that the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science & Technology or the Office of the 

Undersecretary could provide further details. 

NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY

Question. Dr. Beckner, I understand that NIF is still at least 6 years and over 

$1 billion away from completion of this project. It is accurate to say that NIF is both 

the largest laser, and the most expensive diagnostic tool in the NNSA stockpile. 

When we develop any technology, we need to ask ourselves—is the outcome worth 

the cost? If you don’t achieve ignition, the American people have purchased a laser 

that is it 25 times more expensive than the Z machine at Sandia. I think we need 

to understand that the project is viable before we spend billions more over the life 

of this program. How much money are you willing to spend to achieve ignition and 

at what point would you say we have spent too much? 

Answer. The NIF Project is on schedule for completion at the end of fiscal year 

2008. Our plan, as outlined in the project data sheet, shows the funding required 

in fiscal years 2005–2008 to complete the project is approximately $867 million, a 

figure that has not changed since the present baseline was approved in September 

2000. 

NNSA is developing an integrated activation and early use plan for NIF that provides for first ignition experiments in 2010. This advance in the ignition date has 

been made possible by the strong technical advances in the Inertial Confinement 

Fusion program. Recent simulations have shown that it is possible to develop capsules that can be filled using a simple fill tube instead of a high pressure diffusion 

system. The fill tube system is simpler and less costly than the currently planned 

diffusion method, and can be developed sooner. Hence fusion ignition can be attempted earlier with this new fill tube approach. A 1995 review of the ignition program concluded the probability of ignition on NIF was 50 percent or greater. Our 

confidence in demonstrating ignition on NIF has increased since then. The NIF activation and early use plan will be reviewed by the Defense Sciences Board. 

Completing the NIF Project is a key step in achieving ignition. In order to pursue 

the experimental campaign needed to support pursuit of our goal of obtaining ignition in fiscal year 2010, there are many program activities that must be conducted. 

Our total budget for Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Program activities (not including the project), as outlined in the FYNSP, is approximately $2,046 million over 

the period fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2010. Of this amount, approximately 

half is directly related to national efforts aimed at our goal of achieving ignition utilizing the NIF. The balance supports operation of other facilities (such as Z) and 

our non-ignition stewardship activities. 

We fully recognize the magnitude of the investment we are making in the ICF 

area, and are convinced that it is the appropriate course of action to achieve our 

ignition and stewardship missions. 

We would be pleased to supply additional details on the break out of the inertial 

fusion budget elements for fiscal year 2005. Preliminary plans also exist for fiscal 

year 2006–2010. 

Question. Would you be willing to focus on solving the most challenging technical 

problems such as the cryogenic targets and perform a thorough testing on a full 

cluster of 48 lasers before you go forward as currently planned? 

Answer. In pursuing the goal of ignition in 2010, we must address many challenges. Among these are the design and manufacture of the ignition targets, development of cryogenic target handling capability, and completion of the NIF in fiscal 

year 2008. Our current plans provide the correct balance, within the FYNSP budget, 

for addressing each of these challenges. In addition, we are currently developing a 

NIF Activation and Early Use Plan that will define the specific path towards ignition in more detail. We anticipate having this plan reviewed by the Defense Science 

Board this summer, and will finalize the document after receiving their input. 
126 

The performance of the NIF laser system is being continuously evaluated. Data 

from the initial quad of four laser beams has already demonstrated that on a perbeam basis, the facility meets its design requirements. In addition, we have used 

the diagnostics and target systems that are being developed in parallel with the NIF 

laser project to successfully demonstrate the facility’s capability of performing sophisticated experiments, and to make progress toward the Stockpile Stewardship 

Program’s important high energy density physics and ignition goals. We intend to 

continually test facility’s performance as additional beams are activated, and perform increasingly more difficult experiments with those laser beams. 

While having a full cluster of 48 beams operating on NIF will be useful to high 

energy density physics, the placement of the beams will not allow many important 

ignition experiments to be conducted. All the beams from the same cluster enter the 

NIF target chamber from the same quarter of the chamber, essentially coming from 

the same direction. This is desirable for high energy density physics, and enables 

important experiments to be performed in this area. For example, planar 

hydrodynamics experiments will be performed in late 2004 to support validation of 

3D ASC computer codes; equation of State experiments will be performed in late 

2005; and radiation hydrodynamics experiments will be performed in late 2006. 

However, this configuration does not provide the symmetrical target illumination required to do the compression experiments required to investigate ignition. Consequently, we do not foresee any added value to placing a hold point at the completion of the first cluster of 48 beams. In fact, such a hold point would likely lead to 

schedule delays and cost increases while making the goal of ignition in 2010 impossible to achieve. 

FIRST CLUSTER-LASER INTEGRATION

Question. The fiscal year 2005 budget specifies that NIF ignition has been delayed 

until 2014 gives me great concern regarding this project. Delaying the ignition start 

date is contrary to news that the project is ahead of schedule. I understand that 

laser installation is 18 months ahead of schedule and the Beam Light Infrastructure 

was achieved nearly 3 years ahead of schedule. As a result of these conflicting statements, I am very skeptical of actual status of NIF. To date, $2.5 billion has been 

spent and another $1 billion is required before we know whether or not this project 

will work. I don’t share this all-or-nothing attitude, because the costs are too high. 

I believe we need a more measured approach to address the significant technical 

challenges that lie ahead. George Miller, the NIF Associate Director, has stated that 

the most significant technical challenge he has is the full integration of the lasers. 

I believe the first cluster, which is 48 lasers or one-quarter of the total, would certainly give a clear indication of whether full integration is feasible. Dr. Beckner I 

would like you to put together a budget and schedule that will accelerate the installation and testing of the first cluster in fiscal year 2005. Can you do that? 

Answer. I am very much aware of the committee’s determination that the program to achieve ignition remains on target. I’ve met with the staff of this committee 

as well as the other three committees to clarify our recent decisions to change 

course in order to pull back the ignition target to 2010, as opposed to 2014. We’ve 

done that because all of the committees have a very strong view that we must maintain that schedule. We had allowed the target date for ignition to move out because 

of funding priorities in other elements of the program not because of a reduced commitment to ignition. 

Successful completion of the NIF project on its current baseline schedule is only 

one of the elements necessary to achieve our goal of ignition in 2010. The project 

has re-sequenced some of its work to both accomplish it more efficiently, and to 

allow early activation of a quad of four laser beams. This re-sequencing has resulted 

in several major project milestones being completed well ahead of schedule, while 

the performance of the first quad of beams has provided us with a demonstration 

that the fundamental design is sound, as well as providing a basis for fine tuning 

component designs prior to initiating large procurements. We continue to monitor 

the project closely, and are satisfied that it is on schedule for successful completion 

in accordance with its approved baseline. 

I have discussed the feasibility of accelerating completion of the first cluster of 

48 laser beams into fiscal year 2005 with Dr. Miller. At this stage in the project 

and within the current baseline and funding profile, procurement logistics, and lead 

times limit our ability to further re-sequence work and selectively accelerate milestones. Further we do not see any way to pull the first cluster milestone back as 

far as fiscal year 2005. However, if the committee would like to see an alternative 

schedule which accelerated installation and testing of the first cluster, which includes a modest suite of ‘‘proof of principles’’ experiments and which minimizes but 
127 

could not eliminate impact to the ignition campaign schedule, we will develop such 

a schedule for your consideration. 

CRYOGENIC TARGETS

Question. The cryogenic target for the NIF system is a component the Department 

has deferred working on for several years. The University of Rochester has been 

working on the only cryogenic target in the world and it has been an enormous challenge. As I understand it, your office is currently considering two technology options. 

One is similar to the Omega Laser target developed at Rochester and a second is 

a theoretical option you believe will save NIF tens of millions of dollars and 4 years 

using a beryllium capsule. However, until this problem is solved, ignition will not 

become reality. Like laser integration, I believe you should focus your staff and 

budget on resolving the enormous challenges associated with the cryogenic targets. 

What is your plan and timetable to address the challenges associated with cryogenic 

targets? 

Answer. A cryogenic ignition target consists of a capsule filled with fusion ‘‘fuel’’, 

and a surrounding cryogenic system which holds the capsule accurately at temperatures near absolute zero. Research on cryogenic ignition targets has been a major 

component of the ICF Program since its inception. We have developed a wide variety of ignition capsule designs, and numerous aspects of the performance of these 

capsules have been validated via experiments on the Nova and Omega lasers and 

elsewhere. We have made strong progress on cryogenic systems. We have demonstrated much of the required technology, and a complete, integrated cryogenic system is operational at Rochester. The Rochester system provides valuable insight for 

NIF. The Rochester cryogenic system uses a high-pressure chamber to diffuse gas 

into the capsule. 

Our plan for NIF cryogenic ignition targets has three major components. First, 

we will continue our national cryogenic target technology development program. 

This program has demonstrated impressive results in the past several years, particularly in the areas of target fabrication and characterization. Secondly, we are 

planning a cryogenic system for NIF that uses a thin tube to fill the capsule with 

fusion fuel. This ‘‘fill-tube’’ cryogenic system will be completed in 2009 and used for 

ignition experiments in 2010. A simpler pre-ignition cryogenic system will be completed in fiscal year 2006. This fill-tube system will ultimately be modified to allow 

operation with all types of ignition targets, including the diffusion filled targets used 

at Rochester. Finally, we are planning experiments and calculations to refine the 

design for fill-tube ignition targets. Note the fill-tube effort is not based on theory 

alone; fill-tubes have been used extensively in other areas of the ICF Campaign and 

the stewardship program, and we will draw upon this experience in preparing the 

first ignition experiments. 

Question. Are you planning to draw on the available expertise at the national labs 

to solve this problem and will you seek to have one of the labs validate the technology and design? 

Answer. Yes, as part of the national planning process for the ICF Program, all 

ICF participants are committed to leading technical efforts within the context of 

participation in an integrated program. This will continue to be the case for the 

cryogenic ignition target program. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will 

lead the construction of the NIF cryogenic target system and play a major role in 

ignition capsule design. Los Alamos National Laboratory will do independent calculations of the fill-tube approach, and in addition the material science capabilities 

at Los Alamos will be brought to bear on key questions related to ignition target 

fabrication. The University of Rochester will provide valuable input to the NIF cryogenic system via cryogenic experiments at OMEGA, and with the Naval Research 

Laboratory will also examine fill-tube target designs applicable to ‘‘direct drive’’ inertial fusion. General Atomics is focused on specific aspects of target fabrication and 

has experience in cryogenic systems. This national approach has proven very effective in advancing the technological state-of-the-art and providing innovative solutions as well as effective peer review. 

OMEGA

Question. Will you begin to test the beryllium target design on the OMEGA system as soon as possible to get initial data to know if you have a viable target? 

Answer. Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia have been conducting an 

extensive series of ignition-related experiments at OMEGA since the 1999 shutdown 

of Livermore’s Nova laser. We expect that the OMEGA laser and the early experimental capability available at NIF will continue to be of great benefit as we move 

toward ignition. Experiments at OMEGA and NIF will be an integral part of our 
128 

risk mitigation strategy. Both beryllium and plastic targets will be examined. These 

experiments will be used to validate advanced simulation tools and thereby refine 

our target designs for the 2010 ignition campaign. 

ESTABLISHING SCIENTIFIC MILESTONES

Question. Dr. Beckner, following the re-baselining of the NIF program in 2000, 

DOE agreed to specific milestones for the construction project. The Defense Authorization for 2002 requires that the Administrator of the NNSA notify Congress for 

every level 1 and level 2 milestones that are achieved and a full report if a milestone is missed. However, that reporting requirement is only for construction and 

assembly milestones and doesn’t apply to any scientific or programmatic milestones. 

In fact, there aren’t any programmatic milestones by which to base NIF’s success 

or failure as a scientific tool. I believe it is important that NNSA develop specific 

milestones by which Congress can judge this project. This document should also be 

peer-reviewed complex-wide for input on the scientific and research goals. Can you 

develop these scientific R&D milestones and provide to Congress such goals by this 

June? 

Answer. I fully agree a defined set of R&D milestones will provide insight into 

the success of NIF as a scientific tool. Experiments which could only be performed 

on the NIF have already been conducted and will continue to be performed during 

the commissioning of subsequent laser beams. In addition, we are currently developing a NIF Activation and Early Use Plan that will define the specific path towards ignition in more detail, including the scientific milestones we will achieve. We 

anticipate having this plan available in draft by the June time frame so that it can 

be reviewed by the Defense Science Board this summer. We will be pleased to provide you with the draft document, but request that you allow us to complete the 

external peer review process and incorporate the input from that review prior to finalizing the plan and beginning to report to you on our progress against it. 

Z MACHINE

Question. Dr. Beckner, Sandia National Labs currently operates the most powerful energy source of X-rays in the world. I think that anyone familiar with this machine would agree that Z has been a very cost-effective workhorse of the stockpile 

stewardship program providing important data from high energy density experiments as well as possessing great potential for inertial confinement fusion research. 

We are turning away important research, because we haven’t provided the financial 

support. I can certainly think of a project that could be used to provide the needed 

funding to expand the research operations and capabilities of this important scientific tool. Do you share my belief that the Z-machine is underutilized and that 

we are foregoing important research by not expanding to a second shift and increasing operational funding? 

Answer. The Z pulsed-power facility has been very successful, and I agree with 

you that more shots on Z could be effectively used. The amount of shots requested 

annually on Z is more than twice the number available under single-shift, 5-dayper-week operations. NNSA has added significant additional funds to Z over the 

past few years via the Z-refurbishment Project. This approximately $60M activity 

will further expand Z’s capabilities and ensure that it remains a vital part of the 

stewardship program. 

While we have funded the refurbishment of Z, we unfortunately have not been 

able to implement additional operations due to funding limitations and competing 

program demands. In fact, many large Department of Energy and NNSA scientific 

facilities are oversubscribed; indeed, one of the hallmarks of a successful facility is 

strong demand from the scientific community. We have attempted to balance the experimental, computational and engineering demands of Stockpile Stewardship within the FYNSP. There are a number of critical experiments on Z required to support 

life-extension program and other critical activities which have the highest priority. 

We recognize that some important experiments will be delayed given the current 

single-shift operational status of Z. 

Question. What is the justification for remaining with one shift, when so much 

more could be accomplished? 

Answer. NNSA is committed to funding all stewardship activities within the existing FYNSP. Additional facility operations at Z would require the addition of funds 

to the Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Campaign from other parts of the stockpile 

stewardship program or the shifting of funds within the ICF campaign; in my judgment neither has been the right course to pursue given other funding pressures in 

the ICF Campaign and the stewardship program. 
129 

The NIF Project is a major commitment by NNSA and DOE and a key element 

of the stewardship program, and hence we are committed to delivering it on schedule. Demonstration of ignition is the major purpose of NIF, and with respect to demonstrating fusion in the laboratory, it is our first priority. Success on NIF ignition 

is essential to the future of the ICF Program. The situation is similar in the NIF 

diagnostics, cryogenics, and supporting technologies area. As I noted earlier, we 

have decided to fund the refurbishment of the Z machine. We also have major commitments to additional operations and the Extended Performance project for the 

OMEGA laser at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester, 

which also has had recent outstanding results. 

Question. Do you support expanding the opportunity to do more research in inertial confinement fusion at Z? 

Answer. The technical progress on inertial fusion at Z has been impressive, and 

if it were possible to do more under the constraints we face I would support it. However, given the FYNSP, I do not support the diversion of resources from elsewhere 

within the ICF Campaign or other stewardship accounts to fund additional ICF research at Z. We do have several important challenging milestones in the Z research 

plan during fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 and success in achieving or exceeding these milestones could cause us to change some of our procurement priorities. 

As documented in National Academy of Sciences and other reviews, the demonstration of ignition is the essential next step forward for the ICF Program. Demonstration of ignition is the major purpose of NIF, and with respect to demonstrating inertial fusion in the laboratory, it is our first priority. Success on NIF ignition is essential to the future of the ICF Program. The NIF ignition program is tightly constrained and we must stay focused upon it to succeed. 

Question. What can NNSA do to facilitate such research? 

Answer. The primary way NNSA can facilitate this research is by adding additional operations to Z and successfully completing the Z refurbishment project. 

NNSA is proceeding with the refurbishment of the Z machine. This refurbishment 

will replace original components that date back to the early 1980’s. This refurbishment will: extend the lifetime of Z, increase its precision and reproducibility, reduce 

the maintenance required between experiments thereby facilitating double-shift operations should the additional funds become available, and significantly enhance its 

technical capabilities. For example, the refurbished Z facility will produce nearly 

double the X-ray energy for stockpile stewardship and ICF research. It will also 

greatly expand the utility of Z to address fundamental material properties by including the flexibility of pulse shaping in order to double the experimental pressures 

achieved. 

NIF OTHER OPTIONS

Question. Dr. Beckner, if we pulled the plug on NIF today I estimate we could 

save between $3 and $5 billion over the life of this project. A lot of very promising 

work could be done with this money including a variety of experiments using pulse 

power and laser power to test our weapons systems. Also, the Japanese have had 

tremendous success with petawatt lasers at a fraction the cost of NIF. I know you 

are very much aware that the French are pursuing a similar laser system slightly 

larger than NIF that hopes to have ignition within a decade. Is there any reason 

why we shouldn’t look at other options before we spend another $3 to $5 billion? 

Answer. The NIF is a unique element of the Stockpile Stewardship Program 

(SSP), providing the capability to pursue the goal of ignition and create conditions 

of matter similar to those found in nuclear weapons. We believe NIF is the only facility in the world capable of getting ignition by 2010. At that time, it will have been 

nearly 20 years since the last U.S. nuclear test. NIF will enable the study of issues 

that affect an aging or refurbished stockpile. It will also advance critical elements 

of the underlying science of nuclear weapons that will play a major role in validation of ASC codes. NIF will be important in helping to attract and train the exceptional scientific and technical talent needed to sustain stockpile stewardship over 

the long term. While we are constantly evaluating all options to obtain the capabilities and information required to support the SSP, we have not identified any U.S. 

facilities that can support the vital needs of the Stewardship program as well as 

NIF. 

We do not believe it prudent to rely on foreign nations to satisfy our requirements. While it is true that the French are pursuing a laser similar to NIF, their 

project has just broken ground, something we did for NIF in 1997. Thus, we believe 

the French are 6 to 7 years further from ignition than we are. In addition, the 

French project is dependant on optical components jointly developed with NIF for 

success. If NIF is cancelled, the French laser project will also be impacted. The Jap-
130 

anese results, partially based on target designs and laser technology from Livermore, is scientifically exciting but in its infancy. Their next step, not anticipated for 

another 5 years, will use NIF laser technology, is only a proof of principle, and will 

not achieve ignition. In addition, current evaluations require a NIF-scale facility of 

petawatt and long pulse lasers for ignition success. We believe that the current 

FYNSP is the appropriate funding approach to our Stewardship mission. 

MESA/CMR FACILITIES

Question. Your fiscal year 2005 budget provided only half of the funding necessary 

to complete the MESA project at Sandia National Lab by 2007. This delay will unnecessarily increase the overall cost and delay critical work on engineering solutions 

that will benefit the weapons stockpile. This budget, also fails to provide adequate 

funding to complete the Chemical and Metallurgy Research Facility (CMR) at Los 

Alamos. It is my understanding that the planned end-life of the existing 50-yearsold facility will expire 4 years before a new CMR replacement will be ready for use. 

What is the justification for delaying the completion of these important facilities— 

especially when delays will drive up the overall cost? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2005 request for MESA is consistent with the Performance Baseline approved by the Secretary of Energy on October 8, 2002, with a Total 

Project Cost of $518.5 million and a completion date of May 2011. The Performance 

Baseline reflects construction of the MESA facility in a sequenced approach that 

brings the MESA Complex on-line in phases to meet NNSA’s priority mission requirements, while at the same time being affordable within the confines of the Future Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP). Critical microelectronic integrated 

circuits are already being produced in the retooled Microelectronics Development 

Laboratory portion of the MESA project and have met the initial needs of the life 

extension program. 

As a result of the congressional appropriation increase provided for MESA in fiscal year 2003, the Performance Baseline was changed to reflect a revised completion 

date of May 2010. The appropriation increase in fiscal year 2004 will result in further acceleration of the project; the actual schedule impact is being evaluated as 

part of the fiscal year 2006 budget process. The fiscal year 2005 request was then 

adjusted due to overall priorities within the constraints of the FYNSP, and to reflect 

a favorable bidding environment that allowed for shifts in the project funding profile 

that had no impact on project completion. 

The CMR Replacement Project continues to be a high priority for the Stockpile 

Stewardship Program. Based on the fiscal year 2004 appropriation reducing the 

CMR Replacement Project funding by approximately 50 percent (from $20.5 million 

to $9.9 million after the rescission), it was necessary to reassess the project’s path 

forward within the confines of the Future Years Nuclear Security Program 

(FYNSP). We re-scoped the project realizing that it would not be sound management 

to move from a fiscal year 2004 appropriation of $9.9 million to our original plan 

of $75.0 million for fiscal year 2005. 

MODERN PIT FACILITY

Question. Dr. Beckner, the President’s budget provides a $19 million increase for 

conceptual design for the Modern Pit Facility. I assume, based on this funding request, that the Department is intent on moving forward with the construction of a 

$4 billion facility. What is the proposed timetable for the Secretary of Energy to 

make a final decision to site the Modern Pit Facility? 

Answer. A secretarial decision to move forward with planning that includes a site 

selection for a Modern Pit Facility is currently pending. All documentation required 

by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to support a final Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) and associated siting decision is complete. NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks announced on January 28, 2004, ‘‘I intend to have further consultations with Congress before we proceed to a final EIS.’’ Construction start for 

an MPF is currently scheduled for 2012 with full operations in 2021. The Congress 

will be consulted at major planning decision points prior to the start of construction. 

Question. Is the Carlsbad region or elsewhere in New Mexico still a viable option 

for this facility? 

Answer. Yes, the Carlsbad region, the Los Alamos site along with the three other 

sites evaluated in the draft environmental impact statement are still viable options 

to host the Modern Pit Facility. 

Question. Has the Department undertaken a study to evaluate the condition of the 

existing plutonium pits to verify the need for this facility? 

Answer. The Department has an extensive study to evaluate the condition of existing plutonium pits in the stockpile. NNSA is also conducting an extensive set of 
131 

aging studies to confirm the minimum pit lifetime. While some results from these 

studies are expected in 2006, the result of additional work to confirm current pit 

lifetime estimates will become available prior to 2012 when construction of a Modern Pit Facility (MPF) is scheduled to start. Because of the uncertainty in pit lifetimes and the long-lead time to design and construct an MPF, continued planning 

for an MPF is prudent risk management. 

Question. Will the nuclear stockpile report that was requested by this committee 

impact the Secretary’s decision to site a new pit facility? 

Answer. As noted in the report (‘‘An Enhanced Schedule for the Modern Pit Facility (MPF)’’) provided by the Secretary of Energy on March 1, 2004, continued planning for a new pit facility is appropriate for all future stockpiles under consideration. The NNSA has evaluated capacity requirements for an MPF based on the following parameters: (1) size of the future stockpile, (2) numbers and types of weapons in the stockpile, (3) pit lifetime, (4) start date for quantity production, and (5) 

length of time between shutdown of Rocky Flats and start of new production. We 

have concluded from these analyses that if the number of weapons in the U.S. stockpile is consistent with NPR/Moscow Treaty and if pit lifetimes are assumed to be 

about 60 years, the Nation will need a production capacity of some 125 pits per year 

beginning in about 2021. 

SPACE REACTORS

Question. Admiral Bowman, I understand that Secretary Abraham has recently 

assigned the responsibility for the development of a civilian space nuclear reactor 

as part of project Prometheus. The mission NASA has identified for this project is 

the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. Traditionally, this activity has been the responsibility for DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy. How is it that the Naval Reactor program 

has secured this responsibility? 

Answer. The NASA Administrator asked the Secretary of Energy to assign my 

Program the responsibility to develop, design, deliver, and operationally support civilian space nuclear reactors. On March 8, 2004, the Secretary of Energy assigned 

Naval Reactors these responsibilities in support of Project Prometheus. The Secretary of the Navy concurred in this assignment. 

In the NASA press release, NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe is quoted as saying, ‘‘NASA sought this partnership because NR has an enduring commitment to 

safety and environmental stewardship that is a requirement for an undertaking of 

this magnitude. This partnership will help ensure the safe development and use of 

a space-fission reactor to enable unparalleled science and discovery as we explore 

the solar system and beyond. This work is an integral piece of the President’s exploration agenda and without it the exploration agenda is compromised.’’ 

The DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) will retain responsibility for various 

space nuclear technology efforts, including long-term space reactor science and technology development not associated with work assigned to NR. NE will also continue 

its responsibility for all aspects of space radioisotope power systems. 

STAFFING AND TECHNICAL CHALLENGES

Question. How do you plan to meet this challenge from a staffing and technical 

capability? 

Answer. Because the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program is a lean organization, 

accepting a role in Project Prometheus requires that I increase the size of my staff 

and my DOE laboratory staffs to prevent any noticeable impact on the core mission 

of supporting the nuclear fleet. Because we are still early in the planning phase, 

we have not yet determined how much of the Project Prometheus effort will be done 

in house and how much will be subcontracted. The analysis we’ve done so far indicates that this year I should increase my Headquarters staff by a few people and 

my two DOE laboratory staffs by about 60 people (combined increase). Because I 

intend to subcontract some of the Project Prometheus work, my staff will be reviewing the specialized expertise and facilities of industry, academia, and other DOE 

laboratories to inform my decision. All of my staff and DOE laboratory increases will 

be fully funded by NASA. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

TECHNICAL AREA 18 LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

Question. Last June, the Department of Energy halted work on the project to relocate nuclear material and functions from the Los Alamos National Laboratory’s 

Technical Area 18 to the Nevada Test Site because of an excessively high increase 
132 

in the cost to complete the relocation. At that time, it was reported that the cost 

estimate for the modifications to the facility at NTS had risen to more than $200 

million over the original estimate of $100 million. The DOE had further indicated 

its intent to conduct an independent cost review. 

What is the current cost of this project? What has been done to reduce the cost? 

Has project scope or facility functionality been reduced or changed and what effect 

has this had on cost? 

Answer. NNSA is finalizing its review of the conceptual design for the NTS Device 

Assembly Facility (DAF) option. The initial conceptual design for DAF was submitted to NNSA Headquarters on January 20, 2004 with an estimated project range 

of $219 million to $255 million with a schedule for completing the project in 2011. 

As part of this submission, the project schedule had special nuclear material 

(SNM) shipments from TA–18 to DAF in 2009. After reviewing this package and assessing options for accelerating activities, I announced on March 31, 2004 that 

NNSA would accelerate movement of TA–18 programmatic SNM to DAF. The initial 

goal is to move approximately 50 percent of the programmatic SNM from TA–18 to 

DAF by March 2006. At this time, NNSA anticipates it will need access to a subset 

of the TA–18 SNM to support ongoing mission commitments during transition in the 

areas of emergency response, nuclear nonproliferation, and criticality safety. 

On April 9, 2004, Dr. Beckner, directed that the early move of SNM occur outside 

of the project. The original project submission identified approximately $22 million 

related to transportation costs of SNM, including the design, development, and testing of new SNM shipping containers. Accelerating transportation activities will 

allow for NNSA to use existing shipping containers, avoiding approximately $7–8 

million for designing new containers. Current estimates related to SNM move are 

$1.22 million in fiscal year 2004 and $3 million in fiscal year 2005. On April 30, 

2004, I directed my staff to prepare a closure plan for TA–18 that will identify the 

schedule and cost for moving the rest of the SNM to DAF. 

Based on this direction and input provided by other NNSA program managers, 

the project team revised the CD–1 submission and provided information to NNSA 

Headquarters for review and approval on May 7, 2004. While the final range is 

under validation by NNSA, it is expected to be in the low- to mid-$100 millions with 

project schedule for completion in late 2009. In addition to removing transportation 

activities at $22 million, NNSA is removing the design and construction of a new 

low scatter building within the DAF PIDAS based on discussions with NNSA programs and security experts. Design and construction of the low scatter building was 

estimated at approximately $30 million. NNSA is now exploring options to conduct 

the activities proposed for this new facility. In addition, NNSA is deferring upgrades 

to the critical assemblies at a cost of approximately $10 million; only new control 

systems and instrumentation for the critical assemblies are contained within the 

project to support installation at DAF. 

Question. Please provide an ‘‘apples to apples’’ comparison of cost among the options that the DOE considered and explain the rationale for concluding that the 

NTS option is the option with the lowest cost and highest probability of success. 

Answer. During the CD–0 phase of the project, NNSA evaluated the proposed action of relocating TA–18 capabilities and materials associated with Security Category I/II materials to a new location. Location alternatives included sites: (1) a different site at LANL at Los Alamos, New Mexico; (2) Sandia National Laboratories 

(SNL) at Albuquerque, New Mexico; (3) NTS near Las Vegas, Nevada; and (4) Argonne National Laboratory—West (ANL–W), near Idaho Falls, Idaho. The No Action 

and Upgrade in Place Alternatives were also evaluated. These alternatives are discussed in detail in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed Relocation of Technical Area 18 Capabilities and Materials at the Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, DOE/EIS–0319, August 2002. The preferred alternative in the Final 

EIS was the DAF. 

As a result of CD–0 Phase 1, each alternative developed a concept and rough 

order of magnitude cost estimate. These estimates were analyzed by NNSA and adjusted to provide equal comparison as shown in Table 1. It is important to note that 

the transportation cost estimates at this time were anticipated to exceed $50 million 

and there were concerns regarding the system’s ability to support TA–18 SNM relocation in addition to other requirements. 
133 

TABLE 1.—CD–0 PHASE 1 ALTERNATIVE COST ASSESSMENT 

[In millions of dollars] 

LANL NTS SNL ANL–W 

TEC ................................................................................................ 130 .6 76 .7 129 .2 92 .7 

TPC ................................................................................................ 148 .9 95 .0 147 .6 111 .0 

Transportation ............................................................................... 4 52 50 53 

TOTAL ............................................................................... 152 .9 147 .0 197 .6 164 .0 

Based on this cost information and program considerations, former NNSA Administrator John Gordon approved the original CD–0 Phase 2 for this project on July 

27, 2001 to proceed with designing a new underground facility at LANL. While not 

completed, preliminary information from conceptual design activities for this underground facility in conjunction with the events of September 11, 2001, warranted a 

re-examination of the NTS option (DAF). The AE chartered a group to update the 

initial NTS concept on April 15, 2002 and to assess life cycle costs. The group completed a special study ‘‘TA–18 Mission Relocation Project Special Study: Revisit the 

DAF Concept’’ on June 25, 2002. The results showed that the DAF alternative was 

now a more cost effective option in terms of construction and SNM transportation 

(see Table 2). As a result of new information, the AE approved the revised CD–0 

Phase 2 on August 8, 2002, for the DAF. 

TABLE 2.—TA–18 MISSION RELOCATION PROJECT SPECIAL STUDY RESULTS 

[In millions of dollars] 

LANL NTS 

Design, Construction and Start-up ................................................................................................ 162 .0 96 .7 

PIDAS Requirements ....................................................................................................................... 16 .0 ( 1 ) 

Transportation ................................................................................................................................. 4 .0 30 

TOTAL ................................................................................................................................. 182 .0 126 .7 

1 N/A. 

At NTS, only DAF was determined to be suitable and capable of adequately supporting the TA–18 missions. This decision was based on the fact that other NTS locations would require new construction at a substantially higher base cost than remodeling DAF. In addition, the DAF has long been recognized as under-utilized and 

it maintains substantial excess capacity. A decision was made based upon an option 

analysis to utilize existing office space at the NTS control point rather than build 

new offices near the DAF (with resulting cost avoidance). 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LAB (PNNL)

Question. Ambassador Brooks, a draft plan for accelerated cleanup of the Hanford 

Site, and the 300 Area in particular, would force evacuation by 2007 of several 

buildings within the Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL)—buildings that currently host work for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the 

Department of Homeland Security. Adequate replacement facilities cannot be in 

place by the 2007 deadline, making this the first time in the history of the Environmental Management program that cleanup would require active facilities to be demolished, and capabilities discontinued and/or lost. 

During a House Armed Services Committee hearing last week, you said the Office 

of Science, which serves as steward of PNNL, had not yet asked for NNSA help in 

addressing the potential loss of national security capability at the lab. Is that still 

true? 

Answer. The Office of Science has asked NNSA to inventory its activities at Area 

300. NNSA has conducted this assessment and submitted it to the Office of Science. 

Question. Has the Department sought input from your office in finding a solution 

to the problems posed by the draft cleanup schedule for 300 Area? 

Answer. The Department has raised the problems posed by the draft cleanup 

schedule for the 300 Area with NNSA but has not yet asked NNSA for solutions. 
134 

Question. If the Department or the Office of Science seeks help from the NNSA, 

is your office prepared to contribute to the cost of replacing the facilities lost to 300 

Area cleanup? 

Answer. We are currently assessing whether or not the NNSA activities that 

would be lost at Area 300 justify the considerable cost of replacing the 300 Area 

facilities. 

Question. Are you confident that the Department is on track to find a solution 

that preserves the important capabilities at PNNL? 

Answer. PNNL supports the national security of the United States in a variety 

of ways and should be commended for its efforts. However, given that PNNL’s 300 

Area capabilities only account for roughly 17 percent of NNSA’s nonproliferation 

budget at PNNL, NNSA must evaluate all available options before it can support 

the construction of a new facility to replace PNNL’s 300 Area facilities. 

Senator DOMENICI. I want to share something with you just before we close this hearing. I do not know if I should be talking 

about this issue of America with you, but it is going to be science 

that is going to make the breakthrough, be it one or ten, that will 

once again start creating jobs in America, so that when productivity increases we will see jobs instead of what we are seeing now 

as productivity and no jobs. Most crazy arrangement of economics 

we have ever seen. It would seem to me the breakthrough with 

brand new technology and innovative things is going to do it. 

Where it will come from, I do not know. I have been pondering 

what we could do in the Federal Government as an incentive to 

have it happen quicker but that is too tough for me. But I have 

some people thinking about it. But frankly, I think you have more 

to do with it than people think, because you have the greatest 

array of scientists and engineers, when you add your three labs up, 

of anywhere in the world. And when you take the Mesa Facility 

and the CMR facilities, and those are needed for the stockpile, but 

everybody knows that nano-science and micro-engineering, somewhere from those is going to come that breakthrough. And the center for it was supposed to be Sandia National Laboratories in a facility we started because of some things that nano-science may do 

for the nuclear weapons. Now, we can let an institution see and 

live its day and not do what it is supposed to do because we do not 

fund it on time. Or we can think it is important enough and fund 

it. So I am complaining to you that your budget will cause a very 

big delay in providing the facilities that are not there, that you 

cannot expect great scientists to work in. If you ever saw what they 

are working in, they are not going to make the innovative breakthroughs that we are talking about there. And so I think the 50 

percent reduction in the expected continuation of the building is 

not right. I urge that you be considerate of our efforts to move it 

back on a path, that it might get built sooner. Now, that is enough. 

If you want to comment, fine. If not. 

Ambassador BROOKS. I think yes sir is the appropriate thing for 

me to say. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. With that, we have a number of hearings for this subcommittee this year and they will be interesting, 

but we stand recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., Wednesday, March 23, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(135) 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Domenici, Craig, Reid, and Murray. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT OF JESSIE H. ROBERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

Senator DOMENICI. The meeting will come to order. I understand 

Senator Reid, Senator Craig will be along, but I want to explain 

to you what’s going on here and I haven’t decided yet what I’m 

going to do, but there’s a briefing by Mr. Tenet, a closed briefing 

for Senators, and I haven’t heard him yet and I may get started 

and just recess and you’ll have to wait. Sorry for the audience. 

We’ll wait and come back, but we’ll get you finished before noon. 

So good morning, and for all of you the hearing is going to come 

to order. The subcommittee is going to take testimony on the fiscal 

year 2005 budget request. We’re going to take testimony from Jessie Roberson, Assistant Secretary, Office of Environmental Management; Beverly Cook, Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Health and Safety; Dr. Margaret Chu, Director of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. I appreciate your participation 

here today and I look forward to your testimony. 

The President’s request for the Office of Environmental Management provides $7.4 billion. This is the largest request ever made 

for environmental cleanup. I applaud the efforts of the Assistant 

Secretary Roberson and the efforts to reform the DOE cleanup program. I intend to carefully evaluate all the cleanup responsibilities. 

The administration has succeeded in reducing the total cost estimates for 35 years by focusing on risk-based cleanup as a strategy 

and seeking accelerated cleanup agreements with the States. The 

DOE now believes that cleanup of the remaining 39 sites will finish 

by 2035 and will cost $142 billion down from $192 billion which we 

were looking at in 2001. While the achievement that we’re going 
136 

to work towards is remarkable, I’m concerned by the Department’s 

overriding determination to close out cleanup by 2035. 

This budget proposes shifting a number of cleanup responsibilities to other offices and creating an entirely new office to manage 

future cleanup of any ongoing DOE activities that are not currently 

managed by EM. 

It seems absurd to think that waste generated after a certain 

date shouldn’t be handled in the same aggressive manner that EM 

has applied to existing cleanup. The budget process, creation of an 

office of future liability—and I’m not at all convinced that creating 

a new office and bureaucracy makes sense—EM has worked very 

hard to minimize waste cost and it would be a shame to lose the 

experience and knowledge created. 

I intend to evaluate all the cleanup responsibilities EM has proposed shifting to other programs in this budget, including the proposal to saddle NNSA with the added cleanup burden. Since we 

don’t ask EM to test our nuclear stockpile, it seemed inconsistent 

to expect NNSA to perform environmental cleanup. Now maybe I 

got it wrong, but I don’t think so. 

The President’s budget requests $880 million for Yucca. The 

President proposes tapping the mandatory fees assessed to utility 

customers to pay for developing the waste repository. These fees 

amount to $749 million this year. The budget proposes that an annual receipt be reclassified as discretionary funds and appropriated. I’m not optimistic that this reclassification can be accomplished. 

I know that the Senate budget resolution does assume $577 million as a minimum level of funding, the same level that was provided in 2004. I remain hopeful that more will be provided this 

year in order to keep Yucca on schedule to open by 2010. For the 

Office of Environmental Safety and Health, the President’s budget 

provides $139 million. This office has the important responsibility 

of ensuring that DOE facilities across the complex maintain the 

highest levels of worker safety and abide by proper environmental 

standards. 

I was disappointed to read in the Washington Post of a draft 

DOE inspector general report that indicates that there has been 

significant underreporting of worker inquiries by the Department 

of Energy’s Office of Environmental Safety and Health. 

According to the IG, the audit disclosed instances of inaccurate 

and incomplete data entry and the Department’s safety performance was overstated. The audit found that the Department’s reporting of restricted work, but that the contractor had actually reported 

1,113 days of restricted work, a figure more than twice that which 

DOE has figured. If true, these accusations indicate that this Office 

has not addressed worker safety consistent with the mission and 

the responsibility. We’ll be asking about that. You may have a different version. We want to hear that. 

The Office also funds the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program which has failed to expedite worker compensation claims. Now, I understand that that statute is not very 

easy to interpret and not very easy to implement. Nonetheless, we 

don’t have any other statute and that means we’ve got to do better. 
137 

In my opinion, the claims that we failed in that regard need to 

be thoroughly discussed. Those who are waiting around for coverage are making a lot out of the fact that they are waiting and 

waiting, and that’s difficult and it’s very hard for us, too. I’m sure 

it’s very hard for Senator Craig to gather enormous amounts of 

data to validate the worker claims that exist and I understand the 

Department has prepared new legislation as well as $33 million for 

reprogramming in 2004. That’s going to be tough, but we ought to 

get started. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I will evaluate both requests to ensure that these proposals will 

help DOE improve its ability to process worker claims. Now, I was 

going to yield to Senator Reid who is tremendously interested in 

what’s going on and I appreciate working with him. Senator Reid. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

Good morning—this hearing will come to order. 

Today, the subcommittee will take testimony on the fiscal year 2005 budget request from Jessie Roberson, Assistant Secretary, Office of Environmental Management; Beverly Cook, Assistant Secretary, Office of Environment, Safety and Health; 

and Dr. Margaret Chu, Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 

I appreciate your participation here today and I look forward to your testimony. 

The President’s request for the Office of Environmental Management provides $7.4 billion. This is the largest request ever made for environmental cleanup. I must 

applaud the efforts of Assistant Secretary Roberson for her efforts and the efforts 

by the Department of Energy to reform the DoE cleanup program. 

This administration has succeeded in reducing the total cost of EM cleanup by $50 billion and shortening the estimated timetable by 35 years. By focusing on 

risked-based cleanup strategies and seeking accelerated cleanup agreements with 

States, DoE now believes that clean up of the remaining 39 sites will finish by 2035 

and will cost $142 billion. Down from $192 billion estimated in 2001. 

While this achievement is remarkable, I am concerned by the Department’s overriding determination to close-out cleanup by 2035. This budget proposes shifting a 

number of cleanup responsibilities to other Offices and creating an entirely new Office to manage the future cleanup of any on-going DOE activities that are not currently managed by EM. It seems absurd to think that waste generated after a certain date shouldn’t be handled in the same aggressive manner EM has applied to 

existing cleanup. 

This budget proposes the creation of the Office of Future Liability. I am not at 

all convinced that creating a new office and bureaucracy makes any sense. EM has 

worked very hard to minimize waste and cost and it would be a shame to lose the 

experience and knowledge created within EM. 

I intend to carefully evaluate all the cleanup responsibilities EM has proposed 

shifting to other programs in this budget, including the proposal to saddle NNSA 

with the added burden of cleanup. Since we don’t ask EM to test our nuclear stockpile, it seems inconsistent to expect NNSA to perform environmental cleanup. 

The President’s budget requests $880 million for Yucca Mountain. The President 

proposes tapping the mandatory fees assessed to utility customers to pay for developing the waste repository. These fees amount to $749 million this year. The budget 

proposes that the annual receipts be reclassified as discretionary funds and appropriated. I am not optimistic that this reclassification can be accomplished this year. 

However, the Senate Budget Resolution does assumes $577 million as a minimum 

level of funding—the same level that was provided in fiscal year 2004. I remain 

hopeful that more will be provided this year in order to keep the Yucca Mountain 

on schedule to open by 2010. 

For the Office of Environment, Safety and Health, the President’s budget provides 

$139 million. This Office has the important responsibility of ensuring that DoE facilities across the complex maintain the highest levels of worker safety and abide 

by proper environmental standards. 

I was disappointed to read in the Washington Post of a ‘‘draft’’ DoE Inspector 

General Report that indicates that there has been significant under-reporting of 
138 

worker injuries by the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental, Safety and 

Health. 

According to the IG ‘‘the audit disclosed instances of inaccurate and incomplete 

accident and injury data’’ and the ‘‘Department’s safety performance statistics were 

overstated.’’ The audit found that the Department’s reporting at the Waste Treatment facility at Hanford reported 552 days of restricted work, but that the contractor had actually reported 1,113 days of restricted work—a figure more than 

twice has high as the DOE figure. If true, these accusations indicate that this office 

has failed to address worker safety consistent with its mission and responsibility. 

This Office also funds the Employee Compensation program has failed to expedite 

worker compensation claims. The existing program has been plagued by challenges 

in putting together enormous amounts of data to validate workers claims. I understand the Department has prepared new legislation as well as a $33 million reprogramming in fiscal year 2004 to increase the effectiveness of the program. 

I will carefully evaluate both requests to ensure that these proposals will help 

DoE improve its ability to process worker claims. 

Now, I will yield to Senator Reid for any opening statement he would like to 

make. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

Senator REID. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize 

for being a little bit late, but you always start promptly for which 

I am grateful. I am pleased to welcome the panelists here today. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, it’s a mere coincidence that three of the 

witnesses here that are appearing today—anyway, I think it’s good 

that you are appearing here today. 

We generally mix these panels from year to year and I’m not 

sure that I am personally aware of your office having testified before, but if you have, I missed that. I’m glad that you’re all here. 

I think this has been arranged well. I want to make a point about 

how history tends to repeat itself at the Department generally with 

results that I have to say haven’t been good for the employees and 

the contractors. 

Dr. Chu, as you know, this subcommittee held a hearing in Las 

Vegas earlier this month to address the issue of Yucca Mountain 

mining workers being exposed to silica dust and other problems, 

other compounds I guess would be the right word, during the boring of the experimental tunnel. 

The experimental tunnel is 5 miles long. The Department didn’t 

provide respiration equipment for ventilation—I’m sorry. I thought 

I turned it on. I must have turned it off. 

Only after workers began getting sick recently has the Department begun to try to identify and find these workers, many of 

whom have no idea that the Department in essence has sent many 

of them to an early death. The Department knew of the presence, 

I should say, of silica in the rock being bored. The link to silicosis 

has been known for thousands of years and in that area it’s been 

known for more than 100 years. 

To make matters worse, the Department waited 10 years before 

lifting a finger to determine the extent of damage done to workers’ 

health, only after workers began getting sick. Dr. Chu, you were 

gracious to send your Yucca Mountain site manager and your safety advisor to the field hearing and we appreciate that very much. 

You have been candid in my estimation. 

I was, though, concerned with both of them. I thought they would 

say that we as an organization didn’t do the right thing, didn’t do 

a good job. We are going to do everything in our power to find the 
139 

people who are sick and take care of them, but we didn’t get that. 

We got a lengthy discussion of how the Department now has policies and procedures in place to make sure something like this will 

never happen again. It shouldn’t have happened in the first place, 

and we really have to do everything we can to find out the condition of the people that have been exposed there. 

The present-day environmental management and environment 

safety and health programs—perhaps you will see that I am not 

comforted when I am told that DOE has policies and procedures in 

place. They do not have procedures in place to protect workers nationwide. 

Ms. Roberson, you have the largest budget and one of the most 

important jobs in the entire department. For all intents and purposes, you are in charge of cleaning up the environmental catastrophe of winning the Cold War. This is a huge, technically difficult 

and extremely expensive job. I don’t envy you this task. I think by 

and large, you’ve done a good job with your program of accelerated 

cleanups. Shaving decades and billions of dollars from these cleanup programs is a noble and important goal. Everyone involved 

wants these tasks completed, but we want them done right and the 

only way they can be done right is by keeping the workers who are 

doing it healthy and safe. 

I am concerned when I read about what seems to be a very high 

injury and exposure rate among workers at cleanup sites. This was 

reported in the press over the weekend. I get more than upset 

when I read that DOE’s own inspector general is reporting that the 

Department maintains ‘‘inaccurate and incomplete accident and injury data’’ even when its contractors have completely accurate data. 

When the Department’s database indicates that 166 days were 

lost to injury at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and 

the contractor, Bechtel, reports 463 days lost during the same reporting period, something’s really wrong and this is particularly in 

light of the fact that Bechtel has received incentives and as contractors, discourages them from reporting too many injuries. 

There are only two possible conclusions to draw from such a disparity: first, incompetence. Based on the Yucca Mountain Program 

experience and other monitoring of site workers that I have seen 

and heard over the years, this is plausible, unacceptable but plausible. 

Second, the Department has been deliberately downplaying the 

risks associated with doing this cleanup, either to meet schedule or 

contain costs. Incompetence of keeping health records, particularly 

an organization that has roots dating back over 50 years, upsets 

me. However, if the final IG’s report contains even a whiff of a notion that DOE has been systematically underreporting injury and 

exposure in order to meet deadlines and to contain costs, there are 

going to be some serious consequences. 

None of us here are willing to trade lives and long-term life of 

our citizens in order to meet these milestones. Ms. Roberson, Ms. 

Cook, I desperately want to believe that there is a simple and plausible explanation for what the IG has found, and if you have one, 

I hope you’ll share it with us. My long association with the Department through administrations, both Republican and Democratic, is 

that worker safety has never been the priority that it should be. 
140 

Frankly, the Department’s first crack at an explanation gives me 

no faith that you’re going to be able to convince me that everything 

is as it should be. 

Whenever a department spokesman’s first line of defense is that 

it’s just a draft report and B, anyone who thinks we have a problem is just being political, as Joe Davis said this weekend, the 

Press Secretary for Secretary Abraham, my confidence level sinks. 

This is typical. Any professional doing his or her job who has the 

audacity to agree with their point of view is by nature a partisan 

or political hack. In my view, this is a flimsy defense when compelling answers and solutions are called for. 

Dr. Chu, as you might imagine, I have some things I want to discuss. This is something that you may want to respond to in writing, but let me just say that you recently announced that you retained the Virginia-based law firm of Hunton & Williams at the 

sum of $45 million to defend your license application. That seems 

like a lot of money to me, in light that the firm and its employees 

have had no involvement to date in the drafting of the license application. Your staff should be competent enough to draft and assemble the application itself, and it would seem to me they’re in 

a good position to answer the questions and defend its contents. 

Given the incredibly technical nature of this application, how is 

it possible for a bunch of lawyers to add $45 million of value to this 

process? But I am hopeful that Hunton & Williams will not have 

any of the obvious conflicts of interests that the previous law firm 

did, Winston & Strawn. I’d be keeping a close eye on the staffing 

and billing of this legal team. 

In the trade press, I’ve noted that you’ve settled the lawsuit filed 

by the loser in the original firm bidding process for almost $5 million. That’s a lot of money for a law firm that didn’t do one single 

minute of work for American taxpayers in this matter. 

So I have a series of questions that I will submit with the chairman’s permission. I would hope that you would answer them as 

quickly as you can. One more thing. You were unable to attend the 

field hearing in Las Vegas early this month and hear what some 

of those workers had to say. We have to really take a look at that, 

and I hope that you’ll go back and look at how the workers have 

been treated and how sick they are until we get to the bottom of 

this. 

As I indicated earlier, not only am I concerned about the silicosis, 

but we had expert testimony there that one of the formations that 

they went through is something called ironite which is worse than 

asbestos and causes mesothelioma. We had a doctor come and testify to that fact, so it’s a serious situation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I appreciate very much, Mr. Chairman, your patience in allowing 

me to make this statement. I am going to, as I indicated, with your 

permission, submit a number of questions and ask the witnesses to 

respond to those to the full committee at their earliest convenience. 

[The statement follows:] 
141 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing today to discuss the budget 

for the Environmental Management, the Yucca Mountain program, and the Office 

of Environment, Safety and Health. 

Like you, I am pleased to welcome Ms. Jessie Roberson, the Assistant Secretary 

for the Office of Environmental Management; Dr. Margaret Chu, the Director of the 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Nuclear Waste; and Ms. Beverly Cook, the Director 

of the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health. 

It is a mere coincidence that the three of you are appearing together here today. 

We generally mix these panels up a little bit from year to year. Additionally, I am 

not sure that we hear from your office each year, Ms. Cook. 

However, I am glad that all three of you are here together, so I can make a point 

about how history tends to repeat itself at the Department of Energy, generally with 

bad results for the health of employees and contractors. 

Dr. Chu, as you know, this subcommittee held a field hearing in Las Vegas earlier 

this month to address the issue of Yucca Mountain mining workers being exposed 

to silica dust during the boring of the Experimental Tunnel in the mid-1990’s. The 

Experimental tunnel is 5 miles long. The Department did not require or provide 

adequate respiration equipment for ventilation during the drilling of the first 3 

miles, a period of about 2 years. 

As many as 1,500–2,000 Test Site Workers may now be facing silicosis, a deadly 

respiratory disease. The number may be higher or lower. The Department is not 

really sure yet and did not keep accurate records of who was on the work site at 

the time and have made no effort until recently to try to figure it out. 

Only after workers began getting sick recently has the Department begun to try 

to identify and find these workers, many of whom have no idea that the Department’s negligence has potentially sentenced them to an early death. 

The Department knew of the presence of the silica in the rock being bored. The 

link to silicosis has been known for THOUSANDS of years, yet the Department 

knowingly allowed its employees and contractors to toil for 2 years in such an environment before fixing the problem. 

Then, to make matters worse, they waited for 10 years before lifting a finger to 

determine the extent of the damage done to workers’ health, and then only AFTER 

workers began getting sick. 

Dr. Chu, you were nice enough to send your Yucca Mountain Site Manager and 

your Senior Safety Advisor to the field hearing. However, I got pretty upset with 

both of them because, frankly, I expected them to say clearly and without equivocation, ‘‘We, as an organization, screwed up, but we are going to do everything in 

our power to find these workers and TAKE CARE OF THEM.’’ 

Instead, I got a lengthy discussion of how the Department now has policies and 

procedures in place to make sure something like this will never happen again. 

Wrong Answer. It never should have happened in the first place. 

Unfortunately, it happens a lot at DOE. 

Let’s fast forward to the present day Environmental Management, and Environment, Safety and Health Programs and perhaps you will see why I am not comforted when I am told that the DOE has policies in procedures in place to protect 

workers nationwide. 

Ms. Roberson, you have the largest budget and one of the most important jobs 

in the entire Department: For all intents and purposes you are charged with cleaning up the environmental catastrophe associated with winning the cold war. 

This is a huge, technically difficult, and extremely expensive job. I do not envy 

you this task, Ms. Roberson. I think, by and large, you have done a good job with 

your program of accelerated clean-ups. Shaving decades and billions of dollars from 

these clean-up programs is a noble and important goal. 

Everyone involved wants these tasks completed. 

However, we want them done right. And the only way they can be done right is 

by keeping the workers healthy and safe. 

I am certainly concerned when I read about what seems to be a very high injury 

and exposure rate among workers at clean-up sites as I read over the weekend. But 

I get downright angry when I read that the DOE’s own Inspector General is reporting that the Department maintains ‘‘inaccurate and incomplete accident and injury 

data’’ even when its contractors have completely accurate data. 

When the Department’s database indicates that 166 days were lost due to injury 

at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and the contractor, Bechtel, reports 463 days lost during the same reporting period, something 

is wrong, particularly in light of the fact that Bechtel has incentives in its contract 

to discourage them from reporting too many injuries. 
142 

In my view, there are only two possible conclusions to draw from such a disparity: 

—First, utter incompetence on the part of the Department in maintaining records. 

Based on the Yucca Mountain Program experience and other monitoring of Test 

Site Workers that I have seen and heard about over the years, this is entirely 

plausible. Unacceptable, but plausible. 

—Second, the Department has been deliberately downplaying the risks associated 

with doing this clean-up work, either to meet schedule or contain costs. 

Incompetence at keeping health records, particularly in an organization that has 

its roots dating back over 50 years, makes me very angry. 

However, if the final IG’s report contains even a whiff of a notion that DOE has 

been systematically under-reporting injury and exposure rates in order to meet 

deadlines or contain costs, there is going to be hell to pay. 

None of us up here are willing to trade lives and long-term health of our citizens 

in order to meet milestones. 

Ms. Roberson and Ms. Cook, I desperately want to believe that there is a simple 

and plausible explanation for what the IG has found. If you have one, I hope you 

will share it with all of us. 

However, my long association with the Department, through administrations both 

Republican and Democratic, is that worker safety has never been the priority it 

should be. 

Frankly, the Department’s first crack at an explanation gives me no great faith 

that you are going to be able to convince me that everything is as it should be: 

whenever a Departmental spokesman’s first line of defense is that (A) It is just a 

draft report and (B) Anyone who thinks we have a problem is just being political, 

as Joe Davis, Secretary Abraham’s press secretary did this weekend, my confidence 

level sinks quickly. 

This is pretty typical for this administration, though. Any professional doing his 

or her job who has the audacity to disagree with their point of view is, by nature, 

a partisan political hack. 

In my view, that is a pretty flimsy defense when compelling answers and solutions are called for. 

Enough on all of that for the moment. 

Dr. Chu, as you might imagine, I have a further thought or two for you: first, you 

recently announced that you had retained the Virginia-based law firm of Hunton 

and Williams, for the sum of $45 million, to defend your license application for 

Yucca Mountain before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

That seems like a huge sum for me, particularly in light of the fact that the firm 

and its employees have had no involvement to date in the drafting of the licence 

application. If your staff is competent enough to draft and assemble the application 

itself, are they not in a better position to answer questions about it and defend the 

its contents? Given the incredibly technical nature of the application, how is it possible for a bunch of attorneys, even ones with some knowledge of the regulatory 

process, to add $45 million in value to this process? 

While I am hopeful that Hunton and Williams will not have any of the obvious 

conflicts of interests that your previous law firm did, I will be keeping a close eye 

on the staffing and billing of this legal team. 

I further note that I saw in the trade press that you have settled the lawsuit filed 

by the loser in the original law firm bidding process for $4.5 million. That is a lot 

of money for a law firm that did not one single minute of work for the American 

taxpayers on this matter. 

I have a series of questions for all of you that I will either ask at the appropriate 

time or will submit for the record. I hope all of you will respond in a timely fashion. 

Thank you for allowing me to take up a little more time than usual, Mr. Chairman. You were unable to attend the field hearing in Las Vegas earlier this month 

and hear what some of these former workers had to say. I am still stunned and 

angry at the way the Department treated its workers back then and apparently still 

are. The Department is charged with doing important things for this country, many 

of them dangerous, and, unfortunately, I am no longer convinced that worker safety 

is a high enough priority. Perhaps we should consider slowing clean-ups down for 

a short period to allow the Department to take a comprehensive, across-the-board 

look at its safety policies and procedures. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DOMENICI. I would like to hear from Senator Craig. Senator Craig, before you do that, I want to share with you, in the 

event you haven’t seen this, an announcement today by a consortium of American companies to start a process of seeing how the 
143 

new licensing procedures will help them in the event they want to 

build a nuclear power plant. 

Now, they haven’t said they’re going to build one, but they’ve 

said they’re going to join together and apply in an effort to determine whether it is true that this new process expedites licensing 

or not. I’m very thrilled. That’s not the end of the road, but I would 

assume with your advocacy for nuclear power, that you would probably think this is a very important event. 

Senator REID. Who’s going to do that, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator CRAIG. The companies are Exxon Energy, Nuclear Southern Company, Constellation Energy Baltimore, EDF International, 

which is a subsidiary of a large French firm. 

Senator DOMENICI. Senator, I want to make sure that you understand that there is no site. This is just to see if it works. 

Senator CRAIG. There’s nothing wrong with that. 

Senator DOMENICI. And I think we just need that. Senator Craig. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for mentioning that. I think what is important here is 

to, as the companies are attempting to do, demonstrate the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s new what they call the COL or 

COL process, which is a combination I think of construction and 

operating license end process. I think that might work well. Thank 

you all for being here today. We have a variety of important questions to ask of you and to look at the budget for the coming year. 

Let me say, and Senator Reid, let me echo your concern about 

worker safety. 

There is a field report in each one of the field offices, and in the 

conversion of that report to a headquarters report, nothing should 

fall through the cracks, and I think that is what is being suggested 

that something might. To say that there is not full reporting, to go 

to the field offices and look, I think we see a different story, and 

it’s important that there be full transparency here as it relates to 

reports and realities in worker safety. All of us are extremely concerned about that as we should be, as I know certainly all of you 

are. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ve got a variety of issues that I will discuss and 

questions today, but let me say at the outset that I’m going to be 

very direct for a few moments on items associated with environmental management and that budget request. I’m going to be, I 

hope, very clear as to where I stand and what I’m going to ask of 

you, Mr. Chairman, and of the Ranking Member to support as we 

craft this budget bill. 

For the second budget request in a row, DOE is asking that a 

number of responsibilities be transferred out of EM and into other 

programs. I guess I have to ask this, then. Is there a larger design 

here and is Congress only seeing it in a piecemeal fashion by a 

year-to-year budget proposal. It almost appears that DOE is reducing the scope of the EM program so that it can be finished and victory declared by a date possible and then, oh by the way, we aren’t 

done with high-level waste and we transfer the spent fuel storage 

to another program and we haven’t addressed buried waste and 

we’ve created a new office of future liabilities. 
144 

In other words, Mr. Chairman and to all of you assembled, environmental management is focused on completion as DOE’s budget 

states, but only completion of all the things that aren’t transferable 

somewhere else. So do I sound concerned? You bet I’m concerned. 

I’m very concerned about the position and the reorganization that 

DOE is proposing. 

Here is what I have to ask the chairman and the ranking member to consider. I believe we should put these piecemeal transfers 

on hold in the fiscal year 2005 budget. I asked DOE to come back 

to the authorizing committees and to this committee with a comprehensive plan for all of these changes along with a mapping from 

the old budget to the new proposal and to submit all that within 

the 2006 budget request. DOE is also asking to fence off $350 million related to cleanup 

of high-level waste in Idaho and Washington, South Carolina until 

Congress passes legislative language related to waste reclassification. Let me be clear. I do not support the language DOE submitted. It may be that given DOE’s loss in the court in Idaho, we 

may need to clarify what we mean in terms of tank closure. 

If DOE and the State of Idaho can come to an agreement on the 

shape of that, what shape that clarification should take in law, I 

will work with my colleagues here to support that effort and to support the Department’s effort. 

I will not allow DOE to hold this work hostage or to hold this 

budget hostage with these kinds of tactics. DOE’s own budget 

makes reference to the sole-source aquifer in Idaho, that most of 

the waste sits over the top of, that provides Idaho’s drinking and 

irrigation water. Now, I notice that DOE’s fiscal year 2005 budget 

at Rocky Flats in Colorado is asking for the funding to remove 

every last bit of radioactive material or waste, low-level waste, 

from Rocky Flats for off-site disposal. I find it very difficult to reconcile that with DOE’s continued innuendoes that the States like 

Idaho and Washington are insisting on ‘‘gold-plated cleanup’’ just 

because they want some say in how DOE defines how clean is 

clean. 

DOE knows I have been open to proposals that are alternatives 

to current proposals if they make sense to all parties involved. At 

Rocky Flats, DOE spent over 5 years working with the State of 

Colorado and other stakeholders in developing how clean is clean. 

They call it their soil action levels. Well, they were taking 5 years 

to develop those standards, they kept clunking along on the cleanup. 

So I find it completely unacceptable that DOE thinks it can, if 

you will, hold hostage $350 million and refuse to continue highlevel waste cleanup while demanding that DOE have it their way 

in Idaho and Washington and South Carolina, or to spend money 

to remove all the radioactive waste at Rocky Flat but tell Idaho 

that DOE doesn’t have to address any of our buried waste, some 

of which is transuranic, that stuff that is customarily, as we know, 

going to the facility in Carlsbad. 

We know on this committee that resources are limited and that 

we don’t have an open access to the U.S. Treasury, but we’re going 

to be looking for some equitable treatment when it comes to risk. 

We’re also going to be asking for what I would suggest needs to be 
145 

a clearly transparent approach to what the end game is and what 

the procedures are, and I don’t feel at this time, frankly, we understand it nor are we gaining that kind of transparency. I hope that’s 

about as clear as it can be said. 

But Mr. Chairman, this is one Senator that is not at all happy 

with the current proposal and the current budget. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Senator Craig. Let me 

say you have had to sit there and accept as we do in the Congress, 

the feelings of Senators. You have your opportunities to answer all 

this, but I’m going to do the following. 

Senator Murray is willing to stay. I don’t know if you want to 

go to Tenet? You don’t. Well, Senator, you preside, and then Senator Murray has a series of questions, so if you would let her go, 

and I will try to get back. When I come back, I do want to ask if 

you have had a chance to explain the allegations, especially in the 

safety and health area, but four or five areas, because I am interested and I don’t necessarily share the same opinion of the Senators who have spoken, but that’s too bad. They may have more 

votes than I have. 

But the important thing is to try to figure out how we can do it, 

and to do that, we’ve got to know facts, so with this, I’m going to 

yield to Senator Murray, and then Senator Craig is going to take 

over. I’m going to walk quickly to hear Mr. Tenet. I will stay until 

noon. If we are not finished, we’ll just have another hearing because there are three or four issues that have to be answered or 

we’re going nowhere. 

You haven’t talked much, Dr. Chu, and we want to hear from 

you also. Before I leave, I want to say that it is rare indeed to look 

at this problem of Yucca and the disposal of waste. We’ve been sitting around looking at a graph. At one point, we had 300, 400 billion on these graphs, and it’s amazing that all the men that tried 

didn’t make any headway. So now we’ve decided the women will 

take the lead, and I’m very pleased with you, Dr. Roberson, and 

with you, Dr. Chu. You came from one of our laboratories. It is absolutely amazing what you have done, regardless of the criticism. 

Your activities have been very, very interesting and I will leave 

now and try very much to come back. Okay. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. I assume that’s an endorsement for women to take over the Senate as well. 

Senator CRAIG [presiding]. I am now clearly in the minority in 

this room. Please proceed. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, I do want to make an opening statement. 

I want to thank Senator Domenici. And other challenges are completed or well underway. The funding the administration has been 

requesting and this subcommittee has been providing is making a 

real difference. Unfortunately, that is not the full story at hand for 

today. It seems time and again, the Department makes decisions 

that raise questions about its commitment to full cleanup, partnership with Federal and State regulators, communication with the 

community, and concern about safety. 

We can all agree with the Department’s goal of accelerated cleanup, but as I said 2 years ago, this cannot occur at the expense of 
146 

worker safety or the environment. The recent events raised this 

very fear. First, the Department is seeking unilateral authority to 

reclassify high-level waste at Hanford, Idaho and South Carolina. 

Those three States plus New Mexico, New York and Oregon are opposing this effort in court. 

Secondly, workers are being exposed to potentially dangerous 

tank vapors at Hanford. 

Third, there are accusations that medical care is being manipulated to reduce the number of days not worked due to work-related 

injuries. These and other injuries raise real questions about the 

Department’s commitment to full and faithful cleanup and worker 

safety. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I believe the Department can achieve full cleanup and cost and 

time savings while keeping faith with regulators, communities and 

workers. In fact, I believe the cleanup program can be a nearly unquestionable success if it addresses all those issues. We will not 

solve this today, but the Department needs to take some considerable steps to rebuild good faith with these partners in cleanup. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have questions and I will wait 

until after the witness’ testimony. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief opening statement. 

First, I’d like to express my appreciation to you and Senator Reid for both of your 

steadfast support of the Environmental Management Program. This program is obviously vitally important to my State and I’m very appreciative of your help. 

I’d like to say that I’m pleased with most of the recent cleanup activities at Hanford. Significant actions on spent fuel, the plutonium finishing plant, and other challenges are completed or well underway. The funding the administration has been 

requesting and this subcommittee has been providing is making a real difference. 

Unfortunately this is not the full story at Hanford. 

It seems time and again the Department makes decisions that raise questions 

about its commitment to full cleanup, partnership with Federal and State regulators, communication with the community, and concern about safety. 

We can all agree with the Department’s goal of accelerated cleanup, but as I said 

2 years ago, this cannot occur at the expense of worker safety or the environment. 

But recent events raise this very fear. 

First, the Department is seeking unilateral authority to reclassify high-level 

waste at Hanford, Idaho, and South Carolina. Those three States, plus New Mexico, 

New York and Oregon are opposing this effort in court. 

Second, workers are being exposed to potentially dangerous tank vapors at Hanford. 

Third, there are accusations that medical care is being manipulated to reduce the 

number of days not worked due to work related injuries. 

These and other issues raise real questions about the Department’s commitment 

to full and faithful cleanup and worker safety. 

I believe the Department can achieve full cleanup and cost and time savings, 

while keeping faith with regulators, communities and workers. In fact, I believe the 

cleanup program can be a nearly unquestionable success if it really addresses these 

issues. 

We will not solve this today, but the Department needs to take some considerable 

steps to rebuild good-faith with these partners in cleanup. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much, Senator. Now that 

we’ve had our say, it’s more than appropriate for you all to have 

your say before we go to questions, and with that in mind, let me 

first turn to Jessie Roberson, Assistant Secretary for Environ-
147 

mental Management. Jessie, again, as the chairman has said, welcome before the committee. 

STATEMENT OF JESSIE H. ROBERSON

Ms. ROBERSON. Thank you, sir, and good morning, Senator Murray and Senator Craig and staff for the subcommittee. I’d like to 

begin by conveying the Department’s appreciation to you for your 

investment in the accelerated cleanup program. Your support is allowing us to achieve the dramatic results we forecast before this 

subcommittee a short 2 years ago. 

I’m here today to discuss President Bush’s fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Environmental Management program and its 

goal of sustaining the momentum that our work force has labored 

so hard to achieve, a momentum that benefits the vibrancy of our 

communities, our environment and our economy. In the last 2 

years, we’ve introduced dynamic reforms, delivered fundamental 

change and achieved significant improvements in health, safety 

and environmental protection. 

With your support, these reforms have become ingrained in our 

operations and our business processes, and with your continued 

support and our continued keen focus on risk reduction and cleanup, the momentum can and will continue. I’d like to take a moment 

to underscore the impacts of refocusing the Environmental Management program. 

We have improved safety performance. We are committed to instilling the appropriate philosophy in every worker’s day-to-day decisions from start to finish of every project. To that end, we are 

demonstrating that we can accelerate work and improve safety performance at the same time. We are focused on continuous safety 

improvement. We have institutionalized the behaviors of a learning 

organization in our organization. We invest in system safety training and leadership training. We demand a healthy inquisitiveness. 

We stick to the basics, allowing a disciplined conduct of operations, 

and we are focusing our environmental and operational safety efforts on prevention first. 

And I look forward to responding to the issues raised in the 

opening statements regarding challenges to our safety performance. 

We have not nor will we stop paying attention to safety. We will 

continue to ‘‘raise the bar’’ and hold ourselves accountable to the 

highest standards. 

Second, we have demonstrated real cleanup results and risk reduction. Last year we set a new floor of performance not yet seen 

in the history of this program, and I say floor because we see this 

as a level of performance that we will continue to build upon. Over 

the last 2 years, for example, six of nine nuclear fuel basins completely deinventoried. None of those were in our plan before. Four 

thousand, one hundred of 5,900 containers of plutonium, approximately 80 percent, have been packaged, we’re almost complete. 

Over 1,300 of 2,400 metric tons, more than half, of the spent nuclear fuel is repackaged. Our workforce has accelerated that work, 

too. 

Our corporate performance measures, detailing our performance, 

which I have included in my written statement, further demonstrates our progress and in combination with our safety perform-
148 

ance, we have accomplished consequential outcomes important to 

the public, the communities that host our sites, and for the generations that follow us. 

Three years ago, the Environmental Management program was 

described as lacking a risk-based cleanup approach and the hazards at the DOE sites and the liability associated with them did 

not appear to dictate the need for urgency. Innovative actions in all 

elements of the cleanup program were needed to transform EM’s 

processes and operations to reflect an accelerated risk-based cleanup paradigm. 

We believe that by providing an atmosphere that encourages innovation, we can reduce risk to workers and the environment more 

effectively and save resources to be reinvested in furthering the 

cleanup priorities of each of the sites. Tying all these accomplishments together has been our driving force to improve performance 

in our acquisition strategy specifically. 

Legal actions and court decisions may direct us to alter or modify 

our activities from the accelerated cleanup and closure path. We 

are committed to work diligently with all concerned parties to 

avoid interruptions in reducing risk where we can. This year has 

seen dramatic results demonstrating our steadfast belief that continuing on the accelerated path will resolve the problems that lie 

before us. We must not lose our momentum that has so earnestly 

been established by the work force. 

As with all new enterprises, impediments will be many, but we 

are committed to employ our resources to continue to show meaningful results and we’re taking a very critical view of those results. 

The job is not done until it’s done. We can’t be complacent. We 

must continue to do better. It’s not done when we develop a plan. 

It’s not done when we agree on a milestone. It’s not done when we 

ask for funding. It’s not done when we sign a contract. It’s not done 

when we get money. It’s not done until it’s done and there is positive and measurable risk reduction for the investment made. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I ask for your support of our fiscal year 2005 budget request of 

$7.43 billion to continue this momentum. We are safer today than 

we were last year, and we must stay the course so that we are 

safer next year than today. We have accelerated cleanup by at least 

35 years, saving over $50 billion. The potential is there to lose 

what we have gained should we fail to stay focused on our commitments. Thank you, sir. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JESSIE H. ROBERSON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, I am delighted to be here today 

to convey the Department’s appreciation for your support of the Environmental 

Management (EM) program, without which the dramatic results in accelerating the 

cleanup of the legacy of the Cold War would not be possible. I welcome this opportunity to sit before you and report on our progress, the potential gains and risks 

that lie before us, and the importance of sustaining the momentum that our workforce has labored so hard to achieve—a momentum that benefits the vibrancy of our 

communities and the environment. 

Two eventful years have passed since the release of the Top-to-Bottom Review of 

the EM program. In these last 2 years, we have taken decisive steps to transform 

a program focused on managing risk to a core mission-focused program that is accel-
149 

erating risk reduction and cleanup. We have introduced dynamic reforms, delivering 

fundamental change and achieving significant improvements in health, safety, and 

environmental protection but more was needed to be done. 

Last year when I spoke with you, I stated that I was not ‘‘satisfied’’ with our 

progress. We must continue to better our performance and to look beyond the status 

quo to achieve results that are truly groundbreaking for the benefit of the generations that follow us. I challenged our workforce, our partners, and myself and all 

those interested in joining us in our vision of accelerated cleanup to put their most 

innovative ideas and people forward. I am proud to announce that with our combined efforts, our objective of accelerating environmental cleanup and risk reduction 

by 35 years and reducing estimated program costs in excess of $50 billion has become a reality. As cited in the recently released U.S. Department of Treasury 2003 

Financial Report to the United States Government, ‘‘the recognized cost of cleaning 

up environmental damage and contamination across Government programs was estimated to be $249.9 billion, a decrease of $23.1 billion or 8.5 percent from September 30, 2002. The most significant component of this reduction relates to the Department of Energy (Energy). Energy has reduced its environmental liability by 

$26.3 billion or 12.5 percent in fiscal year 2003; this is the second year in a row 

that Energy’s environmental liability decreased’’. Along with the environmental liability reduction in fiscal year 2002 of $28.7 billion, the Department has reduced 

its environmental liability by $55 billion over the last 2 years. A reduction mostly 

due to employing a cleanup approach that focuses on accelerating risk reduction to 

public health. With your support and our continued keen focus on cleanup and closure, the momentum can continue. 

For fiscal year 2005, the President’s Budget includes a record $7.43 billion for the 

accelerated cleanup program, the peak year in our funding profile. As we identified 

last year, the administration believes that this investment is crucial to the success 

of accelerated risk reduction and cleanup completion. We anticipate funding will 

then decline significantly to about $5 billion in 2008. 

The EM portion of the fiscal year 2005 Congressional budget is structured analogous to last year. The budget structure focuses on completion, accountability, and 

visibility; institutionalizes our values; and integrates performance and budget. Requested funding can clearly be associated with direct cleanup activities versus other 

indirect EM activities. 

Within the Defense Site Acceleration Completion Appropriation, the budget re- serves $350 million for a High-Level Waste Proposal. With the Idaho District Court 

decision on Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, the Department’s ability to proceed 

prudently with accelerated risk reduction for some activities is drawn into question. 

The decision makes it difficult, if not impossible, for us to undertake planned actions 

at Idaho, Hanford and Savannah River Site to aggressively reduce risks posed by 

wastes stored in tanks at those sites—actions we had committed to take, in agreement with our host States, before the court decision. The decision now means we 

are likely to leave tank wastes in place longer while we try to resolve issues created 

by the decision—a course that has significant societal and monetary costs. This $350 

million supports activities normally funded from the 2012 Accelerated Completions 

account and from the 2035 Accelerated Completions. These funds will be requested 

only if the legal uncertainties are satisfactorily resolved. 

In alignment with ongoing Departmental missions, this budget reflects a transfer 

of multiple activities that are not core to the EM mission to other Departmental elements. These transfers provide the responsible and accountable mission programs 

with the resources and tools to achieve their objectives at the expected performance 

level. This accountability model is the key to moving each of the enterprises or missions of the Department forward in attaining the desired outcomes and results important to the administration and supporting our accelerated risk reduction and closure initiative. Transfers include: 

—Transferring Federal staff at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to the 

Office of Science and Federal staff at Headquarters to the Office of the Chief 

Information Office. 

—Transferring the EM portion of the Offsite Source Recovery Program to the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

—Transferring spent fuel storage responsibilities at Idaho National Laboratory, 

the Foreign Research Reactor Spent Fuel Program, management of NRC-licensed spent fuel, and the National Nuclear Spent Fuel Program to the Office 

of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 

—Transferring Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Project records management, responsibility for cost liability and recovery reviews, and Environmental 

Justice and the Massie Chairs of Excellence Program to the Office of Legacy 

Management (LM). 
150 

We will also be transferring sites, as they are completed, either to the landlord 

or to LM. The latter will occur if the site has no further DOE mission. EM is working with LM to ensure smooth site closure and transition by: 

—Ensuring that site baselines identify functions and elements beyond contract 

closure to meet all internal requirements; 

—Conducting assessments of site readiness for transfer and closure in tandem 

with LM; 

—Having joint teams at each site (Rocky Flats has 2 LM employees) and supported by HQ LM personnel who were once EM personnel and EM personnel 

at sites are transferring to LM positions; 

—Holding quarterly meetings between EM and LM senior management to address 

key issues and make decisions; 

—Developing a communication plan defining roles and responsibilities between 

EM and LM staff. 

The administration considers this budget request a critical step on the accelerated 

risk reduction and cleanup path. Without these resources, we could face higher risk 

to the environment and the public and lose the momentum we have gained in 

changing the paradigm. With your support, we have the opportunity to succeed in 

producing historic results that will last for many years to come. 

DEMONSTRATING RESULTS

With the October 2003 release of the Report to Congress on the Status of Implementation of the Top to Bottom Review, we have demonstrated that the direction 

we took 2 years ago is showing real results. I wish to take a moment and expound 

the impacts of the far-reaching accomplishments that are underpinning the developing momentum of the program. 

Improved Safety Performance 

We believe in order to accomplish our accelerated risk reduction and cleanup mission, we must continue to do work safely. We are committed to instilling this philosophy in every worker’s day-to-day decisions from start to finish of every project. To 

that end, with top-quality safety standards, we are demonstrating that we can accelerate work and improve safety performance at the same time. For example in August 2001, EM’s Total Reportable Cases (TRC) and Lost Workday Cases (LWC) were 

1.9 and 0.8 respectively, per 100 workers (TRC and LWC are standard tools used 

to measure safety performance). In September 2003, we had reduced our TRC to 1.2 

and LWC to 0.5. These rates are significantly better than private industry, which 

OSHA reported in 2002, had a TRC of 5.3 and LWC of 1.6. The construction industry alone had rates of 7.1 for TRC and 2.8 for LWC in 2002. We have not nor will 

we stop paying attention to safety. We will continue to ‘‘raise the bar’’ and hold ourselves accountable to the highest standards. Complacency is not acceptable in our 

advance to the safe conclusion of our cleanup objectives. 

Cleanup Results and Risk Reduction 

Prior to the Top to Bottom Review, EM had lost focus of the core mission, the 

mission that the program was established to solve—address the environmental legacy of the Nation’s Cold War nuclear weapons research and production. With a program responsible for the management of millions of gallons of liquid radioactive 

waste and thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel, the unhurried pace of cleanup 

and risk reduction was unacceptable. If immediate actions were not taken the risks 

associated with the EM program would continue to grow to unpardonable levels. 

Last year set a new floor of performance not seen before in the history of the program. Our investment has born amazing results. For example: three spent nuclear 

fuel basins were de-inventoried at Idaho National Laboratory, along with two at the 

Savannah River Site and one at Hanford. And in regard to Hanford, we have removed 70 percent of the spent nuclear fuel from the K-Basins. These basins located 

less than a quarter of a mile from the Columbia River have the potential to leak 

and cause costly environmental harm both to the health of the river and the public—this is a significant gain in risk reduction. Another example is at Rocky Flats. 

This site, once responsible for nuclear triggers, has shipped all plutonium off site 

and closed the last remaining material access area. These visible, risk reducing results that have demonstrated our ability to accelerate schedule and reduce life cycle 

cost while showing to our public and surrounding communities the Department’s 

commitment to improve worker safety, reduce health risks and eliminate environmental hazards. 

So you may have a better comprehension of the magnitude of our cleanup results, 

I would like to insert for the record a copy of our recent corporate performance 

measures. EM’s Performance Measures is a compilation of the program’s 16 complex 
151 

wide performance measures. As you can see, we can deliver significant risk reduction and cleanup and, as I stated earlier, in combination with improved safety performance. Accelerating risk reduction and cleanup, in concert with exceptional safety performance, accomplishes consequential outcomes important to the public, our 

communities, and for the generations that follow us. 

Innovations in Ideas, Processes, and Practices 

Two years ago, the Top-to-Bottom Review described the EM program as lacking 

a project completion mindset, internal processes were inconsistent with a risk-based 

cleanup approach, and the hazards at the DOE sites and the liability associated 

with them did not appear to dictate the need for urgency in the cleanup decisions. 

The Top-to-Bottom Review team emphasized that the EM mission cannot be accomplished by continuing business as usual. Innovative actions in all elements of the 

EM program would need to be taken to transform DOE’s processes and operations 

to reflect the new accelerated risk-based cleanup paradigm. 

To foster innovation, we identified ideas and processes from successful projects 

that had delivered accelerated results and conveyed the information across the EM 

program. For example, at Rocky Flats, we drew from their experience in project 

planning and delivery along with technology advancements. Sharing the innovative 

practices allowed for similar outcomes at other sites. If I may take a moment to 

share a few ideas and practices: 

(a) Establish a clear end-state vision and risk-based cleanup levels in conjunction 

with specific future land/site use and in consultation with regulators, stakeholders, 

and affected and interested governments. 

(b) A ‘‘best-in-class’’ management team is recruited and sustained with the result 

of team focus and retention of key staff. 

(c) Senior management emphasis is placed on key safety issues of keeping workers 

working, minimizing the risk of possible high-impact events, quick recovery after accidents, safety ‘‘pauses’’ as appropriate, and improved safety training. 

(d) Projects are managed in an environment that provides significant incentives 

for real cost savings. 

(e) New and innovative equipment and methods are being used for size reduction 

(e.g. plasma cutting torch, engineered enclosures, water-jet cutting of components), 

significantly improving safety and effectiveness. 

(f) Improved decontamination techniques coupled with new radiation instrumentation. 

We continue to encourage innovation in our processes and practices to further enhance safety performance, accelerate risk reduction, reduce health impacts, and 

save resources to be reinvested in furthering the priorities of each of the sites. 

Acquisitions Driving Performance 

Tying all these accomplishments together has been our continued drive to improve 

performance from our new acquisition strategy. These accomplishments serve as indicators of the level of performance we are expecting from our contractors now as 

well as into the future. When we reviewed our contracts over the past year—as you 

may remember I said we formed a Contract Management Advisory Board last 

year—we identified a short list of significant findings that did not prove advantageous to the overall success of the program. We concluded that DOE tends to 

manage the contractor not the contract, that project baselines needed improvement 

along with project management and the associated reporting, incentives for meaningful risk reduction were lacking, more emphasis was needed on cost-efficient performance, and there seemed to be insufficient competition and small business participation. 

To address these weaknesses, we have instituted three business models that we 

believe will vastly improve our acquisition process and opportunities for success. 

Our reform strategy is to accelerate the reduction of risk from the legacy of the Cold 

War safely and efficiently and at a cost savings for the taxpayer. One model focuses 

on improving incumbent contractor’s performance, while another aims to increase 

competition and small business participation. The third concentrates on the establishment of national Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts for remediation and decontamination and decommissioning. All three are on the fast 

track. In fact, in September, as a first step we announced the selection of five 8(a) 

businesses that will perform work at our small sites across the country. And in fiscal 2004, we have six new contracts—two at Paducah, two at Portsmouth, one at 

the Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford, and one at the Idaho National Laboratory 

along with the IDIQ contracts that will be competed. We expect these new contracts 

will challenge the contractor community, a challenge that is healthy for all involved. 
152 

We Have Our Challenges Too 

As we continue to challenge the status quo, we may be confronted with legal actions and court decisions that will direct us to alter or modify our activities from 

the accelerated cleanup and closure path. We will continue to work diligently with 

all concerned parties to avoid interruptions in reducing risk and advancing cleanup 

for the public. 

We expect to be challenged on our delivery of Government Funded Services and 

Items, or GFSI. We are accountable on delivery of GFSI and we expect to be held 

to our commitments. 

Also, we have challenged our managers at all levels to stay true to our commitment and employ our corporate performance measures as an accountability and success gauge assessing our progress as well as a tool that alerts us when management 

action or intervention is warranted. 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2004 budget was the first budget that fully reflected the initiatives 

undertaken by the administration to transform and revitalize the cleanup of the 

former weapons complex. The EM program has been refined and fortified with management reforms, which have led to accelerated risk reduction and a decrease in 

life-cycle costs surpassing previous expectations. The investment we have requested 

in our fiscal year 2005 budget will contribute to EM’s continued success in achieving 

its mission of accelerated risk reduction and site closure. 

The EM fiscal year 2005 budget request represents the peak year of our investment strategy to accelerate cleanup and reduce risk. This budget fully reflects each 

site’s accelerated risk reduction and cleanup strategy. The fiscal year 2005 budget 

request is pivotal to keep the momentum going and to achieve even greater risk reduction and cost savings than ever before. 

The 2005 budget request for EM activities totals $7.43 billion to accelerate risk 

reduction and closure. The request includes five appropriations, three of which fund 

on-the-ground, core mission work, and two of which serve as support. The five appropriations and associated requested funding are: 

—Defense Site Acceleration Completion ($5.97 billion), 

—Defense Environmental Services ($982 million), 

—Non-Defense Site Acceleration ($152 million), 

—Non-Defense Environmental Services ($291 million), and 

—Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund ($500 million). 

Within the Defense Site Acceleration Completion Appropriation, $350 million is 

tied to the Idaho District Court decision on Waste Incidental to Reprocessing. These 

funds will only be requested upon satisfactory resolution of the recent court decision 

that affected the Department’s plans for some waste streams. 

In building the request, the Department applied the following principles and priorities: 

Protect workers, public, and the environment.—The budget request continues to 

place the highest priority on protecting workers, the public, and the environment. 

The implementation of EM’s cleanup strategies allows for an overall improvement 

in safety and reduction in risk because cleanup will be completed sooner, reducing 

the extent to which workers, the public, and the environment have the potential to 

be exposed. Over the past 2 years, dramatic improvements in safety performance 

have been demonstrated. 

Ensure the appropriate levels of safeguards and security.—Due to heightened security levels throughout the Nation, it is crucial that we maintain vigilance in our domestic security to protect our citizens. The EM program is responsible for many tons 

of surplus nuclear material. This budget request reflects our increased safeguards 

and security needs, including the new Design Basis Threat requirements. Overall, 

the budget has decreased from fiscal year 2004 because we have been able to consolidate materials into fewer, more secure locations, and we have reduced the footprint of secure areas. The sites with the largest remaining funding needs are the 

Savannah River Site and Hanford. Savannah River Site’s funding supports the security of nuclear materials, maintenance of uniformed protective force personnel, information security and operations security for the protection of classified and sensitive 

information, cyber security for the protection of classified and unclassified computer 

security, and personnel security. Hanford’s funding supports security for shipment 

of special nuclear materials and elimination of one Material Access Area within the 

Plutonium Finishing Plant, enhancement of cyber security, Hanford site security 

clearances and other security activities. 
153 

Accelerate risk reduction.—Accelerated risk reduction requires a pragmatic approach to cleanup. Risk reduction occurs in various stages, which involve the elimination, prevention, or mitigation of risk. Because safe disposal of many materials 

will take a number of years to complete, our major focus of risk reduction is stabilization of high-risk materials. 

The following categories of materials are considered to pose the highest risk: 

—High-curie, long-lived isotope liquid waste, 

—Special nuclear materials, 

—Liquid transuranic waste in tanks, 

—Sodium bearing liquid waste in tanks, 

—Deteriorating spent nuclear fuel in leaky or poor integrity basins, 

—Remote-handled transuranic waste and high transuranic content waste, 

—Transuranic waste stored on the surface, and 

—Decommissioning of highly-contaminated facilities. 

Although all of these items are to be considered when setting priorities, their relative ranking may vary from site to site. Risk reduction is a major consideration 

in the development of the site baselines. Examples of planned activities/milestones 

for fiscal year 2005 that correspond to site-specific risk categories are: 

Hanford 

Complete cleanout of K East and K West basins (fuel, sludge, debris, and water).— 

The K basins are located less than 1,000 feet from the Columbia River. This project 

involves packaging and removing degrading spent nuclear fuel and radioactive 

sludge, debris, and water from wet storage in the K Basins to safe, dry interim storage away from the Columbia River. The K Basin facilities are well past their design 

lives and are a major threat to the environment due to the potential for basin leakage to the surrounding soil and the Columbia River. Their cleanout will prevent potential leakage of 55 million curies of radioactivity to the soil and the River and will 

decrease the risks posed by the basins to human health and the environment. 

Complete transfer of nuclear material to the Savannah River Site or DOE approved interim storage facility, and complete legacy holdup removal and packaging/ 

disposition of material/waste.—The Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) consists of 

several buildings that were used for defense production of plutonium nitrates, oxides 

and metal from 1950 through 1989. Completion of the transfer of the stabilized materials and legacy holdup material from PFP allows the cleanout and demolition of 

these facilities to slab on grade. It results in a reduced National security threat by 

consolidating nuclear materials into fewer locations. 

Ship all above-ground transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.—Hanford has several thousand containers of previously generated transuranic waste in 

above-ground storage buildings. Characterization and shipment of this waste to the 

Waste Isolation Pilot Project for final disposal will reduce the risks to facility workers as well as reduce the safeguard and security vulnerability associated with this 

waste. This action represents final disposal of this waste in an environmentally protective repository. 

Complete installation of In Situ Redox Manipulation Barrier in the 100–D Area.— 

Chromium-contaminated groundwater is reaching the Columbia River in the 100– 

D Area. The contamination levels are above 20 times the aquatic life water standard, and the area is adjacent to potential salmon spawning locations. To address 

this, a series of wells will be drilled and a chemical that detoxifies chromium will 

be deposited into the matrix in which the groundwater travels to the river. As a 

result, the groundwater reaching the Columbia River will once again meet the 

aquatic water standards, thereby protecting human health and the salmon population in the River. 

Initiate waste retrieval from eleven single-shelled tanks.—Radioactive liquid waste 

stored in older single-shelled tanks has the potential of leaking and contaminating 

soil and groundwater that flows to the Columbia River, presenting a risk to human 

health and the environment. Waste will be retrieved from the single-shelled tanks 

and moved to safer double-shelled tanks. 

Idaho 

Disposition 34 containers of special nuclear material containing uranium, completing 75 percent of shipments offsite; initiate transfer of spent nuclear fuel from 

CPP–666 wet storage to the Irradiated Fuel Storage Facility; and maintain a running average of 2,000 cubic meters per year of TRU waste shipped out of Idaho.— 

Idaho sits over a major sole source aquifer, the Snake River Plain Aquifer, which 

is used to supply water to the people of southeastern Idaho as well as irrigation 

water for the significant agricultural activities. These actions will reduce the potential risk to human health by preventing the migration of contamination into the aq-
154 

uifer. It also will reduce the national security threat by consolidating materials into 

fewer locations. 

Paducah 

Disposition 875 cubic meters of low-level/mixed low-level legacy waste, allowing 

for a 37 percent completion of work.—The packaging and disposal of low-level waste 

stored outdoors will reduce the waste inventory and eliminate the potential release 

into the environment that could result from deterioration of the storage drums. Outside storage of this material in some cases leads to additional surface water and soil 

contamination. Removal of these materials further reduces the continued exposure 

to workers performing surveillance and maintenance. 

Disposition 12,400 tons of scrap metal.—Scrap metal is a suspected source of continued surface water and possible soil contamination. This action contributes to the 

continued source term removal of contaminants leaching into the environment. Reduction in the massive quantities of scrap metal continues to improve the potential 

safety concern to our workers. 

Continue decontamination and decommissioning of C–410 complex.—The C–410 

Complex is a large chemical complex in a shutdown condition. Removal of contaminated materials and equipment reduces potential risk to onsite workers and represents a key step in stabilizing the facility such that contaminants are prevented 

from release to the environment. 

Portsmouth 

Disposition 9,089 cubic meters of legacy waste.—The continued shipment and disposal of legacy waste will proportionally reduce the risk such wastes present to the 

health and safety of workers and reduce the on-going potential for release to the 

environment. 

Process approximately 42 million gallons of water through Groundwater Pump 

and Treat facilities.—Plume control keeps contaminants from reaching surface 

streams and off-site drinking water supplies. Trichloroethylene (TCE), which was an 

industrial solvent, is the main groundwater contaminant at the site. 

Pantex Plant 

Complete Zone 11 soil vapor extraction for removal of contamination from the 

vadose zone and protection of the groundwater.—Removing the soil gas contamination will avoid potential migration to a fresh water supply, thereby reducing the risk 

posed to human health and the environment. 

Complete Burning Grounds landfills interim corrective measure (engineered covers) 

to secure wastes and protect groundwater.—The covers will mitigate the vertical 

transport of contaminants, which will reduce the potential impact to the fresh water 

supply. 

Complete demolition of Zone 10 Ruins.—The Zone 10 ruins have suspected high 

explosives contaminants in the numerous disintegrating structures. Removal of high 

explosive will avoid further contamination of soils, and demolition of the ruins will 

reduce safety risks to persons in the area. 

Complete decontamination and decommissioning of Building 12–24 Complex.— 

There is evidence that this complex contributed to the high explosives plume that 

migrated to the southeast and off-site. Decontamination of the 12–24 Complex will 

mitigate the migration of this plume. 

Oak Ridge 

Complete East Chestnut Ridge Waste Pile Closure.—Risks associated with industrial safety will be reduced by eliminating the need to excavate and transport the 

material to treatment subsequent to disposal. 

Complete disposition of legacy low-level waste.—Approximately 40 percent of the 

low-level waste was stored outdoors in deteriorating containers. Disposition of this 

waste will decrease the risks associated with their potential environmental release. 

Complete processing and stabilization of transuranic waste tanks.—This action 

will eliminate the potential for the waste’s migration to groundwater. 

Initiate contact-handled transuranic waste processing at the Waste Processing Facility.—This waste is stored in above grade-storage trenches and in earthen trenches. Processing the waste prevents the risk of release to the environment and a continued cost of waste storage and monitoring. 

Complete treatment of liquid low-level waste supernate at the Waste Processing Facility and disposal of the dried supernate product at the Nevada Test Site.—Treatment and disposal of the supernate decreases the risks posed by these highly radioactive fission products. 
155 

Complete Atomic City Auto Parts.—This action will reduce the risks posed to 

workers and the surrounding community from uranium and polychlorinated 

biphenyls contamination in the soil. 

Savannah River Site 

Begin processing neptunium solutions.—SRS has approximately 6,000 liters of 

Neptunium-237 nitrate solution in H-Canyon. Through processing, the neptunium 

solutions are converted into a more stable form, and the risks they pose to human 

health and the environment are reduced. 

Complete bulk waste removal in Tank 5.—Tank 5 is 1 of 49 underground tanks 

currently used to store radioactive liquid waste at the Savannah River Site. This 

waste represents one of the highest risk to human health and the environment. Current plans call for the removal of the waste from Tank 5 for treatment, stabilization 

and disposal. A new approach, the Waste-On-Wheels (WOW) system, will be utilized 

to remove the waste from Tank 5 and other tanks. The Waste-On-Wheels is a portable method of performing bulk sludge waste removal from the tanks. The WOW 

system will reduce the project schedule for waste removal and therefore reduce the 

risk to human health and the environment imposed by the highly radioactive waste. 

Complete decommissioning of seven industrial and radioactive facilities.—Decommissioning excess radioactive facilities will reduce the footprint of the site, and 

therefore collectively reduces risk to the worker by eliminating the need to enter the 

facilities to perform required, routine surveillance and maintenance activities. Risk 

of worker exposures while performing these activities is eliminated. Decommissioning excess radioactive facilities also eliminates the potential environmental and 

human health risk of accidental releases from these facilities. Decommissioning industrial facilities eliminates the risk to workers associated with having to maintain 

old facilities which are no longer needed but which require regular inspections or 

maintenance activities, such as roof work. 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory—Livermore Site 

Construct, install, and operate a portable treatment unit at Treatment Facility D 

Hotspot, Treatment Facility E Hotspot, the northern portion of the East Traffic Circle 

Source Area, and the Treatment Facility 406 Hotspot area.—These actions will further prevent the release of trichloroethylene (TCE), thereby reducing risks to the 

public from exposure to contaminated groundwater. 

Remove contaminated surface soil and contaminated sandpile at Building 850.— 

These actions will mitigate risk to onsite workers, and will prevent further impacts 

to groundwater above health-based standards. 

Construct, install, and operate groundwater extraction and treatment facility.—Remediation of the high-explosive process area is a high priority due to the offsite migration of contaminant plumes, current impacts to onsite water-supply wells, and 

the inhalation risk to onsite workers. These actions will impede the migration of 

plumes, protecting offsite water-supply wells from contamination. 

Maintain closure schedules.—Three major sites, Rocky Flats, Fernald, and Mound, 

have accelerated closure schedules. In addition, two smaller sites, Ashtabula and 

Battelle-Columbus are scheduled to close in 2006. Funding in the fiscal year 2005 

budget will allow these sites to remain on track toward project completion and site 

closure. 

At Rocky Flats, fiscal year 2005 funding provides for: 

—Completing site deinventory of legacy low-level/mixed low-level and transuranic 

waste to off-site disposal; completing remediation of 30 release sites.—During fiscal year 2005, Rocky Flats will be approaching completion of their commitment 

to closure and conversion of the Rocky Flats site for future beneficial use. The 

buildings where plutonium and other hazardous materials were used in support 

of the nuclear weapons deterrent will be under various stages of demolition, the 

final quantities of radioactive wastes will be removed from the site, and the 

grounds will be receiving the necessary remediation action. These actions, when 

complete, will allow the Department of Energy to release the site to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to become the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge with little 

or no further risk to human health or the environment. 

At Fernald, fiscal year 2005 funding provides for: 

—Completing decontamination and dismantlement of the Waste Pits Complex and 

the East Warehouse Complex, and completion of waste pits remedial action operations.—Completing the Waste Pit Remediation Project will result in over 1 million tons of waste pit material having been transported off-site via rail for safe, 

compliant disposal and the D&D of the treatment facility and other waste pit 

infrastructures. Completing these activities represents a substantial risk reduction to human health and the environment for the entire Fernald Closure 
156 

Project site. This remediation activity is being conducted in an extremely safe 

manner considering the industrial hazards involved. 

—Completing Silos 1 and 2 operations, including removal of waste material, and 

beginning disposition of the waste for off-site disposal.—Silos 1 and 2 Extraction 

and Treatment Operations represent the greatest risk to human health and the 

environment at the Fernald Closure Project. Silos 1 and 2 contain the highest 

levels of radiological activity residing in any waste stream at the site. The Silos 

1 and 2 project constitute the Site Closure Critical Path. Their successful completion is a prerequisite for a timely and safe closure. 

—Completing construction of the On-Site Disposal Facility Cell 3 and Cell 4 

caps.—Capping Cells of the On-Site Disposal Facility (OSDF) will insure the reduction in risk to human health and the environment during post closure. Overall, the OSDF will be composed of 8 cells, containing 2.5 million cubic yards of 

waste soil and debris. The OSDF has been designed and engineered to possess 

a 5-foot thick liner and a 9-foot thick cap. The OSDF has a design life of 1,000 

years. 

At Mound, fiscal year 2005 funding provides for: 

—Completing remediation of 37 potential release sites (65 percent of remaining), 

including the restoration of potential release site (PRS) 66.—Completing the 

PRS’s in fiscal year 2005 decreases risk by preventing any further radioactive 

contamination from migrating into clean soil areas and ground water, by reducing potential exposure to site workers and other personnel located on site, and 

by precluding any potential environmental impacts to off site areas. 

At Ashtabula, fiscal year 2005 funding provides for: 

—Completing remediation of the Waste Management Unit.—Remediating the 

Waste Management Unit significantly reduces the remaining risks of organic 

and inorganic chemical exposure to both soil and groundwater at the RMI site. 

At Battelle-Columbus, fiscal year 2005 funding provides for: 

—Completing decontamination/stabilization of the fuel storage pool and transfer 

canal and the high-bay area surfaces in JN–1.—Removing this source term will 

reduce the risk of contamination, both internal and external, to the workers 

during building de-construction. Removal of the source term would also reduce 

risk to off-site areas and members of the general public. 

Integrate technology development and deployment.—An integrated technology development and deployment program is an essential element for successful completion of the EM cleanup effort and for fulfilling post-closure requirements. The EM 

Technology Development and Deployment (TDD) program provides technical solutions and alternative technologies to assist with accelerated cleanup of the DOE 

complex. 

EM technology development and deployment investments are focused on high-payoff site closure and remediation problems through a two pronged approach: Closure 

Projects and Alternative Projects. 

Closure Projects.—Principal near term closure sites (such as Rocky Flats, Fernald 

and Mound) will be provided with technical support and quick response, highly focused technology development and deployment projects. The goal is to ensure that 

accelerated site closure schedules are achieved. 

—At Rocky Flats closure site, technical assistance teams will assess critical technical issues and provide technology alternatives including the treatment and 

disposition of orphaned waste streams and improved methods of beryllium decontamination. 

—At Mound, innovative technologies will be developed to determine and enable 

treatment of radioactive contaminated soil beneath buildings. 

—At Fernald, the vacuum thermal desorption demonstration will be completed to 

provide a technical solution for an orphaned waste stream, and technical support to the Silos No. 1, 2, and 3 waste removal and disposition will be successfully completed. 

—At Oak Ridge, delineation of contamination and definition of treatment feasibility for subsurface contamination will be completed. 

Alternative Projects.—Alternative approaches and step improvements to current 

high-risk/high cost baseline remediation projects are our second focus. The goal is 

to enable cleanup to be accomplished safely, at less cost, and on an accelerated 

schedule. EM is focusing funds for fiscal year 2005 on: 

—Alternatives For Tank Waste Pretreatment and Immobilization (Hanford Site, 

Office of River Protection); 

—Alternatives for Carbon Tetrachloride Source Term Location (Hanford Site, 

Richland); 

—Alternatives for Disposition of High-Level Salt Waste (Savannah River Site); 
157 

—Alternatives for Remediation of Chlorinated Ethenes using Monitored Natural 

Attenuation (Savannah River Site); 

—Alternatives for Deposit Characterization and Removal at Gaseous Diffusion 

Plants (Portsmouth); 

—Alternatives for In situ Transuranic Waste Delineation and Removal (Hanford 

Site, Richland); and 

—Alternatives for Non-Destructive Assay and Examination of Large Transuranic 

Waste Containers (Savannah River Site/Carlsbad). 

CONCLUSION

This year has seen dramatic results demonstrating our steadfast belief that continuing on the accelerated path will provide the direction and framework to resolve 

the problems that lie before us. As with all new enterprises that seek to challenge 

the status quo, impediments will be encountered. We must not lose our momentum 

that has so earnestly been established through collaboration and a singular focus 

of delivering meaningful results for the American public. 

We are committed to employ our resources to show meaningful results and we are 

taking a very staunch view of results. The job is not done until it is done. We cannot 

be complacent, we must continue to do better. It is not done when we develop a 

plan—it is not done when we agree to a milestone—it is not done when we ask for 

funding—it is not done when we sign a contract—it is not done when we get money. 

It is not done until it’s done and there is positive and measurable risk reduction 

for the investment. 

The only measure of success will be positive, measurable accomplishments of public safety and environmental protection. The longer we wait, the greater the potential risk. We must not lessen our commitment to the American people to do the 

‘‘right thing’’. I ask for your support to continue this important work. We must avoid 

losing the opportunity to rid this legacy from our children’s inheritance. We are 

safer today than we were last year and we must stay the course so we are safer 

next year than today. We have accelerated cleanup by at least 35 years reducing 

lifecycle cost over $50 billion. The potential is there to lose what we have gained 

should we fail to stay true to our commitments. 

I look forward to working with Congress and others to achieve this worthy goal. 

I will be happy to answer questions. 
158 

EM’S COMPLEX WIDE PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1

Performance Measure Unit Fiscal Year 2003 Target Fiscal Year 2003 Actual Fiscal Year 2004 Target Fiscal Year 2005 Target 

Actual 

Lifecycle 

Through Fiscal 

Year 2003 

Lifecycle 

Scope 

Pu packaged for long-term disposition ................................ No. Cont. ............................................................................... 2,836 3,065 1,323 165 4,549 5,850 eU packaged for disposition ................................................. No. Cont. ............................................................................... 277 201 925 669 2,054 9,101 Pu/U residues packaged for disposition .............................. kg Bulk ................................................................................. 934 1,140 254 76 107,659 107,782 DU&U packaged for disposition ........................................... MT ......................................................................................... 1,815 4,551 .................... .................... 7,651 742,149 Liquid Waste eliminated ....................................................... gallons (1000s) .................................................................... 700 .................... 1,300 1,900 .................... 88,000 Liquid Waste Tanks closed ................................................... No. Tanks .............................................................................. 1 .................... 9 9 2 241 HLW packaged for disposition .............................................. No. Cont. ............................................................................... 130 115 250 250 1,727 18,735 SNF packaged for disposition ............................................... MTHM .................................................................................... 857 807 633 1 1,446 2,420 TRU disposed ........................................................................ m3 ......................................................................................... 4,522 6,372 12,952 13,678 14,092 141,314 LL/LLMW disposed ................................................................. m3 ......................................................................................... 75,030 118,362 89,815 107,067 402,568 1,155,360 MAAs eliminated ................................................................... No. MAA’s .............................................................................. .................... 1 1 1 6 14 Nuclear Facility Completions ................................................ No. Facs. ............................................................................... 2 4 5 14 21 523 Radioactive Facility Completions .......................................... No. Facs. ............................................................................... 7 24 45 67 148 804 Industrial Facility Completions ............................................. No. Facs. ............................................................................... 49 107 110 187 617 2,423 Geographic Sites Eliminated ................................................ Sites ...................................................................................... 2 1 .................... 2 76 114 Remediation Complete .......................................................... No. Rel. Sites ........................................................................ 214 260 200 283 5,186 10,374 

1 Each of EM’s 16 corporate performance measures is quantitative and focuses on those materials, wastes, environmental media, and facilities that comprise the majority of the risk to environment, public health, and safety. When these 

measures are completed, the EM program has accomplished its mission. Each measure is tracked in the context of the total life-cycle on 2035 accelerated schedule. The corporate performance measures are under strict configuration control, thereby establishing performance expectations and accountability. Through strict configuration control, EM is able to make crucial corporate decisions that will keep the program on track, monitor and control costs, and manage site closure expectations. 
159 

Senator CRAIG. Secretary Roberson, thank you very much. Now 

let me turn to Beverly Cook, Assistant Secretary, Environmental 

Safety and Health. Bev, it’s great to see you in this capacity. I saw 

you more often in Idaho. I think that I saw you here, but at any 

rate, welcome to the committee. Please proceed. 

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

STATEMENT OF BEVERLY COOK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

ACCOMPANIED BY BOB CAREY, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, OFFICE OF 

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Ms. COOK. Thank you, Senator Craig. It’s good to see you again, 

too, and thank you, also, Senator Murray, for having me here. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Office of Environment, Safety and Health. It’s sometimes not very clear exactly what the EH organization does, so I 

wanted to discuss it in a little bit of detail. 

The mission of the Office of Environment Safety and Health is 

to ensure that the Department of Energy performs work in a safe, 

environmentally compliant manner. We fulfill that role by assuring 

that considerations of safety and health and the environment are 

integrated into all parts of the work that is done, in all the planning and all the execution of all the Department’s work. Our budget request in fiscal year 2005 is $135 million. It’s approximately level with that in fiscal year 2004 appropriations. In 

fiscal year 2005, we will partner with the line management, and 

we will establish programs that promote safe and environmentally 

compliant conduct, work and determine the effectiveness of those 

programs, and provide improvements and regulations where possible and where necessary to make sure that those improvements 

happen. 

The EH budget programs are split between both Energy Supply 

and Other Defense Activities accounts, which is a little bit confusing at times within the energy and water development appropriations. However, the scope of the work in both of those accounts 

are applicable across the Department, across what we say and 

across everything that we do. 

Our activities are split in areas of program and policies and 

standards and guidance and also corporate safety programs, health 

studies, and employee compensation. In addition, we have a program direction account in both of those accounts that cover our 

Federal staff, and that also sometimes gets to be a bit difficult. 

Under Energy Supply account activities, we issue policies, standards, and guidance to assure that the people, property and the environment are adequately protected. 

For most DOE facilities, the DOE assumes the regulatory authority for safety and health as provided in the Atomic Energy Act. 

These requirements must take into account the unique nuclear, 

chemical and industrial hazards posed by the DOE operations, 

must be current with worldwide technologies, knowledge and experience, which is a large part of what we do, making sure that we 

stay current. We use the best available information. 

In 2005, our nuclear safety policies and standards will be enhanced to reflect updated commercial codes and standards, the 
160 

changing DOE missions and work environments and emerging 

safety issues that are always encountered when we are working 

with hazardous materials in aging facilities. We will continue our 

interface with other agencies and organizations to ensure that 

these policies and standards are consistent with other Federal 

agencies and with the industrial regulations. We will use the results of the many health studies that have taken place over several 

decades to make sure that we have modified our policies as appropriate to protect our workers. 

Our environmental protection policies will also be enhanced to 

reflect new and emerging environmental issues and regulations 

and allow for compliance with external environmental protection 

requirements in a cost-effective manner. We review and provide 

comments on regulations developed by other agencies to assure 

that DOE’s unique operations are fully considered and comply with 

those regulations, and we also provide them the required documentation of the Department’s compliance with environmental 

standards and progress toward meeting those environmental goals 

and radiation protection and pollution prevention goals. 

In our DOE-wide environmental safety and health programs, we 

design programs to encourage and improve worker and nuclear facility safety and protect the public and environment, and that goes 

everywhere from things like the Department of Energy laboratory 

accreditation program which provides assurance that workers’ 

records, exposure radiation records, are accurately measured and 

documented, and also things like the VPP program, the Voluntary 

Protection Program, which is highly recognized, DOE’s work in 

that, to make sure that workers are involved in providing protection for themselves in their work place. 

In fiscal year 2005, EH will develop the new DOE pollution prevention goals for the next 5 years, and we will make sure that we 

meet DOE’s responsibilities under executive orders related to pollution prevention and implementing of environmental management 

systems within all of our work. 

Environmental management systems are required of all Federal 

agencies and must be in place by 2005. Those require that you consider all environmental issues when you plan the work, so that you 

make sure they are effectively implemented. We will also provide 

cost-effective centralized environment, safety and health information to the DOE complex through online access to Environment 

Safety and Health industry standards, programs, policies and activities. We want to make sure that there is access to everyone to 

commercial standards and access to historical Environmental Safety and Health information to all people at all sites. 

One of the things that we do now, one of the things that I looked 

at this morning, is a ‘‘rollup’’ or summary of all the occurrences 

that happen within the complex every 24 hours. The rollup is communicated electronically throughout the complex, and is available 

to everyone. The rollup is done weekly to inform the Headquarters 

senior managers and the senior managers throughout the complex 

about what’s going on, what kind of trends, what people are running into, and to make sure that they learn from the lessons of others. 
161 

Under our Other Defense Activities account in the corporate safety programs, we spend much of our time looking at the synthesis 

of operational information, and through that, setting ESH expectations, through our contracts, through performance measures, and 

implementing of these ‘‘lessons learned’’ programs. Consolidating 

existing databases is a big part of what we’re doing right now and 

will continue to do through 2005. I will talk more later about the 

draft IG report. 

The Computerized Accident/Incident Reporting System (CAIRS) 

was a way of summarizing the OSHA-type statistics although it is 

not our only way of collecting information. In the past, information 

was shared by circulating paper reports. We recognized that over 

a year ago that was not effective and that there was a great time 

delay between the occurrences and entering the paper information 

into the electronic system. We’ve made a concerted effort over the 

last year to make sure that we move to a fully electronic system 

with daily input and weekly checks to make sure that the information is accurate. We’re working with the IG so that they fully understand the changes that have happened to those systems and to 

make sure that we no longer have a time delay in sharing information. 

We have consolidated the quality assurance responsibilities of 

the Department within the Office of Environment Safety and 

Health and are making sure that we strengthen our quality assurance methodologies. The RESL Program at Idaho, the Radiological 

Environmental Science Laboratories, is now under the purview of 

the Office of Environment Safety and Health. 

In that laboratory we do analytical chemistry and radiation exposure assessments, environmental sampling and certification, and 

quality assurance. We also ensure that the data are accurate as 

well as technically and legally defensible. We continue to provide 

immediate environment safety and health support, everything from 

accident investigations to authorizations on a facility authorization 

basis. We investigate safety allegations, perform special reviews on 

nuclear hazards, fire protection, and a wide range of operations. 

EH also carries out the statutory mandate for the Price-Anderson 

Amendments Act, where we enforce compliance of the Code of Federal Regulations’ nuclear safety requirements. In fiscal year 2005, 

we will begin enforcement of worker occupational safety and health 

requirements. 

Our health responsibilities, which are under the Other Defense 

Activities account, cover a wide range of issues. They include occupational health, public health and epidemiological studies and 

international health studies; international studies make up the 

largest part of the EH budget. Under occupational health, we will 

provide the medical screening that we provide to our former workers at the Defense nuclear complex. We will also try to upgrade our 

occupational medical services by integrating it throughout the complex by including it in our contracts, to make sure that we’ve got 

consistent and reliable occupational medicine services across the 

complex. 

We also will continue to support the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center training site at Oak Ridge, the REAC/TS, which provides rapid response for medical expertise and training to address 
162 

radiological accidents. Supporting REAC/TS is critically important, 

especially when we move into concerns about terrorist events. 

Under public health, we will continue to fund the independent 

program of energy-related epidemiological studies that are done by 

HHS for us at DOE facilities. Many of those studies, however, are 

coming to an end. In fiscal year 2005 some of those studies will require fewer dollars as they come to the end. We document and publish the studies that have been done. This concerns not only the 

communities surrounding our sites but also our current and our 

former workers included in those studies. 

Finally, EH supports several international health programs. 

Those include studies in Russia and in Japan of radiation-exposed 

populations. The Russian studies are very relevant and very interesting because they concern the kinds of exposures that we’ve seen 

in some of our more exposed populations within the DOE complex 

in the past. We also provide the support for medical surveillance 

and environmental monitoring in Spain and the Marshall Islands. 

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program is funded within the EH budget, and as you have seen in our 

fiscal year 2005 budget submittal, there is a significant increase. 

This is because we have recognized that the number of applications 

greatly exceeded our original expectations, and the Department is 

actively and aggressively pursuing a 3-year program to completely 

eliminate the backlog of applications by the end of fiscal year 2006. 

It will require significant funding to do that. We have also implemented some reforms to effect those improvements to get to that 

point. 

Finally, let me just say a few words about our program direction 

funding. As I said, it’s in two different accounts. We perform critical functions with Federal staff to directly support the missions of 

the Department. It requires expertise in developing overall environmental safety and health policies for the DOE sites and the facility operations. We’ve taken many, many steps over the last year 

and a half to streamline our operations. 

We’ve developed efficient processes such as reducing travel or 

other fixed costs through use of video conference capabilities to provide the training and information that’s necessary in the complex 

in everything from consolidating office space to anything else we 

could think about. The number of Federal employees in EH has decreased by almost half over the last 5 years; that’s a huge decrease. 

Large funding reductions in fiscal year 2004 put at risk EH’s 

ability to meet the demands of the DOE complex. We have to 

prioritize what we do and where we assist the program offices. 

The requested funding level in fiscal year 2005 will restore the 

level of resources commensurate with the responsibilities of the office, and I think that is critical to do. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So thank you for this opportunity. I believe our administration’s 

2005 budget request for the Office of Environment Safety and 

Health reflects the level of funding that is needed to protect the 

workers and the public in our DOE sites in a cost-effective manner. 

I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. 

[The statement follows:] 
163 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEVERLY COOK

Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2005 President’s Budget request for the Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH). 

The mission of the Office of Environment, Safety and Health is to ensure that the 

Department of Energy (DOE) performs work in a safe and environmentally compliant manner. EH fulfills that role by assuring that consideration for the safety and 

health of the DOE workforce and members of the public and protection of the environment are integrated into the planning and execution of all Departmental activities. 

The Office of Environment, Safety and Health fiscal year 2005 budget request is 

$135 million, approximately level with the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. This level 

of funding allows EH to leverage its resources and personnel to provide DOE’s line 

management programs with essential environment, safety and health performance 

expectations; management tools to promote the safe conduct of work; environment, 

safety and health performance measures and analysis; and guidance for the protection of the environment in and around DOE sites. Integral to the Department’s success is EH’s skill in fostering increased awareness and providing support to line 

management throughout the Department using open and easily accessible communications tools. Our goal is to provide the safety infrastructure that allows for and 

promotes the safe and environmentally responsible conduct of work. 

EH has traditionally filled the role of setting regulations and standards, and then 

providing independent oversight and enforcement to ensure the Department’s compliance with those standards. The independent oversight functions were moved from 

EH in 2002, allowing EH to provide corporate environment, safety and health services. EH now serves as a partner with DOE Line Managers to establish programs 

that promote the safe and environmentally compliant conduct of work, to determine 

the effectiveness of those programs and to improve the programs and regulations 

when necessary. 

In support of the President’s Management Agenda, EH underwent a dramatic restructuring in 2003 to better perform its new role within the DOE. The restructuring allowed for cutting management layers, placing greater emphasis on corporate performance and quality assurance, and focusing more on e-government initiatives by consolidating databases and other electronic information management 

functions. The implementation of the new organization is continuing through 2004. 

The major challenge in 2005 will be succession planning. It is the responsibility of 

EH to assure appropriate technical expertise is available to support environment, 

safety and health concerns. As more of the DOE complex reaches retirement age, 

we are concerned that the necessary technical expertise may be lost, both in the 

headquarters and field operations, and in EH, where corporate expertise to support 

the program activities is required. 

The scope of work performed by EH staff is multifaceted. I will now provide you 

with a description of the specific activities identified in the President’s request for 

the Office of Environment, Safety and Health. 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST

The Environment, Safety and Health programs are split between the Energy Supply and Other Defense Activities accounts within the Energy and Water Development appropriation. However, the scope of work often cuts across these funding 

lines because of the generic nature and cross cutting applicability of the work performed by EH. It is important that a framework is in place that is clear and easily 

understood by the DOE Federal and Contractor workforce, and the overall safety 

and environment goals of the Department are consistent throughout the DOE complex. 

ENERGY SUPPLY

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$22,564,000: Fiscal Year 2005 Request—$30,474,000. 

EH activities funded within the Energy Supply appropriation are concentrated 

into two programmatic areas: Policy, Standards and Guidance and DOE-Wide Environment, Safety and Health Programs. In general, work funded under this account 

is applicable to all of the DOE operations. In addition, a Program Direction decision 

unit includes funding for a portion of EH Federal staff and all of the EH Working 

Capital Fund. 
164 

Policy, Standards and Guidance 

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$1,799,000; Fiscal Year 2005 Re- quest—$4,205,000. 

Policy, standards and guidance are issued to assure that people, property and the 

environment are adequately protected from the hazards of DOE activities. For most 

DOE facilities, DOE assumes direct regulatory authority for safety and health as 

provided by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Safety and quality assurance policy, standards and guidance must therefore take into account the unique 

nuclear, chemical and industrial hazards posed by DOE operations and must be current with worldwide technologies, knowledge and experience. EH must establish nuclear and facility safety requirements and expectations for working with workplace 

hazards and safety issues unique to our operations. 

In fiscal year 2005, DOE nuclear and facility safety policies and standards will 

be enhanced to reflect updated commercial codes and standards, changing DOE missions and work environments, and emerging safety issues that are encountered continuously when working with hazardous materials and in aging facilities. We will 

continue our interface with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Federal Departments of Transportation, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to ensure DOE 

policies and standards are consistent with other Federal and industry regulations 

and are based on best available information. EH will also maintain close ties with 

national and international standards and regulatory bodies and various industry 

groups, such as the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and the Energy Facilities 

Contractors Group. In fiscal year 2005, EH will continue to utilize the results of epidemiologic studies performed under other parts of the EH programs and modify 

worker safety and health policies as appropriate to improve protection of the workers. EH will also strengthen the Federal Employee Occupational Safety and Health 

program, which provides for protection of our Federal workforce. 

Environmental protection policies will also be enhanced to reflect new and emerging environmental issues and regulations. EH will assist Programs to comply with 

external environmental protection requirements in a cost-effective manner and continue to develop timely guidance to assure understanding of newly promulgated environmental requirements. We will review and provide agency comments on regulations under development by other agencies, to assure that DOE’s unique operations 

are fully considered. EH will also provide the required documentation of the Department’s compliance with environmental standards and progress towards meeting performance goals for radiation protection and pollution prevention. 

The increase in this account is due to moving the technical standards activities 

from DOE-Wide programs to Policy standards and guidance. This puts all of the policy and standards setting activities into one account. Increased membership fees for 

participation in the industry nuclear power group are also included. 

DOE-Wide Environment, Safety and Health Programs 

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$5,068,000: Fiscal Year 2005 Request—$5,795,000. 

EH’s DOE-Wide Environment, Safety, and Health (ES&H) Programs are designed 

to encourage and improve worker and nuclear facilities safety and protect the public 

and the environment. EH has developed state-of-the-art analysis tools and approaches, due to the unique nature and mix of radioactive, hazardous, and toxic materials at DOE facilities. 

EH has responsibility for the Department of Energy Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP). DOELAP is an accreditation (certification) program that provides 

assurance that worker radiation exposures are being accurately measured. DOE’s 

nationally recognized Voluntary Protection Program (VPP), managed by EH, has resulted in enhanced worker safety protection. In fiscal year 2005, DOE will continue 

to re-certify DOE contractor VPP status and evaluate new applications for VPP status. 

In fiscal year 2005, EH will develop new DOE pollution prevention goals for recycling and reduced toxic chemical use. Consistent with the new, Department-wide 

pollution prevention program plan to be developed during fiscal year 2004, EH will 

provide a roadmap for continuous improvement in DOE’s pollution prevention efforts. We will also provide instruction and guidance to meet DOE’s responsibilities 

under Executive Orders related to pollution prevention and implementation of environment management systems. EH will continue to guide all DOE programs in their 

planning and execution of complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analyses and conduct independent compliance assurance reviews for more than 15 

major Environmental Impact Statements and related documents. 
165 

EH provides cost-effective management of centralized environmental, safety, and 

health information to the DOE complex. We will provide on-line access to environment, safety and health related industry standards, programs, policies and activities; access to a commercial standards subscription service; and access to historical 

environmental safety and health information for all DOE operations and sites. 

The slight increase in this account is the net result of a large increase in the resources required to implement the new Worker Safety and Health rule, coupled with 

a decrease from moving the technical standards work to the Policy, Standards and 

Guidance account. 

Program Direction 

Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation—$15,697,000; Fiscal Year 2005 Request— $20,474,000. 

Program Direction in this account provides overall support for EH staff responsible for Energy Supply programs, includes salaries, performance awards and other 

benefits; all costs of transportation and expenses for Federal employees in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations; the EH Working Capital Fund for all EH 

staff, including those with salaries paid under Other Defense; and training for Federal staff. The Working Capital Fund provides for non-discretionary prorated costs 

for items such as space utilization, computer and telephone usage, mail service, and 

supplies. Also included is funding for competitive sourcing studies. 

EH performs critical functions which directly support the mission of the Department. The EH mission requires experts to develop overall environment, safety, and 

health policy for DOE sites and facility operations and to provide a central and coordinated source of technical expertise to all field elements. EH provides a central 

clearing house for information, and analysis and feedback regarding new efforts, 

present activities, and unforeseen occurrences taking place at the multitude of diverse facilities within the DOE complex. 

EH has taken many steps to streamline and develop more efficient internal processes in order to reduce costs. For example, EH has reduced travel and other fixed 

costs through the use of video conference capabilities and other innovative techniques. Furthermore, the number of Federal employees in EH has decreased by almost half in the last 10 years. However, the large funding reductions in fiscal year 

2004 put at risk EH’s ability to meet the demands of the DOE complex. Therefore, 

the increase in fiscal year 2005 will restore the level of resources commensurate 

with the roles and responsibilities of the office. 

OTHER DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$119,366,000; Fiscal Year 2005 Request—$104,519,000. 

The EH Other Defense Activities are concentrated into three accounts: Corporate 

Safety Programs, Health Studies and Employee Compensation. These activities address the needs and issues related to a variety of Defense related program activities 

being conducted by the Department. In addition, a Program Direction decision unit 

includes funding for the salaries and benefits of a portion of the EH Federal staff 

and their travel and training. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request also includes funding for two Other Defense 

Activities programs that were transferred to EH from the Office of Environmental 

Management (EM) in fiscal year 2004. These are: (1) the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) at Idaho, and (2) the Analytical Services Program. These programs help to ensure that analytical laboratory data and worker radiation exposure and environmental samples are of high quality and reliability. 

These programs support the quality of data used throughout the Department and 

are more closely aligned with EH’s quality assurance function than EM’s mission 

of accelerated risk reduction and site closure. 

Corporate Safety and Health Program 

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriations—$9,032,000; Fiscal Year 2005 Request—$10,883,000. 

The Corporate Safety Program serve a crosscutting safety function for the Department and its stakeholders in assessing, achieving and assuring excellence and continuous improvement in safety management and performance in the conduct of its 

missions and activities. Several tasks are included in Corporate Safety Program. 

In fiscal year 2005, EH will provide analysis and certification of DOE’s performance in protecting the public, workers, and the environment by synthesizing operational information. This supports decision-making and continuous ES&H improvement across the DOE complex. We will support the setting of ES&H performance 

expectations through contracts and performance measurements and implement a 
166 

lessons learned program. Our ES&H web sites and web-based database systems will 

be re-engineered in fiscal year 2005 to consolidate existing databases and utilize the 

most recent technology to distribute information in an efficient and effective manner. Because EH now has overall responsibility for DOE Quality Assurance, we will 

provide quality assurance information, corporate policy and guidance, and certification for activities such as Contractor Self-Assessment Programs. We will conduct 

performance evaluation and accreditation, technical support and measurements, and 

quality assurance methodologies through RESL. EH will also provide a process to 

ensure DOE environmental data is of high quality and reliability as well as technically and legally defensible. The increase in this account reflects the implementation of EH’s new responsibilities related to Department-wide quality assurance. 

To address immediate environment, safety and health issues, EH will perform accident investigations, facility authorization basis reviews, and safety allegation investigations. We will also conduct special safety reviews of nuclear hazards, criticality safety, seismic analysis, fire protection, emergency operations, facility design, 

and the startup and restart of facilities upon request of the Program offices. EH will 

continue to carry out the statutory mandate of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act 

of 1988 to enforce compliance with Code of Federal Regulations nuclear safety requirements at DOE sites and begin enforcement of the Worker Occupational Safety 

and Health Rule. 

Health 

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Budget—$67,335,000; Fiscal Year 2005 Request— 

$45,222,000. 

The EH Health responsibilities are to establish and enhance the scientific bases 

for standards that provide levels of protection appropriate to the risk of the hazards 

present at DOE sites. This responsibility is included in four general areas: Occupational Health (corporate occupational medicine policy); Public Health (community 

bases health studies); Epidemiologic Studies (analysis and communication of worker 

injury and illness information); and International Health Studies. 

There are several activities related to occupational health. Targeted medical 

screening will be provided to former workers of DOE’s defense nuclear complex. 

Standards, policies, and corporate resources will be provided to efficiently delivery 

quality occupational medical services in an integrated manner to the current DOE 

workforce. In fiscal year 2005, EH will work to implement occupational medicine 

model contract language to ensure adequate and integrated occupation health programs at all DOE sites. EH will continue to support the Radiation Emergency Accident Center/Training Site (REAC/TS), which provides rapid response medical expertise and training to address radiological accidents. 

Public health will be addressed through independent energy-related epidemiologic 

studies relevant to DOE workers and neighboring communities by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Center for Environmental 

Health, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. These studies 

will inform the DOE and stakeholders of any adverse health impacts that DOE operations may have had on DOE workers and the public. In addition, DOE epidemiologic studies will be conducted that collect and analyze both medical and exposure 

data information for both current DOE workers and the public. 

EH will support several international health program studies in order to upgrade 

and validate our knowledge of radiation health effects among workers and populations exposed to ionizing radiation or environmental contamination. DOE and the 

National Cancer Institute will jointly sponsor international studies to determine if 

there are any adverse health effects from exposure to radiological contamination 

from Chernobyl on the populations of Belarus, Ukraine, and Chernobyl cleanup 

workers, and epidemiologic studies of Russian workers at the Mayak Production Facility and other facilities in Russia. These studies will identify the level of radiation 

exposure where adverse health effects can be demonstrated for a large worker population exposed to low and moderate levels of radiation over a working lifetime and 

support the establishment of international and national radiation protection standards and policy. The DOE and Spain jointly sponsored Project Indalo will provide 

support for medical surveillance and environmental monitoring of the spread of plutonium contamination on a few hundred acres of land in southern Spain. In addition, EH will provide special medical care for a specific group of radiation-exposed 

individuals in the Marshall Islands and support the Radiation Effects Research Facility (RERF) in Japan, which conducts epidemiologic studies and medical surveillance for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki exposed population. 

A decrease in this account reflects the absence of some programs that were congressionally directed in fiscal year 2004 and an assumption of reduced funding for 

certain international studies as they approach their conclusion. 
167 

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$25,646,000; Fiscal Year 2005 Request—$43,000,000. 

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 

(EEOICPA) authorized DOE to establish a process to assist employees of DOE contractors and their survivors with their applications for State workers compensation 

benefits. Around the time that EEOICPA was passed in 2000, and given the complexity of the process mandated in the authorizing legislation and the expected complexity of the physician panel reviews to be conducted, DOE had planned that it 

would take 10 years to completely review all applications. However, as the number 

of applications greatly exceeded original expectations, and the applicants’ immediate 

need for this data to effectively pursue State workers compensation claims became 

clear, the Department has pursued a 3-year program to completely eliminate the 

backlog of applications by the end of fiscal year 2006. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget includes $43 million to maintain the accelerated 

schedule for EEOICPA activities. Together with additional funds reprogrammed 

from fiscal year 2003 and additional funds that have been requested to be reprogrammed in fiscal year 2004, this funding should enable DOE to significantly expedite the process through fiscal year 2004, complete the processing of all applications 

currently on file with DOE in fiscal year 2005, and completely process all of these 

applications through the Physicians Panels in fiscal year 2006. The Department has 

also implemented reforms that have already improved performance. In August 2003 

the program processed 30 cases per week. But with process improvements and the 

final approval in fiscal year 2003 of $9.7 million in transferred funds in September 

2003, the rate has more than tripled to over 100 per week, and continues to rise. 

The Department also recently made changes to its regulations to expedite the processing of applications and currently is discussion with other Federal agencies and 

stakeholders possible legislative changes to address impediments to effective program implementation. 

The significant increase in this account for fiscal year 2005 supports expedited 

processing of applications. 

Program Direction 

Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation—$17,853,000; Fiscal Year 2005 Request—$20,414,000. 

Program Direction in this account provides for the salaries and benefits of a portion of the EH Federal staff, their travel and training. The Working Capital Fund, 

the non-discretionary prorated costs for items such as space utilization, computer 

and telephone usage, mail service, and supplies for all EH staff, is budgeted under 

the Energy Supply account. In this account, Program Direction also includes funding to support the Federal RESL and the Analytical Services Program staff. As with 

the Energy Supply account, the large funding reductions in fiscal year 2004 put at 

risk EH’s ability to meet the demands of the DOE complex. Therefore, the increase 

in fiscal year 2005 will restore resources commensurate with the roles and responsibilities of the office. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, we believe the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget request for 

the Office of Environment, Safety and Health reflects a level of funding to ensure 

protection of the workers and public near DOE sites and allows for the accomplishment of the critical work performed by DOE in a cost effective manner. It is critical 

that the Federal Government maintain the expertise to evaluate and direct operations to maintain a level of safety and environmental compliance the public and 

the Congress expects. 

This completes my prepared statement, and I am happy to answer any questions 

the subcommittee may have. 

Senator CRAIG. Secretary Cook, thank you very much for being 

before the committee this morning. Now let us turn to Dr. Margaret Chu, Director, Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Doctor, welcome again before the committee. 
168 

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT OF MARGARET CHU, DIRECTOR 

Dr. CHU. Thank you, Senator Craig and Senator Murray. I very 

much appreciate the opportunity to present our fiscal year 2005 

budget request from the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Our key objective is to begin receiving waste at Yucca 

Mountain in 2010. The schedule is tight and the consequences of 

delay are enormous. Fiscal year 2005 is a critical year in which important activities must be initiated and start to converge. Our total 

budget request is $880 million. While this is an increase over historical funding levels, it is one that has been understood and carefully planned for many years. 

We are positioned to commit funds responsibly and effectively. 

Out of the total budget request of $880 million, the amount requested for the Repository Project is $559 million. Our foremost 

funding priority is to meet our longstanding goal of submitting a 

high quality license application to the NRC in December of 2004. 

We are on track. 

Quality and completeness are paramount. The application we 

submit will meet NRC’s regulatory requirements and be docketable 

by the NRC. After the license application is delivered, we must be 

prepared to respond to queries and requests that NRC will make 

during the review. We expect that NRC’s review would be very 

thorough and very rigorous, and our objective is to provide information in a timely and effective manner to support completion of 

NRC’s review within the statutorily established time period. 

There will also be continuing technical work, including ongoing 

testing programs as part of the performance confirmation. In parallel with the licensing process, we must focus on detailed repository design and ensure that the site is ready to support construction as soon as it is authorized by the NRC. We will be initiating 

activities related to long lead time procurements, prototyping and 

testing of engineered components and equipment, and we are also 

requesting funds to address safety-related needs at the site. 

In the area of transportation, our request is $186 million. One 

of the key activities will be the first phase of acquisition of long 

lead-time transportation casks and equipment which must begin 

now to provide the capability for waste acceptance in 2010. We are 

working with industry to procure an efficient cask fleet with the 

minimum number of separate designs. We will support expanded 

institutional interactions as we begin to establish preliminary 

routes, operating protocols and safeguard and security activities. 

We will continue to work on policy for emergency response training 

and technical assistance as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act. 

State and tribal officials and other stakeholders will play an integral part in our transportation planning. In the area of Nevada 

transportation, we recently announced a preferred rail corridor and 

the proposed work in fiscal year 2005 includes completion of conceptual design and the beginning of preliminary design activities 

and issuance of the draft environmental impact statement for the 

rail alignment. 
169 

Some of this is contingent on the Department’s issuing a record 

of decision selecting a mode of transportation and a rail corridor as 

appropriate. We expect to issue the decision very shortly. 

Finally, many of us, including the Congress, have been aware for 

many years that funding requirements for Yucca Mountain would 

increase substantially as we approach construction and transportation system development. Historical appropriation levels will not 

be sufficient to meet these needs. Since 1995, the cumulative shortfall of funds between requested and appropriated amount exceeded 

$700 million. A mechanism must be put in place now to allow the 

program to have ready access to the Nuclear Waste Fund without 

being constrained by funding pressures from other programs. 

In accordance with the funding approach established in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Department collects fees from nuclear 

utilities for the disposal of their spent nuclear fuel. In fiscal year 

2005, an estimated $749 million will be collected. The resources are 

there and we should not delay in making them available for their 

intended purpose. 

Secretary Abraham has recently sent proposed legislation to the 

Congress that would reclassify the annual receipts that are deposited into the Nuclear Waste Fund as discretionary and credit them 

as offsetting collections. Under this proposal, the proposal will continue to be subject to an annual appropriation process and continue 

to be under Congress’ oversight, however, without having to compete with other programs for funds. 

If sufficient appropriations are not available, the Nation will not 

have an operating repository in 2010. Delays will mean an additional cost of nearly a billion dollars per year for waste sites to continue to provide temporary storage. The country would be forced to 

spend billions of dollars in this scenario without solving the problem. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

In conclusion, we are ready to submit a high-quality license application to the NRC in December of 2004 and we are committed 

to begin operations at a licensed repository in 2010. We have 

reached a point where investment must be made in transportation, 

repository and waste acceptance readiness. I urge your support for 

our budget request to accomplish this vital national mission. Thank 

you very much. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARGARET CHU

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Margaret Chu, Director of 

the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM). I appreciate the opportunity to present our fiscal year 2005 budget 

request and discuss our plans to license, build, and operate a geologic repository at 

Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and our efforts to develop the transportation system 

needed to deliver spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the repository. 

OCRWM implements our Nation’s radioactive waste management policy, as established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. This policy requires 

safe, permanent geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 

waste resulting from the Nation’s atomic energy defense activities. The disposal of 

this material in a geologic repository is required to maintain our energy options and 

national security, to allow the cleanup of former weapons production sites, to continue operation of our nuclear-powered vessels, and to advance our international 
170 

nonproliferation goals. The Department’s consolidation of spent nuclear fuel and 

high-level waste from 127 sites at a single secure, remote location is vital to our 

national interest. The Federal Government is contractually required to implement 

a permanent solution for management of commercial spent nuclear fuel, in return 

for which utilities and ratepayers have paid fees to cover the costs of disposal. 

THE 2010 OBJECTIVE

The Program’s key objective remains to begin receiving waste at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed Yucca Mountain repository in 2010. To achieve 

that objective, the Program must, in less than 7 years, seek and secure authorization to construct the repository from the NRC, begin constructing the repository, 

and receive a license amendment allowing receipt of waste and operation of the repository. We must also develop a transportation system to transport waste from civilian and defense storage sites to the repository. That is a tight schedule, and the 

consequences of delay are significant. 

For every year of delay beyond 2010, the cost of storing and handling Depart- mental defense waste alone is estimated to increase by $500 million. Regarding the 

nuclear utilities, the government’s liability for damages for not beginning to take 

commercial spent fuel in 1998 already has been established by court decisions. 

While an accurate calculation of damages must await determinations by the courts, 

it is reasonable to assume that the amount of damages will be substantial and will 

increase with each year of delay. 

Meeting the 2010 objective will require much greater resources than the Program 

has thus far received. We estimate, for example, that from 2005 to 2010 it will cost 

about $8 billion—more than 80 percent of the budget required to meet the 2010 objective—to construct the repository and develop the transportation system. That 

would average more than $1 billion a year, which is much higher than our previous 

annual appropriations. 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST

Fiscal year 2005 is a critical year in which important activities must converge if 

we are to meet the 2010 objective. In fiscal year 2005, we will be fully engaged in 

the licensing process. At the same time, we must initiate certain activities in the 

near term to permit timely construction and ensure readiness for operations. These 

activities, in the areas of repository readiness and detailed design, transportation 

system development, and waste acceptance readiness—along with licensing activities—lead to our total budget request for fiscal year 2005 of $880 million. While this 

is a significant increase over historical funding levels, it is an increase that has been 

carefully planned and understood for many years. We are confident that we are positioned to commit funds responsibly and effectively to defend the license application; to accelerate repository surface, subsurface, and waste package design work 

needed for construction authorization; and to conduct conceptual and preliminary 

design activities for Nevada transportation. Moreover, a major portion of the increase represents procurements, including transportation cask acquisition and important repository site safety infrastructure upgrades. 

To set the stage for our fiscal year 2005 budget request, I would like to briefly 

describe OCRWM’s fiscal year 2003 accomplishments, our ongoing activities based 

on our fiscal year 2004 appropriation, and our goals for fiscal year 2005. 

FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Having achieved Congressional and Presidential approval of the Yucca Mountain 

site in 2002, we successfully transitioned from a scientific study program to one focused on the regulatory requirements for obtaining a license from the NRC. We targeted five areas critical to licensing success in a broad Management Improvement 

Initiative: roles, responsibilities, authority and accountability; Quality Assurance; 

procedural compliance; the Corrective Action Program; and Safety Conscious Work 

Environment. We implemented a Program-wide functional realignment to create an 

organization focused on licensing, and we strengthened our Federal management 

team by bringing on board several senior managers with extensive experience in 

managing major Federal projects. These actions have positioned us to be a successful NRC licensee and to meet requirements for operating a repository safely, and 

will continue into fiscal year 2005. 

Fiscal year 2003 brought significant challenges to our Program. The limited funding provided during the continuing resolution and the final fiscal year 2003 appropriation of $457 million, which was $134 million below our request, required us to 

institute contingency plans, reduce near-term work scope, and further delay transportation activities that are directly tied to our ability to meet the 2010 objective. 
171 

Rather than stretch our resources and risk the safety of our workers, we elected to 

partially close the Yucca Mountain site and to defer some work there. The focus of 

our efforts under these constraints was to maintain our goal of submitting a highquality license application to the NRC in December 2004. 

The Program prepared a conceptual design and a detailed plan for repository licensing, construction, and operation, and focused on completing the license application to the NRC for authority to construct the repository. By the end of fiscal year 

2003, the Yucca Mountain Project had accomplished the following: 

—Completed the conceptual design of the repository surface and underground facilities and waste package elements sufficient for development of the preliminary design for the license application. 

—Completed materials testing and analyses required to support the license application design for the waste package and surface and subsurface facilities. 

—Completed testing data input for the Total System Performance Assessment 

Post-closure Report, to be included in the license application. 

—Initiated the development of the license application document. 

—Identified Project records and technical documents that will be included in the 

licensing support network. 

In addition, during fiscal year 2003, the OCRWM National Transportation Project 

drafted the ‘‘Strategic Plan for the Safe Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel and 

High-Level Radioactive Waste to Yucca Mountain’’, which was issued in November 

2003. 

Throughout the Program, we implemented management improvements identified 

in the President’s Management Agenda. In fiscal year 2003, DOE was ranked number one among all Federal agencies in implementation of the President’s Management Agenda. 

During fiscal year 2003, the Program launched its new and more rigorous Corrective Action Program (CAP) software system. The new CAP combined condition, nonconformance, and technical error reports, and the condition/issue identification and 

reporting/resolution system into a single entry point process. 

FISCAL YEAR 2004 ONGOING ACTIVITIES

Yucca Mountain Project 

Consistent with Departmental and Program objectives, the Yucca Mountain 

Project’s main focus in fiscal year 2004 is on completing the license application. The 

required elements of preliminary design, performance assessment, safety analyses, 

and technical data in the license application must be sufficient for the NRC to conduct an independent review and reach a decision to issue a construction authorization. The application must demonstrate that the repository can be constructed and 

operated with reasonable expectation that the health and safety of the public will 

be protected. 

By the end of fiscal year 2004, with the funds appropriated, we will: 

—Address all ‘‘key technical issue’’ agreements that the Department and NRC 

agree the Program needs to address prior to license application submittal. 

—Complete required elements of the preliminary design for the waste package, 

surface facilities, and subsurface facilities in support of the license application. 

—Complete the safety analyses for Department-owned spent nuclear fuel and 

high-level radioactive waste, and Naval spent fuel for the license application. 

—Complete the total system performance assessment postclosure report in support of the license application. This report will reflect increased understanding 

of how emplaced nuclear waste will interact with the natural and engineered 

barriers after the repository is closed. 

—Prepare tens of millions of pages of relevant documentation for inclusion in the 

electronic Licensing Support Network (LSN) and completed certification consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J. 

—Complete a draft of the license application. 

Even though site characterization is complete, in fiscal year 2004 we are continuing to collect valuable scientific information for the Performance Confirmation 

baseline. The NRC requires Performance Confirmation to continue until the repository is permanently closed. 

National and Nevada Transportation Projects 

As noted previously, we issued the ‘‘Strategic Plan for the Safe Transportation of 

Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste to Yucca Mountain’’ in November, which described the Department’s process for working cooperatively with 

States, tribes, and other interested parties as the transportation system is developed. In early fiscal year 2004, the transportation program focused on selecting the 
172 

transportation mode and corridor that would establish the transportation system’s 

infrastructure requirements. In December 2003, we announced a preferred corridor 

for development of a branch rail line in Nevada to connect from an existing rail line 

to the Yucca Mountain site. The program is now defining infrastructure development projects to provide the capability for transporting spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste to the repository. Funding in fiscal year 2004 represents initial investments in major transportation infrastructure needs, including transportation casks, 

rolling stock, the transportation system in Nevada, a fleet maintenance facility, and 

the business systems needed to manage multiple procurements and construction 

projects. 

Program Management and Integration 

A key component of the Program Management and Integration budget element is 

Quality Assurance (QA). In the last year, we have made significant progress in the 

implementation of our QA program requirements. We have had several independent 

assessments that have determined that the QA program is being effectively implemented. We have also completed the actions and closed several of the significant QA 

issues that have been open for extended periods of time. Finally, we are preparing 

a major revision to our QA program document in support of the license application. 

During this fiscal year, we have taken several steps to ensure we are prepared 

to manage major capital projects efficiently and cost-effectively. We submitted a detailed Capital Asset Management Plan for the Program to the Office of Management 

and Budget in November 2003, and are now working to complete a comprehensive 

program acquisition strategy that will be incorporated in the next update of the 

Plan next fall. We have strengthened our performance measurement and project 

management capabilities and systems, and are using them to monitor and manage 

all the activities that support license application completion. 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 KEY ACTIVITIES

Yucca Mountain Project 

The amount requested for the repository project in fiscal year 2005 is $558.9 million, an increase of $155 million over our fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The primary 

drivers for this increase are repository facility design, prototype development and 

testing, procurement in preparation for underground excavation, design of offsite 

utilities and infrastructure, and support for responding to technical questions on the 

license application. 

Our initial focus will be on submitting the license application by December 2004. 

The license application, expected to be approximately 10,000 pages, will include a 

description of site characteristics; waste package, repository surface and subsurface 

designs; the basis for development of operations and maintenance plans for surface 

and subsurface facilities; safety analysis results for the period prior to permanent 

closure; total system performance assessment results for the post-closure period; and 

a discussion of how the proposed waste package and repository will comply with applicable regulatory requirements. It also will address safeguards, physical security 

plans, the quality assurance program, and performance confirmation. We are closely 

managing the schedule for the remaining work. Quality and completeness are paramount: the application we submit will meet the NRC’s regulatory requirements and 

be docketable by the NRC. 

After the license application is delivered, we must be prepared to respond to queries and requests that NRC will make during its technical review. We expect NRC’s 

review to be thorough and rigorous, and our objective is to provide all required information in a timely and effective manner to support completion of the NRC’s review within the statutorily established time period. 

In parallel with the licensing process, we must focus on design of the repository 

and ensure that the site is ready to support construction as soon as it is authorized 

by the NRC. 

By the end of fiscal year 2005, we will have: 

—Completed and submitted a license application for repository construction authorization to the NRC. 

—Updated the LSN certification concurrent with license application submittal. 

—Completed the preliminary design for the waste package, surface facilities, and 

subsurface facilities, which requires continuing performance assessment analysis. 

—Continued to refine the safety analysis as needed, in response to NRC review 

and in accordance with NRC licensing regulations. 
173 

—Completed the detailed work plan, cost estimate, and schedule, and established 

a performance measurement baseline for the final repository design and construction. 

—Initiated procurement activities for construction of the surface and underground 

facilities. 

—Developed designs for offsite facilities and utilities needed to support the start 

of construction. 

—Addressed safety-related needs at the site. 

We are requesting funding for payments-equal-to-taxes to the State of Nevada and 

to Nye County, Nevada; Yucca Mountain is located in Nye County. Our fiscal year 

2005 request also includes funding for Affected Units of Local Government, as well 

as funding to the University System of Nevada and to Nye County and Inyo County, 

California for independent scientific studies. 

National and Nevada Transportation Projects 

The amount requested in fiscal year 2005 for National and Nevada Transportation 

activities increases from the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of $63.5 million to $186 

million, $163 million of which will be for the National Transportation Project. The 

significant increase in funding will support the initial procurement of transportation 

casks and auxiliary equipment and will accelerate operational capability. 

The initial procurement of truck and rail casks is needed to provide the capability 

for waste acceptance in 2010, given the lead time required for solicitation, evaluation of proposals, NRC package certification (for new designs), and fabrication of 

transportation casks. We are working with the cask vendor industry to procure an 

efficient cask fleet that maximizes the government’s ability to support the full range 

of contents that need to be shipped with the minimum number of separate designs. 

These procurements will proceed towards cask fabrication in a step-wise manner to 

maintain flexibility on final procurements as long as possible. We will also continue 

to address a new railcar standard implemented by the American Association of Railroads for shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. In addition, we have 

requested funds for equipment procurement and infrastructure preparation needed 

for full-scale cask testing by the NRC to enhance public confidence in the NRC’s 

cask certification process. 

The National Transportation Project will support expanded institutional interactions with regard to establishing preliminary transportation routes, operating protocols, and safeguards and security activities. We will also continue support of State 

regional groups to facilitate development of the policy for funding State and tribal 

emergency response training and technical assistance as required by Section 180(c) 

of the NWPA. We will continue and expand our ongoing dialogue with State and 

tribal officials and other stakeholders who will play an integral role in our transportation planning. 

We have requested $23 million for Nevada transportation work, including completion of conceptual design and the beginning of preliminary design activities, 

issuance of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the rail alignment, associated public hearings, and continued development of the land acquisition case file 

required by the Bureau of Land Management. Some of this is contingent upon the 

Department issuing a Record of Decision under the National Environmental Policy 

Act selecting a mode of transportation in Nevada and a rail alignment, as appropriate. We expect to issue the decision shortly. 

Program Management and Integration 

Our fiscal year 2005 request includes $47.5 million for program management and 

integration activities, an increase of $17.8 million over the fiscal year 2004 enacted 

level. The request reflects the need to have the strongest possible nuclear Quality 

Assurance program as we move into the licensing phase. Quality Assurance is the 

cornerstone of assuring the NRC that the Program has implemented activities related to radiological safety and health and waste isolation that are required by NRC 

regulations. We will complete the institutionalization of improvements that were introduced through the Management Improvement Initiative to meet the NRC’s expectations of its licensees. 

The fiscal year 2005 request also contains funding for system engineering and 

analysis activities to enable us to better evaluate and optimize the Program’s component elements as they begin to converge into a single waste management system. 

In addition to the repository and transportation readiness, the third key piece that 

must be put in place is waste acceptance readiness—i.e., establishing the ‘‘pipeline’’ 

of wastes destined for Yucca Mountain. (In prior years, waste acceptance was part 

of the Transportation budget request, but is now included in Program Management 

and Integration.) By addressing waste acceptance issues now, we can ensure that 
174 

repository facilities and transportation infrastructure will be compatible with the 

commercial spent nuclear fuel and DOE-managed wastes that are planned for receipt in 2010 and beyond. OCRWM will work closely with the Office of Environmental Management on DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste acceptance criteria to ensure that we have an integrated, timely, and cost-effective approach. 

Program Direction 

The Program Direction budget request of $87.5 million supports Federal salaries, 

expenses associated with building maintenance and rent, training, and management 

and technical support services, which include independent Nuclear Waste Fund 

audit services and independent technical and cost analyses. These resources fund 

a small increase in support services related to Quality Assurance, and national 

transportation technical support activities. The request also reflects a small increase 

in Federal staff expenses to manage additional repository design/licensing activities 

and National and Nevada transportation work. 

Assumption of DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Functions 

OCRWM will be the organization ultimately responsible for disposing of spent nuclear fuel owned by the Department. Therefore, our fiscal year 2005 budget reflects 

OCRWM’s assumption of responsibilities for the National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program, management within the United States of returned foreign research reactor 

spent nuclear fuel, domestic research reactor spent fuel management, and the management of Chemical Processing Plant-666 from the Office of Environmental Management. To fund these programs, we expect the Office of Environmental Management to transfer $22.3 million from its fiscal year 2005 appropriation, funded from 

the Other Defense Activities account. Similarly, the Department’s plans call for the 

Office of Environmental Management to transfer to OCRWM $5.2 million from the 

Energy Supply Research and Development account to support spent fuel management work at the Fort St. Vrain, Colorado, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, and the Three Mile Island-2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at 

the Idaho Nuclear Technology Engineering Center, which will be transferred from 

the Office of Environmental Management, as well as domestic and university research reactor spent fuel management functions transferred from the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. 

An Office of DOE Spent Fuel Management, reporting to the OCRWM Director, 

will be established to integrate and manage DOE spent nuclear fuel activities without interfering with the ongoing mission we perform under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The transfer of these functions will enable OCRWM to consolidate DOE 

spent nuclear fuel expertise and oversight effectively and efficiently. 

ENSURING ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO COMPLETE THE MISSION

The Department of Energy and the Congress have been aware for many years 

that funding requirements for the repository program would increase substantially 

as we approach construction and transportation system development. In fiscal year 

2005 and beyond, the Program will need significantly increased funding to pay for 

the design, construction, and operation of the repository, and for acquisition and development of the transportation infrastructure. Much greater certainty of funding 

is needed for such a massive capital project to ensure proper and cost-effective planning and acquisition of capital assets. Delays simply increase costs, without fulfilling the Federal responsibility for safe, secure disposal of the waste. 

In accordance with the funding approach established in the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act, the Department collects annual fees from nuclear utilities for the disposal of 

their spent nuclear fuel. The fees are reflected in the utility bills that their customers receive. In fiscal year 2005, an estimated $749 million will be collected. The 

resources will be there and we should not delay in making them available for their 

intended purpose. 

The proposed appropriations language in the President’s Budget is contingent 

upon enactment of legislation reclassifying the annual receipts that are deposited 

into the Nuclear Waste Fund as discretionary and crediting them as offsetting collections to annual appropriations. On February 27, 2004, Secretary Abraham sent 

proposed legislation to Congress that would accomplish this reclassification. By allowing the mandatory collections to be credited as discretionary, the net discretionary appropriation would be $0. The proposed legislation would be effective until 

construction is complete for surface facilities for the fully operating repository. 

Under this proposal, the Program would continue to be subject to the annual appropriations process and Congressional oversight. This proposal would simply allow the 

Appropriations Committees to provide funding sufficient for the Program’s needs 

without interfering with other DOE programs. 
175 

COST REDUCTION INITIATIVES

While access to the funds paid by ratepayers for nuclear waste disposal is nonetheless critical, we believe we can improve the funding outlook by reducing the total 

system life cycle cost of the repository system. With this goal in mind, we are looking at enhancements that can be achieved through phased development, technical 

alternatives, and acceleration of operations post-2010. 

Under a phased development approach to repository construction, we have divided 

the surface and underground facilities into several phases so that the repository can 

be constructed and operated in stages. The license application will address all facilities necessary to emplace 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and will describe the incremental process for building those surface 

and underground facilities in modules and panels. In addition to controlling shortterm cost spikes, this strategy will increase confidence in our ability to begin operations in 2010, allow experience from initial operations to guide later activities, and 

retain flexibility for future technology improvements to be incorporated. 

Present-day technology and technical information are adequate to support a robust license application, the transportation of waste to the site, and repository operations. However, within the decades-long time span during which the Yucca Mountain repository would be operated, advances in technology can lead to life-cycle cost 

savings, schedule efficiencies, and improved understanding of the safety and security of the repository system. To date, we have identified potential cost savings opportunities totaling several billion dollars over the long lifetime of repository operations in areas such as welding, advanced materials, techniques for excavating the 

underground tunnels, and low-maintenance ground support. Activities to reduce lifecycle costs and allow for enhancements in the waste management system are integrated throughout the Program, and as such will be funded from all budget areas. 

Finally, OCRWM is developing plans for accelerating operations after 2010 to 

achieve steady-state waste receipt rates without diminishing safety or quality. As 

we gain experience, faster handling and underground emplacement will become possible, and as additional phased construction modules are completed, operational capacity will increase. In addition to lowering costs, accelerated waste receipt would 

enhance security by isolating spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste faster, and 

could have the added effect of allowing waste storage sites to be decommissioned 

sooner than currently planned. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

We are committed to the goal of beginning to receive and transport spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level waste to an NRC-licensed repository in 2010. Toward that end, 

we intend to submit a high-quality license application to the NRC in December of 

this year. 

We are requesting a major increase in funding in fiscal year 2005, but a necessary 

one both to achieve the Program’s goals and to begin to meet the Federal Government’s responsibility for safe, secure disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 

radioactive waste. After more than 20 years of scientific study; a site approval process involving the Department, the State of Nevada, Congress, and the President; 

and purposeful efforts toward securing a license, we have reached the point where 

investments must be made in transportation, repository, and waste acceptance readiness, if we are to maintain the objective of commencing operations in 2010. We 

urge your support for our budget request, and we are pleased to be able to work 

with you on this important national issue. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Dr. Chu, for that provocative testimony. Let me start the questioning process. I’ll do five and 

turn to Senator Murray and we’ll go back and forth in that time 

frame and the chairman will be back in a few moments, I trust, 

to join in with us so we all have a variety of questions to be asked 

of the three of you. 

RISK-BASED END STATES INITIATIVE

Let me turn to you, Jessie, and talk about the document published by your program for each large cleanup site called the RiskBased End States, which is referred to as a vision document, I believe. The question from that would be what is the purpose of this 

document at a site which is a Superfund site and is controlled by 
176 

CERCLA, the Superfund law and has NEPA records of decision of 

most cleanup actions? 

Ms. ROBERSON. Senator Craig, the Risk-Based End State initiative really is an effort to do exactly what you stated in your opening comments. It is an integration of some of the elements which 

are independent documents today—land use plans, our cleanup 

agreement, other documents that define our activities. It is an initiative to integrate those. 

It is exactly one of the steps that we went through that allowed 

us to make informed decisions about soil cleanup levels at Rocky 

Flats. We will have to go through the same process at the other 

sites. This is a process that mimics the same process we used there 

that allowed a clear understanding of the basis for decision-making 

regardless to what the actual regulatory process was. It does not 

change the regulatory processes, but it does provide information for 

those decisions and it also makes transparent the basis for those 

decisions. 

Many regulatory decisions are made relative to specific geographic areas without taking into consideration the context of our 

cleanup. We think it’s a critical step. It does indeed mimic the 

same process that got us to cleanup levels at Rocky Flats, and we 

expect that it will be useful as a tool in our cleanup at Idaho. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. I’ve seen a draft of Idaho’s End State document dated January 2004, but it has draft written on every page. 

What is the path forward for this document? 

Ms. ROBERSON. Well, they will remain drafts for quite a while 

until we believe that we have adequately and openly addressed any 

issues or concerns with the public and with the regulators, so they 

may well be drafts for 6 months. We actually met with our field 

managers on Monday and Tuesday and went through site by site, 

and I think we still have not done an adequate job in that arena 

and we will be taking more time to do that. 

At some point, we would expect to conclude that discussion and 

then we will look at those documents. This doesn’t overtake the 

regulatory process. What it does is provides a visible basis for us 

and for the public to understand why we may propose what we propose in the regulatory process. 

BNFL CONTRACT COSTS OVERRUNS

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Another question of you, earlier this week, 

trade publications reported that DOE has agreed to pay Britishowned BNFL for cost overruns related to cleanups in Tennessee 

and Idaho. What can you tell us about the status of these negotiations between the U.S. and British officials and if there is any 

truth to the fact that DOE would provide $500 million to compensate BNFL for what appears to be a bad investment? 

Ms. ROBERSON. What I can say with total confidence is that the 

Department has a contract with BNFL and we are living up to that 

contract and we expect them to live up to that contract as well. We 

continue to look at all of our work at Idaho and any of our other 

sites specifically when we’re in a procurement mode. We are looking at that work and how it fits into the overall procurement. I 

read the same article. I was intrigued, but I can’t offer you more 

than that. 
177 

LABORATORY DIRECT RESEARCH FUNDING AT IDAHO

Senator CRAIG. Okay. I’m intrigued, too. My last question of you 

and then I’ll turn to Senator Murray. Jessie, you know that I’m 

very concerned about the potential loss of LDRD funding, and of 

course we all know that’s Laboratory Direct Research at the new 

Idaho national lab, and I’ve told the Secretary very directly that I 

believe LDRD is vital to that lab and its future missions. Isn’t EM 

funding tapped for LDRD at both Oak Ridge and Savannah River? 

LDRD FUNDING AT OAK RIDGE AND SAVANNAH RIVER

Ms. ROBERSON. I will tell you honestly, Senator, I do not believe 

so, but I would like to validate that for the record if I might. As 

a result of your raising this concern, we are certainly looking very 

closely at the issue. To my understanding, EM is not contributing, 

but I would like to validate that. 

[The information follows:] 

LDRD FUNDING AT OAK RIDGE AND SAVANNAH RIVER

At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), EM funds the laboratory for work 

in Technology Deployment and infrastructure activities like bioassays and utilities. 

Of the overhead rate paid by EM, ORNL uses of a portion of the funding to support 

its LDRD activities. EM does not directly fund any LDRD activities at ORNL. Since 

the Savannah River Site has not established an LDRD program, no EM funds are 

used for LDRD at that facility. 

Senator CRAIG. Please do. Thank you. Let me turn to Senator 

Murray. 

HANFORD 300-AREA CLOSURE

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Roberson, the 

Pacific Northwest lab is a very valuable asset to the Federal Government, the State of Washington and to the tri-cities and in particular, as Hanford cleanup moves forward. As you know, there is 

a lot of concern over the schedule for cleaning up the 300-Area and 

replacing the laboratory’s ongoing research capabilities that exist 

in that area. 

I addressed those concerns when Dr. Orbach from the Office of 

Science testified on March 3, again in writing when Ambassador 

Brooks from NNSA testified March 23, and to date, no strategy has 

emerged from the Department of Energy. 

An accelerated cleanup plan in theory is a good idea, but it has 

to be implemented thoughtfully, and that seems to be the problem. 

For the first time in the history of the DOE cleanup program, facilities that have ongoing missions are being affected. I believe the 

Department doesn’t help itself when it pursues a track of accelerated cleanup while at the same time ignoring the responsibility of 

replacing facilities that house critical programs for the Department 

and for other agencies. A good objective to not have a bad outcome. 

Today you reiterated the goal of dealing with high-risk materials 

first. No one would classify the 300-Area as high-risk and frankly, 

it leaves the community really questioning DOE’s choices. Ms. 

Roberson, can you tell the committee what is the current status of 

the river corridor contract proposal and efforts to address its current impact on the lab and what are the options for using antici-
178 

pated savings from accelerated cleanup at Hanford to support replacement of facilities for the laboratory? 

Ms. ROBERSON. Senator Murray, I probably can’t address all of 

those, but let me please take a shot at as many as I can. The facilities in question were transferred to the Environmental Management portfolio in 2001–2002. By definition, that meant they were 

excess to mission need. During the next couple of years as we readied ourselves through the procurement process to do the river corridor cleanup, there was indeed a growth in mission, both in NNSA 

as well as Homeland Security, and so the Department has taken 

a step back on the cleanup procurement to try to make sure there’s 

no impact to those missions as well as to stay focused on the river 

corridor cleanup, because those are all important priorities. 

I would say, as I sit here today, we are engaged with our Deputy 

Secretary. We’ve looked at a number of alternatives. We do not 

have one that I can share with you, but I think we’re very close. 

That procurement is awaiting action as a result of those discussions. 

Senator MURRAY. Okay. Do you have a time line on that? 

Ms. ROBERSON. No, I honestly do not have a time line as I sit 

here today. Since it’s a multi-program initiative, my time line is as 

soon as we have a decision, to move forward, but I can’t tell you 

when the Department will. 

Senator MURRAY. Is part of that what the options are for using 

the savings from the accelerated cleanup? 

Ms. ROBERSON. That’s actually one. Unfortunately we don’t 

achieve the savings until we achieve the cleanup, so I can’t say 

that savings today are available for that purpose, but I also again 

can’t tell you all of the options that the Department is looking at 

because we are simply one participant in that decision-making 

process. 

Senator MURRAY. Can you tell me, are we talking a couple weeks 

or a couple months or 6 months before we have an idea? 

Ms. ROBERSON. Actually, as I sit here today, I cannot tell you. 

We are inputing into the process. I’d be glad to get back to you as 

soon as we leave here today. 

Senator MURRAY. I would really like to know. Obviously the community is waiting. We all want to know where this is going and 

your response, timely response would be really appreciated. 

Ms. ROBERSON. Thank you. 

WASTE INCIDENTAL TO REPROCESSING

Senator MURRAY. Let me move on then to another question. The 

Department is still seeking unilateral authority to reclassify the 

high-level waste at Hanford, Idaho and Savannah River. Frankly 

that appears to a lot of us to just be another example of the Department not working with its Federal and State regulators. The 

Department lost the lawsuit in Federal court and it’s now appealing and the President’s budget proposes to hold $350 million from 

cleanup of those sites aside until this issue is resolved to the agency’s satisfaction. You know, frankly, this proposal is being labeled 

as blackmail to some people. 

The proposal certainly seems similar to the Department’s former 

accelerated cleanup account proposal that this subcommittee re-
179 

jected last year and I hope it will reject again this year. The fact 

is that before the Department lost in court and after, it did have 

an opportunity to work with the litigants and States to resolve this 

issue. 

Can you tell me, Ms. Roberson, why the Department rejected offers of mediation by the NRDC and the States prior to trial and 

even more surprisingly rejected the court’s request that all parties 

agree to mediation after the Department lost? 

Ms. ROBERSON. Actually, I would have to defer to our Chief 

Counsel on the specifics of the litigation. What I can say is that 

there was conversation among the parties to the lawsuit. I won’t 

try to describe when or how that happened, because that process 

actually would have been managed by our General Counsel rather 

than by the Office of Environmental Management, but I would like 

to say a few things. 

I have heard the term being used that this looks like blackmail, 

but Senator Murray, I have to say to you, we haven’t considered 

changing nary a cleanup agreement at any site. We are simply trying to implement what we’ve already agreed to in those cleanup 

agreements at every one of those sites. 

Senator MURRAY. But you lost the battle in court. 

Ms. ROBERSON. We are appealing the decision in court, but even 

before we lost the lawsuit in the Ninth District, we were implementing those agreements we have with our regulators in each 

State, and we are trying to continue to implement those agreements. We have not proposed a single change to a cleanup agreement in any of those States. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, it does appear to a lot of people that 

DOE’s the only one who thinks legislation is necessary to resolve 

this issue. It seems even when our States attempt to reach common 

ground, they are just met with steadfast resistance to maintaining 

regulatory oversight on this matter, and it just is disheartening to 

all of us. 

Ms. ROBERSON. Well, we continue to have a dialogue and I think 

a fairly successful dialogue with the States even today. 

Senator MURRAY. They don’t feel that way. 

Ms. ROBERSON. Well, that’s unfortunate. I appreciate that insight. That’s surprising to me. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, I think everyone I’ve talked to wants to 

resolve this issue, but they feel like the Department is just resisting any attempts to speak with the States, to work with them to 

find common ground. You’re simply giving us legislation to override 

an issue and thus it is not acceptable. 

Ms. ROBERSON. We are working even today with the States on 

a path forward, we absolutely are. It’s unfortunate if we have a 

State that doesn’t believe that that’s our goal. 

Senator MURRAY. Let me just give you a personal appeal. Can 

you make a concerted effort to sit down with them to really listen 

to their concerns and to find common ground on this issue? 

Ms. ROBERSON. Absolutely. 

Senator MURRAY. Okay. I take you at your word on that and I 

will wait to hear from our States that they feel that they are actually working with you. 

Ms. ROBERSON. Okay. 
180 

HANFORD EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE TO TANK FARM VAPORS

Senator MURRAY. Let me raise another issue and this is really 

a critical one for our State. Ms. Roberson, as you know, there has 

been a serious issue at Hanford related to continued exposures of 

workers to vapors escaping from the tank farms. It’s causing workers to seek medical attention on-site and often being taken to local 

hospital emergency rooms. 

Related to that vapor issue but not confined to these medical 

problems is the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation which 

is under a DOE contract to provide medical care at the site who’s 

now facing allegations of supervisor misconduct, fraud and medical 

record tampering. The fear is that this Hanford Environment 

Health Foundation has done these things due to financial considerations and/or perhaps pressure from contractors to limit the number of work days lost which can affect the contractor’s own financial incentives. 

In fact, in last Sunday’s Washington Post, it’s reported that the 

DOE’s own inspector general, as you know, found that, and I want 

to read from it, ‘‘For 9 out of 10 private contractors that perform 

environmental cleanup at old bomb-making sites from Washington 

State to South Carolina, the audit found that the Department of 

Energy maintained inaccurate and incomplete accident and injury 

data.’’ 

Frankly, given the significant coverage on these issues that we’ve 

received in the national and Washington State press, I was surprised you didn’t address them in your own written statement, but 

I’m even more surprised that your written statement makes claims 

on improved worker safety by citing the lost work day cases when 

your own inspector general says the Department underreports such 

events. There are many investigations going on right now at Hanford related to the tank vapors and HEHF, and I hope we’re going 

to get some answers from those investigations, but I really fear 

that the Environmental Management Program has lost considerable credibility with workers and their families on these issues. 

Cleanup of nuclear waste is a very difficult task. You and I both 

know that it involves many known and unknown dangers. We ask 

a lot of our workers who are on-site and it seems clear to me that 

we need to provide assurance that we know what we are doing, 

that we are taking real precautions and that we have reliable investigations when necessary. 

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 

NIOSH, has been on-site, but DOE limited its review authority to 

the vapor issue. I don’t believe that DOE has requested OSHA or 

the NRC to play any role. It seems reasonable to consider if it 

would make sense to have OSHA and the NRC regulate health and 

safety. 

Do you believe that DOE is responsibly on top of these vapor and 

medical issues? 

Ms. ROBERSON. Senator Murray, actually, I do believe. Specifically on the tank farm vapors, I think our field operations has been 

fairly aggressive. They’ve had three external independent reviews 

from organizations that have expertise in the occupational medicine area and they’ve offered advice on improvements and we’ve 
181 

moved forward with those improvements, and where we can get 

good advice to improve, we’re going to continue to do that. That’s 

our commitment. 

I won’t speak on HEHF since that is an ongoing investigation. 

I don’t think that I can speak on that, but what I can say is if there 

is a determination of any misconduct, the Department will react 

swiftly and strongly. There is no doubt in my mind that we will. 

IG REPORT ON SAFETY PERFORMANCE

I’d like to, if I could, respond to—and even though the system 

that is in question belongs to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, I’d actually like to respond because the 

IG draft report was fairly specific to the Environmental Management program. I mean, I have to say unequivocally I disagree with 

some of the information presented as fact as well as the conclusions 

reached in that draft report. 

Senator MURRAY. You disagree with the IG? 

Ms. ROBERSON. Yes, and I have responded. There are two specific 

points I’d like to make. There are many others, but I would like 

to address two specific points. One assumption was that this database provided data that was used by Environmental Management 

to determine the status of its safety performance. That is incorrect. 

In 2002, OSHA changed the criteria for reporting in the system 

and to smooth the path for transitioning to the new criteria directed that nobody should spend time trying to catch up with the 

old system. DOE did the same. DOE took the same action. 

As the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health 

said in her opening comment, this is a paper-intensive system and 

it’s prone to quality assurance problems and lag time. In 2002, we 

identified this as an issue in our program and discontinued using 

it for that purpose. The very law that the IG cited in its draft report as being the basis for identifying what data was not being 

transferred, is the law that we also look at in our operations to 

make determinations as well, too. 

So the law that provided the basis of their assumption that there 

was underreporting, is the mandated law for the contractors to 

keep and in fact, based upon the IG’s draft report, they are obviously keeping it up to date. That is the law that our facility representatives and our managers look at in the field and we also look 

at as well. 

The Department has undergone in the last year an initiative to 

simplify the translation of that data from the OSHA logs to its 

headquarters system, but that hasn’t alleviated the requirement for 

us to look at their logs in the meantime which is what we have 

done. 

Senator MURRAY. I appreciate that. I would like to see your response back to the IG, but I also think that there’s—don’t you 

think there’s something more we can do to make sure the workers 

and families feel that their—— 

Ms. ROBERSON. Absolutely. 

Senator MURRAY [continuing]. Health and welfare is the Federal 

Government’s first priority because that certainly doesn’t feel like 

it today. 
182 

Ms. ROBERSON. Absolutely, and I think you probably know in the 

tank farm even as late as last week, we talked with our site operations and our contractor and we’ve taken additional actions there. 

We are absolutely committed to doing this work and doing it safely, 

and we are interested in the expertise and advice of any that can 

help us to continue to improve it because that’s what we have to 

do. So that is our commitment, and we will continue to be focused 

on that and look for improvement wherever. 

Senator MURRAY. Will we be seeing recommendations from your 

agency on what we can do perhaps to have OSHA and NRC regulate health and safety? Will you be making any recommendations 

like that? 

Ms. ROBERSON. I’m not personally familiar with whether the Department will make those recommendations, but I know the Secretary is looking forward to the results of the reviews and investigations he’s initiated, and I think those will inform any decisions 

going forward from there. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I see you’ve returned. I have 

one more question. I’m happy to wait until you—— 

Senator DOMENICI [presiding]. Give it. Let’s go. 

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION

PROGRAM

Senator MURRAY. Ms. Cook, your office has authority over the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act. In fact, the Department makes a big deal about its efforts to 

implement the program and is currently opposed to efforts to move 

implementation from DOE to the Department of Labor which many 

of us would believe would be much more effectively operating the 

program and serving as the willing partner. 

Specifically related to Hanford, it’s my understanding that you 

intend to end the medical screening program for former workers at 

Hanford at the end of this current fiscal year. It is estimated that 

there are 2,700 former workers with past exposures who have actively indicated an interest in an examination from the site and 

there are 600 who are awaiting appointments that won’t be available due to budget cuts. 

Can you tell me why your budget proposes to end the Hanford 

former worker screening and how you justify such an action in 

light of such an incredibly big need? 

Ms. COOK. Yes. First off, the budget does not define that we are 

going to end the former worker program at all. What we are going 

to do, though, is make it more effective and efficient for exactly the 

reasons you just pointed out. The former worker program was 

started several years ago. At the current time, we have 14 different 

pilot projects out at different sites all around the complex. Many 

sites are waiting to participate in the former worker screening program. 

What we intend to do through this year and into 2005 is to move 

forward with a nationwide former worker screening program that 

provides more timely and more service without paying overhead for 

14 projects throughout the complex, so at all of the sites, all of the 

former workers will have access to a screening program locally. 

And if local expertise isn’t available, then we will connect them 
183 

with someone nearby, but we do not intend to end any former 

worker program at any site. 

Senator MURRAY. So the screenings still go on at the Hanford 

site? 

Ms. COOK. Yes. 

Senator MURRAY. At the site? 

Ms. COOK. Yes, absolutely, but it will be part of the national program and not individual programs at each site, so it will be managed nationally. 

Senator MURRAY. And the 600 that are awaiting appointments 

will get appointments? 

Ms. COOK. Absolutely. 

Senator MURRAY. As well as the 2,700? 

Ms. COOK. Absolutely. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Senator. First let me 

say, and you’ve had a pretty good grilling today. I’m glad you got 

to offer your views, and let me say I wish we could be here predicting that your recommendations would be followed, but it seems 

to me that in some areas it will be very difficult. 

I have questions in each area, but if I don’t get them done today, 

I’ll get them to you and I would appreciate your answering them 

at your earliest convenience. 

PLUTONIUM TRACES AT WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT

I noted in a recent press article about the detection of microscopic traces of plutonium in the sampling at WIPP. I understand 

that the quantity is far below the regulatory concern, but I’m curious whether that detection could be indicative of more serious 

issues. My question is, please describe your understanding of this 

situation and address my concern about these samples that could 

indicate a more serious problem. 

Ms. ROBERSON. Senator Domenici, we have multiple independent 

monitoring sources and for the second quarter in 2003, in some 

cases it’s monthly; in some cases it’s quarterly. This was monthly 

sampling, I think, for June of 2003. That sampling or that analysis 

was conducted using the most capable and sensitive equipment 

available to us. 

NEW MEXICO CLEANUP AGREEMENT

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. Ms. Roberson, let me 

thank you for your willingness to return to the negotiation table to 

work out an acceptable cleanup agreement between DOE and New 

Mexico. As a result of these negotiations, $43 million in additional 

money can be applied toward meaningful cleanup. You can be sure 

that I will continue to watch the matter and I hope you will too, 

to ensure that cleanup stays on track. 

Does this agreement have enforceable deadlines and standards to 

ensure that cleanup is accomplished and we won’t find DOE and 

the State fighting over the same old issues and compromising the 

cleanup? 

Ms. ROBERSON. Senator, it does indeed include enforceable milestones where Federal or State standards exist, and it would include 

those where they do not exist. It would include a process by which 
184 

we would go through and work with our regulators to establish 

them. 

I’m sure this is not the end of the challenges that the parties will 

have to work together on, but it certainly establishes a process 

through which we can resolve those issues as we go forward and 

achieve the cleanup as we’ve laid out. 

WORKER SAFETY SITE PROFILES

Senator DOMENICI. Let me say, Ms. Cook, last year the DOE testified that it was in the process of developing site profiles and to 

pull together the necessary site data in order to speed up the case 

approval process for workers that were made sick while working 

for the Department. DOE’s testimony stated that by developing a 

complete understanding of the occupational hazards at each of the 

DOE sites, it will help the doctors in developing the claims as to 

exposure hazards a worker may have been exposed to. 

The question to you is, where do we stand on the development 

of site profiles and how much is being spent in 2004 and how much 

will you do in 2005? 

Ms. COOK. Yes, to answer that I need to introduce to Bob Carey 

that he really wanted to be closely involved, as did the Undersecretary in this program. And so what they did is bring in Mr. Carey 

to bring in the program as a whole with only that responsibility 

and directly reporting to the Undersecretary and to the Secretary, 

and Bob will tell you about where we are on the site. 

Senator DOMENICI. What is your name and what do you do? 

Mr. CAREY. Sir, my name is Bob Carey. I’m a Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of the Secretary and this elevation of the Office 

of Worker Advocacy to a direct report to the Under Secretary Card 

happened to coexist, happened at the same time as my return to 

active duty, so I was assigned to this program. 

I think there may be some misunderstanding as to the relationship between the site profiles that NIOSH does as part of the dose 

reconstruction process and the site profiles that some people have 

been advocating for this program. 

For the site profiles that NIOSH does for the Part D Program for 

the dose reconstructions, it’s regarding radiation, a relatively well 

understood, quantifiable and discrete program where the causal relationships are pretty well understood. For the other toxic substances that Part D also covers, the Department of Energy Program, those causal relationships are not nearly as well understood. 

A lot of these substances hadn’t even become known to be toxic except in the last couple decades. Prior to that we didn’t even have 

a lot of records on these issues. 

Because of that, the cost benefit analysis that we’ve done to date 

has not indicated that such large scale discrete site profiles would 

be beneficial. We believe they cost several million dollars and they 

take a year or 2 to complete and that they don’t necessarily provide 

any additional data that would be that useful to the Physicians’ 

Panels. 

And the fact of the matter is we believe we already have sufficient information for these Physician Panels. The statute requires 

that we provide all available information. It does not state that we 

are required to provide additional analysis like the statute requires 
185 

NIOSH to do for dose reconstructions. With that available information we currently provide, we believe we provide more information 

than other compensation programs do, and we provide a large volume of information already to these physicians. 

The fact of the matter also is we have to look at this cost benefit 

analysis in terms of what we provide to the applicant with our 

positive determination. The Department of Labor’s Part B Program 

has a 50 percent or greater standard of causation for the radiationinduced cancer, whereas ours is not as likely to be a significant factor in the causation, aggravation or contribution to an illness. 

So we’ve had positive determinations where we’ve had a 21⁄2 percent probability of causation. Given all those issues and the fact 

that we don’t make a disability determination and we don’t make 

a compensation recommendation in our physician panel process to 

the State worker’s compensation boards, we do not believe that 

these large-scale site profiles that some people have been talking 

about would be beneficial in the net. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, let me tell you, all that statement notwithstanding, we are in a mess because the claimants clearly don’t 

believe us anymore, and things are going too slow and we’re not 

getting anybody compensated. And I suggest while the bill is a little drawn, it doesn’t provide that much per individual that we 

shouldn’t get on with it. I think it’s got a cap of $15,000, doesn’t 

it? 

Mr. CAREY. No, sir, our program does not have any cap. In fact, 

under the Part D Program, the one that the Department of Energy 

runs, we provide no direct Federal benefit. We provide a positive 

physician panel determination which we can then use to issue to 

a contractor—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Who pays the money? 

Mr. CAREY. The contractor or the insurance company that the 

contractor may have hired is the one that ultimately pays the 

money. If we have a current contract with that contractor, we can 

then reimburse them under those contracts, but the States are the 

ones that direct the money, the payment of the money, sir, under 

the Part D Program. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, straighten me out. What are they complaining about? 

Mr. CAREY. Sir, we initially vastly underestimated the scope of 

this program and because of that underestimation, we underestimated how long it was going to take to set up the program and how 

much we were going to have to invest in order to establish this program. 

We now believe that we have established this program, and since we received that $9.7 million reprogramming for fiscal year 2003, 

we received that in October of 2003, we’ve tripled our case processing up to the physician panels; we’ve increased our physician 

panel determinations approximately six-fold; we’ve also been able 

to put together a strategic plan based upon a top to bottom review 

to be able to eliminate the entire backlog of current and future 

backlog applications by the end of calendar year 2006. 

If we thought we could hire enough physicians in order to be able 

to panel these panels faster and in greater quantities than we currently believe, we’d want to do that faster. 
186 

Senator DOMENICI. Who’s in charge of the program now, the Secretary? 

Mr. CAREY. Under Secretary Card is who I directly report to, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I’ll tell you, this isn’t in the scheme of 

things, may not be for the Department a very big program or very 

significant. 

Mr. CAREY. It’s my life, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. What? 

Mr. CAREY. It’s my life. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I’m glad it’s somebody important’s life 

because there’s an awful lot of folks that don’t think we know what 

we’re doing. 

Mr. CAREY. Sir, my father—I’m sorry, sir, go ahead. 

Senator DOMENICI. And we didn’t know what we were doing. It 

was wrong for a long time. Now you tell me it’s going to get right 

and I don’t question you except you’ve got to understand, we know 

about the doctor issue, but you’ve got to understand that you’ve got 

to get going. 

Mr. CAREY. Yes, sir. 

YUCCA MOUNTAIN FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST

Senator DOMENICI. Okay, now let me talk a little with Dr. Chu. 

Let me first thank you and congratulate you. I wish we could tell 

you that we could move forward with dispatch, but you understand 

the problem and the President’s budget requests $880 million for 

Yucca. A significant portion of this funding is to be paid from fees 

assessed which you’re aware of. The fund will collect $749 million 

this year, the budget process that the annual receipts be reclassified as discretionary funds and then appropriated. 

As a former budget committee chairman, I know that you can’t 

wave a magic wand to reclassify these fees. It requires legislation 

and some degree of cooperation. 

I’m not optimistic that we are going to accomplish that this year. 

However, if we fail to get the agreement and reclassify the fees, the 

Senate Budget Resolution assumes a level that you are not satisfied with of $577 million. Now, that’s not the end because we’ve got 

to go to conference with the House. You’re aware of that. If Congress only provides $577 million, what activities will the Department be forced to defer and will this significantly delay the opening? 

Dr. CHU. Senator, thank you very much for your support all 

these years. We have looked at this budget situation very carefully, 

and the reason we ask for $880 million is we need the funding to 

open a repository in 2010. If we get a level of funding of $577 million in 2005, we will be able to deliver the application because 

that’s our highest priority. That’s our first milestone. But we will 

not be able to achieve our goal of 2010 without getting the full 

funding. 

Senator DOMENICI. But when you get the first step that you just 

described, the licensing? 

Dr. CHU. Yes. 

Senator DOMENICI. You think you can do that? 

Dr. CHU. Yes. We will be able to do a license application because 

we are in the process of completing that in 2005. Since our sched-
187 

ule is December 2004, it’s really the first quarter of 2005 we intend 

to deliver the license application. 

Senator DOMENICI. I hope you can. Isn’t that being contested 

also? 

Dr. CHU. That remains to be seen. 

Senator DOMENICI. That licensing is being contested also just 

like everything else? 

Dr. CHU. Not yet. 

TRANSPORTATION MODE AND ROUTES FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. It’s my understanding that the Department has not made a final decision as to whether it will use rail 

or truck as the transportation mode of waste to Yucca or decided 

on a specific route. When will the Department make this decision 

and begin the environmental impact study? 

Dr. CHU. In our final environmental impact statement, we have 

indicated that mostly rail is our preferred transportation mode, but 

we have yet to issue a formal record of decision on that. In my testimony, I say we expect to do that very shortly. 

And as to specific routing, this is part of a whole planning process with the stakeholders and the State and the local governments. 

And we are just starting that process right now and we do not anticipate to identify a suite of routes until probably fiscal year 2006. 

That’s the preliminary plan, but we’ll deal cooperatively with all 

the stakeholders. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I’m amazed, I mean if you think you’re 

over the hurdles, you know, transportation is a big issue, too, 

among people. Routes will be a big issue. I want to suggest to you 

that I have found one of the most intriguing responses to be a detailed history of the U.S. Navy and its ships and where they are 

on a given day and how many nuclear reactors are floating around 

the oceans and seas of the world. There are lots of them. You know, 

some of them have two on board. They are now permitted to land, 

to dock at every dock in the world except New Zealand, and that’s 

an old thing. 

Now, when we worry about safety, isn’t it amazing that there’s 

probably about 150 nuclear reactors traveling the waters of the 

ocean and from time to time docked in docks that are full of ships 

that are adjacent to them, to development, and nobody complains. 

I just tell you that it’s pretty interesting. 

When we sit around and worry so much, the peoples of the world 

let these dock with, you know, a battleship has two of them. 

Dr. CHU. Senator, I totally agree with you. You know, worldwide, 

there’s excellent safety records in transportation of nuclear materials. 

WASTE INCIDENTAL TO REPROCESSING

Senator DOMENICI. Let me talk a minute to you, Ms. Roberson. 

The budget provides $350 million that can be used to address the 

cleanup of waste incidental to reprocessing, WIR, located in Washington, Idaho and South Carolina. I understand that the Department is allowed to reprocess some of the WIR waste in Washington 

and Idaho. It would generate transuranic waste streams that DOE 

intends to send to WIPP. Thus far I’m correct, am I not? 
188 

Ms. ROBERSON. The one adjustment I would make in Washington, it’s not even waste from reprocessing. The source, the actual source is transuranic waste. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, to date, the Department has discussed 

a strategy with Washington, Idaho and South Carolina, but the 

State of New Mexico was yet to be included in these discussions. 

Will you commit here to including New Mexico in these negotiations and work with the State in developing a solution? 

Ms. ROBERSON. Absolutely, Mr. Domenici, and we actually did 

start that a couple weeks ago with the workshop hosted by EEG 

and I think it was a very successful workshop in providing information to all the parties that allowed a platform for future conversations, so you do have my commitment. 

TRANSURANIC WASTE

Senator DOMENICI. Okay, what is the basis for determining what 

transuranic waste is and what is the process by which you believe 

you can remove the fission products? That would mean we’re going 

to meet the criteria for permanent disposal at WIPP. 

Ms. ROBERSON. The basis for determining—TRU waste is actually defined by the permit for disposal at WIPP and we must satisfy the permit requirement before any such material can go there. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. We have about 20 other questions and 

I have about 20 other people lined up, so I’m just going to give you 

those. 

Ms. ROBERSON. Thank you, sir. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator DOMENICI. I’d like to thank the witnesses. I’m sorry that 

we talked more than you, but that’s the Senate. I think some chairmen do a better job than I and just say that only two people will 

talk. The rest of you can wait for your questions, but that’s not so 

easy. 

I’d like to remind members that the subcommittee will keep the 

record open for 2 weeks for additional questions. And to our witnesses, you have 2 weeks upon receipt of the questions to provide 

answers. If there are too many and are too bulky, just tell us you 

need another week on some of them. Just don’t let us think you’re 

not cooperating. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

REMOVAL OF MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS PILE

Question. The State of Utah has raised significant concerns regarding the instability of the Moab Atlas tailings pile over time and the need to remove the tailings 

from their current location on the banks of the Colorado River. Where is the Department with regard to its determination about whether to remove the tailings pile 

from the banks of the Colorado River? 

Answer. The Department is now preparing the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for remediation of the tailings in cooperation with other Federal agencies, as well as State, Tribal, and local governments. The Department plans to issue 
189 

the draft EIS for public comment in the fall and to identify a range of remedial alternatives including no action, stabilization in place, and disposal of the tailings at 

one of three potential off-site locations. The National Environmental Policy Act regulations require that the no action alternative be evaluated as well as all reasonable 

alternatives. We will allow adequate time for public review of the document; a minimum of 45 days is required by regulation, and more time can be granted if needed. 

The Department has not selected a preferred alternative at this time and would like 

to obtain public input on the draft as an aid in making our selection. We will identify a preferred alternative in the final EIS and will brief interested members of 

Congress at the earliest opportunity when we have made a selection. The Department’s current schedule anticipates issuance of a Record of Decision for the selected 

remedial action in 2005. 

SALT CAVERN DISPOSAL REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE

Question. I understand that there is some interest in a new remediation alternative called salt cavern disposal because of the hope that it may be both protective 

of the environment and economically competitive with the other remediation alternatives already listed in the Draft EIS. Has DOE investigated this option and if so, 

what conclusions have been reached with regard to this alternative? 

Answer. The Department is considering an alternative to dispose of the uranium 

mill tailings in mined salt caverns. Conceptually, such disposal caverns would be 

created by solutions mining in the salt beds of the Paradox Formation beneath the 

Moab site or other possible locations, such as the commercial potash mine site approximately 6 miles downstream from Moab. This alternative would involve withdrawal of significant quantities of Colorado River water (on the order of 2,000 gallons per minute for 20 years). The water would be used as part of the solution mining process and would become saturated with salt, generating brine that would have 

to be disposed of by deep injection well, or solar evaporation pond, or other alternative methods for disposal of brine. Disposal for uranium mill tailings in mined 

salt caverns would be a unique, first of a kind methodology and is an unproven approach to uranium mill tailings disposal that could take at least 20 years to complete and for which there are several areas of technical, geological, and operational 

vulnerabilities and uncertainty. The National Academy of Sciences recommended 

that DOE ‘‘take advantage of the experience gained from previous DOE projects and 

the UMTRA project.’’ The Department has not yet reached a final conclusion regarding this alternative. 

Resolving these uncertainties sufficiently so the Department could be sure that 

this alternative is technically feasible would require significant investment in additional studies, including injection well testing, subsurface characterization, geological and salt cavern performance modeling, and an overall system performance assessment. Such studies would require a multi-million dollar investment and several 

years to complete, with no guarantee that the investment would demonstrate that 

this alternative is viable. The Department has not yet reached a final conclusion regarding this alternative. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

WIPP DETECTION OF PLUTONIUM

Question. I noted in a recent press article about the detection of microscopic traces 

of plutonium in the air sampling system at WIPP. I understand the quantity of plutonium is far below regulatory concern, but I am curious whether such detection of 

plutonium could be indicative of a more serious issue. Please describe your understanding of the situation and address my concern that these samples could indicate 

a more serious issue in the future. 

Answer. The detection of a few microscopic particles of plutonium during the 

spring of 2003 is not indicative of a more serious issue; rather, it indicates the sensitivity of one of the methods DOE uses to ensure serious issues do not arise. With 

DOE’s support, the Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center 

(CEMRC), the Environmental Evaluation Group (EEG), and Washington TRU Solutions (WTS) have developed sensitive radiochemistry capabilities that allow them to 

detect traces of plutonium in composite samples of air filters collected over weeks 

and months. The amounts detected were barely above the detection limits of these 

laboratories’ analytical capabilities, and several of the samples analyzed from this 

period did not detect any traces of plutonium. The laboratories have analyzed sam-
190 

ples taken subsequently during the summer of 2003 and have not detected any plutonium in them; they are continuing to analyze similar samples taken since the ones 

in which plutonium was detected. In light of the laboratories’ extremely sensitive 

analytical methods, the environmental conditions around the site, and the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant’s (WIPP) 5 years of operations, DOE anticipated that these 

types of particles would eventually be detected. 

Although these particles may be the result of WIPP’s operation, their source is 

uncertain at this time. CEMRC, EEG and WTS are working to identify the source. 

The continuous air monitoring devices used to protect workers, the public and the 

environment did not detect anything of significance during this period. In addition, 

CEMRC’s analysis of ambient air samples taken within 100 meters of the exhaust 

shaft and elsewhere did not detect any levels of plutonium during this period above 

those resulting from fallout from past nuclear weapons testing. 

LOS ALAMOS CLEANUP

Question. Ms. Roberson, thank you for your willingness to return to the negotiating table to workout an acceptable cleanup agreement between DOE and the New 

Mexico Environment Department for Los Alamos National Lab. As a result of these 

negotiations, $43 million in additional funding can be applied toward meaningful 

cleanup this year. You can be sure I will continue to watch this matter very closely 

to ensure that cleanup stays on track. Does this agreement have enforceable deadlines and standards to ensure that the cleanup is accomplished and we won’t find 

DOE and the State of New Mexico fighting over the same old issues and compromising cleanup? 

Answer. The consent order as agreed upon by the Department and the State of 

New Mexico does indeed have specified enforceable deadlines and cleanup standards. Where standards do not exist, the consent order sets forth a process to establish appropriate risk-based standards. 

OFFICE OF FUTURE LIABILITY

Question. The budget provides $8 million to establish the new Office of Future Liability that will take over environmental cleanup not already assigned to the Office 

of Environmental Management. The budget indicates that this will include 2,000 

contaminated sites that must begin cleanup by 2025. I believe that in DOE’s zeal 

to close the EM program by 2035, it is ignoring significant waste streams that must 

be addressed. I am skeptical that creating an entirely new bureaucracy to address 

the future cleanup is the most cost effective means of achieving cleanup. How much 

does the Department expect the Office of Future Liability will spend for cleanup 

over the next 20 years and how many people will the new office need to manage 

this massive cleanup effort? 

Answer. The Office of Future Liabilities (FL) was established as a planning office 

to develop comprehensive estimates of the Department’s future environmental liabilities, including decommissioning and decontamination of excess facilities and disposition of excess nuclear materials in order to assist DOE in developing the best 

organizational structure for managing that cleanup. FL will work with the line DOE 

science, energy, and defense organizations to develop the scope, cost and schedule 

for all the requirements and identify organizational options for managing these requirements. For the near-term budget window, four full-time equivalents are requested to support the planning responsibilities of the office. DOE has not decided 

what line office will be charged with managing future liability. 

Question. Has the Department determined whether or not creating this new office 

and bureaucracy will lower the cost of cleanup, and is there any data to validate 

this decision; and will there be a transition plan for experiences staff from one office 

to another? 

Answer. The Department’s Top-to-Bottom Review of the Environmental Management program recommended the accelerated cleanup of the legacy of the Cold War, 

the mission the Office of Environmental Management was designed to carry out. Defined, finite work scope has been key to focusing the active cleanup mission on accelerated completion with the benefits of reducing risk and life-cycle cost while accelerating schedule and cleanup. However, long-term waste treatment and disposal 

will continue beyond the completion of the current EM baseline (scope) program. So 

that we do not diminish the momentum we have gained with accelerated EM cleanup, the Department has proposed the new planning office to look at options for managing the long-term liabilities and in so allowing the accelerated pace in achieving 

near-term cleanup results to continue unabated. We believe these are prudent steps 

to effectively manage our near-term cleanup responsibilities while establishing a 

visible process to address future liabilities. 
191 

We do not foresee a need for a transition plan at this planning stage as longerterm liabilities may involve different issues and different skill mixes compared to 

the near-term cleanup activities. 

MANAGING FUTURE WASTE COSTS

Question. EM is negotiating with other DOE offices to require that they take over 

all environmental responsibilities for waste they generate in the future. I have 

many concerns with this approach, because EM is the only office qualified to deal 

with the waste cleanup. On the other hand, I recognize that every Office in the Department must be more sensitive to the costs of managing waste streams they create. It seems to me there could be better ways to force each office to make a serious 

effort to reduce these costs. One option might be to require that an office which generates wastes set aside sufficient funds that would be used by EM to manage the 

cleanup. Has the department considered this option and would it make program 

managers more considerate of waste management costs? 

Answer. The Department has considered the option of a waste generator chargeback program. Our assessment has indicated that implementation of a charge-back 

program is difficult to manage and has the potential to increase costs because of 

the additional accounting burden. In addition, the Department has the risk of augmenting an appropriation if the charge-back program does not collect the exact 

funding necessary for operations. Should the generating program exceed the level 

of appropriated funds, EM will be required to supplement the remaining cost of 

newly generated waste operations. Compounding this approach, a charge-back system would not enable EM to focus its efforts strictly on its core mission of accelerated risk reduction and site closure for legacy activities. 

WASTE DEPOSITS AT WIPP

Question. The budget provides $350 million that can be used to address the cleanup of Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) located in Washington, Idaho, and 

South Carolina. I understand that if the Department is allowed to reprocess some 

of the WIR waste in Washington and Idaho it would generate transuranic waste 

streams that DOE intends to send to WIPP. To date, the Department has discussed 

this strategy with Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina; but the State of New 

Mexico has yet to be included in these discussions. Will you commit to including 

New Mexico in the negotiations and work with the State on developing a solution? 

Answer. The State of New Mexico was represented in some of the discussions the 

Department has had with affected States on waste incidental to reprocessing. Pursuant to my commitment to you, since the hearing, we have stepped up our efforts 

to discuss this matter with the State, including productive conversation between 

Governor Richardson and the Deputy Secretary. We are committed to working with 

the State and the State’s elected representatives to resolve issues relating to transuranic waste. 

Question. What is the basis for determining what transuranic waste is and what 

is the process by which you believe you can remove the fission products that would 

meet the criteria for permanent disposal at WIPP? 

Answer. Transuranic (TRU) waste is defined by the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act as ‘‘waste containing more than 100 nanocuries of 

alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes per gram of waste with half-lives greater than 

20 years, except for (A) high-level radioactive waste, (B) waste that the Secretary 

of Energy has determined, with concurrence of the Administrator [of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA], does not need the degree of isolation required by 

the disposal regulations, or (C) waste that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has 

approved for disposal on a case-by-case basis in accordance with part 61 of title 10 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).’’ ‘‘High-level radioactive waste’’ is defined in the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) as ‘‘(a) the highly radioactive material resulting 

from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly 

in reprocess and any solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; and (b) other highly radioactive material 

that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission, consistent with existing law, determines 

by rule requires permanent isolation.’’ 

DOE believes that certain tank waste in Idaho and Washington is not high-level 

waste but rather is TRU waste. This is largely for two reasons. 

First, DOE believes that this waste is not ‘‘highly radioactive material resulting 

from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.’’ Rather, in the case of Idaho, the waste, 

known as ‘‘sodium-bearing waste,’’ is waste primarily from decontamination activities and wastewater resulting from operations at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and 

Engineering Center (INTEC). This waste also contains trace amounts of radioac-
192 

tivity from first-cycle reprocessing wastes resulting from heels from these wastes 

left in the tanks after the first-cycle reprocessing wastes were removed and calcined 

in anticipation of their disposal in the spent fuel repository, along with some secondand third-cycle reprocessing wastes that remained in the tanks after most of that 

waste was also calcined in anticipation of disposal in the spent fuel repository. 

These wastes, approximately 1 million gallons, are currently being stored in the 

same tanks that were used to store waste from reprocessing. The total curies that 

have been removed and calcined represent on the order of 98 percent of the total 

INTEC curie inventory generated through spent fuel reprocessing. In the case of 

Washington, there is waste in approximately 20 tanks at Hanford that DOE believes 

resulted from decladding of fuel prior to reprocessing and from the cleanup of plutonium that occurred after the reprocessing of spent fuel. In DOE’s view, this waste 

does not result ‘‘from reprocessing,’’ whose purpose is to recover uranium and plutonium, but rather from activities necessary to prepare the fuel for reprocessing and 

to remove impurities from the recovered metals to meet weapons production purity 

standards. To put the point a little differently, this waste is very different from 

waste from the ‘‘first solvent extraction or similar process by means of which uranium and plutonium are recovered from irradiated reactor fuel.’’ That was the definition of ‘‘high level waste’’ used by the Consultation and Cooperation Agreement 

between the State of New Mexico and DOE which contained the original prohibition 

on disposal of high-level waste at WIPP and that we believe was at the heart of 

what Congress had in mind when it defined ‘‘high-level waste’’ in the NWPA. The 

WIPP Land Withdrawal Act specified that this Agreement was unaffected by the 

WIPP Land Withdrawal Act. The radionuclide concentrations in these wastes are 

substantially lower than those contained in wastes from the first cycle of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. 

Second, DOE believes that this waste meets the definition of ‘‘transuranic waste’’ 

and has other radiological characteristics that make it similar to other defense TRU 

waste in the complex that is being disposed of at WIPP, i.e., alpha-emitting radionuclide concentrations that are greater than 100 nanocuries per gram. 

With regard to the removal of fission products, with respect to the Idaho waste, 

as explained above, the current tank inventory in Idaho represents about 2 percent 

of the radioactivity from the initial spent fuel waste inventory, because 98 percent 

of that radioactivity has been calcined. This has also resulted in removal of on the 

order of 98 percent of the cesium, strontium, technetium and actinides from reprocessing that the waste originally contained. As for the Washington waste, it never 

contained fission products from reprocessing operations to begin with (except for 

possible limited cross-contamination in three tanks due to the tanks’ having been 

used for multiple purposes during their operating life times), and it is expected to 

contain less than 1 percent of the radioactivity from the Washington tanks. 

WIPP does not have specific radionuclide or fission product limitations for acceptable waste. In fact, it is specifically statutorily authorized to receive remote-handled 

transuranic waste (RH TRU), which generally contains significant amounts of fission products. Instead, the relevant limitations in WIPP’s waste acceptance criteria 

are fourfold. First, there is a statutory cap on the volume of RH TRU that WIPP 

may accept. While much of the treated TRU from Idaho and Washington is expected 

to be contact-handled, some is expected to be remote-handled, and disposal of that 

waste at WIPP will have to comply with the statutory volume limits. Second, WIPP 

has received approval from EPA to accept remote-handled waste, but it is still 

awaiting action from New Mexico on DOE’s request for modification of its Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit, so again, no remote-handled TRU 

from either site would be able to go to WIPP until that approval has been received. 

Third, WIPP has a performance assessment demonstrating that disposal of a total 

assumed volume of contact-handled and remote-handled transuranic waste with certain characteristics satisfies EPA’s standards for disposal of transuranic waste. The 

tank waste from Idaho and Washington under consideration for WIPP disposal has 

characteristics consistent with the assumptions in that performance assessment and 

therefore can safely be disposed of there. Finally, DOE has submitted to the State 

of New Mexico a request for a modification of its RCRA permit that would require 

it to submit a further Class III RCRA permit modification for tank waste it is seeking to dispose of at WIPP. If that modification is approved, DOE would have to comply with its conditions as well. 

$500 MILLION SETTLEMENT FOR BNFL

Question. Earlier this week, trade publications reported that DOE had agreed to 

pay British-owned BNFL for cost overruns related to cleanups in Tennessee and 

Idaho. What can you tell me about the status of these negotiations between the U.S. 
193 

and British officials and if there is any truth to the fact that DOE would provide 

$500 million to compensate BNFL for what appears to be a bad investment? 

Answer. DOE is working to resolve several outstanding contract issues under the 

BNFL contracts in Tennessee and Idaho. There is no final agreement at this time, 

but any resolution we reach with BNFL will only be reached if we believe it is in 

the interest of the taxpayers consistent with the programmatic interests of the Department and will allow us to meet our cleanup commitments. 

WASTE INCIDENTAL TO REPROCESSING (WIR)

Question. This budget provides $350 million to be spent to fund cleanup of nuclear 

material designated as Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR). The budget states 

that enormous savings can be achieved if DOE is able to reclassify nuclear waste 

streams and follow through with cleanup remedies that have been negotiated with 

each State. However, a recent Idaho court decision is blocking final disposition of 

the material. Until this court ruling is resolved or legislation is passed, a final remedy cannot be prescribed. Can you please provide what you believe to be the total 

cost estimates to clean up the material in Washington, Idaho and South Carolina 

if you must treat all of this material as high level waste, verses the potential cost 

savings that would be realized if some of this material can be treated as waste incidental to reprocessing? 

Answer. The Department’s baseline life-cycle cost for implementing its accelerated 

cleanup plans at Washington, Idaho and South Carolina is $52 billion, if some of 

the waste can be treated as waste incidental to reprocessing. If the Department 

must treat all of the material as high-level waste, the life-cycle cost increases to 

more than $138 billion. Under this worst-case scenario: 

—Retrieval of all tank reprocessing wastes and treatment for disposal in a geologic repository could require as much as $69 billion over the current Environmental Management program life-cycle cost baseline. 

—As much as an additional $17 billion—and possibly more—would be required to 

exhume and dispose of tanks and associated components in a geologic repository. 

—It is difficult to estimate the additional costs the Department would incur in 

terms of Federal repository fees. Under existing cleanup baselines, the Department expects to produce approximately 20,000 canisters of high-level waste for 

disposal in a geologic repository; the fee associated with these canisters is estimated to be $10 billion. Under a scenario in which all tank reprocessing wastes 

currently anticipated to be removed and disposed of as low-level waste are instead prepared for disposal in a repository, the new baseline could approach 

200,000 canisters. Thus, the fees could be significantly greater. This canister estimate does not include exhuming the tanks themselves nor associated piping, 

equipment, and concrete. At this time, the Department does not have accurate 

estimates of the volumes for these additional materials that also might need to 

be placed in the repository. (Calculating the additional fee is complicated by the 

Department’s statutory and contractual obligation to dispose of commercial 

spent fuel and by the statutory and physical constraints on the capacity of a 

repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. While the statutory 70,000 metric ton 

limit on waste at Yucca Mountain is already exceeded by the current inventory 

of waste, Yucca Mountain’s physical capacity could well also be exceeded if the 

volumes of waste the worst-case scenario contemplates are added to current estimates.) 

Question. Can you please explain why you don’t believe this material in question 

at each site qualifies as the high-level waste and the processes that will ensure that 

high-level radioactive waste remains separate? 

Answer. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC), and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (the predecessor of 

both DOE and the NRC) have long been of the view that while most of the radioactive waste from reprocessing is ‘‘high-level waste,’’ some of the material is not 

high-level waste, and is instead ‘‘waste incidental to reprocessing.’’ Reprocessing 

waste is currently stored in tanks at DOE sites in Idaho, Savannah River, and Hanford. 

DOE plans to solidify, treat and dispose as high-level waste the portion of tank 

waste that contains by far the vast bulk of the radioactivity. At Idaho, DOE already 

has finished calcining these wastes; at Savannah River, DOE currently is vitrifying 

them through the Defense Waste Processing Facility; and at Hanford, DOE will vitrify them in the new Waste Treatment Plant currently under construction. 

But DOE, the NRC, and the AEC have also long been of the view that some of 

the tank waste can instead be properly classified as ‘‘waste incidental to reprocess-
194 

ing’’ that may be managed and disposed of as low-level waste. These wastes do not 

pose the same risk to human health and the environment and can safely and lawfully be disposed of as low-level waste because they do not need the degree of isolation that the more highly radioactive wastes require. 

To determine which tank waste may be managed in this fashion, DOE has used 

criteria developed originally through an iterative process of consultation with the 

NRC regarding particular tanks waste, and subsequently codified in the ‘‘Waste Incidental to Reprocessing’’ portions of Order 435.1, DOE’s Order governing classification of nuclear waste. These criteria specify that to classify waste as low-level WIR, 

DOE must remove as much radioactivity as possible, and that what remains must 

be solidified and put in a form that will meet performance objectives for disposal 

of low-level waste as set out in 10 C.F.R. part 61—primarily, that it will not result 

in an annual dose to a member of the public of more than 25 millirems and that 

inadvertent intruders will also be protected. 

DOE believes that this approach is protective of public health and safety and consistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act’s (NWPA) definition of ‘‘high level waste.’’ 

The NWPA defines ‘‘high-level radioactive waste’’ as: (A) the highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste 

produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid 

waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; and (B) other highly 

radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing law, determines 

by rule requires permanent isolation.’’ [emphasis added] DOE believes that the criteria described above properly distinguish between ‘‘highly radioactive’’ material 

from reprocessing that ‘‘requires permanent isolation’’ in the spent nuclear fuel repository and ‘‘non-highly radioactive’’ material from reprocessing that does not. 

We recognize that some doubt has been cast on the correctness of this view by 

the Idaho District Court decision in NRDC v. Abraham. The Department has appealed that decision and has also asked Congress to enact legislation to clarify this 

matter. 

DEFINING HIGH-LEVEL WASTE

Question. Part of the debate over WIR involves the rather unclear definition of 

high-level waste. We now identify waste depending on how it was generated, not 

on how radioactive it is—that doesn’t make much sense. Do you agree that a serious 

National Academy of Sciences study to improve the definition of high-level waste 

might help clarify this issue and avoid the kind of debates you are now having with 

Waste Incidental to Reprocessing? 

Answer. The Department agrees that identifying waste depending on how it was 

generated rather than on its radioactivity does not make much sense. However, 

while a serious National Academy of Sciences study to improve the definition of 

high-level waste might help clarify this issue, such a study would not provide DOE 

the legal certainty it needs to make the kinds of decisions it must make to clean 

up the tank farms. 

DOE’s accelerated cleanup plans for the tank farms at Idaho, Hanford, and Savannah River all depend, in part, on DOE’s being able to classify certain waste from 

reprocessing as low-level or transuranic waste. DOE’s problem is that the District 

Court has ruled that the underpinnings of these cleanup plans are contrary to Federal law, and that if it proceeds with key aspects of the current cleanup plans, the 

District Court has signaled that it will issue an injunction telling DOE to stop. 

Therefore, any new or different criteria DOE might promulgate, even if based on 

the advice of the National Academy of Sciences, would also likely be the subject of 

legal challenge. Unless Congress acts quickly to clarify the Department’s authority 

to proceed, our efforts to clean up the tank farms at these sites, which are at the 

core of our accelerated cleanup plans there, will be largely paralyzed. 

Question. It is unclear from the budget how much material there is at each of the 

sites and the amounts of material DOE believes should be designated as high level, 

transuranic and low-level waste at each of the sites. 

Answer. DOE currently has roughly 91 million gallons of waste from reprocessing 

stored in tanks in Idaho, Savannah River, and Hanford. Stabilizing and disposing 

of this material and closing the tanks is the Department’s single largest ongoing environmental risk-reduction project. 

DOE’s plans at all three sites call for removing on the order of 99 percent or more 

of the radioactivity from the tanks. At all three sites, DOE’s plans then call for solidifying, treating and disposing of the vast bulk of the removed radioactivity from 

these stored wastes in a deep geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste. At two of the sites (Savannah River and Hanford) DOE’s plans call for 

solidifying, treating and disposing of some of the removed waste, consisting of lower- 
195 

activity salts that in most instances will have been further treated to remove additional actinides and cesium, and which will contain only a small fraction of the radioactivity from the tanks, as low-level waste on-site. Likewise, at two of the sites 

(Idaho and Hanford), DOE’s plans call for solidifying, treating and disposing of some 

of the removed waste, again containing a small fraction of the tank radioactivity, 

as transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Finally, at all three 

sites DOE’s plans call for grouting in place in the tanks a very small amount of residual waste remaining in the tanks. 

Waste Destined for Spent Fuel Repository 

Specifically, of the 99 percent or more of the curies removed from the tanks, at 

Idaho, DOE already has finished calcining the wastes destined for the spent fuel 

repository, representing on the order of 98 percent of the total tank waste radioactivity. At Savannah River, DOE is currently vitrifying the wastes destined for the 

spent fuel repository, representing on the order of 99 percent or more of the total 

tank waste radioactivity, through the Defense Waste Processing Facility. At Hanford, DOE is not as far along in the cleanup process, since it is still building the 

principal facility it will use to prepare waste for disposal at the spent fuel repository 

and developing other aspects of its plans. There too, however, DOE anticipates that 

it will treat and dispose of the vast bulk of the radioactivity in the spent fuel repository using the new Waste Treatment Plant currently under construction. 

Waste Anticipated To Be Disposed of On-Site as Low-Level Waste 

In addition, of the 99 percent or more of the radioactivity to be removed from the 

tanks, at Savannah River and Hanford, DOE’s plans call for retrieving and processing the lower-activity salt waste from the tanks that in most instances will have 

been further treated to remove additional actinides and cesium for disposal on-site 

as low-level waste in saltstone vaults at Savannah River and at a facility permitted 

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for mixed low-level 

waste disposal at Hanford. Again, this waste represents a small fraction of the radioactivity from the tanks—on the order of 1 percent or less of the tank waste radioactivity at Savannah River and a small amount of the tank waste radioactivity at 

Hanford. At both sites, this waste would have to meet the performance objectives 

for disposal of low-level waste specified in 10 C.F.R. Part 61 under which a member 

of the general population cannot receive an annual dose of more than 25 millirem 

from the residues, and an inadvertent intruder must be protected as well. In addition, at both sites, the waste would have to be disposed of in accordance with State 

environmental law permits because of its chemical constituents, and DOE would 

have to account for this waste disposal in overall site remediation and closure under 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

(CERCLA). 

Waste Potentially Disposed of as Transuranic Waste at WIPP 

Further, at Idaho and Hanford, of the 99 percent or more of the curies removed 

from the tanks, DOE’s plans call for retrieving and processing some of the tank 

waste (representing a small fraction of the radioactivity in the tanks) for disposal 

as transuranic waste at WIPP. This would contain on the order of 1 percent of the 

tank waste radioactivity at Idaho and less than 1 percent of the tank waste radioactivity at Hanford. This includes the sodium-bearing waste which comprises the remaining liquids in the 8 tanks in Idaho, and the contents of between 8 and 20 tanks 

of the 177 tanks at Hanford. This waste would have to meet WIPP’s waste acceptance criteria in order to be sent there. Its disposal there would have to be shown 

to be consistent with the assumptions made in WIPP’s performance assessment, 

which demonstrates that the repository and the waste disposed of there complies 

with the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards for disposal of transuranic 

waste and is protective of humans and the environment. It also would have to comply with any other relevant WIPP limits such as the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act’s 

statutory limit on how much remote-handled transuranic waste may be disposed of 

at WIPP. In addition, DOE has committed to New Mexico to seek a specific WIPP 

RCRA permit modification from the State addressing these waste streams before 

sending them there. 

Tank Residues 

Finally, at all three sites, DOE’s plans call for grouting in place a very small 

amount of residual waste remaining in the tanks. DOE anticipates that these residues will constitute on the order of 1 percent or less of the overall tank radioactivity. More importantly, under DOE’s plans, when this process is complete, the residual waste grouted in place will have to meet standards for disposal of low-level 

waste specified in 10 C.F.R. Part 61, under which a member of the general popu-
196 

lation cannot receive an annual dose of more than 25 millirem from the residues, 

and an inadvertent intruder must be protected as well. By comparison, a frequent 

flyer receives approximately 100 millirem per year from cross-country airline trips, 

and individuals receive at least 20 millirem from each medical X-ray. The treated 

and grouted residues will also have to meet State environmental law requirements 

with respect to their chemical constituents and will have to be accounted for in overall site remediation and closure under CERCLA. 

SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTS AND EM CLEANUP

Question. I realize that OMB is forcing DOE to increase the number of contracts 

they extend to small business and at the same time DOE is forcing the labs and 

sites to reduce their small business contracting just so DOE can meet its ‘‘quota.’’ 

I don’t think it makes sense for DOE to manage a large number of small business 

contracts at each site. This is exactly what led to the frustration that created the 

NNSA out of the DOE. I’m so concerned about this trend that I’ve scheduled a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for this subject. I fear that 

some of these procurements are placing contracts with small businesses that jeopardize the safe effective performance of critical work. There are two examples of 

small business set asides related to EM that concern me. The first is the very complex site cleanup for Paducah and the second is the draining of sodium coolant from 

the FFTF reactor at Hanford, which is also an extremely dangerous job. How can 

you assure me that EM is not jeopardizing effective completion of critical tasks with 

this rush to entrust procurements to small businesses? 

Answer. As part of its strategy to increase competition and the cadre of business 

firms with the core competencies to effectively meet the challenges of EM’s accelerated cleanup mission, EM elected to issue competitive procurement actions set-aside 

for small business firms. Prior to making a final decision on competing a small business set-aside contract, EM publishes a Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOps) 

sources sought notice inviting firms to demonstrate their capabilities to perform the 

work, either alone or by teaming with other firms. Responses to these notices are 

carefully reviewed to ensure that qualified companies are available to perform the 

work prior to issuance of a final solicitation. This process was followed for both Paducah and the Fast Flux Test Facility contracts. 

Firms, large and small, competing to perform EM work scopes are held to the 

same high-level expectations. These firms must clearly demonstrate a robust safety 

program, sound technical approaches to safely complete the work, cost-effective 

work practices, commitment of a strong management team, and demonstrated experience in performing similar work. The same metrics for measuring performance 

after award are applied regardless of the size of the firm performing the work. 

EM is pursuing small business opportunities aggressively; and I am confident that 

sufficient checks and balances, management commitment, and accountability are 

built into the acquisition and project management processes to assure that the small 

business firms selected for these projects will contribute substantially to EM’s success in meeting accelerated cleanup schedules. 

RISK BASED END STATES

Question. Earlier this year, EM raised serious concerns at Los Alamos and other 

sites when you asked each site to sign off on a so-called Risk Based End State 

(RBES), which would serve as the benchmark measuring the end of cleanup at each 

site. I’ve heard concerns at some sites that they did not have enough time to involve 

the public in a decision of such serious impact on the people living and working at 

these sites. Has EM provided additional time at each site for development of the 

RBES, and is the public being seriously and significantly involved in development 

of each of these RBES site criteria? 

Answer. Stakeholder involvement is an essential part of the RBES process. The 

RBES documents will remain drafts for quite a while, possibly even 6 months, until 

we believe that we have adequately and openly addressed any issues or concerns 

with the public and with the regulators. 

DOE PLAN TO CONVERT DEPLETED URANIUM

Question. What is the status of the depleted uranium plants located at Portsmouth and Paducah? 

Answer. Construction on the depleted uranium hexafluoride (called DUF6) project 

is on schedule for start by July 31, 2004. DOE is working to issue the Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision which must be completed prior to the 

start of construction. 
197 

Question. Will these plants be able to accept waste material from outside the 

State? 

Answer. We note that DOE does not consider its DUF6 to be waste and therefore, 

views the facilities as conversion facilities, not waste processing facilities. Some cylinders containing DUF6 are being received in Portsmouth, Ohio, from the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. No other off-site materials are 

currently planned for conversion at these sites other than possible shipments between the two sites. However, there is nothing in the design of the plants that 

would preclude their use for other DUF6. 

Question. Is there any additional R&D to be undertaken to demonstrate the viability of these facilities? 

Answer. No. The dry conversion technology the facilities will use is a scaled up 

version of a process already commercially viable and in use at Richland, Washington, and in Germany. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Question. Ms. Roberson, I understand you have decided to terminate at the end 

of this fiscal year the partnership DOE has with the General Services Administration to provide child care for Federal and contractor employees at Hanford. I also 

understand that child care is particularly tight in Richland, especially for infants, 

and that this move is likely to displace 60∂ children. In addition to affecting operations of the existing facility, this decision almost certainly will kill the plans for 

a new state of the art facility, for which bids had already been received. Is DOE 

terminating this important employee benefit at all of its facilities or at ANY other 

site except Hanford? 

Answer. Employee benefits vary from site to site so a comparison of one single 

area does not provide a true measure of the benefits that are afforded our Federal 

and contractor workforce. 

The Department is hopeful that GSA will continue its plans for the new facility 

and sees no reason why our discontinuation of subsidy payments should be a hindrance toward that goal if GSA’s survey is correct and the need for childcare in the 

Richland area is growing. 

If GSA decides to pursue other Federal partnerships in the Richland area, it 

would have many to choose from, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 

Postal Service and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Question. Why is providing childcare suddenly no longer a priority? 

Answer. EM’s priority is environmental restoration. With regard to the childcare 

facility, earlier this year a DOE assessment revealed a level of participation and interest by Federal employees that was inconsistent with the amount of Federal dollars being spent to subsidize the childcare facility. Based on this assessment, and 

the shrinking of both the Federal and contractor workforces as cleanup projects 

reach completion, DOE believes these funds would benefit a much broader range of 

people if invested in the workforce to accelerate Hanford cleanup. 

Question. Have you considered a longer transition period to ensure DOE will continue to be a good corporate neighbor and allow a new, high quality facility to be 

developed? 

Answer. The notification period to GSA is 120 days, taking us through the end 

of September 2004. This should be sufficient for the private childcare facility operator to seek funding from other entities. 

Again we are hopeful that GSA will continue to pursue its idea of a new facility. 

Question. Will DOE (or GSA) be liable for costs incurred in the design, bid proposals, etc. for the new childcare facility that will now (likely) not be built? 

Answer. GSA is the sole Federal agency responsible for the construction of the 

new childcare facility. To date, we understand that GSA has spent $275,000 on architectural design and energy modeling contracts but has not awarded the construction contract for the new childcare facility, so neither costs nor penalties are currently being incurred. 

Question. Ms. Roberson, contractors at the Hanford site and the Hanford Atomic 

Trades Council have for years successfully negotiated pension plan and other cost 

effective agreements—with the full approval and endorsement of DOE. It is my understanding that the DOE is actively pursuing new contracts for multiple projects, 

specifically the Fast Flux Test Facility Closure Project, the 222 S Analytical Services Project, and the River Corridor Closure Project. I am very concerned that these 

Requests for Proposals (RFPs) contain a new two-tiered pension system that only 

requires 5 years of pension contributions from the winning bidder. Some might see 
198 

this move as a back door attempt by the DOE to reduce their costs by reducing requirements for pension contributions. 

Hanford employees have remained dedicated to completing the challenging tasks 

of the mission. This spirit of labor/management cooperation will be seriously jeopardized if workers are now told that the pension benefits they have earned will need 

to be reduced in order to save DOE money. I would like to know what you intend 

to do to maintain the level of pension benefits workers have been promised and have 

earned through years of their hard work at Hanford? 

Answer. DOE agrees that the addition of new contractors and multiple pension 

plans for Hanford employees may have potential impacts on workers. However, the 

DOE Richland Operations Office will ensure that the new contracts minimize any 

such issues. The Department anticipates responsive resolution of any issues that 

may arise. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

REPORTING OF INJURY AT DOE SITES

Question. I was disappointed to read in the Washington Post that an Inspector 

General’s draft report found that DOE failed to report a significant number of injuries that occurred at DOE sites. The Inspector General found that DOE maintained 

‘‘inaccurate and incomplete accident and injury data.’’ This article also alluded to 

the fact that accelerated cleanup contributed to the behavior of not reporting worker 

injury. Assistant Secretary Cook, since the responsibility for worker safety and environmental protection falls under your watch; I would like a full explanation as to 

how the IG has come to these conclusions. Are these allegations of under-reporting 

accurate and if so, where and to what extent has this occurred within the DOE complex? 

Answer. We take all issues raised by the IG very seriously, especially those involving safety. The Inspector General has a rigorous process for generating reports 

and part of that process is asking for a review of the draft report for factual accuracy. Our initial findings indicate that many of the conclusions are based on outof-date or incorrect information. We identified and began corrective actions on some 

of the items identified in the report over a year ago. In other cases, the Program 

Offices have taken other measures to get up-to-date, accurate information directly 

from the field sites, to resolve the delay time in getting information into the data 

system. I do not agree that the accident statistics for the Department are underreported. 

Question. What are you doing about the current findings of the Inspector General 

that DOE is not accurately reporting worker injuries? 

Answer. We are providing comments to the Inspector General on the inaccuracy 

of some aspects of the report as it addresses reporting worker injuries while continuing to implement the changes that have been underway for over a year to correct other issues. 

Question. Why are we learning of this activity from the Inspector General and not 

your office? What are you doing to correct this? 

Answer. Actions were already underway by my office to correct the known problems with the reporting system, and by the Program Offices to obtain accurate information in other ways until these actions were completed. 

OVERSIGHT REORGANIZATION REFORM

Question. Ms. Cook, your testimony references oversight changes and restructuring of your Office in 2002 and 2003. In 2002, you noted that the independent 

oversight functions were removed from your office and you now work to promote 

‘‘safe and environmentally compliant conduct of work.’’ In 2003, your restructuring 

efforts describe cuts to management and new focus on ‘‘e-government initiatives.’’ 

If you aren’t performing oversight in areas of worker safety—what office is? 

Answer. The Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance performs independent oversight of safety and security for the Department of Energy. 

Question. Did any of the changes since 2002 result in your inability to hold DOE 

contractors to the highest level of worker safety? 

Answer. DOE holds its contractors to the highest level of worker safety. EH writes 

the policies and requirements and provides technical assistance to the program offices who implement these requirements. The Office of Independent Oversight evaluates DOE and contractor compliance with these requirements. EH continues to 
199 

analyze the information provided by the Office of Independent Oversight, especially 

where contractors may not be in compliance, in order to refine the requirements to 

achieve the right outcomes; protecting our workforce and the public. The changes 

in EH over the last several years has allowed us to better focus on setting the right 

policies to drive the right performance. 

DOE SITE PROFILES

Question. Last year, DOE testified that it was in the process of developing site 

profiles to pull together the necessary site data in order to speed up the case approval process for workers that were made sick while working for the Department. 

DOE’s testimony stated that by developing a complete understanding of the occupational hazards at each of the DOE sites, it will help the doctors in evaluating claims 

of exposure based on the hazards a worker may have been exposed to and when. 

The site profiles will significantly improve the doctor’s ability to do their job. Where 

do we stand on the development of site profiles and how much is being spent in fiscal year 2004 and how much have you provided for this effort in fiscal year 2005? 

Answer. DOE already provides all available medical, work history, work exposure 

and facility information to the Physician Panels. We consider the information DOE 

has been providing to the panels to be adequate to support Physician Panel deliberations. With respect to ‘‘site profiles’’, the term is not clearly defined and the Department believes that creating site profiles as commonly defined by advocates of 

this process would be a costly and time consuming effort that would not provide 

substantial assistance to Part D applicants. Further, it is not clear whether there 

is even adequate data to profile toxic exposures at DOE facilities in any reasonable 

way. Regulatory requirements for the collection and maintenance of information relevant to ionizing radiation exposures, such as the data used by NIOSH for Part B, 

predate and far exceed such requirements for occupational exposures to potentially 

toxic chemicals (Part D) at worksites. Such requirements, referred to as job-exposure matrices, can be exceptionally difficult, labor intensive, and expensive, if they 

are scientifically feasible at all. 

In fiscal year 2004, with the recent $23.3 million appropriations transfer that 

Congress approved, DOE will spend roughly $49 million to collect, compile, categorize and summarize the information required by the Physician Panels process. 

Of this, roughly $24 million will be spent on collecting information from the field 

sites and $25 million will be spent on data quality control, compiling, categorizing, 

summarizing and post-panel quality control. In fiscal year 2005, $14 million is being 

requested for these functions. 

Question. How much will it cost and how long will it take to develop a site profile 

at each of the 15 largest DOE facilities? 

Answer. Currently, DOE is soliciting information on how to scope a project for 

providing a ‘‘site overview.’’ This project would provide for each site a generally 

standard format and improved categorization of existing information. At this time 

DOE does not have a specific dollar figure for this project. As discussed above, DOE 

believes that the limited value to a qualitative assessment on some pre-defined set 

of agents does not justify the high cost for developing this information and, therefore, DOE has no current plans to conduct or prepare comprehensive ‘‘site profiles’’ 

for DOE’s facilities. 

Question. Can you provide for the record a timeline as to when you expect to have 

site profiles for the sites? 

Answer. DOE does not have a timeline for the development of site profiles. As discussed above, DOE believes it would not be prudent to develop and prepare ‘‘site 

profiles’’ as that term is commonly defined. However, DOE is investigating the development of site overviews that would better package existing data by site. 

BUDGET DETAILS

Question. The fiscal year 2005 request fails to provide the same level of detail for 

the Office of Environment, Safety and Health as provided in the fiscal year 2004 

request, especially in the area of the Energy Supply—Health Account. In addition 

to providing fewer details of your spending priorities there is also significantly less 

money. The budget provides $45 million. This is $22 million less than was provided 

in fiscal year 2004. I would appreciate a written description of your program budgets within each of the following accounts—Health, Employee Compensation, and 

Corporate Safety. 

Answer. The budget is broken down in detail commensurate with the total budget 

amounts. However, the budget request was based on certain assumptions. 
200 

Under Health 

Occupational Health ($15,902,000).—This includes former worker medical screening, former beryllium worker surveillance, medical monitoring of former workers 

from Rocky Flats, integrated DOE occupational medicine support, and a portion of 

the funding for the Radiation Emergency Accident Center/Training Site (REAC/TS). Public Health ($13,500,000).—This includes funding to other agencies, including 

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the National 

Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) for independent energy-related studies relevant to DOE 

workers and neighboring communities. Epidemiologic Studies ($3,300,000).—This includes a collection of both medical 

and exposure information to expand understanding of the health effects of radiation, 

chemical and other hazards to current DOE workers and the public. International Programs ($12,520,000).—This supports the upgrading and validation of our knowledge of radiation health effects among workers and populations exposed to ionizing radiation in the former Soviet Union and Spain, participation in 

the life span study of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki exposed population and environmental monitoring to support resettlement activities as well as special medical care 

for a specific group of radiation-exposed individuals in the Marshall Islands. 

Total.—$45,222,000. 

Under Employee Compensation 

For EEOICPA, the fiscal year 2005 budget request is $43 million for the operations of the EEOICPA Part D program, which includes the following activities and 

funding allocations. Resource centers jointly managed with the Department of Labor 

are funded at $2.4 million. These centers provide outreach to potential EEOICPA 

applicants and support during the application process. Collecting and producing 

medical, work history, work exposure and facility information data from the DOE 

field sites are provided $14 million. Processing the Part D cases up to the Physician 

Panels, paying for the Physician Panels and providing for quality controls are funded at $24.6 million. Additional Federal staff to manage the 200 percent increase in 

case processing and the 900 percent increase in Physician Panel determinations that 

will be required to eliminate the backlog of Part D applications at DOE in 2006 is 

provided $2 million. 

Corporate Safety.—$10,883,000 

Performance Assessment/Information Management ($2,000,000).—This provides 

for the analysis and certification of DOE’s performance by synthesizing operational 

information, and also provides web-based information technology support for effectively distributing safety and health information. Quality Assurance ($6,483,000).—This provides quality assurance policies and requirements to support current DOE missions, and performs evaluations and accreditations to ensure that the health and environmental data that is generated by DOE 

is technically defensible. This includes the operation of the Radiological and Environmental Science Laboratory, a Federal reference laboratory that performs much 

of the Department’s evaluation and accreditation services. 

Facility Safety ($1,600,000).—This supports appraisals of accidents, facility authorizations bases and safety allegations, and special safety reviews on specific topics such as seismic analysis, fire protections, facility design and the startup/restart 

of facilities. 

Enforcement ($800,000).—This activity covers the statutory mandate of the PriceAnderson Amendments Act of 1988 to enforce compliance with Code of Federal Regulations nuclear safety requirements at DOE sites and the enforcement of the Worker Occupational Safety and Health Rule. 

Question. Where do you propose to make the $22 million in spending cuts from 

the fiscal year 2004 appropriation to meet this year’s request? 

Answer. The DOE EH health budget includes a variety of activities. There are 

several items in the health budget that require less funding in fiscal year 2004 comparable appropriation is $22 million more that the fiscal year 2005 request. The 

comparison to prior year funding is: 

FUNDING SUMMARY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Amount 

Program/Activity Health Fiscal Year 2003 Comparable Appropriation ............................................................... 50,051 

Program/Activity Health Fiscal Year 2004 Requests ........................................................................................... 66,660 
201 

FUNDING SUMMARY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Amount 

Program/Activity Health Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation ............................................................... 67,335 

Program/Activity Health Fiscal Year 2005 Requests ........................................................................................... 45,222 

Of the total decrease of $22 million, several items account for a decrease in the 

request of $16 million from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005 includes: 

—Decrease $12 million for international health studies. DOE’s role in certain 

studies is reduced as they are coming to closure. The Department also plans to 

use carryover balances to meet some fiscal year 2005 requirements. DOE is 

evaluating its responsibilities and future involvement in these studies. 

—Decrease of approximately $3 million for public health studies around DOE 

sites because studies have concluded. These studies are conducted by Health 

and Human Services (HHS) agencies. This is transitioning to smaller, more 

highly focused studies, and it is expected that HHS will complete the DOE studies in fiscal year 2007. 

—Decrease of approximately $1 million for DOE occupational health programs, 

due to efficiencies to be realized by combining the 12 individual worker screening programs into a comprehensive nationwide program. The nationwide programs will provide the most efficient and effective method to guarantee that all 

former DOE workers are offered the opportunity to participate and will be 

served consistently across the complex. 

Question. Please provide a summary of the Marshall Islands Program budget for 

fiscal year 2003, fiscal year 2004, and proposed for fiscal year 2005, which presents 

the Program’s budget components, describes the activities to be changed, and the 

reasons for such changes. 

Answer. The following breakdown of the Marshall Islands Program is provided for 

fiscal year 2003, fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005. 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Program Activity Fiscal Year 2003 Fiscal Year 2004 

Allocated Fiscal Year 2005 

Medical ....................................................................................................... 2,340 2,100 2,100

Environmental ............................................................................................ 3,950 2,200 1,900 

TOTAL ............................................................................................ 6,290 4,300 4,000 

There are no activities to be changed in the level of services provided as part of 

medical surveillance and treatment of radiation-related conditions in fiscal year 

2005. The medical program provider has managed the program for 6 years, therefore the program is under review and options for its future design and management 

are being considered. Upon review of options with Federal partners, the options will 

be presented to the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the 

governments of the two affected atolls for discussion. 

For the environmental program, the changes in fiscal year 2004 were directed at 

clearing up the analysis backlog of the environmental samples gathered form the 

Marshall Islands and the preparation a final analytical summary report to support 

future program planning purposes. To date $4.3 million has been allocated as detailed in the above chart. Other than reductions associated with Congressionally directed prior-year offsets and rescissions, the only difference between appropriated 

and allocated-year-to-date is $1.5 million. That amount is being held in reserve to 

address additional activities which will be developed in conjunction with the 

Marshallese during the annual June-July meeting sponsored by DOE. 

The field missions for fiscal year 2004 were suspended to allow the scientists to 

focus on this backlog. The suspension did not delay any work required to assist in 

resettlement of Rongelap Island. In fiscal year 2005, the environmental program 

will support resettlement activities on Rongelap Island and the network of whole 

body counting facilities. The funds requested are adequate for these two activities. 

DOE AND HHS STUDIES

Question. DOE and HHS have signed cooperative MOUs over the past 15 years 

that require DOE to provide funding to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for epidemiological studies on former DOE workers. I under-
202 

stand that the existing MOU will expire at the end of this year. Will you sign another agreement to provide for independent health studies of former DOE workers? 

Answer. It is the intention of DOE to develop, in cooperation with HHS organizations, a new MOU for the conduct of independent health studies. A draft revised 

MOU has been prepared; following internal review it will be sent to HHS for comment. 

MARSHALL ISLANDS HEALTH TESTING

Question. The traditional mission of the Marshall Islands Program has been to 

monitor health and the environment in the four affected communities. In the 1990’s, 

the Program entered into MOAs with the four Atolls to support remediation and resettlement activities, but DOE’s level of commitment to these new activities is unclear. Does DOE regard its support for remediation and resettlement activities as 

dependent on its traditional monitoring activities? 

Answer. DOE is committed to and will continue to meet its responsibilities to provide medical surveillance and treatment for radiation-related conditions among the 

exposed population on Rongelap and Utrik Atolls and to support resettlement activities. DOE will be negotiating annual work plans with each of the four atolls to assure continued environmental monitoring support for resettlement. 

Question. Are these activities undertaken on an ‘‘as funds available’’ basis, or 

would DOE request funds if necessary to support the remediation and resettlement 

activities set forth in the various MOAs? 

Answer. DOE annually requests funding that will assure continuity in medical 

surveillance and treatment of radiation-related conditions and support for resettlement activities. Environmental monitoring activities in the MOU’s have in the past 

been supported on an ‘‘as funds are available’’ basis. It is DOE’s intention to request 

and dedicate resources to meet its legislative responsibilities. 

Question. What is the status of DOE’s MOAs with the four affected communities? 

Does DOE plan to extend the MOAs upon on their expiration? 

Answer. The Bikini MOU expired several years ago and has been replaced with 

an annual work plan; the Rongelap MOU extension expires this June; the Enewetak 

MOU expires in 2005, and the Utrik MOU in 2007. It is DOE’s intention to explore 

with representatives of the four Atolls transitioning from MOUs to annual work 

plans that would focus activities on providing environmental monitoring support to 

resettlement. 

Question. Do you plan to have a physical DOE presence in the Marshall Islands, 

if so, where and what will their responsibilities entail? 

Answer. DOE is evaluating the need for a physical presence, beyond the logistical 

support office on Kwajalein Island, in order to provide environmental monitoring 

support to resettlement. 

MARSHALL ISLANDS CARRYOVER FUNDS

Question. It is my understanding that $1.5 million in fiscal year 2004 funds has 

not been expended at this time. Is that correct? What work is not being performed 

in the Marshall Islands as a result of the withholding of this $1.5 million? 

Answer. It is correct that $1.5 million in fiscal year 2004 funds appropriated for 

the Marshall Islands are not currently planned to be expended in fiscal year 2004. 

This funding was identified for conducting an environmental mission to the Marshall Islands. 

Question. Given that there are 6 remaining months in this fiscal year, why hasn’t 

this funding been obligated? 

Answer. It is felt that it is most important at this time to dedicate contractor resources to the development and publication of scientific and technical reports and 

articles on the latest radiological status. These reports and articles, providing the 

latest results of analysis of samples from previous environmental missions, will be 

critical to informing all parties in the conduct of deliberations concerning the Republic of the Marshall Islands Changed Circumstances Petition. The Department conducts annual meeting with the Marshallese and jointly prioritizes additional activities. These funds may be used for those specific activities or other follow-on activities jointly determined to be needed. 

Question. Could the remaining $1.5 million be used pursuant to DOE’s MOAs 

with the four affected atolls? If yes, why hasn’t DOE pursued this option? 

Answer. It is important that contactor efforts be dedicated to the development and 

publication of scientific and technical reports and articles analyzing the results of 

prior environmental missions at this time. It is DOE’s intention to support activities 

in the MOU’s consistent with these legislative responsibilities. The remaining $1.5 
203 

million will be dedicated to the Marshall Islands program in the conduct of future 

activities in support of the medical care and resettlement activities. 

Question. Can this $1.5 million be reprogrammed to other activities within DOE 

or must it be expended within the Marshall Islands Program? 

Answer. It is DOE’s intention to support its legislative responsibilities in the Marshall Islands. The $1.5 million could be reprogrammed in fiscal year 2004, with Congressional approval, but DOE has no intention of doing so at this time. 

EXISTING SAMPLES—MARSHALL ISLANDS

Question. What is the status of the previous samples that have been taken by 

Livermore scientists at the Marshall Islands? 

Answer. The DOE contractor is in the process of completing analysis and writing 

scientific and technical reports and articles to provide the latest data and information on radiological conditions on the four Atolls in the Marshall Islands. 

Question. Is it correct that, at this time, the samples have been analyzed and the 

Department is in the process of preparing a summary report? If yes, when will that 

report be available? 

Answer. Yes, the DOE contractor is in the process of preparing scientific and technical reports and articles on radiological conditions in the Marshall Islands. The 

contractors draft report is to be submitted to DOE for review. DOE has seen an 

early draft of the Whole Body Counting results, is awaiting a draft report on plutonium uptake data results, and expects a draft report on ‘‘where we stand’’ on the 

radiological characterization of the four Atolls in the near future. The contractor has 

not determined its delivery dates for the deliverables to DOE. 

MARSHALL ISLANDS ANNUAL MEETING

Question. Will Program officials hold their next annual meeting with representatives of the four Atolls in June 2004? If not, when will that annual meeting take 

place? 

Answer. DOE Program officials do plan to hold the annual meeting with representatives of the four Atolls in June 2004 timeframe. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Question. Ms. Cook, why ramp down the Hanford Former Worker Program (Hanford FWP) if there are over 2,700 workers with significant past exposures and who 

have requested examinations waiting to be screened at that site? 

Answer. We are not ramping down the program. We are transitioning to a nationwide medical screening program that will serve all former workers from all DOE 

sites locally. The Hanford Former Production Worker Medical Screening Project was 

initiated in 1996 as a 5-year pilot project. Any former worker interested in medical 

screening who is not seen this year by the Hanford Former Production Worker Medical Screening Project will be seen by the nationwide program, which is scheduled 

to be in place in October 2004. 

Question. Ms. Cook, how will USDOE ensure that workers who are currently 

awaiting exams in the FWPs do not risk being dropped from the program in the 

transition to a national program (subject of new RFA)? 

Answer. DOE has provided the principal investigator of each site-specific project 

with a toll-free number that can be given to individuals interested in screening but 

for whom the ongoing medical screening projects cannot see this year. Additionally, 

through the existing site-specific projects, DOE will soon mail an information package regarding the transition to a nationwide program. Included in this package is 

an authorization for individuals to sign requesting that their names and mailing addresses be provided to DOE. DOE will then send them additional information upon 

initiation of the new nationwide program. 

Question. Ms. Cook, has performance of medical screening grantees known as the 

former worker program been satisfactory? 

Answer. For the most part, yes. However, there are several lessons learned from 

this effort. These include the following: 

—DOE’s central management of these projects is complicated by the multiple 

management teams within each of the numerous cooperative agreements, each 

with layers of their own management and subcontractor management; 

—Multiple layers of management per project resulting in increased overhead 

charges and fees; 

—Communication between DOE and participating organizations, as well as participating organizations and former workers, is cumbersome; 
204 

—Recruitment of participants has been a major cost for many of the projects, with 

additional years of funding for some projects resulting in minimal increases in 

worker participation; 

—Coordination efforts between the FWP and the Former Beryllium Worker Medical Surveillance Program at DOE sites have been challenging; 

—The significant resource needs for each of the site-specific efforts conducted to 

date has resulted in a delay in the initiation of screening for former workers 

at remaining defense nuclear sites. 

Question. Ms. Cook, how will the new national program coordinate State workers 

compensation and EEOICP claims (sub-part D), e.g. will the examination sites 

around the country be expected to file Washington State worker’s compensation 

claims and sub-part D claims as workers currently get? 

Answer. The current programs were not expected to file state workers compensation claims on behalf of workers. The workers who participate in the new program 

will be directed to the Federal and State resource centers as appropriate, where 

they will get the assistance they need to file. 

Question. Ms. Cook, why are the Former Worker Programs (FWPs) being asked 

to destroy workers’ data? What are the risks to privacy when such data are protected by Institutional Review Boards responsible for protecting human research 

subjects? 

Answer. The Former Worker Programs are being asked to handle records appropriately based on the workers’ desires. The worker gets to decide what happens to 

their records. Of course, a worker may have their own records. Then the worker can 

decide if they would like the DOE to keep copies. The worker may also decide that 

they would like the former program to have copies of their records and use them 

for other purposes, but that is a decision to be made by each worker. Additionally, 

the clinics that conduct the medical screening under the FWPs are required by State 

law to maintain the workers’ medical records for a certain number of years. Workers 

have the option of obtaining copies from these clinics in the future as well. 

Question. Ms. Cook, how will the Office of Worker Advocacy (OWA) obtain records 

from FWPs who are being told to destroy such records? 

Answer. The Office of Worked Advocacy can only obtain records from the worker, 

or with the worker’s permission. The DOE does not have open access to workers’ 

records. 

Question. Ms. Cook, has NIOSH reviewed the new RFA, as required by Section 

3162 of the 1993 Defense Authorization Act? 

Answer. Section 3162 of the 1993 Defense Authorization Act does not require 

NIOSH to review the RFA. We have also referred back to the original MOU signed 

by Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary and HHS Secretary Donna Shalala in August 

1995, and this MOU does not call for HHS (NIOSH) review of DOE-issued RFAs 

either. 

Question. Ms. Cook, are lessons learned and experience from the FWPs during the 

8 years of operation being utilized in the RFA? 

Answer. Yes, they are. The current program is expensive and cumbersome to operate when divided into 12 separate cooperative agreements. There are workers at 

many sites that are still waiting for an opportunity to have screening exams. We 

understand we must provide this screening more efficiently and effectively and we 

believe the nationwide medical screening program will accomplish this objective. 

—DOE’s central management of these projects is complicated by the multiple 

management teams within each of the numerous cooperative agreements, each 

with layers of their own management and subcontractor management; 

—Multiple layers of management per project resulting in increased overhead 

charges and fees; 

—Communication between DOE and participating organizations, as well as participating organizations and former workers, is cumbersome; 

—Recruitment of participants has been a major cost for many of the projects, with 

additional years of funding for some projects resulting in minimal increases in 

worker participation; 

—Coordination efforts between the FWP and the Former Beryllium Worker Medical Surveillance Program at DOE sites have been challenging; 

—The significant resource needs for each of the site-specific efforts conducted to 

date has resulted in a delay in the initiation of screening for former workers. 
205 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE

MANAGEMENT

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

BUDGET REQUEST

Question. The President’s budget requests $880 million for Yucca Mountain. A significant portion of this funding is to be paid for by fees assessed to utility customers. 

The fund will collect $749 million this year. The budget proposes that the annual 

receipts be reclassified as discretionary funds and then appropriated. As the former 

Budget Committee Chairman, I know you can’t waive a magic wand to reclassify 

these fees. It requires legislation and some degree of cooperation. I am not optimistic this can be accomplished this year. However, if we fail to get agreement to 

reclassify the fees, the Senate Budget Resolution assumes a minimum level of funding of $577 million. If Congress is only able to provide $577 million, what activities 

will the Department be forced to defer in fiscal year 2005? 

Answer. National and Nevada transportation activities would again be deferred, 

with no reasonable chance for schedule recovery. Site infrastructure maintenance 

work would be delayed, and effort devoted to repository design and development 

would be reduced. 

Question. Will this significantly delay the opening of Yucca Mountain beyond the 

2010 target date and can you estimate what impact this would have on litigation 

costs for the department? 

Answer. We are at the point where any reduction in our funding profile, in fiscal 

year 2005 or the out-years, will adversely affect the scheduled 2010 opening date 

for the repository. If funding for fiscal year 2005 is frozen at the fiscal year 2004 

level of $577 million, the Department’s ability to meet the scheduled 2010 repository 

opening date will be severely compromised and most likely lost. To date, more than 

65 claims have been filed by utilities in the Court of Federal Claims for breach of 

contract to recover monetary damages incurred as a result of the Department’s 

delay. For each year of delay beyond 2010 that the Department is unable to begin 

accepting spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors pursuant to the Department’s 

contracts with utilities, the Department estimates that the utilities will incur costs 

of $500 million a year to store their spent fuel at utility sites, some portion of which 

the Department would be liable for. A delay in opening the repository could substantially increase the government’s liability. 

YUCCA MOUNTAIN—METAL STORAGE CONTAINERS

Question. I have read that Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Nils 

Diaz disputes the controversial evaluation made by the Nuclear Waste Technical 

Review Board regarding the corrosion analysis of the metal containers that will be 

used at Yucca Mountain. Dr. Chu could you please explain where you believe the 

science comes out on this issue and share with the committee how site managers 

have dealt with this issue? 

Answer. The EPA’s radiation protection standards and NRC’s licensing regulations require DOE to evaluate long-term repository safety based on risk to the public. This requires an assessment of the total system, and must take into account the 

likelihood of events occurring and their effect on public health and safety. 

The NWTRB’s report focuses on a specific component of the repository system, 

namely the disposal canisters, and does not address the effect on the safety of the 

total system. In addition, the NWTRB position relies on the presence of very specific 

conditions in the repository tunnels, which DOE technical studies show are very unlikely and will have no significant effect on public health and safety. 

DOE’s current design will meet the EPA and NRC regulations, and we will demonstrate this in our license application to the NRC. DOE will continue to discuss 

the corrosion issues with the NWTRB at their regularly scheduled public meetings. 

Finally, if required by the NRC, the issues will be fully and openly explored during 

the licensing proceedings. 

Question. Do you believe that the U.S. population would be safer to locate spent 

fuel in Yucca Mountain as opposed to leaving the waste where it currently is scattered across the country? 

Answer. As Secretary Abraham indicated in his Yucca Mountain Site Recommendation statement, spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste is currently stored in surface facilities at nearly 130 locations in 39 States awaiting final 

disposition. Most of these temporary storage facilities are located near major population centers, and because nuclear reactors need abundant water, are located near 

rivers, lakes and seacoasts. More than 161 million Americans live within 75 miles 
206 

of these temporary storage facilities. It is clearly preferable to locate these wastes 

at Yucca Mountain, on Federal land, more than 90 miles from any major population 

center, where they would be placed 1,000 feet underground. 

YUCCA TRANSPORTATION

Question. It is my understanding that the Department has not made a final decision as to whether it will use rail or truck transportation to move the waste to 

Yucca, or decided on a specific route. When will the Department make its final decision and begin the Environmental Impact Study? 

Answer. On April 2, 2004, I signed the Record of Decision selecting mostly rail 

as the transportation mode, and the Caliente corridor as the rail corridor in Nevada. 

To initiate the Environmental Impact Statement development process for a specific 

rail alignment within the corridor, DOE conducted five public scoping meetings in 

Nevada from May 3 through May 17, 2004. The public comment period is scheduled 

to end June 1, 2004. We expect to issue the Draft EIS early next year and issue 

the Final EIS later in the same year. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DOMENICI. That’s what it is. So we stand in recess until 

the call of the Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, March 31, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(207) 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Domenici, Cochran, Burns, Craig, Stevens, 

Reid, Murray, and Dorgan. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

J. RONALD JOHNSTON, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CENTRAL UTAH 

PROJECT COMPLETION ACT OFFICE 

BOB WOLF, DIRECTOR, BUDGET OFFICE 

PAM HAYES, BUDGET OFFICE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

Senator DOMENICI. The hearing will please come to order. We understand Senator Reid will be joining us shortly, perhaps some 

other Senators, but we’re going to go right on through with what 

we’ve got to do today. 

Okay, Panel One will be Mr. John Keys, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. We welcome you, Commissioner, and thank 

you for all your hard work. We know this is a very difficult time 

for you because of the budget. If you don’t mind, and Senator 

Burns doesn’t mind, I’d like to summarize where we are. 

We’re once again in a difficult position because of some assumptions that the White House makes, that OMB makes, with reference to how we might save some money or maybe add some 

money to our pot, which I don’t think we’re going to be able to do. 

So today the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers— 

and we will appropriately address the General when he comes up 

here, with reference to this being his last testimony before he 

leaves—there will be two panels, and, in the tradition of the subcommittee, this year we will begin with the Bureau, and then we 

will go the Corps as a second panel. 
208 

This subcommittee has jurisdiction over our country’s water resources, under which falls the Bureau of Reclamation and the 

Corps of Engineers. Both agencies are responsible for managing 

this precious national resource in a cost-effective manner, while 

balancing the needs of its diverse users. 

I believe the mission of these two agencies will only become more 

critical over time, as increasing pressure is placed on our water resources. Unfortunately, I fear this is a budget request that only exacerbates the problem that we face in addressing our various water 

resource requirements. Overall, I believe it will be very difficult, if 

not impossible, to meet what I consider a workable budget for these 

two agencies because the administration has proposed such a low 

starting point. 

For the Bureau of Reclamation, for instance, the President has 

requested, for fiscal year 2005, $956 million, a $14 million increase 

over 2004. However, that request assumes an offsetting collection 

of Power Marketing Association—Senator Reid, you know that’s not 

possible; and welcome to the meeting—and the maintenance of activities which are not likely to be enacted, and, therefore, effectively becomes a cut of $30 million. If you back out these assumed 

savings, which are not going to happen, which I regret—OMB continues to try, and puts them in, knowing full well, they’re not going 

to happen—then if you back out these assumed savings, the true 

2005 request is $926 million, a $17 million reduction over 2004. 

There are a few items of particular concern regarding the Bureau’s budget. The proposed funding for the silver minnow, a listed 

species in my home State of New Mexico, is $18 million—a listed 

species, which I don’t believe can get along with that small 

amount—that’s a $14 million reduction from 2004, and we’ve not 

been able to make any real headway in establishing alternatives 

that might cost less. Now, I know that the administration does not 

find this as high a priority as I do, but I believe this number is 

just not workable. 

Recently, the committee held a hearing regarding the Animas-La 

Plata. You’re fully aware of that hearing’s contents, Mr. Commissioner, and the understated cost estimate. As you know, I shared 

my frustration, as did some other Senators, with the Bureau, because they permitted this to occur. And the Department knows how 

a number of us feel about this predicament. As we look forward, 

I must say that I am concerned that this year’s funding request 

does not take into account this recent cost increase in the project. 

This year, the administration proposes to replace the Western 

Water Initiative by Water 2025, and the request is $20 million, up 

$11.6 million from 2004. The program is to continue to address 

critical western water issues. The biggest change here is that this 

program is proposed to become a grant-based effort, whereby local 

projects would meet criteria in order to be a recipient. Actually, 

with the water needs in the country, it is almost hilarious to have 

a proposal for $20 million for the water needs of our country. 

Last year in my State, the Middle Rio Grande District was provided funds under the Western Water Initiative. I’d like to hear 

from you how this effort has improved the situation in the West 

and on the Rio Grande and Albuquerque. 
209 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Now, for the Corps, we have similar problems. I will wait until 

we get the Corps, and then make my statement regarding the 

same. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

The committee will please come to order. 

Today we have the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers before us 

to testify regarding their fiscal year 2005 budgets. There will be two panels, and 

as the subcommittee’s tradition dictates, this year we will begin with the Bureau 

of Reclamation in the first panel and the Corps of Engineers in the second panel. 

This subcommittee has jurisdiction over our country’s water resources, under 

which falls the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers. Both agencies 

are responsible for managing this precious natural resource in a cost-effective manner while balancing the needs of its diverse users. 

I believe that the mission of these two agencies will only become more critical over 

time, as increasing pressure is placed on our water resources. Unfortunately, I fear 

this is a budget request that only exacerbates problems we face in addressing our 

various water resource requirements. Overall, I believe it will be very difficult to 

meet what I would consider a workable budget for these two agencies because the 

administration has proposed such a low starting point. 

For the Bureau of Reclamation, the President has requested for fiscal year 2005 

$956 million, a $14 million increase over fiscal year 2004. However, the request assumes an offsetting collection for Power Marketing Association operation and maintenance activities which are not likely to be enacted and therefore effectively becomes a cut of $30 million. If you back out these assumed savings, the true 2005 

request for the Bureau is $926 million, a $17 million reduction from fiscal year 

2004. 

There are a few items of particular concern to me regarding the Bureau’s budget. 

The proposed funding for the silvery minnow, a listed species in my home State of 

New Mexico, is $18 million, a $14 million reduction from fiscal year 2004. Now I 

know that the administration does not find this as high as a priority as I do, but 

I believe this number is just not workable given the State’s continued drought. I 

will discuss this further when we get to the questions. 

Recently, this committee held a hearing regarding the Animas-La Plata project 

and the understated cost-estimate. As you know Commissioner, I shared my frustration with the Bureau and the Department about how we got in this predicament. 

I am sure you share my same frustration. As we look forward, I must say that I 

am concerned that this year’s funding request does not take into account this recent 

cost increase in the project. 

This year the administration proposes to replace the Western Water Initiative by 

Water 2025 and the request is $20 million, up $11.6 million from fiscal year 2004. 

The program is to continue to address critical Western water issues. The biggest 

change here is that this program is proposed to become a grant-based effort whereby 

local projects must meet criteria in order to be a recipient. The proposed cost-share 

is 50/50. 

Last year the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District was provided funds under 

the Western Water Initiative. I’d like to hear from you how this effort has improved 

the situation on the Rio Grande and elsewhere in the West. 

For the Corps in fiscal year 2005, the President has requested $4.215 billion, 

which is $356 million below the fiscal year 2004 enacted of $4.571 billion. There are 

a variety of policy changes, most of which I find ridiculous and irresponsible. Mr. 

Woodley, I will tell you that in many instances in the Corps’ budget it appears as 

if you cut the Corps’ budget and then after the fact, you tried to justify it by proposing a change in policy. 

The two that come to mind are the beach restoration policy which you propose 

to abolish. The second is the 29 projects, currently mid-construction—let me repeat, 

mid-construction—which you propose to cancel altogether. Now, how can you honestly propose to cancel a project half-way through construction, so that the Federal 

Government cannot realize any of the projects benefits and protections? I will tell 

you Mr. Woodley you will not find this provision enacted at the end of the year. 

The Corps’ request, like the Bureau’s, assumes again this year an offsetting collection for direct funding Power Marketing Association’s operation and maintenance 

activities. This provision is included in the current draft of the Energy Bill but does 
210 

not cover fiscal year 2005. The effect of not having this enacted is that it results 

in a further cut of $150 million making the true fiscal year 2005 request $4.065 billion, an 11 percent reduction from fiscal year 2004. 

I would like to share with my colleagues who may not already be aware, that the 

Corps is the project management agent in Iraq. They are the agency directly tasked 

with the physical reconstruction of Iraq because of both its expertise in project management on a large scale, and in the rehabilitation of critical infrastructure. 

I find it ironic that the Corps’ talent we are all relying on so heavily in Iraq is 

the very same one that is most negatively impacted by the administration’s budget. 

I believe that if the administration had its way, the Corps would merely become an 

operations and maintenance agency. I will tell you Mr. Woodley that the very Corps 

talent we are utilizing in Iraq was only developed as a direct result of its domestic 

work in all of our States. 

I think the administration is missing the point that this country’s economic wellbeing is closely linked to its waterways, be they rivers, harbors, or wetlands. Further, it is in our interest to ensure that we maintain these resources for our continued successful competition within the world marketplace. 

This country has an aging water resources infrastructure. For example, approximately 50 percent of the Bureau of Reclamation’s dams were built from 1900 to the 

1950’s, before the current state-of-the-art construction techniques, therefore they require special maintenance measures. Even though budgets are tight, I am concerned 

that no one is working to address this longer term problem. An aging infrastructure 

is one of those problems that we all put off until we absolutely have to, which in 

the end, will just cost us more and may very well endanger life and property. 

More importantly, the budget exercise we go through each year is not an effort 

to figure out how little we can spend, but one that carefully balances the greatest 

needs with our limited resources. 

I would like to talk today about the impact the proposed fiscal year 2005 budget 

will have on both agencies and what the Congress can do to ensure that they can 

continue to effectively manage the country’s water resources. 

On our first panel will be the Bureau of Reclamation. Appearing before us will 

be Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, John Keys, and Program Director 

Ronald Johnston from the CUP Office. 

I would like to welcome the members of the second panel from the Corps of Engineers. They are Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, John Paul Woodley, Jr.; Lieutenant General Flowers, Chief of Engineers; Major General Griffin, Director for 

Civil Works; and Rob Vining, Chief, Programs Management Division. 

I would ask both panels to keep your statements to 10 minutes if possible. 

Senator Reid would you like to make your opening remarks before we start off 

with the Commissioner? 

Senator DOMENICI. Now, having said that, if you don’t mind, 

Senator Reid, I will proceed on the basis of arrival, and—— 

Senator REID. Sure, that’s fine. 

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. Senator Burns has been waiting 

for a long time. 

Senator BURNS. I’d yield to the Ranking Member. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you so much. 

Senator Reid. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

Senator REID. Thank you very much, Senator Burns. Appreciate 

your courtesy. 

I first want to thank the witnesses that we’re going to have today 

for the two panels, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, 

and, of course, General Flowers, who knows—and the Assistant 

Secretary, John Woodley. 

It’s awkward and difficult, I know, for you to defend the budget 

proposals presented by the administration this year. For fiscal year 

2005, as my friend, Senator Domenici has indicated, the administration has proposed large spending increases for a number of our 

Nation’s defense and homeland security. And I support that. But 

to have a secure Nation includes things other than the things that 
211 

explode. We have to do what we can with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps to make sure that these projects also are 

funded at a level that we can live with. 

Everyone should understand, if we went forward with this budget, it would cost the American people more to shut the projects 

down than would be available for few remaining. It’s troubling. 

We cannot secure the homeland without a strong economy. We 

have with us today the Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations, Senator Cochran, an important new 

subcommittee. And I support the subcommittee and the problems 

that they have. 

Take, for example, water resource projects funded in this bill. 

They, in my opinion, are a significant part of our national economy 

and provide important and positive economic benefits. The chief of 

engineers cannot even recommend a project to this administration 

or this Congress unless the analysis shows that positive net economic benefits will accrue to the national economy. The same is 

true for the Commissioner of the Bureau. Therefore, the only conclusion I can draw from this budget is that the administration 

places our economy, our economic security, in a different category 

than our homeland security. I don’t share this view. I believe it’s 

shortsighted. 

Water resource infrastructure benefits every American. How 

many of us realize that a typical household uses only 50 to 85 gallons of water a day? However, it takes nearly 1,200 gallons of 

water per person per day to meet the needs of farmers, factories, 

electric utilities, and many other organizations that make it possible for us to have food on our table, a computer on our desk, and 

power for our homes. 

During a hundred years, the Bureau of Reclamation has had a 

major impact on life in the West. The first project ever in the history of the country was the Newlands Project in Northern Nevada, 

which is still operable. Without Bureau water projects, the western 

population economy could not be sustained. Certainly, that’s the 

case in the State of Nevada. 

The Bureau and the Corps water-storage projects have a total capacity of nearly 570-odd-million acre feet. This provides municipal 

and industrial water supply to millions of our citizens. The watersupply infrastructure provided by the Bureau and the Corps in the 

West are the lifeblood of the communities they serve. Without 

these investments, the tremendous population growth in our western States would not have been possible. Further, the tremendous 

bounty of our western farms could not be achieved without these 

projects. 

Today, the Bureau is having a major impact on many of our citizens’ lives in the Great Plains providing clean drinking water 

where many have never had it before. In many of our western 

States, the water that comes into people’s homes is the color of a 

strong cup of tea. Water out of the Colorado, until it’s strained, is 

like mud. When people try to wash their clothes without the work 

done by the agencies I’ve spoken of, it stains them. Sinks, tubs, and 

toilets are all stained by this water. The Bureau’s rural water programs have been a godsend to these communities. However, funding for these programs needs to be increased, not decreased. I’m 
212 

glad that, for the fiscal year 2005, the administration seems to recognize the worth of these programs. I hope so, anyway. 

Reclaimed water projects in the West have allowed many States 

to stretch their precious water resources. Nevada relies heavily on 

recycled water for golf courses and water features on the Las Vegas 

strip and for many other uses. Without this recycled water, Nevada 

would find it very difficult to live within its allocation on the Colorado River. Yet funding for these vital projects was again severely 

cut this year. 

The people preparing this budget don’t realize it, but the Federal 

limit for most of these projects is extremely low to begin with. The 

Federal dollars, when leveraged with the State and local dollars, 

make these projects viable. The Bureau and the Corps provide 

about 35 percent of the Nation’s hydroelectric power, which 

amounts to nearly 5 percent of the total U.S. electric capacity. Four 

out of five homes in the Northwest are powered by hydroelectric. 

The administration’s budget request contains a huge number of 

gimmicks designed to mask the huge deficits they’re running up. 

The administration has again recycled the hydropower gimmick for 

the Corps, and expanded it to include the Bureau. The budget proposal includes the assumption that the Power Marketing of the administration, as Senator Domenici has said, will contribute $30 

million toward operation and maintenance of Bureau hydropower 

facilities and $150 million toward Army Corps facilities. This is 

just absolutely foolishness. 

Enabling legislation of these proposals has not been enacted. We 

could ignore the proposal and not fund a portion of Bureau and 

Army Corps hydropower. This would have an extreme impact on 

electricity production. The other option is for us to appropriate the 

necessary funds. To take funding away from other priorities to fund 

this unfunded necessary task is—due to these budget gimmicks. 

This is the third straight year that the administration has included 

this proposal for the Army Corps, and we still don’t have the enabling legislation. 

One would think we’re sending the appropriate message in this 

proposal, but someone doesn’t understand it. Forty-one States are 

served by the Corps ports and waterways. These ports and waterways provide an integrated, efficient, and safe system for moving 

cargo. Two-point-three billion tons of cargo are moved through 

these ports and waterways. The value of this cargo to our national 

economy is $700 billion. Navigable waterways generate over 13 

million jobs and nearly $150 billion in Federal taxes. 

The budget proposal cuts operation and maintenance funding to 

low-use waterways and ports. This is akin to not funding snow removal on secondary streets, while completely clearing the interstate highway system. You end up with a great system with no way 

to fully utilize it. The same is true of low-use waterways and ports 

and their relations to our deepwater harbors. The inland waterway 

system operates as an integrated unit. Not funding a portion of it 

drags down other parts of the system. 

Average annual damages prevented by the Corps flood-control 

projects exceed $20 billion. From 1928 to 2000, cumulative flood 

damages prevented, when adjusted for inflation, were $709 billion, 

for an investment of $122 billion. That is nearly a 6:1 return. It’s 
213 

hard to find many things in the Federal budget that have a 6:1 

rate of return, and yet this area has been severely underfunded in 

the budget. Again, only the Simms Bayou, Eastern Texas project, 

and Westbank, in the vicinity New Orleans, projects were adequately funded. The Corps will likely have to juggle the funding 

shortfalls for remaining projects to keep work going on them. Remember what I said initially. To follow what we have in this budget would cost more than we would save, and that’s an understatement. 

The President’s budget proposals also include another new beach 

policy. It’s the third year in 3 years. This is the worst one yet. I 

have to believe that someone in the bowels of the administration 

that comes up with these policies isn’t thinking. Beaches are the 

leading tourist destination in our country. California beaches alone 

receive nearly 600 million tourist visits every year. This is more 

tourist visits than to all the lands controlled by the National Park 

Service and the Bureau of Land Management combined. Beach 

tourists contribute $260 million to the U.S. economy and $60 billion in Federal taxes, yet for this budget that we’re asked to approve, the administration has decided that the Federal Government 

should only participate in the initial construction of beach restoration, and that local interests should be responsible for all subsequent beach renourishments. This proposal tells our citizens that 

government will provide your initial storm-damage protection, but 

after we finish, you’re on your own. 

The impacts of this policy resonate through this budget, and are 

impacting execution of funding provided this year. Both the Corps 

and Bureau contribute to our Nation’s environmental protection. 

Over $1 billion, or 25 percent of the Army’s Corps fiscal appropriation, were targeted for environmental activities. Reclamation expended a similar percentage on their budget. 

One final note. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the Brazos 

Island Texas Project—the Island Harbor Texas Project. In fiscal 

year 2004, the first year of funding was provided to determine the 

Federal interest. The fiscal year 2005 budget has unilaterally determined that not only is the project in the Federal interest, but 

it should be funded for construction even though a feasibility study 

has not been conducted, nor has the project been authorized. Five 

hundred thousand dollars provided in the request to conduct a feasibility study, and $91⁄2 million was provided to construct this unauthorized project. I can’t remember a time when funding was provided for these two phases at the same time. This is astounding, 

in light of the fact that the administration is holding up funding 

for numerous projects that have been fully vetted by the Corps and 

the Assistant Secretary, yet the administration exempted this 

project not only from the entire review system, but also from being 

authorized by Congress for construction. This project should face 

the same scrutiny as all other projects, and I intend to treat this 

project the same as all other projects. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

It’s clear to me, and it should be clear to all of us, that investments in our water infrastructure strengthen our economy and, 

thereby, directly contribute to our homeland security. So I intend 
214 

to work with Senator Domenici, the full committee chairman, Senator Stevens, and Senator Byrd, to try to find additional resources 

to more adequately fund our water infrastructure. 

Thank you very much for your patience, and especially you, Senator Burns. 

[The information follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

Good morning. 

I am glad to be here today with my good friend, Senator Domenici and his staff 

as we work towards preparing our annual Energy and Water spending package. 

These hearings are intended to help us prepare our funding proposals. We depend 

on the open exchange of information that we receive in these hearings to explain 

and elaborate on the President’s budget proposals. 

However, most importantly, we will develop our appropriations bill by taking into 

account the needs of our Members and the American people. 

I want to thank our witnesses from the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers for appearing before us today. I know that it is both awkward 

and difficult for you to defend the budget proposals presented by the administration 

in this year’s budget. 

For fiscal year 2005, the administration has proposed large spending increases for 

our Nation’s defense and our homeland security, and yet the budget proposals for 

the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps are not only flat, they are counterproductive and will, if enacted, cost the American people more to shut projects down 

than will be available to move the few remaining. 

I find this very troubling. 

Homeland security has rightly been a priority within this administration. However, I do not believe that we can secure the homeland without a strong economy. 

The water resource projects funded in this bill are a significant part of our national economy and provide important and positive economic benefits. 

The Chief of Engineers cannot even recommend a project to this administration 

or this Congress unless the analysis shows that positive net economic benefits will 

accrue to the national economy. The same is true for the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Therefore, the only conclusion that I can draw from this budget is that the administration places our economic security in a different category than our homeland security. 

I do not share this shortsighted view. Water resource infrastructure benefits all 

of us. 

I wonder how many of us realize that the typical household only uses 50 to 85 

gallons of water a day. However, it takes nearly 1,200 gallons of water per person 

per day to meet the needs of farmers, factories, electrical utilities, and the many 

other organizations that make it possible for us to have food on our table, a computer on our desk and power for our homes. 

During their 100-year history, the Bureau of Reclamation has had a major impact 

on life in the west. Without Bureau water projects, the western population and economy could not be sustained, including my home State of Nevada. 

Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps water storage projects have a total capacity of nearly 575 million acre feet of storage and provide municipal and industrial 

water supply to millions of our citizens. The water supply infrastructure provided 

by the Bureau and the Army Corps in the West are the life blood of the communities they serve. Without these infrastructure investments the tremendous population growth in our western States would not have been possible. Further, the tremendous bounty of our western farms could not be achieved without these projects. 

Today the Bureau is having a major impact on many of our citizens’ lives in the 

Great Plains by providing clean drinking water where many have never had it before. In many of our western States, the water that comes into people’s homes is 

the color of a strong cup of tea. When people try to wash their clothes, it stains 

them. Sinks, tubs and toilets are all stained by this water. 

The Bureau’s rural water programs have been a godsend to these communities, 

however, funding for these programs needs to be increased. I am glad that for fiscal 

year 2005 the administration seems to recognize the worth of these programs after 

the devastating cuts made in fiscal year 2004 that Congress had to restore. 

Reclaimed water projects in the west have allowed many western States to stretch 

their precious water resources. My own State of Nevada heavily uses recycled water 

for the golf courses and water features on the Las Vegas Strip and for other uses. 
215 

Without recycled water, Nevada would find it very difficult to live within its 

300,000 acre-foot allocation of the Colorado River. 

Yet, funding for these vital projects was again severely cut this year. Perhaps the 

people preparing this budget don’t realize it, but the Federal limit for most of these 

projects is relatively low. However, the Federal dollars when leveraged with the 

State and local dollars make these projects viable. 

The Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers provide about 35 

percent of the Nation’s hydroelectric power which amounts to nearly 5 percent of 

the U.S. total electric capacity. Four out of five homes in the northwest are powered 

by hydroelectric power. 

As always, the administration’s budget request contains a huge number of budget 

gimmicks designed to mask the huge deficits they are running up. The administration has again recycled a hydropower gimmick for the Army Corps and expanded 

it to include the Bureau of Reclamation. The budget proposal includes the assumption that the Power Marketing Administrations will contribute $30 million towards 

operation and maintenance of Bureau of Reclamation hydropower facilities and $150 

million towards Army Corps facilities. 

Enabling legislation for these proposals has not been enacted. Absent this legislation, we have two choices. We could ignore the proposal and not fund this portion 

of Bureau and Army Corps hydropower. This would have extreme impacts on Federal hydropower production. 

The other option is for us to appropriate the necessary funds. That is, to take 

funding away from other priorities to fund this unfunded necessary task due to 

budget gimmicks. This is the third straight year that the administration has included this proposal for the Army Corps and enabling legislation has still not been 

enacted. One would think we were sending the appropriate message on this proposal, but obviously someone does not understand it. 

Forty-one States are served by Army Corps ports and waterways. These ports and 

waterways provide an integrated, efficient and safe system for moving bulk cargos. 

Two-point-three billion tons of cargo are moved though these ports and waterways. 

The value of this cargo to the national economy approaches $700 billion. Navigable 

waterways generate over 13 million jobs to the national economy and nearly $150 

billion in Federal taxes. 

The budget proposal again cuts operation and maintenance funding to ‘‘low use’’ 

waterways and ports. This is akin to not funding snow removal on secondary streets 

while completely clearing the interstate highway system. You end up with a great 

system with no way to fully utilize it. 

The same is true of ‘‘low use’’ waterways and ports and their relationship to our 

deepwater harbors. The inland waterway system operates as an integrated unit. Not 

funding a portion of it drags down other parts of the system. 

I am gratified to see that the budget proposal adequately funds the New York and 

New Jersey Harbor project as well as the Olmstead Lock and Dam project on the 

Ohio River, however, it does this at the expense of all of the other navigation 

projects. Only these two chosen projects will be able to initiate any new work for 

fiscal year 2005. All of the projects will have to limp by on the remaining funding. 

Average annual damages prevented by Army Corps flood control projects exceed 

$20 billion. From 1928–2000, cumulative flood damages prevented when adjusted 

for inflation were $709 billion for an investment of $122 billion, adjusted for inflation. That is nearly a 6 to 1 return on this infrastructure investment. 

It is hard to find many things in the Federal budget that have a 6 to 1 rate of 

return, and yet this area has been severely underfunded in the budget. Again, only 

the Sims Bayou, Houston, Texas, project and the West Bank and Vicinity, New Orleans, project were adequately funded. The Army Corps will likely have to juggle 

the funding shortfalls for the remaining projects to keep work going on them. 

The President’s budget proposal has also included another ‘‘new’’ beach policy, his 

third in 3 years. This is the worst one yet. I have to believe that someone in the 

bowels of the administration that comes up with these policies is just not thinking 

them through. 

Beaches are the leading tourist destination in the United States. California beaches alone receive nearly 600 million tourist visits annually. This is more tourist visits 

than to all of the lands controlled by the National Park Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management combined. 

Beach tourists contribute $260 billion to the U.S. economy and $60 billion in Federal taxes. 

And yet, for fiscal year 2005, the administration has decided that the Federal 

Government should only participate in the initial construction of beach restoration 

projects and that the local interests should be responsible for all subsequent beach 

renourishments needed over the 50 year life of the project. 
216 

This proposal tells our citizens, that the government will provide your initial 

storm damage protection, but after we finish, you’re on your own! 

The impacts of this beach policy resonate throughout the fiscal year 2005 budget 

and are impacting execution of funding provided in fiscal year 2004. 

Both the Army Corps and the Bureau contribute to our Nation’s environmental 

protection. Over $1 billion, or about 25 percent, of the Army Corps’ fiscal year 2004 

appropriations was targeted for environmental activities. Reclamation expended a 

similar percentage of their budget on these important activities. 

One final note about the President’s proposal that I would be remiss if I did not 

mention is the Brazos Island Harbor, Texas, project. In fiscal year 2004, first year 

funding was provided to determine the Federal interest. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget proposal has unilaterally determined that not only 

is the project in the Federal interest, it should be funded for construction, even 

though a feasibility study has not been conducted nor has the project been authorized for construction. Five hundred thousand dollars is provided in the request to 

conduct a feasibility study and $9.5 million was provided to construct this unauthorized project. I cannot remember a time when funding was provided for these two 

phases at the same time. 

This is astounding in light of the fact that the administration is holding up funding for numerous projects that have been fully vetted by the Army Corps and the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Yet the administration has exempted this project not only from the entire review system established by the administration, but also from being authorized by Congress for construction. 

I believe this project should face the same scrutiny as all of the other projects in 

the President’s proposal and intend to treat this project the same as all other 

projects as we prepare our Bill. 

It is clear to me and should be clear to all of us that investments in our water 

infrastructure strengthen our economy and thereby directly contribute to our homeland security. 

I intend to work with Chairman Domenici, Chairman Stevens, and Ranking Member Byrd to try to find additional resources to more adequately fund our water infrastructure. 

Thank you Senator Domenici. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Senator Reid. 

Let me ask the other Senators if they desire to speak. I’m more 

than willing to let them. This is a very, very serious budget. 

Senator Stevens and Senator Cochran were not here when I said 

this, and I will not repeat my remarks. I will just tell you that on 

both budgets, they are slim; but, in addition, in each of the two 

budgets, the OMB assumed that we would do something that we 

can’t do. Power Marketing is assumed as something that will be 

done that will cause us to raise money. Since that won’t happen, 

the net effect is that we’re $180 million short in the Corps and the 

Bureau combined, $180 million. That’s a lot of money, when you 

figure that that’s below the line, less than what we would expect, 

based on last year’s budget. I don’t know how we’re going to do it, 

but I just want you to know that. 

Now, who should go next, based—— 

Senator STEVENS. Senator, could I just make a comment? 

Senator DOMENICI. Absolutely. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. I came by to tell the committee that I was 

privileged to attend a meeting about Brazil, and I was staggered 

to find that Brazil had changed its dependence on foreign oil, imported oil, from 70 percent to 17 percent by reassessing all its hydroelectric potential and by having a crash program of investment 

in hydro potential. 

I would like to ask that both of the panels—Mr. Keys and the 

Corps—deliver to the committee past studies of the hydroelectric 
217 

potential of the United States. And I don’t care where it is. If those 

lands have—some of these lands have been withdrawn now in 

order to prevent the hydro potential, I think we should have a complete review of the hydro potential. We’re in a period of escalating 

gasoline prices, and we face, soon, escalation in even the price of 

natural gas because of our increased dependence upon imported 

natural gas. 

I do think it’s one of our duties now to reassess all the alternative forms of energy that are available, and let the American 

public decide whether some of these hydroelectric projects should 

be constructed now, and that we should shift to a period of investment in future hydro potential. 

I would also ask your consent, your agreement, to let me place 

in the record the answers to a series of questions that General 

Flowers was kind enough to deliver to me. We did have a visit 

some time ago, before the recess, and I asked him some specific 

questions about Alaska, and he has delivered the answers to me, 

and I’d like those printed in the record. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator DOMENICI. Senator, they will be made a part of the 

record. 

And we will consider your two questions as if they were asked. 

And you understand, Commissioner, that that’s been asked of you? 

Is General Flowers here yet? 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I have the questions and answers right 

here. 

Senator DOMENICI. All right. 

Senator STEVENS. I can put them in the record, if that’s all right. 

Senator DOMENICI. Those are Alaska. 

Senator STEVENS. They’re Alaska Corps of Engineers project 

questions. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes, but with reference to your request that 

there be an assessment of potential water projects, in terms of 

hydro—— 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I just want—they’ve done already—I 

know they did—they did some of them when I was down there, in 

the 1950’s, but I think they updated those later. 

Senator DOMENICI. All right. 

Senator STEVENS. All right? 

Senator DOMENICI. We’ll get that. 

Senator STEVENS. That was in the last century, Mr. President. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes, I understand. 

I mean, you are very viable. I don’t know how many more centuries you’ll be here, but—— 

You will outlive us. 

I want to comment, with reference to your last observation regarding hydro, that the Senator sitting by you, right there, Senator 

Larry Craig, has been working on hydro, the permitting process, 

which has been very cumbersome. He’s been working on, in fact, 

the energy bill, had a tremendous reform that would have moved 

projects, of the type the Senator from Alaska’s talking about, in a 

much more expedited—and yet safe, from the standpoint of the environment. It got through. If we don’t do the energy bill, who 
218 

knows where it will go, but we aren’t going to give up on modernizing the permitting system. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, Senator, God willing, if I’m able to so, I 

intend to invite Members of the Full Committee to take a trip to 

Brazil after the election and see what they have done. This is a 

staggering concept of reversing a total dependence—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Terrific. 

Senator STEVENS [continuing]. On foreign oil and replacing it 

with alternative forms of energy in your own country. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, Senator, I just want, before you leave, 

to reiterate to you, when you start allocating the money—and I 

know you have an insurmountable problem, but you should know 

that you can’t use the administration numbers as if we can get the 

job done with them, because, in each case, there is a very big 

amount of money that is assumed in that budget that will not 

occur. In each case, they assume things like the Power Marketing, 

which is a big one—and what’s the other one? Yucca Mountain 

piece that they assume, and other things. 

Now, Senators who are here—Senator Burns, would you like to 

comment? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just have one comment. When you look at this budget, knowing the projects we’ve 

got, I think we ought to try to do what we’re supposed to do, and 

focus on our highest priorities. Now, I guess that’s pretty easy to 

say when you come from a watershed State, where we’re hurting 

a little bit in some of our irrigation districts, and we need some 

help. 

So, I just want to make sure we keep this in mind when we set 

the priorities on what we’re about and what we’re supposed to be 

doing. In our part of the country food production is very important, 

and we’ve got a big problem with the Milk River that we’d like to 

start addressing. This budget will not get everything done, but we 

want to work with you and do everything we can. 

There are some private entities that are willing to take over irrigation districts. Willing to take over. They’ve already paid them off. 

And yet we come to the government, and we say, ‘‘Well, now, we’d 

like to turn these back and—turn them over to private entities, 

where they paid money in, where they pay for the water, they pay 

for everything, and willing to do it,’’ and yet we run into a stone 

wall about getting these irrigation systems moved into private entities because—they just don’t want to release it because they’re 

afraid they’ll lose their job or something. I don’t know what it is. 

But anytime that you’ve got the private sector wanting to take over 

something that’s costing us money, and they’re willing to assume 

the responsibilities of it, I think we ought to look very closely at 

that and how it impacts on our budget, year in and year out. 

So I’ve got another meeting to go to now, but I just want to 

thank the Bureau of Rec. and also the Corps of Engineers. We’ve 

had a great year in Montana, and we’ve worked together on some 

projects that are really going to make a positive impact. But we 

also have some very serious problems that we have to look at and 

come up with some imaginative ways to deal with those problems. 
219 

And I think we can do this in a way that benefits both the people 

who live there and also the American taxpayer. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. 

Senator Cochran. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have 

a statement specifically dealing with the budget request for the 

Corps of Engineers, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed 

in the record. 

Senator DOMENICI. It’ll be made part of the record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming the witnesses to this hearing. 

I appreciate the good work the Corps of Engineers does in the State of Mississippi. I do, however, have some serious concerns with the Corps’ ability to continue to carry out its responsibilities due to declining levels of funding. 

The Corps’ ability to accomplish their mission is becoming more than a serious 

challenge. I am disappointed in the budget request for the Civil Works program. 

More funding would provide greater economic and environmental benefits, as well 

as improved safety and security for our Nation’s citizens. 

Locks and dams that allow for more efficient and environmentally responsible 

movement of goods on our waterways continue to deteriorate, and the Corps continues to struggle to find the resources to dredge waterways that carry commercial 

cargo such as the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, not to mention many other smaller 

waterways. The maintenance backlog also continues to grow and become more serious. 

In addition, we are not adequately constructing or maintaining important flood 

control structures that are needed in many areas. 

I appreciate the efforts by General Flowers to meet the demands being made on 

the Corps, and I congratulate him on his exemplary service as Chief of Engineers. 

Since he’s retiring later this year, it may be the last time he appears before the subcommittee. I congratulate him on his outstanding service to the country. 

Senator DOMENICI. Is that it? 

Senator COCHRAN. Yeah. 

Senator DOMENICI. All right. 

Senator Dorgan. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, let me be brief, but I have another Appropriations subcommittee hearing going on just around 

the corner on this floor, and I’m involved in that, as well, so I won’t 

be able to listen to all of the testimony. But I wanted to underscore 

the points you made. Water policy is critically important, and funding these represent not just ordinary expenditures, they represent 

good investments in the future that provide, in most cases, very 

high returns. 

And I wanted to say to Commissioner Keys that last Thanksgiving, as you know, the people of Fort Yates, on the Indian reservation, lost their water because of a problem with the Missouri 

River intake. And for several days, these folks, 8,000 of them, had 

no water at all. And, Mr. Chairman, I should just tell you that the 

employees of the Bureau were down there working through the 

Thanksgiving holiday. They did a remarkable job. And your employees deserve a real big, hearty thank you. They worked around 
220 

the clock during the Thanksgiving holiday, and they got water restored. 

But this relates to the need for a permanent solution down there. 

It relates to the management of the Missouri River by the Corps 

of Engineers. And it relates to bigger and broader issues that we 

have to address. We also need to deal with the rural water needs. 

Commissioner Keys, you were with us when we broke ground for 

the NAWS Project, which, by all accounts, is a great project, known 

as great to everyone except the Office of Management and Budget, 

apparently. Despite the fact that they don’t allege there’s anything 

wrong with it; they just put it as part of this PART process and 

don’t fund it well enough. And then we also need to continue the 

flood-control project underway at Grand Forks, and complete that. 

So this subcommittee has an enormous charge, and all of it is 

critically important. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with 

you and other Members of the subcommittee to find ways to meet 

our obligations and to work with the Corps and the Bureau to get 

done what we need done. We need the Red River Valley studies in 

Eastern North Dakota. I won’t recite my displeasure with the 

Corps and the master-manual rewrite right now, but—— 

Senator DOMENICI. I understand. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator DORGAN. I’ll do that later. 

But thank you very much. And let me say, again, the part of the 

Chairman’s statement and the part of Senator Reid’s statement I 

heard is right on point. These are critically needed investments, 

and we need to find a way to do them. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Assistant Secretary Woodley, Mr. Keys and General Flowers, I welcome you to our 

subcommittee, and I thank you for your testimony. In North Dakota, we have enormous water challenges and depend greatly on the assistance of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation for flood control, irrigation, and municipal, 

rural and industrial water needs. The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2005 

does not give your agencies the funding you need to accomplish the great challenges 

ahead of you in my State and throughout the Nation. 

I am very concerned that the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget submission for 

water projects falls dramatically short of the investment that will be needed. The 

President proposes cutting nearly $356 million from the Army Corps of Engineers 

and $28 million from the Bureau of Reclamation’s Water and Related Resources program. These cuts are coming at a time when the Federal Drought Monitor shows 

that almost every western State, including North Dakota, remains in drought. In 

North Dakota, low lake levels at Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe, two major lakes 

on the Missouri River created by the Federal Government in an effort to eliminate 

annual flooding of river lowlands, are causing extreme problems for communities 

that depend on these lakes for their water supply. We had a crisis earlier this year 

at Standing Rock Indian Reservation when the community of Ft. Yates lost water 

due to the low lake levels on Lake Oahe. To respond to this emergency, the Bureau 

had to divert already limited municipal, rural and industrial funds designated for 

other tribal projects. Other communities along Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe are 

in danger of suffering the same fate. Already, economies dependent on recreational 

uses of the lake have been devastated due to low lake levels and now the water supplies are also in danger. 

I blame this on the Corps’ mismanagement of the Missouri River. The Corps had 

the opportunity to change their management practices on the river to practices that 

would have produced a net benefit for the entire country. Instead, the Corps issued 

its revised Master Manual last month which simply kept the status quo. 
221 

Needless to say, I am unhappy with this so called ‘‘revision.’’ In the President’s 

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request for the Army Corps he stated, ‘‘A concerted effort 

by this Administration and the Congress is needed to ensure that the ongoing and 

future efforts of the Corps are environmentally sustainable, economically responsible, and fiscally sound. Achieving this goal will require a transformation in cultural attitudes.’’ The President is correct in his assumption that attitudes must 

change in order for us to reap the economic benefits from water projects such as 

the Missouri River Basin. 

The President’s Budget Request further states, ‘‘In developing its budget proposal 

for 2005, the Corps assessed the relative merits of each potential investment in each 

of its program areas. This approach represents an important step towards the President’s goal of making fiscally responsible funding decisions based more on results 

and less on factors such as ‘what did they get last year.’ This is the essence of the 

Corps’ performance-based budget. The Administration funds activities that will yield 

the greatest net benefit to society per dollar invested.’’ 

I wish it could be said that the Corps actually took this type of approach when 

revising the Master Manual. Studies show that every dollar the public spends to operate and maintain the Missouri River only generates 40.6¢ in transportation savings to barge companies, export elevators, importers and grain producers. It has 

been further shown that the actual O&M expenses for the Missouri River ($7.1 million) exceed the net benefits provided by the barging industry ($6.9 million). This, 

to me, seems like a waste of taxpayer funding. (There are only three barging companies currently operating on the MO River). If the administration is serious in its 

efforts to focus funding on those activities that will yield the greatest net benefit 

to society as a whole, then it would seem that reforming the management practices 

on the Missouri River would be an initiative the Corps would take seriously and 

address in a manner more consistent with the administration’s directive. 

I hope the ‘‘revised’’ Master Manual is something the Corps will continue to look 

at and is not something they feel no longer needs to be reevaluated. I believe the 

Corps should do more than simply reprint the 1979 Master Manual. The people of 

the Missouri River Basin deserve and expect more. The towns and communities that 

have grown dependent on the reservoirs and river need to know what they can expect from the Federal Government in the future. They need to know that the government is more concerned with the safety and welfare of the Nation, rather than 

simply a few downstream barge companies. We need to reevaluate and set the goals 

for our future use on the river and judging from the past, the status quo is no longer 

an option. 

As you know, my top priority within the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget is adequate funding for the Garrison project. A total of 155,000 acres of Ft. Berthold Indian Reservation land was taken for building the second-largest earth filled dam in 

America, the Garrison Dam-Lake Sakakawea project. The water divided the Reservation down the middle. The Federal Government owes this tribe and others in 

North Dakota for its sacrifice for the Nation. We have promised, in an authorization 

bill, to provide $200 million for Indian municipal, rural and industrial water needs 

and $200 million for State MR&I. But this administration’s budget once again fails 

to come through on that promise recommending only recommending $22.1 million 

for the Garrison project which does not even maintain the historic funding level, ignores the needs of the current program and does not keep up with the price increases expected in the major programs as delays occur. This year, the budget only 

provides about $5.485 million for rural water projects—half for the State program 

which includes the Northwest Area Supply (NAWS) and the other half for Indian 

programs. This is almost $45 million short of what North Dakota needs for Indian 

and State MR&I. We simply must do better or the costs of this project are going 

to overwhelm us in the outgoing years. If the current funding trend, a disaster will 

occur in only a few years when an additional $30 million will be needed for the Red 

River Valley program. 

I am also very concerned about the impact of the President’s budget recommendation for the Grand Forks/East Grand Forks Flood Control Project. This year, the 

President only recommends $31 million for this project which is nearly $24 million 

short of the amount that will be needed to bring the project to substantial completion. We are so close to providing this community permanent flood control protection 

and I just don’t understand why the administration would not choose to finish the 

project this year. A wet spring recently caused severe flooding in areas just west 

of Grand Forks and we are once again reminded that the community is not safe 

from another flood until this permanent protection project is finished. This subcommittee has invested so much into that project and I will be asking for my colleagues for their help in getting this project substantially completed this year before 
222 

FEMA remaps the area only to have to spend the money to do it again after the 

project is completed. 

As you’ll see, I think we have a lot of challenges in front of us but I thank you 

for appearing before us today. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. 

Senator Larry Craig. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be brief. I got here 

late, but I do want to make a couple of opening comments because 

it’s an opportunity to have John before us to talk about issues that 

are obviously critical. 

And, let’s see, Commissioner, have you gone to Idaho yet? When 

are you going? 

Commissioner KEYS. I’m sorry, sir? 

Senator CRAIG. I thought you were going to go to Idaho this coming week. 

Commissioner KEYS. I am there the 6th and 7th of May to—— 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. 

Commissioner KEYS [continuing]. Work with them on the groundwater issue. 

Senator CRAIG. Right. I knew that you were—that your trip out 

there was timely in relation to what’s happening in Idaho, but also 

what’s happening in the West, Mr. Chairman. 

I just, during this Easter break, spent time with the Twin Falls 

Irrigation Company, the Twin Falls Canal Company. For the 

record, Mr. Chairman, that is one of the largest irrigation companies in the State of Idaho, that irrigates all—from, you know, Bureau of Rec. development programs, the whole development of the 

central/mid Snake River Basin area. 

Here is what I concluded from them, and here is what we have 

to conclude in the West today. The West is drying up, and it’s getting progressively drier. And it is now extended over a near 10-year 

period, Mr. Chairman. Lake Meade is—or Lake Powell is at an alltime low since it was filled. Lake Meade is down. There is a guesstimate now, and the figures would show the progressive decline in 

the flow of the Snake River is upwards of 500,000 acre feet now, 

on an annualized basis. Every chart I see over the last decade 

shows a decline in overall springs and spring recharge. You’re 

going out to talk about the need to try to recharge the Snake River 

Plain Aquifer and the Federal impediments that may or may not 

exist there as it relates to doing that. 

It quit raining and snowing in Idaho the 1st of March after what 

appeared to be a very good wet winter, and it hasn’t snowed or 

rained since. 

Senator DOMENICI. What was that date? 

Senator CRAIG. First of March. The snow is evaporating or going 

into the ground, our rivers are showing little to no spring surge, 

and many of our reservoirs are nearly empty. The great American 

Falls Reservoir irrigation system, that reservoir will not spill this 

year. It appears that it may get only to 70 percent capacity. 

The West is in deep water trouble. It’s also an area where everyone else wants to share water that was once dedicated for another 

purposes, and so the conflicts are growing, whether it is fish, or 
223 

whether it is human consumption. It also is a segment of the region that is growing the fastest of any in the United States. Whether it’s Idaho and Idaho’s growth, or New Mexico, or Arizona, or Nevada, all of it’s growing, and growing faster than any segment. And 

yet the one resource that will dictate its growth or dictate how people live is the resource of water. And, frankly, we’re doing nothing 

to add to the overall capacity of the systems. 

We started dewatering the State of Idaho a decade ago, when we 

decided that it was important that we leave some water in the system for purposes of flush for fish, and we haven’t added any upstream capacity. We’ve brought more water in that was once dedicated for something else, which meant water was leaving the 

ground to go into the system. 

But it is an alarming figure. And I have a variety of charts here 

in front of me, but probably this is the most significant one. That’s 

a decade of flow in the Snake River system, all of it in decline. 

Used to be we had 5- to 6-year cycles. It’s very difficult to find a 

decade or more of progressive decline in overall flows. 

I say that today—Mr. Chairman, you’ve experienced it in New 

Mexico, throughout the West. The arid, high-desert West is getting 

drier. And the one agency that can play a role in helping is your 

agency. And the problem we have today is that the idea—and the 

chairman of the full committee talked about hydro projects and 

putting dams in rivers—oh, how dare we even think about that 

idea again—but there is capacity in the systems off main stem, in 

areas that would have little environmental impact, to increase the 

overall abundance of water in an arid West, and much of that could 

be dedicated to in-stream flow to increase water quality within the 

main-stem systems. And yet even some of our environmental 

friends will ignore the obvious, because they have dedicated themselves to being anti- and not pro-environment in many instances. 

That’s a conflict we’re into, but it was brought to reality this 

week, this past week, when I sat down with Idaho’s largest irrigation company and saw their dramatic declines in overall resource. 

And they’re now rushed to manage, rushed to conserve, as we grow 

increasingly drier in the West. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. 

Now, when you say the Bureau of Reclamation can help with 

this, let me say publicly that this gentleman has tried mightily, but 

the truth of the matter is they’ve made some mistakes in the past 

year. The biggest one is the Animas-La Plata, which turns out to 

be Animas-La Plata Lite. And even with Animas-La Plata Lite, 

they have messed up the estimates terribly. They promise me that 

they’re going to fix it, and they’re going to come back with estimates that are right, and spread it out a little bit so it doesn’t beat 

our budget up. How could we pay for it with what we’ve got? I 

mean, if they end up with 40 to 50 million dollars that they need, 

they can’t get it. We can’t pay for projects right now that have, you 

know, been going for a long, long time. 

My last remarks are directed at OMB. I honestly don’t believe 

that, in considering the budget, that they consider any of the 

things we’ve been talking about here. It’s pure numbers. You know, 

pure numbers. Can you imagine to come up and say we’ve got a 
224 

new water program he put in it for the West, and we put $20 million in it? You know, $20 million? We need a revolving fund of a 

billion dollars, with grants and matching funds. Anybody that sees 

that—sees what’s going on out there knows that. 

Now, enough of us. Let’s hear the Commissioner. 

Proceed. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KEYS

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Chairman, good morning. It’s my absolute pleasure to be here today to talk about the President’s fiscal 

year 2000 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation. 

We do appreciate all the support that we’ve had from the committee, and certainly look forward to working with you on Bureau 

projects in the future. 

I have a statement for the record that has been sent forward that 

I would certainly appreciate your including as part of the record. 

Senator DOMENICI. It will be made part of the record. 

Commissioner KEYS. Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley, Assistant Secretary of Water and Science, could not be here today, and 

he has also submitted a statement that we would appreciate being 

put in the record. 

Senator DOMENICI. It will be made part of the record. 

Commissioner KEYS. And I have with me Ron Johnston, who is 

here to talk, if you would like, about the Central Utah Project 

Completion Act, and I have Bob Wolf and Pam Hayes, our budget 

folks, with us if we need further information from them. 

Mr. Chairman, before I get to the budget, we would like to update you on water-supply situation in the Western United States. 

This year, unfortunately, as we’ve talked about, the drought remains with us and—put the green one up first, the big one—— 

Senator DOMENICI. I didn’t read your testimony beforehand, I’m 

sorry, Mr. Commissioner, but thank goodness you’re covering this. 

Please proceed. 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Chairman, you talked about growth in 

the West, and this first chart shows exactly what you were talking 

about. In the decade between 1990 and 2000, State of Nevada grew 

by 60 percent, State of Arizona by 40 percent, Colorado and Idaho 

by 30 percent, New Mexico by 20 percent. That, in itself, tells you 

some of the crisis and conflict that we face in the Western United 

States. 

The next chart shows that annual precipitation that we have depended on for a number of years, and certainly you can see that 

in the Western United States it ranges somewhere from 3 inches 

up to an average of less than 20 inches in most places. 

Now, if you consider the drought that we’re in, it almost looks 

like a bulls-eye on the Western United States. In the year 2003, 

there was only one State out of the 17 that Reclamation works with 

that experienced normal or above precipitation; that was California. This year, we’re started out, and there’s even some dry in 

Southern California that was not there last year. We anticipate it 

being a dry year, and certainly we’re trying to manage toward that. 

Now, one of the efforts that we have entered into in trying to 

look at the drought, look at the demands for water and the conflict 

and crisis that we could get into is the Water 2025 Program. This 
225 

is a chart that we put together as part of that to show those hotspots in the Western United States. Hot-spots, meaning that they 

would have water requirements from exploding populations, from 

demands from the Endangered Species Act, demands from other 

fish and wildlife, from new industry, from new requirements that 

we didn’t even know about. These are the hot-spots that we are 

trying to deal with in the Western United States. 

Now, with that said, I would go to the information on the fiscal 

year 2005 budget. The overall Reclamation budget totals $956 million in current authority and is offset by discretionary receipts from 

the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund of $46 million, and hydropower direct financing of $30 million. While the request is partially offset by underfinancing of $36 million, I’m concerned that increasing above this amount, as has occurred in the recent past, 

may adversely affect our ability to address activities at our aging 

infrastructure. And I look forward to working with the committee 

to identify ways to address this critical area. 

Our 2005 budget request continues the President’s commitment—— 

Yes, sir? 

Senator DOMENICI. Commissioner, did that last statement, that 

you want to work with us on these critical areas, were those presented to OMB? 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Chairman, the under-financing is a figure that we work with the committee directly on every year. We 

propose a level of under-financing that we think makes good business sense, and then you work with us to see what it should be. 

In the past 2 years, it’s actually been quite a bit more than we had 

recommended. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, let me tell you, that’s a very, very risky 

business. When you have a budget that’s as tight as this budget, 

everywhere—you know, we don’t know how we’re going to do that, 

because every year the chairman of the committee that makes the 

allocations has mercy on us and gives us a little bit of allocation 

over an amount. But what if they don’t do it this year? Then, you 

know, you better be prepared to tell us what can we cut or hold 

from your ongoing projects that we can use to keep this—you know, 

the parts that are desperate, to keep them alive. 

I don’t know how. I’ve looked at it, and I don’t know where the 

heck we’re going to—I don’t know where we’re going to get the 

money. 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Chairman, we certainly will work with 

you every step of the way on that. 

Senator DOMENICI. Good. 

Commissioner KEYS. Our fiscal year 2000 continues the President’s commitment to a more citizen-centered government founded 

on the principle of getting results rather than creating process, as 

well as the Secretary’s four C’s, ‘‘conservation through consultation, 

cooperation, and communication.’’ 

The request also continues to emphasize the operation and maintenance of Reclamation facilities in a safe, efficient, economic, and 

reliable manner while sustaining the health and integrity of ecosystems that address the water needs of a growing population. 
226 

Mr. Chairman, the highlights of our budget are—the Water 2025 Program in 2005 requests $20 million. That request would continue 

Secretary Norton’s 2025 Initiative, building off of the fiscal year 

2004 Western Water Initiative. Water 2025 is a high priority for 

Reclamation, focusing resources, both financial and technical, on 

areas of the West where conflict and crisis over water either exist 

now or can be predicted and prevented using the tools to deal with 

the realities outlined in the initiative. 

Water 2025 provides Federal seed money in the form of competitive grants with performance measures to empower local citizens 

and communities to do what the government cannot do alone. Our 

fiscal year 2004 budget included $4 million in the Western Water 

Initiative for these competitive grants. This request is about $20 

million for those competitive grants. 

In the Klamath Project, in Oregon and California, we’re asking for $25 million. The fiscal year 2005 request continues and increases funding for our efforts in the Klamath Basin that will improve water supplies to meet competing demands for water in the 

Basin and ensure continued delivery of water to this project. Coupled with efforts from other Federal agencies, Interior is proposing 

over $67 million in fiscal year 2005 to keep its commitment to help 

restore the Basin, provide water necessary to meet the needs of the 

farmers. 

Now, on the Middle Rio Grande Project, we’re asking for $18 million. The fiscal year 2005 request continues funding in support of 

the Endangered Species Collaborative Program. In addition, the request continues funding for requiring supplemental water, doing 

the necessary channel maintenance, and government-to-government consultation with Pueblos and tribes. The funding will continue efforts that support the protection and contribute to the recovery of the Rio Grande silvery minnow and the southwestern willow flycatcher. 

One effort that—— 

Senator DOMENICI. How much less is that than the previous 

year? 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Chairman, our request for fiscal year 2005 is $1 million more than it was in fiscal year 2004. 

Senator DOMENICI. We don’t have that number. We ought to con- sult on that. We have a number that it’s $14 million less. But, anyway—— 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Chairman, we’d certainly work with 

you on that number. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. 

Commissioner KEYS. On the Animas-La Plata Project in Colorado 

and New Mexico, we’re requesting $52 million. The Animas-La 

Plata Project is currently under construction and resolves, through 

authorizing legislation passed by the Congress in 2000, longstanding Indian water-right claims in the Basin. 

In response to your comments before, I can assure you that Reclamation has made changes in the personnel on the project and the 

procedures that we are using to complete the project as it was designed, and to ensure that we don’t run into those problems on 

other projects throughout the Western United States. Those 

changes have been made. We are continuing to look at the organi-
227 

zation and our engineering expertise to be sure that it is there for 

another century to come. On site security, we have asked for $43 million in fiscal year 

2005. The funding request is necessary to cover the cost of site-security activities, including surveillance and law enforcement, 

antiterrorism activities, including physical, information, and personnel security, and threat management, and physical emergency 

security upgrades, with the primary focus on our national critical 

infrastructure facilities. 

I do want to call your attention to a change that will be occurring 

in how we address the cost of site-security activities. Beginning in 

fiscal year 2005, annual costs associated with activities for guarding our facilities will be treated as project operation and maintenance cost, subject to reimbursibility based upon project cost allocations. You’ll be hearing more on this approach in the future. Our Safety of Dams Program, we ask for $64 million in fiscal 

year 2005. As our infrastructure ages, we must direct increasing 

resources toward upgrading and maintaining our facilities through 

the use of science and new technologies to ensure the continued reliability so important to our western stakeholders. The fiscal year 

2005 request is being made to reduce risks to public safety, particularly those identified as having deficiencies. 

On the Rural Water Program, we have asked for $67.5 million. 

The fiscal year 2005 funding for rural water projects emphasizes a 

commitment to completing ongoing municipal, rural, and industrial 

systems. This one, in fact, would complete the Mid-Dakota project 

in South Dakota that we’ve been working on. Funding is included 

for the Mni Wiconi, Mid-Dakota, Garrison, Lewis and Clark, and 

Perkins County projects. 

The administration will convene an interagency group to review 

programs of all Federal agencies with rural water infrastructure 

needs. We just, about 3 weeks ago, working with your office and 

Mr. Bingaman, submitted a new bill for which you have sponsored, 

Senate Bill 2218, the Reclamation Rural Water Act of 2004. That, 

we think, will give us a good structured approach to addressing 

rural water needs in the future, and give us a better way to handle 

them than we have been working with in the past. In talking about the hydropower direct financing, that’s the $30- 

million figure that we had talked about before. The fiscal year 2005 

budget proposes to finance the cost of operation and maintenance 

of certain Reclamation hydropower facilities directly from receipts 

collected by the Western Area Power Administration. Each year, 

Western Area Power Administration would transfer an agreedupon amount to the Bureau of Reclamation for deposit in its ‘‘water 

and related resources’’ account. A direct-funding arrangement already is in place with the Bonneville Power Administration. 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to strongly reiterate that 

the fiscal year 2005 budget request demonstrates Reclamation’s 

commitment to meeting the water and power needs of the West in 

a fiscally responsible manner. This budget continues Reclamation’s 

commitment to sound water-resources management and the delivery and management of those valuable resources. Our goals for 
228 

2005 and accomplishments for fiscal year 2003 are described in my 

official statement, and I’d be glad to provide more detail if you 

would like. 

That concludes my prepared remarks, and I would certainly 

stand for any questions that you might have today. 

[The statements follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KEYS, III 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reid, and members of the subcommittee, thank 

you again for the opportunity to appear before you today to support the President’s 

fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation. With me today is 

Bob Wolf, Director of Program and Budget. 

Our fiscal year 2005 request has been designed to support Reclamation’s mission 

of delivering water and generating hydropower, ‘‘consistent with applicable state 

and Federal law, in an environmentally responsible and cost efficient manner.’’ 

Funding is proposed for key projects that are important to the Department and 

in line with administration objectives. The budget request also supports Reclamation’s participation in efforts to meet emerging water supply needs to promote water 

conservation and sound water resource management, and help prevent conflict and 

crises over water in the west. 

The fiscal year 2005 current authority request for Reclamation totals $956.3 million and is offset by discretionary receipts in the Central Valley Project Restoration 

Fund of $46.4 million and proposed hydropower direct financing of $30.0 million. In 

addition, Reclamation’s program includes permanent authority of $90.6 million. The 

total program, after offsets to current authority and the inclusion of permanent authority is $970.5 million. 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

The fiscal year 2005 request for the Water and Related Resources account is 

$828.5 million. The request provides funding for five major program activities: 

Water and Energy Management and Development ($376.4 million); Land Management and Development ($39.4 million); Fish and Wildlife Management and Development ($82.7 million); Facility Operations ($188.6 million); and Facility Maintenance 

and Rehabilitation ($178.0 million). The request is partially offset by an undistributed reduction of $36.6 million, commonly referred to as underfinancing, in anticipation of delays in construction schedules and other planned activities. 

The request continues to emphasize the operation and maintenance of Reclamation facilities in a safe, efficient, economic, and reliable manner, while meeting our 

requirements to sustain the health and integrity of ecosystems that are connected 

to those operations. It will also assist the States, tribes, and local entities in solving 

contemporary water resource issues in advance of crises over water. 

Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2005 Request for Water and Related Resources include: 

Water 2025 ($20 million).—The Water 2025 Initiative allows Reclamation to continue playing an important role in working with State and local communities to develop solutions that will help meet the increased demands for limited water resources in the West, and avoid water conflicts in areas particularly susceptible to 

an imbalance between supply and demand. The request will benefit fast growing 

western communities that are struggling with increased water demands, inadequate 

water supplies, and compliance with the Endangered Species Act and other ecosystem water needs. The monies for the precursor effort, the Western Water Initiative, will be awarded in the form of competitive grants; this 2004 effort will assist 

in developing grant criteria and tracking program impacts; the experience from this 

effort will then be used to refine the Water 2025 effort for 2005. The projects in fiscal year 2004 will facilitate and promote new or existing intrastate water banks and 

provide cost sharing monies to assist various stakeholders in implementing measures that will lead to improved water management and help avoid future water supply conflicts. 

Klamath Project in Oregon and California ($25.0 million).—The fiscal year 2005 

funding request will provide on-the-ground initiatives to improve water supplies to 

meet agricultural, tribal, wildlife refuge, and environmental needs in the Klamath 

Basin and to improve fish passage and habitat. This is part of a $67.2 million Department of Interior request spread across several bureaus, focused on making immediate on-the-ground impacts, while the Department, in consultation with the 

Klamath River Basin Federal Working Group, led by Secretary Norton, develops a 
229 

long-term resolution to conflict in the Basin that will provide water to farmers and 

tribes while protecting and enhancing the health of fish populations, and meeting 

other water needs, such as those of the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge. 

Middle Rio Grande ($18.0 million).—The fiscal year 2005 request continues funding in support of the Endangered Species Collaborative Program. In addition, the 

request continues funding for acquiring supplemental water, channel maintenance, 

and pursuing government-to-government consultations with Pueblos and Tribes. Finally, the funding will continue efforts that support the protection and contribute 

to the recovery of the Rio Grande silvery minnow and southwestern willow 

flycatcher. 

Animas-La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico ($52.0 million).—The fiscal year 

2005 request includes $52.0 million for the continued construction of Ridges Basin 

Dam and Durango Pumping Plant and preconstruction activities for Navajo Nation 

Municipal Pipeline, Ridges Basin Inlet Conduit, utility relocations, and project support activities. 

Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Washington ($17.5 million).—This program addresses the implementation of Reasonable 

and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) included in two Biological Opinions issued in December 2000. The fiscal year 2005 funding will address significantly increased regional coordination, off-site mitigation activities in selected sub-basins to offset 

hydrosystem impacts, and continue research, monitoring and evaluation efforts. 

Site Security ($43.2 million).—Since September 11, 2001, Reclamation has maintained heightened security at its facilities to protect the public, its employees, and 

infrastructures. 

The funding in fiscal year 2005 is necessary to cover the costs of site security activities including: 

—surveillance and law enforcement; 

—anti-terrorism activities including physical, information, and personnel security, 

and threat management; and 

—physical emergency security upgrades, with a primary focus on our National 

Critical Infrastructure facilities. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2005, annual costs associated with activities for guarding 

our facilities will be treated as project O&M costs subject to reimbursability based 

upon project cost allocations. 

Rural Water ($67.5 million).—The fiscal year 2005 funding for rural water 

projects emphasizes a commitment to completing ongoing municipal, rural, and industrial systems. Funding is included for Mni Wiconi, Mid-Dakota, Garrison, Lewis 

and Clark and Perkins County projects. Funding required for Mid-Dakota is sufficient to complete the project. The administration is convening an interagency group 

to review the rural water programs of all Federal agencies, with any recommendations coming out of this to be included in the President’s Fiscal Year 2006 Budget. 

The administration has submitted legislation to formally establish a rural water 

program within Reclamation. 

Hydropower Direct Financing ($30.0 million).—The fiscal year 2005 budget proposes to finance the costs of operation and maintenance of certain Reclamation hydropower facilities directly from receipts collected by the Western Area Power Administration from the sale of electricity. Western Area Power Administration would 

transfer an agreed-upon amount to the Bureau of Reclamation for deposit in its 

Water and Related Resources account. The transferred funds would be treated as 

an offsetting collection. A direct funding arrangement is already in place for the 

Bonneville Power Administration. 

Safety of Dams ($64.0 million).—The safety and reliability of Reclamation dams 

is one of Reclamation’s highest priorities. Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation’s 

dams were built between 1900 and 1950, and 90 percent of those dams were built 

before the advent of current state-of-the-art foundation treatment, and before filter 

techniques were incorporated in embankment dams to control seepage. Safe performance of Reclamation’s dams continues to be of great concern and requires a 

greater emphasis on the risk management activities provided by the program. The 

fiscal year 2005 request of $64.0 million for the Safety of Dams Program is being 

made to reduce risks to public safety at Reclamation dams, particularly those identified as having deficiencies. The slight reduction from the fiscal year 2004 level is 

a result of the completion of certain ongoing Safety of Dams actions, and does not 

reflect a reduced emphasis on the importance of this program. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

The request for Policy and Administration is $58.2 million. These funds are used 

to develop and implement Reclamation-wide policy, rules and regulations (including 
230 

actions under the Government Performance and Results Act) and to perform functions which, by statute, cannot be charged to specific project or program activities 

covered by separate funding authority. These funds support general administrative 

and management functions. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

The fiscal year 2005 Reclamation budget includes a request for the CVP Restoration Fund of $54.7 million, and is expected to be offset by discretionary receipts totaling $46.4 million collected from project beneficiaries under provisions of Section 

3407(d) of the Act. These funds will be used for habitat restoration, improvement 

and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley Project area of California. This fund was established by the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act, Title XXXIV of Public Law 102–575, October 30, 1992. 

The funding request is calculated based on a 3-year rolling average of collections. 

The increase is driven by formulas spelled out in the 1992 Act. 

Reclamation is seeking appropriations for the full amount of funds of the estimated collections for fiscal year 2005. 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

The fiscal year 2005 Reclamation budget includes a request of $15.0 million for 

California Bay-Delta restoration. The funds will be used consistent with a commitment to find long-term solutions in improving water quality; habitat and ecological 

functions; and water supply reliability; while reducing the risk of catastrophic 

breaching of Delta levees. Further, the fiscal year 2005 budget contains funds for 

Bay-Delta activities that can be undertaken within existing statutory authorities for 

implementation of Stage 1 activities. Those activities are included in the preferred 

program alternative recommended by CALFED and approved by the Secretary of 

the Interior. The majority of these funds will specifically address the environmental 

water account, storage studies, and program administration. 

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)

Reclamation, in close cooperation with the Department and the Office of Management and Budget, completed one new PART analysis in conjunction with the fiscal 

year 2005 budget request, and revised a 2004 PART. Our Science and Technology 

Program, with its emphasis on research with direct applicability to the operation 

of Reclamation facilities, received a favorable score of 87 percent. The PART review 

assisted the program by highlighting areas where more precise data gathering is 

needed, which will allow for increasingly accurate measures of performance. 

Also, the administration revised the PART analysis on our Hydropower Program, 

which had been one of three programs reviewed in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. As a result, improved performance measures were implemented and the program received a score of 92 percent, indicative of a well-run effort. 

PRESIDENT’S MANAGEMENT AGENDA

E-Government.—Reclamation is actively participating in Recreation One-Stop, 

which provides citizens information about recreational activities on public lands; 

Geospatial One-Stop, which makes it easier, faster, and less expensive for all levels 

of government and the public to access geospatial information; and Volunteer.gov 

which provides information on volunteer activities. Reclamation program managers 

continue to work with stakeholders to leverage technology to accomplish our mission 

work. 

Financial Management Improvement.—Reclamation submitted its fiscal year 2003 

Financial Statement on an accelerated schedule and received a clean audit opinion. 

We continue to make progress to ensure that our financial systems are compliant 

with the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program core requirements. To 

ensure that accurate and timely financial information is provided, our financial 

management program uses the Federal Financial System, the Program and Budget 

System, and its corporate database system to report summary and transactions 

data. Reclamation is enhancing its financial policies and procedures and is participating in the Department’s development of a new financial management system. 

Competitive Sourcing.—Reclamation has completed competitive sourcing studies of 

348.6 FTE and directly converted to contract 136.1 FTE, for a reportable savings 

of approximately $1.1 million. Our goals for 2002, 2003, and 2004 have been completed and a strategy has been developed for completing competitive sourcing studies in 2005–2008. 
231 

Human Capital.—Reclamation effectively deploys the appropriate workforce mix 

to accomplish mission requirements. The use of existing human resources flexibilities, tools, and technology is in a strategic, efficient, and effective manner, designed 

to address the serious challenges we face in terms of an aging workforce and increased competition for the engineering skills that Reclamation relies on to carry 

out our core activities. Our workforce plan addresses E-Government and Competitive Sourcing and a plan is in place for recruitment, retention, and development of 

current and future leaders. 

Performance and Budget Integration.—Reclamation continues to integrate its 

budget, planning and performance processes by relating budget dollars to goals and 

performance. 

In October 2003, Activity Based Costing was fully implemented within Reclamation. The implementation of ABC will link our work to the Department activities, 

track the costs associated with those activities, and align cost and activities to strategic goals to further our integration of performance and budget. The availability 

of this information will provide Reclamation with additional tools for management 

and decisionmaking. 

DEMONSTRATED COMMITMENT AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In fiscal year 2003, Reclamation delivered 10 trillion gallons of water to over 31 

million people in the 17 western States for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. 

Reclamation facilities stored over 245 million acre-feet of water, serving one of every 

five western farmers to irrigate about 10 million acres of land. Those irrigated lands 

produced 60 percent of the Nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts. 

As the largest water resources management agency in the West, Reclamation continues to administer and/or operate 348 reservoirs, 56,000 miles of water conveyance 

systems, and 58 hydroelectric facilities, which generate 42 billion kilowatt-hours annually. 

Reclamation also continues to manage approximately 8.6 million acres of Federal 

land, plus another 600,000 acres of land under easements. In addition, our facilities 

provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Reclamation and its employees take very seriously their mission of managing, developing, 

and protecting water and related resources in an environmentally and economically 

sound manner in the interest of the American public. 

The historic Colorado River Water Pact was signed on October 16, 2003, by the 

Secretary, the governor of California and officials from San Diego County Water Authority, Imperial Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Coachella Valley Water District, embarking on a new era of cooperation 

on the river by fulfilling a promise the State of California made more than 70 years 

ago. Under Secretary Norton’s leadership, California has agreed to take specific, incremental steps that will reduce its over-reliance on the Colorado River water in the 

next 14 years, allowing the State to live within its authorized annual share of 4.4 

million acre-feet. The agreement allows the six other Colorado River Basin States 

to protect their authorized shares to meet future needs. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request demonstrates Reclamation’s commitment in 

meeting the water and power needs of the West in a fiscally responsible manner. 

This budget continues Reclamation’s emphasis on delivering and managing those 

valuable public resources. In cooperation and consultation with the State, tribal, 

and local governments, along with other stakeholders and the public at large, Reclamation offers workable solutions regarding water and power resource issues that 

are consistent with the demands for power and water. With the need to pursue cost 

effective and environmentally sound approaches, Reclamation’s strategy is to continue to use the Secretary’s four ‘‘C’s:’’ ‘‘Conservation through Cooperation, Communication, and Consultation’’. These principles provide Reclamation an opportunity, 

in consultation with our stakeholders, to use decision support tools, including risk 

analyses, in order to develop the most efficient and cost-effective solutions to the 

complex challenges that we face. 

Moreover, Reclamation’s request reflects the need to address an aging infrastructure and the rising costs and management challenges associated with scarce water 

resources. As our infrastructure ages, we must direct increasing resources toward 

technological upgrades, new science and technologies; and preventative maintenance 

to ensure reliability; which will increase output, and improve safety. 

In fiscal year 2003, critical Safety of Dams modifications of significant cost and 

scope were initiated at Deadwood Dam, ID; and Deer Creek Dam, UT. 

The site security activities in fiscal year 2003 included integrated security system 

analysis to determine emergency security upgrades and long-term measures for four 

National Critical facilities and 14 of Reclamation’s highest priority facilities. Facility 
232 

fortifications totaling $5.5 million are now in place. In addition, we completed threat 

and physical security risk analyses and developed security plans. 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 PLANNED ACTIVITIES

In fiscal year 2005, Reclamation plans to continue making the required deliveries 

of water under Reclamation contracts; optimize hydropower generation, consistent 

with other project purposes, agreements, and the President’s energy policy; and incorporate environmental, recreational, land management, fish and wildlife management and enhancement, water quality control, cultural resources management, and 

other concerns into the water supply and power generation actions of Reclamation. 

Finally, Reclamation plans to identify water supply needs for consumptive and nonconsumptive purposes in Reclamation States in the next 25 years that are likely to 

be unmet with existing resources. 

Reclamation also plans to continue ranking within the upper 75th percentile of 

low cost hydropower producers; by comparing power production costs per megawatt 

capacity. Reclamation plans to achieve a forced outage rate of 50 percent better than 

the industry average which is currently 3 percent. While Reclamation anticipates 

completing the baseline condition assessments for 80 percent of the recreation facilities it manages, it plans to continue to maintain the overall facility condition rating 

assessed at the fiscal year 2003 baseline level. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, Please allow me to express my sincere appreciation for the continued support that this committee has provided Reclamation. I would like to thank 

several members of the Appropriations staff that have provided invaluable support 

to Reclamation during this past year: Clay Sell, Drew Willison, Tammy Perrin, Erin 

McHale, and Roger Cockrell. We have enjoyed working with Clay Sell over the years 

and wish him well. This completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have at this time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BENNETT W. RALEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER

AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Good morning. On behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, I am pleased to be here 

today before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to discuss the 

fiscal year 2005 budget for the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight our priorities and key goals. 

The Department of the Interior’s mission is complex and multi-faceted. We provide recreation opportunities. We provide access to resources. We protect some of 

the Nation’s most significant cultural, historic, and natural places. We serve communities through science, wildland firefighting, and law enforcement. We deliver 

water and power. We fulfill trust and other responsibilities to American Indians, 

Alaska natives, and the Nation’s affiliated island communities. 

Interior’s mission is also challenging. It is challenging because the world around 

is increasingly complex as expectations evolve, new technologies emerge, and our responsibilities to the American people increase. 

Above all, our mission is inspiring. We have close connections to America’s lands 

and people, whether American Indians and naturalists, hikers and hunters, ranchers and recreation enthusiasts, or environmentalists and entrepreneurs. Our responsibilities touch the lives of individuals across the Nation. How well we fulfill our 

mission influences: 

—Whether farmers will have water and people can turn on the tap; 

—Whether our children will enjoy America’s grand vistas, places, and history; 

—Whether we can hike, bird watch, canoe, or hunt and fish; and 

—Whether we can warm our homes and fuel our transportation systems. 

By fulfilling Interior’s mission, we can leave a legacy of healthy lands and waters, 

thriving communities, and dynamic economies. That legacy depends on our ability 

to work together across landscapes and with communities. It depends on the efforts 

of our 70,000 employees, 200,000 volunteers and thousands of partners. 

BUDGET OVERVIEW

Our 2005 budget request for current appropriations is $11.0 billion. The Department anticipates collection of $10.1 billion in receipts in 2005, equivalent to 92 percent of our current appropriations request. 
233 

The 2005 request includes $10.0 billion for programs funded in the Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, an increase of $228.4 million or 2.3 percent 

over the 2004 enacted level. 

Our budget also includes $1.0 billion for programs funded in the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, an increase of $21.8 million, or 2.2 percent 

above 2004. 

Interior’s 2005 budget request provides the single clearest statement of how we 

plan to work toward our goals in the upcoming year. Our budget fulfills the President’s commitments to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund; address 

the backlog of park repair and maintenance needs; fix Bureau of Indian Affairs 

schools; and re-establish healthy forests and rangelands. 

Our 2005 budget also advances other key goals. It accelerates the cleanup of 

abandoned coal mine lands; expands opportunities for cooperative conservation; advances trust reform; seeks to avoid water conflicts throughout the West through 

Water 2025; and supports the goals of the National Energy Plan. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

The Bureau of Reclamation is the largest supplier and manager of water in the 

17 western States. Its facilities include 348 reservoirs and 456 dams with the capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of water. These facilities deliver water to one of 

every five western farmers for about 10 million acres of irrigated land and provide 

water to over 31 million people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. Reclamation is also the Nation’s second largest producer of hydroelectric power, generating 

42 billion kilowatt hours of energy each year from 58 power plants. In addition, Reclamation’s facilities provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. 

Since its establishment in 1902, Reclamation has developed water supply facilities 

that have contributed to sustained economic growth and an enhanced quality of life 

in the western States. Lands and communities served by the bureau’s projects have 

been developed to meet agricultural, tribal, urban, and industrial needs. In more recent years, the public has demanded better environmental protections and more recreational opportunities, while municipal and industrial development has required 

more high quality water. Continuing population growth, especially in urban areas, 

will inevitably lead to even greater competition for the West’s limited water resources. These increased demands are further compounded during periods of 

drought. 

The 2005 request for current appropriations is $956.3 million, a net increase of 

$13.5 million above the 2004 enacted level. The request for current appropriations 

is offset by discretionary receipts in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund 

and by a proposal to finance by direct funding certain hydropower operation and 

maintenance activities, resulting in a net discretionary request of $880.0 million, a 

decrease of $32.1 million from the 2004 enacted level. The request for permanent 

appropriations totals $90.5 million. 

The request for the Water and Related Resources account is $828.5 million. The 

account total includes an undistributed reduction of $36.6 million in anticipation of 

delays in construction schedules and other planned activities. The 2004 Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, for the first time, directed Reclamation to 

prorate underfinancing to each project and program. In accordance with this direction, the basis for comparing the amount of 2005 funding changes is the 2004 enacted level with underfinancing applied. 

The 2005 request provides a total of $366.6 million for facility operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation. This includes $64.0 million for the Dam Safety program 

to protect the downstream public by ensuring the safety and reliability of Reclamation dams. The 2005 request also includes a total of $498.4 million for resource management and development activities. 

Water 2025.—Chronic water supply problems in the West will continue to challenge the Nation to find effective approaches to long-term management of water resources. Recent crises in the Klamath and Middle Rio Grande basins, where water 

shortages have affected American Indians, farmers, urban residents, and fish and 

wildlife vividly demonstrate the consequences of failing to address strategically the 

problem of competing demands for constrained water supplies. 

The 2005 budget includes $21.0 million for Water 2025 to minimize future western water crises by fostering conservation and interagency coordination, enhancing 

water supplies through improved technologies, and managing water resources in cooperation with others. Collaborative approaches and market-based water transfers 

will help address emerging needs. Federal investments in research and development 

will improve water treatment technologies such as desalination. 
234 

A Water 2025 increase of $12.5 million for the Bureau of Reclamation will build 

on the 2004 Western Water Initiative, providing a total of $20.0 million to retrofit 

and modernize existing facilities, promote conservation and more efficient use of existing water supplies, improve water management by using excess capacity at Federal facilities, and facilitate research to provide alternative water supplies. 

The U.S. Geological Survey’s 2005 budget includes $1.0 million for Water 2025 to 

conduct groundwater availability assessments, develop tools and techniques for protecting biological resources while meeting water supply needs, and to improve methods to characterize aquifers. 

Animas La Plata.—The 2005 budget proposes funding Animas La Plata at 2004 

levels, prior to the application of underfinancing. This level of $52.0 million allows 

progress towards satisfying the Indian water rights settlement with the continued 

construction of Ridges Basin Dam and Durango Pumping Plant; road and utility relocations; preconstruction activities for the Navajo Nation municipal pipeline; and 

design and contract preparation for the Ridge Basin Inlet Conduit. 

In the fall of 2003, Reclamation completed an internal investigation into why 

Animas La Plata project costs were underestimated by $162 million or 48 percent. 

As a result of the investigation, Reclamation has recalculated the construction cost 

estimate and will review/reconfigure its internal organizational approach to the 

project; review its Indian Self-Determination and Assistance Act process to improve 

construction efficiencies; improve interaction and communication with the project 

sponsors; seek ways to reduce costs; and review its own procedures for developing 

construction cost estimates. 

CAP and CVP.—The request provides $34.1 million for the Central Arizona 

Project. The request also includes $162.9 million for operating, managing and improving California’s Central Valley Project. This includes a total of $23.2 million for 

CVP’s Replacement, Additions, and Extraordinary Maintenance program. The CVP 

request also includes the third and final $34.0 million payment to the plaintiffs for 

the settlement of Sumner Peck Ranch Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation. 

Multiple-use Management.—The budget puts continued emphasis on Reclamation’s core mission of delivering water and power, while focusing on ensuring site 

security and on maximizing efficient ways to conserve water for multiple uses, including endangered species protection. The Klamath, Columbia Basin, and Savage 

Rapids Dam projects, along with the Columbia/Snake Rivers salmon recovery and 

the ESA recovery implementation programs, are funded at $72.2 million, which is 

$15.7 million above 2004 enacted levels. These increases, together with the Water 

2025 initiative, will help optimize water supply through effective and more efficient 

water management. 

The Middle Rio Grande project is funded at $18.0 million, $14.3 million below the 

2004 enacted level. This funding level is consistent with the President’s budget request in recent years and addresses needs for ESA coordination, the Middle Rio 

Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative program, and facility operations to 

manage and control water flow. 

Rural Water.—The 2005 budget request for rural water projects is $67.5 million, 

a decrease of $9.1 million from the 2004 enacted level (with underfinancing applied) 

and an increase of $49.5 million above the 2004 President’s budget. The budget request supports the Department’s strategy to complete construction projects to increase water delivery infrastructure and water availability. In the long-term, the 

water needs of rural communities may benefit from Water 2025 by helping communities look at new technologies and new management strategies for their water resources. 

Other Project Requests.—The budget includes $43.2 million, an increase of $15.4 

million, for site security. This increase will be used to assure the safety and security 

of Reclamation facilities that will in turn lower the risk of harm to life and property. 

Beginning in 2005, the budget assumes that the guards and surveillance-related security costs for Reclamation’s facilities are reimbursed by project beneficiaries. 

The budget request also establishes a direct financing relationship between Reclamation hydropower facilities and their customers, for those facilities where such 

an arrangement is not already in place and includes an offsetting collection proposal 

of $30.0 million. 

Other funds are requested to assist the Bureau in meeting objectives in the areas 

of improved water management and environmental compliance. Examples include 

$15.3 million for the Lower Colorado River Operations program and $13.6 million 

for the Colorado River Storage Project. 

The 2005 Reclamation budget includes a request for $54.7 million from the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, which is the estimated level of collections from 

CVP water and power users. This request is offset by collections estimated at $46.4 
235 

million from mitigation and restoration charges authorized by the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act. 

The 2005 budget includes $15.0 million for the implementation of Stage one 

CALFED activities consistent with existing authorities. These activities are included 

in the preferred program alternative recommended by CALFED and approved by 

the Secretary of the Interior. The majority of these funds will specifically address 

the environmental water account, water storage and conveyance studies, and program administration. 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT

The Central Utah Project Completion Act provides for completion of the project 

by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Completion Act also authorizes funding for fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation activities; 

establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to oversee implementation of those activities; and authorizes funding for the Ute Indian 

Rights Settlement. A program office located in Provo, Utah provides liaison with the 

District, Mitigation Commission, and the Ute Indian Tribe and otherwise assists in 

carrying out responsibilities of the Secretary. Under the Act, the responsibilities of 

the Secretary cannot be delegated to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The 2005 Central Utah Project requests $46.3 million, an increase of $8.3 million 

over the 2004 enacted level. Most of this increase is due to a transfer of budgetary 

authority and responsibility from the Western Area Power Administration to the 

Department. The request includes: $28.4 million for planning and construction activities administered by the District; $15.5 million for mitigation and conservation 

activities funded through the Mitigation Commission; and $2.4 million for activities 

administered by the program office, which includes $700,000 for mitigation and conservation activities funded through the program office. 

KLAMATH BASIN

The Department’s partnership efforts are bringing about change in the Klamath 

Basin. Interior bureaus, partnering with other Federal agencies, are restoring habitat, removing fish migration barriers, acquiring land, using water banking, and researching the ecology of the federally-listed fish species. Through these partnership 

efforts, the Department is seeking long-term resolution of conflicts over water and 

land management. 

The 2005 budget includes $67.6 million for this effort, a $17.9 million increase 

over 2004 funding levels. Other government agencies will provide an additional $38 

million, bringing a total of $105 million to this effort. The budget includes funds to 

remove the Chiloquin Dam, which impedes passage of endangered suckers to 70 

miles of spawning habitat on the Sprague River, and to acquire lands adjacent to 

Agency Lake Ranch to increase water storage and fisheries habitat restoration. Additional funding will also support water banking, water supply enhancement, and 

water quality improvement. Reclamation’s budget contains $25.0 million for Klamath. 

ADDRESSING LONG-STANDING DEPARTMENT CHALLENGES

Abandoned Mine Lands.—Since enactment of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act in 1977, the Department has partnered with States, Tribes, local 

governments, and others to reclaim over 225,000 acres of damaged and dangerous 

lands. Despite these accomplishments over the past two and a half decades, dangerous abandoned coal mines remain within 1 mile of the homes of more than 3.5 

million Americans. Since 1999 a total of 100 people have died in incidents related 

to abandoned coal mines. 

The primary impediment to completing reclamation of abandoned mines is the 

fundamental imbalance between the goals of the 1977 Act and the requirements for 

allocating funds under the Act. The statutory allocation formula limits the ability 

of the Office of Surface Mining to meet its primary objective of abating the highestpriority abandoned coalmines. The majority of funding in the program, or 71 percent, is distributed to States on the basis of current production. Yet there is no relationship between current production and the number of priority sites in each State, 

which is a function of pre-1977 production. 

Over the past 25 years, the allocation formula has enabled some States and 

Tribes to complete reclamation of all abandoned coal mines. Others are decades 

away from completing work on the most critical, high-priority sites. We estimate it 

will take 60 years to reclaim dangerous abandoned mine sites in Pennsylvania and 

50 years in West Virginia. 
236 

Our 2005 budget proposal seeks to correct this problem. We propose to direct reclamation grants to sites where the danger is greatest. The reauthorization proposal 

will allow all States to eliminate significant health and safety problems within 25 

years and would remove 142,000 people from risk annually. At the same time, by 

shifting funds to speed resolution of serious health and safety problems, the proposal will reduce fee collections and spending by $3 billion over the life of the program. 

Under our proposal, States and Tribes that have certified completion of high-priority projects will be paid their accumulated State share balances in the abandoned 

mine lands fund as of September 30, 2004. These payments will be made over a 10- 

year period. Going forward, the grants would be distributed for high priority mine 

reclamation projects. 

The 2005 budget proposes an appropriation of $243.8 million for the abandoned 

mine lands program, including $53.0 million for the initial State share balance distribution to certified States and Tribes. 

Indian Trust Programs.—Fulfilling the Department’s trust responsibilities continues as one of our highest priorities and greatest challenges. The assets of the 

trust today include over 56 million acres of land. On these lands, the Department 

manages over 100,000 leases for individual Indians and Tribes. We collect approximately $194 million per year from leasing, use permits, sale revenues, and interest 

for 260,000 open individual Indian money accounts. About $378 million per year is 

collected in 1,400 tribal accounts for 300 Tribes. In addition, the trust manages approximately $2.9 billion in tribal funds and $400 million in individual Indian funds. 

For 2005, we are seeking $614 million for our Unified Trust budget, a net increase 

of $161 million. 

In 2003 we began to reorganize trust functions in the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

and the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. The new organization 

is based on a detailed analysis and a year-long consultation process with tribal leaders. Our reorganization reflects a synthesis of the views heard during the consultation process. When fully implemented, the new organization will better meet fiduciary trust responsibilities, be more accountable at every level, and operate with 

people trained in the principles of fiduciary trust management. 

To support continued implementation of the new organization, the 2005 budget 

proposes a net increase of $7.2 million, including funding for 85 new trust-related 

positions at the local level. We request an additional $4.0 million to quicken the 

pace at which probate cases are resolved. 

Improving our trust organization will not by itself resolve the issues that we face 

in managing the trust. A still greater challenge remains. That challenge is the fractionation, or continuing subdivision, of individual Indian interests in the land that 

the Federal Government holds in trust. Indian trust lands are primarily transferred 

through inheritance. With each passing generation, individual interests in the land 

become further subdivided among heirs, each of whom holds a smaller and smaller 

interest in the land. Many acres of trust land are already owned in such small ownership interests that no individual owner will derive any meaningful value from that 

ownership. Without corrective action, this problem will grow exponentially. 

As the number of interests grows, we expect the cost to the Federal Government 

for managing, accounting for, and probating these interests to increase substantially, possibly to as much as $1 billion at the end of the next 20 years. 

The Indian Land Consolidation program, which acquires small ownership shares 

in allotted land from willing sellers, is a critical component of trust reform. We have 

conducted this program as a pilot for several years. The pilot has taught valuable 

lessons about the need to target purchases to maximize return of land to productive 

use and allow closure of accounts associated with fractional interests. 

The 2005 budget proposes an unprecedented amount of $75.0 million for Indian 

land consolidation, an increase of $53.3 million. This funding will support an expansion beyond the seven pilot reservations to include additional reservations with the 

most highly fractionated lands. On a nationwide basis, we are targeting opportunities to purchase the most fractionated interests. Interior plans to use contractual arrangements with Tribes or private entities to acquire individual interests. 

This commitment to end fractionation will also require legislative action to provide for workable probate reform, disposal of unclaimed property, and partition of 

land. We want to continue to work with the Congress to find meaningful and constructive solutions to these issues. 

The 2005 budget also proposes funding to address the issue of accounting for past 

transactions in the trust. As the committee is aware, the American Indian Trust 

Management Reform Act of 1994 requires the Secretary of the Interior to ‘‘account’’ 

for ‘‘the daily and annual balance of all funds held in trust by the United States 
237 

for the benefit of an Indian Tribe or an individual Indian which are deposited or 

invested pursuant to the Act of June 24, 1938.’’ 

The Department is currently involved in a major class action, Cobell v. Norton, 

and 25 tribal suits over the Department’s management of Indian trust funds. On 

January 6, 2003, as ordered by the District Court in the Cobell litigation, the Department filed The Historical Accounting Plan for Individual Indian Money Accounts. This plan provides for an historical accounting for about 260,000 individual 

Indian accounts over a 5-year period at a cost of approximately $335 million. The 

accuracy of the transactions would be verified by reviewing support documentation 

on a transaction-by-transaction basis for all transactions over $5,000 and by statistically sampling transactions under $5,000. The sampling methodology would be designed to provide a 99 percent confidence level at any error rate. 

On September 25, 2003, the Cobell court issued a structural injunction directing 

a far more expansive accounting and requiring that it be completed under more constrained time lines. We estimate that the cost of compliance with the structural injunction would be between $6 billion to $12 billion. An appeal from the September 

decision is pending. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has stayed the structural injunction. In addition, the 2004 Interior Appropriations Act provides that the 

Department is not required to commence or continue an accounting for IIM accounts 

until 2004 or the Congress amends the Trust Management Reform Act to delineate 

the Department’s historical accounting obligations or until December 31, 2004, 

whichever occurs first. 

The 2005 budget includes $109.4 million for historical accounting. This increase 

of $65.0 million over the enacted 2004 appropriation is targeted to provide $80.0 

million for IIM accounting and $29.4 million for tribal accounting. The budget for 

IIM accounting is based on the estimate of the Department’s costs to continue implementation of its historical accounting process. This amount may be revised depending on how the Court of Appeals rules with regard to the structural injunction 

in the Cobell case and on whether Congress acts to delineate the specific historical 

accounting obligations of the Department as suggested in the 2004 Appropriations 

Act. The Department will continue to work with the Congress and trust beneficiaries to consider settlement of the historical accounting and related issues. 

INVESTING IN CONSERVATION

Cooperative Conservation.—Among Interior’s most inspiring roles is its mission to 

conserve lands and waters across America. As we are all aware, nature knows no 

jurisdictional boundaries. Conservation in the 21st century depends increasingly 

upon partnerships across a mosaic of land ownerships. At Interior, we recognize 

that we cannot manage Federal lands successfully unless we are able to work with 

adjacent landowners, States, Tribes, and communities. We also recognize that the 

Nation cannot achieve its conservation goals solely by relying upon—and adding 

to—the Federal dominion of lands. 

These two perspectives underscore the importance of cooperative conservation. 

Through a variety of conservation partnerships, Interior’s land managers are joining 

with citizen stewards to remove invasive species, reduce stream bank erosion, and 

enhance habitat for threatened and endangered species. Through these partnerships, the Department is building the new environmentalism of citizen stewards 

called for by President Bush. These partnerships leverage Federal dollars by a factor of two or more. They engage Americans in conservation. They help us work with 

citizens to find common ground and simultaneously achieve healthy lands, thriving 

communities, and dynamic economies. We look forward to working with members 

of Congress and their constituents in these conservation successes. 

The 2005 budget proposal expands opportunities for conservation partnerships 

with citizens, organizations, and communities throughout the Nation. The budget 

proposes to spend $507.3 million, a 20 percent increase, to expand opportunities for 

conservation partnerships with citizens, organizations and communities. 

A cornerstone of our conservation partnership budget is the Cooperative Conservation Initiative. The Department has a long history of working cooperatively 

with others to achieve its conservation mission. Yet the resources available to land 

managers to foster innovative and collaborative conservation have fallen short of the 

demand. Across the Nation, citizens are working to overcome conflict and, instead, 

work together to maintain healthy lands and waters. Our Cooperative Conservation 

Initiative seeks to address this growing, giving managers the support necessary to 

leverage funds with private citizens, States, Tribes, communities, and businesses to 

protect and restore habitats, wildlife and plants. 

Our Cooperative Conservation Initiative builds on existing conservation partnership programs that have established productive relationships with local commu-
238 

nities and citizens. In total, we propose that this initiative will provide $129.5 million, an increase of $25.5 million, for a suite of seven programs: the challenge cost 

share programs in the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and the National Park Service; the FWS Coastal program; FWS Migratory Bird 

Joint Ventures; FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife; and Take Pride in America. The budget proposes $29.6 million for challenge cost-share activities, an increase of $8.4 million over 2004. This request will enable land managers to undertake additional natural resource restoration and species protection projects on or impacting 

Federal lands. Dynamic partnerships with individuals, Tribes, State and local governments, non-profit organizations, and others will support an array of projects to 

restore damaged habitats and lands and achieve the conservation goals of the Department’s land management agencies. Projects require a one-to-one match or better, thereby at least doubling the benefits of Federal dollars. The request for the 

bureau traditional challenge cost-share programs is $24.4 million. 

In 2003, challenge cost-share programs funded 256 resource restoration projects 

with more than 700 partners in 40 States and Puerto Rico. The ratio of matching 

non-Federal funds to Federal funds was nearly 2 to 1, with the Federal portion at 

$12.9 million and total funding at $36.0 million. The 2005 budget includes $50.0 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program. Through the Partners program, the Fish and Wildlife Service has established 

productive relationships with communities and over 30,000 landowners, providing financial and technical assistance and restoration expertise to private landowners, 

Tribes, and other conservation partners. Since its inception in 1987, the Partners 

program has restored 677,000 acres of wetlands; nearly 1.3 million acres of prairie, 

native grassland, and other uplands; and 5,560 miles of stream and streamside 

habitat. 

In 2005 the Partners program will leverage $5.0 million in the High Plans region 

through a public/private initiative that will restore grassland habitats and declining 

species over an 11-State region. In cooperation with landowners and other partners, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service will focus conservation efforts on restoring, enhancing, 

and protecting 2 million acres over the next 10 years. The 2005 Partners budget 

also includes $6.2 million for partnership efforts in the Upper Klamath basin. 

Augmenting our partnership achievements is the work of over 200,000 volunteers 

who provide over 8 million hours to Interior’s programs and projects throughout the 

Nation. These volunteers help repair and maintain trails, restore habitat, participate in monitoring and research programs, and assist our land managers in many 

other ways. To promote this spirit of volunteerism, the Department has reactivated 

the Take Pride in America program. In California, volunteers enlisted through Take 

Pride pledged 400,000 hours of service to help restore areas devastated by wild land 

fires. The 2005 budget includes $1.0 million for the Take Pride program as part of 

the Cooperative Conservation Initiative. 

Also funded within the Cooperative Conservation Initiative is the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Coastal program, for which we propose a funding increase of $2.9 million, bringing total funding to $13.1 million. The Coastal program leads FWS conservation efforts in bays, estuaries, and watersheds around the U.S. coastline and 

leverages Federal funding at a rate of 4:1. We also propose to increase funding for 

the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures program by $1.2 million for a total of $11.4 million. The funding increase will allow FWS to enhance 15 existing Joint Ventures 

and fund the Northern Great Plains and Central Hardwoods Joint Ventures. 

Endangered Species Grant Programs.—The Department’s cooperative conservation 

efforts also include a number of grant programs that provide expanded opportunities 

for State, tribal, local and private partners to participate in conservation and protection of endangered, threatened, and at-risk species. These programs will help this 

nation invest habitat protection and recovery of species—the ultimate goal of the 

Endangered Species Act. Through these investments, we can achieve on-the-ground 

conservation results and help avoid the conflicts, land management stresses, and 

procedural workloads that ensue when species become endangered. 

The Landowner Incentive Program provides competitive matching grants to 

States, Territories, and Tribes to create, supplement, or expand programs to protect 

and manage habitats on private lands that benefit listed species or species at risk. 

The 2005 budget includes $50.0 million to assist private landowners in conserving 

and restoring habitat for endangered species and other at-risk plants and animals. 

This is an increase of $20.4 million over 2004. 

The Private Stewardship Grants program provides grants and other assistance to 

individuals and groups engaged in local, private, and voluntary conservation efforts 

that benefit federally listed, proposed, candidate or other at-risk species. A panel of 

representatives from State and Federal Government, agricultural and private development interests, and the scientific and conservation communities assess and make 
239 

recommendations regarding these grants. The 2005 budget proposes $10.0 million 

for the program, a $2.6 million increase over 2004. 

The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund provides grants to States 

and Territories to participate in projects to conserve candidate, proposed, and 

threatened and endangered species. Grants to States and Territories allow them to 

participate in an array of voluntary conservation projects for candidate, proposed, 

and listed species. These funds may in turn be awarded to private landowners and 

groups for conservation projects. The CESCF grants include funding for States and 

Territories to implement conservation projects to support the development of Habitat Conservation Plans and to acquire habitat for threatened or endangered species. 

The 2005 budget proposes $90 million, an increase of $8.4 million, for the appropriated portion of this program. 

Our grant programs also aid a wide variety of other wildlife. The 2005 budget pro- poses $80.0 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program. These grants 

help develop and implement State and tribal programs for the benefit of wildlife and 

its habitat, not limited to species that are hunted or fished. The program exemplifies our cooperative conservation vision, allowing States and Tribes to tailor their 

conservation efforts in a manner that best fits local conditions. A $10.9 million increase for the program in 2005 will significantly advance efforts of State and tribal 

fish and game agencies to address on-the-ground wildlife needs. Based on the high 

level of interest in this program, we expect this program will have lasting benefits 

for fish and wildlife, while fostering stronger working relationships between Federal, 

State and tribal governments. 

Full Funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.—Our cooperative conservation programs are an important component of the 2005 Land and Water Conservation Fund budget request. Overall, the Department’s budget seeks $660.6 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 2005, including $153.3 million 

for land acquisition and $93.8 million for the State grant program. The Department’s request, combined with the request for the U.S. Forest Service, brings total 

government-wide LWCF funding to $900.2 million. 

The 2005 LWCF budget includes the same mix of programs proposed in 2004. 

This mix strikes an effective balance between Federal land acquisition and cooperative efforts to fulfill LWCF goals. 

We believe effective conservation of lands and natural resources cannot rely primarily on expanding the Federal estate through land acquisition. Such acquisitions 

remove lands from the local tax base. Equally significant, each time we acquire 

more Federal lands, future operations and maintenance costs ensue in perpetuity. 

Supporting local recreation and conservation through partnership programs enables 

us to leverage Federal funding. In many cases, these programs match Federal funds 

at a ratio of more than 2:1. They give us an opportunity to work hand-in-hand with 

States, communities, and local landowners to build support for long-term conservation. 

CONCLUSION

The budget plays a key role in advancing our vision of healthy lands, thriving 

communities, and dynamic economies. Behind these numbers lie people, places, and 

partnerships. Our goals become reality through the energy and creativity efforts of 

our employees, volunteers, and partners. They provide the foundation for achieving 

the goals highlighted in our 2005 budget. 

This concludes my overview of the 2005 budget proposal for the Department of 

the Interior and my written statement. I will be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. RONALD JOHNSTON

My name is Ronald Johnston. I serve as the Program Director of the Central Utah 

Project Completion Act Office under the Assistant Secretary—Water and Science in 

the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to provide the following information 

about the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget for implementation of the Central 

Utah Project Completion Act. 

The Central Utah Project Completion Act, Titles II–VI of Public Law 102–575, 

provides for completion of the Central Utah Project (CUP) by the Central Utah 

Water Conservancy District. The Act also authorizes funding for fish, wildlife, and 

recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in the Treasury for 

deposit of these funds and other contributions; establishes the Utah Reclamation 

Mitigation and Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation 

activities; and provides for the Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement. 
240 

The Act provides that the Secretary may not delegate responsibility under the Act 

to the Bureau of Reclamation. As a result, the Department has established an office 

in Provo, Utah, with a Program Director to provide oversight, review, and liaison 

with the District, the Commission, and the Ute Indian Tribe, and to assist in administering the responsibilities of the Secretary under the Act. 

The 2005 request for the Central Utah Project Completion Account provides $46.3 

million for use by the District, the Commission, and the Department to implement 

Titles II–IV of the Act, which is $8.3 million more than the 2004 enacted level. Most 

of this increase is due to a transfer of budgetary authority and responsibility from 

the Western Area Power Administration to the Department of the Interior ($6.1 million). 

The funds requested for the District ($28.4 million) will be used to continue the 

completion of the Diamond Fork System ($8.5 million); to continue construction on 

Uinta Basin Replacement Project ($13.0 million); and to implement water conservation measures, local development projects, and continue planning and NEPA compliance for the Utah Lake System ($6.9 million). We are pleased to report that the 

problems in the Diamond Fork System associated with a cave-in and dangerous levels of hydrogen sulfide gas have been resolved, the construction of the alternative 

facilities is nearly complete, and water should be delivered through the facilities this 

summer. We are planning a celebration of the completion of these major facilities 

this summer. The members of the committee will be invited to attend. 

The funds requested for the Mitigation Commission ($15.5 million) will be used 

to implement the fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation projects 

authorized in Title III ($7.4 million); to implement the fish and wildlife activities 

associated with the Uinta Basin Replacement Project ($1.0 million); to complete 

mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992 Bureau of Reclamation planning documents ($1.0 million); and to fulfill the mitigation obligations required under section 

402(b)(3)(B) of the Act ($6.1 million). Title III activities funded in 2004 include the 

Provo River Restoration Project; acquisition of habitat, access, and water rights; and 

fish hatchery improvements. 

Finally, the request includes $2.4 million for the Program Office. This includes 

$1.7 million for program administration, $300,000 for mitigation and conservation 

projects outside the State of Utah, and $400,000 for operation and maintenance 

costs associated with instream flows and fish hatchery facilities. 

In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee and 

would be happy to respond to any questions. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes, sir. 

Senator Craig, do you have some questions? 

Senator CRAIG. Just a couple. 

Senator DOMENICI. All right. 

Senator CRAIG. And, again, John, let me thank you for your presence here and the work you’re doing. Your reality check, by the 

graphs and charts you’ve shown us, clearly demonstrate what is 

really at risk in the West, and the problems we all face. 

In the area of site security, $43.2 million, there is a growing concern that some of this is overdone. And while site security is critically important, and we all know that, my guess is, when the dust 

settles from 9/11, we’ll learn how to do it better with less. But what 

are going to be the costs to the users of these facilities? How much 

of—is there going to be a cost pass-through to users in fees that 

they might be expecting? 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Craig, out of the $43 million that we 

have requested, $18 million of that is associated with guards and 

surveillance. Of that $18 million, $12 million would be part of the 

operation and maintenance budgets, and we would expect to be reimbursed by the water users. Water users being from the power 

side, from—all of the water users that have an allocation from 

those Federal projects. 

Senator CRAIG. So it’s a direct cost pass-through of $12 million. 

Commissioner KEYS. That’s correct. 
241 

Senator CRAIG. And I assume that, because you’ve arrived at a figure of $12 million, you know how that breaks out. 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Craig, we do. It is based on the authorized purposes for the project and the cost allocations that have 

been done over—well, when the projects were completed or when 

the cost repayments started. So it’s along the cost allocations that 

are already in place. 

Senator CRAIG. But an increase. 

Commissioner KEYS. It would increase over what they were paying before 9/11/2001. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. I’d like to see those figures. I’d like to 

know how that impacts both users, from the standpoint of water 

users, and then—and the utility. I assume you’re talking about 

WAPA rate payers in that case, would you not be? 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Craig, it is all of the power users. It’s 

WAPA, it’s Bonneville—— 

Senator CRAIG. Yeah, all of them. 

Commissioner KEYS [continuing]. Power Administration, and the 

other water users. We can provide that breakdown for you. 

[The information follows:] 

In referencing preliminary estimates for guard reimbursability, Senator Craig has 

requested to see the figures. I have agreed to provide that breakdown. Below are 

those figures: 

REIMBURSABILITY OF GUARD COSTS—APRIL 20, 2004 

[In millions of dollars] 

Projects Fiscal Year 2005 

Power Users Water Users Reimb. Amount 

Hoover ........................................................................................................ 4.7 ........................ 4.7 

Parker/Davis ............................................................................................... 1.6 ........................ 1.6 

Yuma Area Projects ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Lower Colorado Region ................................................................. 6.2 ........................ 6.2 

Grand Coulee ............................................................................................. 2.9 ........................ 2.9 

Pacific Northwest Region ............................................................. 2.9 ........................ 2.9 

Central Valley Project ................................................................................ 0.3 ........................ 0.3 

Mid-Pacific Region ....................................................................... 0.3 ........................ 0.3 

Great Plains Region ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Colorado River Storage Project .................................................................. 1.5 0.6 2.1 

Upper Colorado Region ................................................................. 1.5 0.6 2.1 

TOTALS .......................................................................................... 10.8 0.6 11.4 

These figures are generated from the best available information at the current 

time. They are preliminary estimates which will be further reviewed within the Bureau. 

After further refinement, the guards and surveillance costs remain at $18 million. 

There was a greater need identified with an armed response force at Grand Coulee, 

a National Critical Infrastructure facility. This was offset by changing needs at 

other facilities. 

After further review, the overall total reimbursable amount is now $17 million, 

based upon project cost allocations. The above table does not factor into account 
242 

Mid-Pacific and Great Plains Region’s shift to reimbursability, although the customers in these regions had been apprised that they would be subject to this new 

reimbursability policy. 

The table below clarifies the costs by region, as well as including the updated 

costs for guards and surveillance. 

REIMBURSABILITY OF GUARD COSTS—AUGUST 4, 2004 

[In millions of dollars] 

Projects 

Fiscal Year 2005 

Power Users Water Users Reimb. Amount 

Hoover ........................................................................................................ 3.9 ........................ 3.9 

Parker/Davis ............................................................................................... 1.6 ........................ 1.6 

Yuma Area Projects ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Lower Colorado Region ................................................................. 5.5 ........................ 5.5 

Grand Coulee ............................................................................................. 4.1 0.2 4.4 

Pacific Northwest Region ............................................................. 4.1 0.2 4.4 

Central Valley Project ................................................................................ 0.4 2.1 2.5 

Mid-Pacific Region ....................................................................... 0.4 2.1 2.5 

Great Plains Region ................................................................................... 1.3 1.0 2.3 

Colorado River Storage Project .................................................................. 1.4 0.6 2.0 

Upper Colorado Region ................................................................. 1.4 0.6 2.0 

TOTALS .......................................................................................... 12.8 3.9 16.7 

We will continue to refine these numbers as Reclamation’s Security Program continues to assess its vulnerabilities and take appropriate measures. We will also 

work closely with our stakeholders to share data and guidance in the areas of risk, 

and take the necessary responses to ensure the delivery of water service to multiple 

water users. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. 

The Water 2025, first of all, I obviously applaud the initiative. 

I want all Americans to become more aware of the realities of the 

arid West and to better understand water needs out there. At the 

same time, to be able to work cooperatively with all of the entities 

involved out there, in conflict resolution and reallocation needs and 

all of that, will be extremely important. 

As you mentioned, you’re going out to Idaho this next month. 

The Idaho legislature spent a fair amount of time resolving, in the 

short term, for the short term, a growing problem in an area of 

Idaho, but that’s a good example of where the Bureau can really 

be a facilitator and an assister. And what I would hope you would 

do, when you find conflicts impossible to resolve because of Federal 

legislative or regulatory impediments, that you’d come to us and let 

us know about them so that we might assist you in removing those 

impediments. 

The reality check in the West, if this continues, is that we may 

have to change some law, we may have to rethink where we are. 

It isn’t a matter of just cutting the slices of the pie thinner; we 

might need to enlarge the pie a bit. And that is a reality that we’re 

all going to have to face. 
243 

I think the chairman spoke to that when he talked about budgets, and we need to know those kinds of things, because I’m looking 

at Animas-La Plata. It was 1982, and I was a freshman Congressman when I assisted a Congressman from Colorado in this initiative. Do the math. Idaho can’t wait 30 years for a decision out of 

Washington, nor can New Mexico, when it comes to drought and 

water resources. 

But that’s what happened in Animas-La Plata. It’s nearly 30 

years since that idea went on the books and began to be a 

motivator of public policy, and I just happen to think that’s an interesting reality check at a time when we’re seeing unprecedented 

dry numbers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

John, thank you. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Senator. I greatly appreciate your participation. 

I have about five questions. A couple of them are parochial, some 

are not. 

Senator Craig, I don’t know whether my observation regarding 

improving the use of water by farmers applies to your State, but 

I want to suggest sometimes there are issues that we don’t quite 

know, in the bureaucracy of the government, where they fit. So 

since they don’t exactly fit, nothing’s done. 

I believe that farmers could improve the system whereby they 

apply water, and save a lot of water in the process, by building systems that use the water better, those systems where you feed by 

a drip system, or you feed by an underground system that delivers 

the water, or a sprinkler system. And it seems to me that one reason the farmer doesn’t do it is because it costs a lot. Now, I wonder 

if you might seek, in your official capacity, an analysis of whether 

tax relief for the farmer who enhances the application and use of 

water in a field of agriculture. 

I know a farmer in New Mexico that is a very progressive farmer, but he also has money. And he spent a huge amount of money 

to make his water go further and to make sure that the application 

to the soil used far less water to get the job done. He came to see 

us, and we were talking about this approach, about tax credit of 

some type, and he quickly said, ‘‘Isn’t it too bad that I’ve already 

made my expenditure before you consider this idea of giving us 

some kind of tax credit.’’ 

I would wonder—this may be a pipe dream, but I wonder if you 

would use your official hat to ask the Treasury Department and 

those who engage in agricultural funding whether this makes any 

sense, and get that for us. 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Chairman, your suggestion makes all 

the sense in the world for us, because we are currently launched 

off on three major efforts on water conservation. The first one is 

one with the existing programs that we have in Reclamation, for 

which we have four or five already. And certainly we work mightily 

to not let the new initiative take monies away from those, so that 

we can keep working very closely with the farmers on our districts. 

The second effort is Water 2025, itself. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. 
244 

Commissioner KEYS. That is concentrating on trying to stretch 

those existing water supplies so that the new demands for water 

don’t place undue pressure on the water supplies for our irrigation 

projects. 

If you look across the Western United States, about 80 percent 

of our water rights are held for irrigation. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. 

Commissioner KEYS. If we can do the conservation work and provide water for a lot of the new demands that are out there, we can 

keep that pressure off of the need for conversion, and that’s one of 

the big goals of 2025. 

The third thing that we’re doing is working very closely with Department of Agriculture. Reclamation’s main focus is on the delivery facilities, the dams, the canals, the control facilities. We’re 

working very closely with agriculture for the on-farm stuff. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, they’re not—— 

Commissioner KEYS. Your suggestion for a tax relief would fit 

very well into that, and we would certainly explore that with you 

and with Treasury. 

Senator DOMENICI. It may very well be that it fits one of the 

other agencies better than yours, but I’m not really interested in 

that; I’m interested in somebody finding out whether it makes 

sense to the farmer and makes sense to the Treasury. So if you 

would start that initiative, I—— 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Chairman, we will take the lead in 

talking with Treasury and working with you and trying to see what 

we can do there. 

Senator DOMENICI. It may very well be that it doesn’t work. 

Middle Rio Grande, in New Mexico. First, I appreciate your support of our Endangered Species Collaborative Program with reference to that. I acknowledge your 2004 spending and the list of 

agencies and groups who have signed onto the memorandum of understanding. I’m very pleased that some of the tribes have signed 

up as participants. 

We spoke yesterday—‘‘we,’’ being you and our office, and you 

brought other people with you—we spoke about the idea of sanctuaries, which I came up with, for minnows, these endangered minnows. And I understand that the details are still being flushed out, 

and I look forward to your follow-up. There is a deficit of $1.5 million in your 2004 plan to do all that you have on the list of proposed activities for the year. 

Now, Senator Craig, I might tell you that we have an endangered 

species called a silvery minnow, and it generally saves itself and 

prevails by being very far downstream in a sandy, sandy river, so 

that we lose thousands of acres in carrying the water from upstream to the bottom, low stream in order to get it to the minnow’s 

habitat. The idea of a sanctuary would be to build ponds upstream, 

where there is plenty of water, and let the water go in and out so 

you don’t lose any, and prepare that water in a way that would fit 

the minnow, and then do what I thought of and recommended for 

a year and a half, that’s take the water to the minnow—no, take 

the minnow to the water, instead of the reverse, of taking the 

water to the minnow. 
245 

So I want to ask you, how do you plan to prioritize what can be 

done this year? And what kind of growing season do you see for 

this year for the farmers in my State? Will there be enough water 

for them? And where do the minnow sanctuaries figure into this? 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Chairman, on the minnow sanctuary, 

we have a draft plan and a draft timeline for implementing that 

plan that we’re meeting with your staff on to flesh out. There are 

four concerns that we’re working with. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. 

Commissioner KEYS. The turbidity, the biological opinion, the 

land area that it takes—those things, we’re working on. We think 

that it will probably take about 2 years to get that done, and we’re 

trying to find ways to accelerate that if we can. 

On the water year for the Basin, currently Mr. Craig’s characterization of his State, for everything shutting off in March, has been 

true almost all over the West. We have seen all of our projected 

runoff figures drop about 20 percent since the first of March, and 

that is true in the Middle Rio Grande. We started out in the high 

80 percent range, and we’re below 70 percent now. 

I would tell you that we have enough water identified to meet 

the requirements of the minnow for this year and to meet the requirements for the prior and paramount rights of the Pueblos. In 

looking at the water supply for the Middle Rio Grande Water Conservancy District, it appears that they have water to take them 

into and maybe through July, and then they may be out of water. 

We’re working with some of the Water 2025 monies to do conservation projects on that district and seeing if there are not some ways 

that we can stretch that supply. 

Senator DOMENICI. I have a very lengthy question about AnimasLa Plata. I will submit it. 

For the last 2 years, this committee funded the rehabilitation of 

the Middle Rio Grande levies. What’s the status of the rehabilitation? 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Chairman, we are on schedule with 

that 10-year program that we discussed with you a couple of years 

ago. Our budget this year requests adequate money to keep us on 

that schedule. We are requesting about $11 million for those eight 

or ten levies that we are working with there. 

Senator DOMENICI. I have a Western Water Initiative question, 

and I have a contracting-out question. 

I’d like to talk about two issues that I think we ought to be worried about that come within the purview of seeing if we can get 

more water from existing sources that might help with the problem. 

In my State, Senator Craig, there is a huge basin called the 

Tularosa Basin. It’s a salty water, underground basin. And on the 

edges, you can get it, just by going there and spooning it out. It’s, 

in some places, not so salty; in other places, very salty. But I would 

submit that with the situation we’ve got, that somebody ought to 

take a lead in the desalinization. If we could desalinate that water, 

we would have huge quantities of water to move from that area to 

arid parts of New Mexico and maybe even some other States. 

So I think that you’re aware of this issue. The schedules have 

slipped, such that an additional $1.8 million will be needed for the 
246 

Tularosa Basin construction, and at least $7 million for 2005. Have 

you been aware of the funding issues? And can you commit to 

bringing me a solution soon so that the partnership with ONR and 

DOE can be maintained? 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that situation, and, yes, we can craft a solution that would provide the necessary money in 2004, and then we would work with you on the 

funding for 2005. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I don’t know what you think about it, 

but I would submit to my friend, Senator Craig, that with our huge 

capacity and technology, it would seem rather unfortunate if, in the 

midst of a drought, if we had this huge underground basin right 

in the middle of the West, if we didn’t set out sights using the best 

scientists and technologists to see if we can clean some of that up 

so we could use it, especially in the agriculture field. 

And my last one has to do with another source of saving water. 

That has to do with the salt cedar. This was brought to the West 

to help erosion. Unfortunately, there has been a considerable drain 

on the scarce water supply, approximately 2.4 million acre-feet of 

water each year. I’m aware that you are using mechanical and 

chemical methods of removing them, and that you are replacing 

them with vegetation. Where are you with progress in this area? 

Is there a threat of erosion? And where are you with finding and 

certifying a biological control? Were you part of the recent Salt 

Cedar Conference in New Mexico? 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Chairman, yes, we were part of that 

conference. I would tell you that the Department of the Interior has 

a large initiative on invasive species, and a large part of that initiative is on the salt cedar. And Reclamation is taking the lead for 

Interior in the efforts on salt cedar. We are part of that effort in 

Albuquerque earlier this year, and certainly we are looking at different ways to do it. 

You talked about the mechanical means. That is the traditional 

way of doing it. We have recently received approval to release the 

bugs. They have found a bug that eats salt cedar. And the problem 

is, they didn’t know what he would eat after he ate up all of the 

salt cedar. And they think now that they have an answer to that. 

I think they think he’ll drop dead. But we’ll have to wait and see. 

But there are provisions—— 

Senator CRAIG. John—— 

Commissioner KEYS [continuing]. For releasing him—— 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. It’s possible that when the salt cedar 

is gone, he might become an endangered species. 

Commissioner KEYS. Oh, my goodness. 

Senator CRAIG. There would be some who would be advocates of 

that, so be careful of the word use ‘‘drop dead,’’ okay? 

Don’t mention it. 

Commissioner KEYS. But it has been approved for release, and 

there are a number of control areas underway where they’re trying 

that. 

On the erosion issue, it has been something that we’re paying a 

large amount of attention to, and there are a number of ways—a 

number of different vegetations that you can put there that will 
247 

control that erosion and not create the problems that the salt cedar 

did. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I just want to say—and I know that my 

friend, Senator Craig—and if we had the rest of this committee 

here, I think they would all agree that we can’t ignore the problem 

of saving water that is being wasted, and converting water that is 

not too far from usable if it’s there in large quantities, that we 

clearly ought to spend some money trying to fix it. 

I know if Israel is worried about it, we’re just as bad off. It’s just 

that they’re a lot smaller, and they can focus; and we’re a lot bigger, but, I’ll tell you, if you saw a map of the United States, like 

I have, that showed the salty underground water repositories in 

America, you would be shocked at how much there is. Even over 

in your side, there’s more than you think. But in my State, there 

just happens to be this monster underground basin, and I think it’s 

worth some money. And we’re sitting around rationing what we’ve 

got, and it might be equally as important to try to make what we 

have more functional. And I intend to pursue that with vigor. It’s 

going to take some money, but so what? We’ve got the United 

States Navy working on it, incidentally. You know that. 

Commissioner KEYS. Yes, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. They have a very big interest, and they’ve got 

a major project going in this basin. 

I have no further questions. Do you have any, Senator Craig? 

Senator CRAIG. Just a parting observation. Your early discussion 

about conservation and water management is obviously going to be 

critical during shortages. And even with any abundance, with the 

kind of growth factors we’re seeing in the western high-desert 

States, clearly management’s going to be important. 

Interestingly enough, management and new ideas and new alternatives have consequences. The Commissioner is going to Idaho to 

look at the consequence. In the Snake River Plain Aquifer, when 

you use the old techniques of flood irrigation, Mr. Chairman, you 

once fed the aquifer directly by flowing water out over the ground. 

Starting in the 1970’s, because of the Clean Water Act and because 

of PMDLs and all of that kind of thing, they shifted from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation, and that reduced the amount of 

water going into the aquifer. 

Senator DOMENICI. Right. 

Senator CRAIG. Now, that water flows out of the aquifer at a 

given point. And in the 1940’s and the 1950’s, people filed on the 

excessive flow as their source of water. It was an abnormal flow 

from normal flows—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Water rights. 

Senator CRAIG. They developed water rights. Now that we are 

using the new technologies and sprinkler irrigation, and, some instances, drip, the water is no longer flowing underground into the 

aquifer and out to the point source that was filed on. 

So the value of 2025 is what we’re calling it? 

Commissioner KEYS. Yes. 

Senator CRAIG. Those kinds of initiatives that not only look at 

how you mitigate, but try to understand what the consequence of 

mitigation will produce, is going to be every bit as important, because we have traditional, we have western water law, we have 
248 

fixed mandates, we have a whole complication of things that tie up 

inside this marvelous resource. And there are consequences for action and acts when the good intention is made. Now, when you dry 

these things up, are we going to dry up a wetland by that action, 

although it’s positive? A wetland that was created by man’s presence, not by Mother Nature, and on and on and on and on. 

Anyway, point made. It’s interesting that as we work towards solution, we’re now trying to find a way to solve a problem that is 

created by a positive action on the part of Idaho irrigators. 

Commissioner KEYS. Mr. Craig, one of the real cornerstones of 

Water 2025 is looking at institutional barriers that are there, lawwise or whatever, trying to find ways to make it easier to address 

some of the problems you’re talking about, especially the one on 

using government facilities to convey private water. The old Warren Act issue. 

Senator CRAIG. Um-hum. 

Commissioner KEYS. And certainly we may have to come back for 

some help on the Warren Act one of these times. But we’re looking 

at other laws that we can use to make that happen, like the 1906 

Townsite Act—— 

Senator CRAIG. Yeah. 

Commissioner KEYS [continuing]. Or the 30—Section 14 of the 

1939 act, or the 1958 act, trying to find ways to make that happen. 

In the end, we still may have to come back and work with you folks 

to see how we might change that Warren Act so that it’s more compatible. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, we think you’re headed in the right direction about those analyses. Thank you. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator DOMENICI. I thank you, Commissioner. We’re finished 

with you, and—— 

Commissioner KEYS. Okay. 

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. We’ll be working with you, and 

thank you for your excellent testimony, and you were very well prepared. 

Commissioner KEYS. Thank you, Senator. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HARRY REID

WATER 2025

Question. Commissioner Keys, we find that the budget request has effectively 

eliminated funding for Title XVI projects with the exception of ongoing projects. 

Even with that limited commitment, the level of funding has decreased. At the same 

time, the budget for Water 2025 seeks almost $13 million in increases. What share 

of this increase will be dedicated to reuse projects and/or research projects? 

Answer. Improving desalination technology is important to purifying salty and 

brackish waters to increase their utility. Water 2025’s goal is to aid technological 

advances and reduce the high costs that slow adoption of new desalination technologies. The fiscal year 2005 Water 2025 budget includes $4.0 million for costshared demonstration projects for desalination. In addition, approximately $1.5 million for research relevant to desalination is included in the Title XVI budget. 
249 

WATER 2025/TITLE XVI

Question. We also note that the bulk of the request is dedicated to conservation, 

efficiency, and markets and collaboration. Please explain how the Bureau intends 

to distribute these resources within the Water 2025 program? 

Answer. With the support of Congress in the fiscal year 2004 Budget, Secretary 

Norton has moved forward with the Western Water Initiative (precursor to Water 

2025) Challenge Grant program that seeks projects that make real progress towards 

avoiding water crises in the West. The Challenge Grant Program requires a 50–50 

cost share and targets irrigation and water districts in the West who are willing 

to leverage their money and resources with the Federal Government on projects that 

make more efficient and effective use of existing water supplies. 

For example, Water 2025 is seeking proposals that will retrofit and modernize existing water delivery facilities, and implement and use water banks and water markets as mechanisms to use our existing water more efficiently and effectively, providing such use is recognized by applicable State and Federal laws and authorities. 

Through the development of specific criteria and requirements, these projects and 

activities will focus, first and foremost on those areas where the competing demands 

for water by people and the environment mean that crises have the highest likelihood of occurring—based upon demographic or population trends combined with endangered species needs. 

TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM

Question. What role does the Bureau see itself playing in the advancement of research into recycling? 

Answer. Reclamation has requested $1.53 million for agency-wide activities associated with the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. This program allows Reclamation to conduct research on the treatment of impaired waters, including desalting, and to provide technical and financial assistance to local water agencies interested in investigating the potential for reusing impaired waters. In prior 

years, the program was focused on providing assistance to local agencies. In fiscal 

year 2005, the program’s main emphasis will be on conducting research. The objective of this research will be to develop technologies that have broad application and 

that will help bring down the cost of treating all types of impaired water, including 

municipal and industrial wastewater used in water recycling. 

Question. We note that the Water and Energy Management and Development account includes support for desalination research as part of a new initiative begun 

in 2004. However, the funding for this account has been reduced from $4 million 

to $1.5 million to support the development of high priority recycling and desalination projects as well as research. How does this reduction affect the ability to maintain research project priorities underway and identify new needs that Congress has 

identified? (Page 56 of the justification) 

Answer. Reclamation’s fiscal year 2005 Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse 

Program funding request for agency-wide activities is $1.53 million. This is $100,000 

more than was requested in fiscal year 2004. This account was increased to nearly 

$4.0 million due to Congressional action. Among other activities, Reclamation was 

directed to use these additional funds to continue support for the Water Reuse 

Foundation Research Program, which is focused primarily on research associated 

with the recycling of municipal and industrial wastewater. That research is currently underway and is expected to continue well into next year. The $1.53 million 

requested for fiscal year 2005 for agency-wide Title XVI activities would be used to 

continue research on developing low-cost treatment technologies needed to make all 

types of impaired water suitable for beneficial use, including wastewater. 

DESALINATION

Question. Based on your response to question ‘‘What role does the Bureau see 

itself playing in the advancement of research into recycling?’’ How are we to interpret the Bureau’s request of $100,000 for desalination research from a current year 

level of $7.7 million? 

Answer. The administration continues to support desalination and water purification related research within the limitations of available funding, We also continue 

to support the development of other water supply and water management technologies that will ensure that Reclamation and other western water managers have 

a complete set of tools to tackle water supply problems. In fiscal year 2005, a request for desalination research and other water purification technologies has been 

submitted under the five programs as summarized in the following table: 
250 

Program 

Approximate 

Fiscal Year 2005 

Allocation for 

Desalination 

Related R&D 

Scope of Desalination and Other 

Water Purification Related R&D 

WATER 2025 ................................................................................................ $4,000,000 External R&D and demonstration projects. 

Water Reclamation and Reuse Program (Title XVI) .................................... $1,500,000 External and internal R&D. 

Desalination and Water Purification Research Program (a.k.a. Desalination Act).$100,000 External R&D. 

Science and Technology Program ............................................................... $1,200,000 Internal R&D Reclamation-wide. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project (Title I) ............................... $781,000 Internal R&D to reduce the 

costs of the Yuma Desalting 

Plant. 

Total ............................................................................................... $7,581,000 

The $7.375 million enacted under the Desalination and Water Purification Program for fiscal year 2004 specified that $4.0 million shall be used for the construction of the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility. The reduction 

between fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2005 in the Desalination and Water Purification 

Program stems from the uncertainty of whether the Desalination Research Act will 

be reauthorized or extended and the uncertainty as to whether other authorities 

would allow us to continue this national program. The reduction has been partially 

offset by the increased allocation under Water 2025. In the event of no reauthorization of the Desalination Research Act, the Water Reclamation and Reuse Program 

(Title XVI) provides Reclamation with the general authority to continue to fund desalination research and demonstration activities. 

Question. What kind of work will not continue under the proposed budget cut? 

(Page 49 of the justification) 

Answer. For fiscal year 2005, the Water 2025 program has requested $4 million 

for desalination research with an emphasis on demonstration. The following work 

begun in fiscal year 2004 will continue under the fiscal year 2005 budget request: 

external research projects (bench-scale, pilot-scale, and demonstration to increase 

water supplies, reduce desalination costs, reduce concentrate management issues, 

and to increase energy efficiency), technology transfer (desalination clearinghouse, 

desalination research road mapping efforts with Sandia National Labs and the guidance of the National Academies of Science, and an internal study of the potential 

use of advanced water treatment technologies as a resource to create net new water 

supplies), and partnerships and collaborations (including the Water Reclamation, 

Recycling, and Reuse Task Force). 

TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM

Question. Overall, the West continues to face serious challenges in the development of alternative water supplies. A hallmark of confronting this challenge has 

been a strong Federal partnership in the form of Title XVI. Are we to assume that 

the Bureau no longer believes that a Federal partnership is advisable? 

Answer. Title XVI funding has helped local agencies offset the cost to plan, design, and construct water reclamation and reuse projects. These projects, when completed, will help local water agencies meet some of their existing and future water 

demand. Reclamation will continue to support those ongoing construction projects 

that were included in the President’s budget request in prior years. We would rather focus resources on completing these projects, so that project benefits may be realized, rather than diffuse resources in support of the many new proposed Title XVI 

projects, many of which were developed with little, if any, Reclamation involvement. 

Question. If so, please explain the basis of this decision and how you propose to 

fill the gap created by this action. 

Answer. Through the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, Reclamation has helped demonstrate that water recycling is a successful means of increasing 

a municipality’s water supply. Water recycling alone, however, will not be able to 

meet the anticipated future demand in all areas of the West, and other resources 

management strategies, such as conservation and desalination, will need to be pursued. Reclamation intends to focus its future new Title XVI activities on the development of treatment technologies that can be used to make all types of impaired 

water available for use, regardless of geographic location. 
251 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

FORT YATES INTAKE STRUCTURE FAILURE

Question. Mr. Keys, I am know you are familiar with the water crisis at Fort 

Yates when it experienced loss of water due to extended droughts and low lake levels on Lake Oahe. If unaddressed, low lake levels on both Lake Oahe and Lake 

Sakakawea will continue to devastate local economies and endanger communities 

that depend on this water source. 

What action will the Bureau of Reclamation take to resolve this issue for communities who depend on these lakes for their water supply? 

Answer. We recognize that the drought conditions throughout the Missouri River 

system are having significant impacts on community water supplies. However, Reclamation’s authority to address these issues is limited by the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 to the design, construction, operation, maintenance and replacement of the Indian municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) water supply facilities. 

Given current drought conditions, particular attention is being devoted to the Fort 

Berthold and Standing Rock MR&I systems which rely on the Missouri River as 

their water supply source. Reclamation became involved with development of the 

rural water system on Standing Rock with the passage of the Garrison Diversion 

Unit Reformulation Act of 1986. Reclamation is currently working with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe on a contingency plan for responding to possible future 

drought related impacts to their water system. 

With respect to the water crisis at Fort Yates, Reclamation completed the installation of a new interim intake for the Fort Yates water treatment plant. The intake 

was put into operation on March 16, 2004, and has operated reliably since that 

time. Reclamation expects this intake to provide water until decisions can be made 

to determine the water treatment plant and intake option that will serve the longterm needs of the Standing Rock MR&I system. Reclamation has also secured funding to investigate the feasibility of constructing horizontal wells as a replacement 

intake for the Fort Yates and Wakpala water treatment plants. These investigations 

began the week of April 19, 2004. 

Question. Has there been any movement within your agency to find funds that 

have not been used and reallocate them to the tribal MR&I funding that had to be 

used during the water supply crisis last year? 

Answer. As noted in our letter to you dated April 27, 2004, Reclamation is monitoring other programs for potential surplus funding. 

DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT

Question. Funding for the Dakota Water Resources Act is a top priority for me 

and for my constituents. Although Congress has promised to provide $200 million 

for Indian municipal, rural and industrial water needs and $200 million for State 

MR&I, the current budget fails to come anywhere close to what will be needed for 

the next fiscal year and provides only a total of $4.969 million for MR&I ($2.485 

for State MR&I, including NAWS, and $2.484 for Tribal MR&I). 

Given the fact that this program is severely under funded, what do you plan to 

do to keep up with the current needs of the program, in light of expected price increases in the major programs if delays occur? 

Answer. It was recognized during the development of the Dakota Water Resources 

Act that funding would be provided over a number of years. To address the expected 

price increases caused by multi-year funding, the legislation authorized both the 

State and Indian MR&I project ceilings to be adjusted through the application of 

engineering cost indices. This measure, contained in Section 10, will account for ordinary increases in construction costs and ensure the appropriation ceiling continues 

to be adjusted to keep up with the current needs of the program. 

Reclamation recognizes that the State and the Tribes have construction capability 

that exceeds the funding level proposed by the President in the fiscal year 2005 

budget. Furthermore, we understand that recent budget levels have not resulted in 

project accomplishment that keeps pace with the annual indexing of the appropriation ceiling previously described. However, the President’s budget request seeks to 

continue progress on Garrison Diversion Unit, and other on-going construction 

projects throughout the agency, within the budget targets that have been established. 

RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

Question. I am also very concerned about the status of the Red River Valley studies that will provide water to eastern North Dakota. I have heard some concerns 
252 

that the BOR is scaling back on some of the key items it had planned on doing and 

cutting back on the investigations needed to prepare a comprehensive study. 

Can you update me on the status of these studies and assure me that the Bureau 

isn’t taking shortcuts in this important matter? 

Answer. The purpose of the Red River Valley Water Supply Project is to meet the 

comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley in North 

Dakota. As directed by the Dakota Water Resource Act of 2000 (DWRA), Reclamation is conducting analyses to identify future water needs for the Red River Valley 

and options for meeting those needs. The DWRA requires an analysis of Municipal 

Rural and Industrial Needs, Aquatic Environment Needs, Recreation Needs, Water 

Quality Needs and Water Conservation Needs. It also mandates two reports, the 

Needs and Options Report and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Reclamation is the sole lead for analysis of Needs and Options and will complete the Needs 

and Options Report by November 30, 2005. In accordance with DWRA, Reclamation 

and the State of North Dakota are preparing the EIS required to evaluate the environmental impacts of alternatives identified in the Needs and Options Report. The 

Draft EIS will be completed by December 31, 2005. 

Reclamation is placing a high priority on conducting all investigations required 

for the Needs and Options Report and the EIS using objective, scientifically sound 

analyses. The work needed to complete both reports is on schedule and being conducted in a rigorous and scientific manner. Reclamation is taking no shortcuts in 

the comprehensive evaluation of water quality and quantity needs of the Red River 

Valley, as well as, options for meeting those needs, and the environmental analysis 

required under NEPA and DWRA. 

PICK-SLOAN HYDROPOWER

Question. In Pick-Sloan the Bureau appears to be adding staff for hydropower activities. Please explain. 

Answer. Reclamation is adding staff for hydropower activities in Pick-Sloan. Reclamation has discussed this with the preference power customers on several occasions and they agree with our staffing proposal. This staff will perform operation 

and maintenance to ensure the necessary reliability and availability of the 20 Reclamation Pick-Sloan Powerplants. Reclamation is facing a 40 percent attrition rate 

in hydropower staffing in the next 5 years and preparation must be made for this. 

Reclamation continues to deliver power at a cost that is less than the production 

costs of three-fourths of the other Federal and non-Federal hydropower facilities in 

the United States and with reliability twice that of the industry average. The impact to the power rate by adding this staff is minimal and Pick-Sloan customers will 

continue to benefit from the low wholesale rates. Furthermore, attention to such 

long-term operation and maintenance issues is in line with the recommendations 

from the 2003 re-PART of Reclamation’s hydropower program, which reiterated the 

need to engage in long-term planning and act with foresight in managing its hydropower facilities. 

Question. In addition, where are these employees being placed both geographically 

and as between technical field positions or administrative/policy and review positions? 

Answer. As discussed with and agreed to by the preference power customers, Reclamation filled three positions last year: two apprentices in Wyoming, and one 

power facility manager at the Green Mountain powerplant in Colorado. In addition, 

by fiscal year 2006, we are in agreement to hire three apprentices and one O&M 

manager at the Flatiron powerplant in Colorado, and two engineering positions in 

the Great Plains Regional Office. These positions will be working on powerplant 

O&M. 

Question. What cost saving measures is the Bureau planning to undertake? 

Answer. Reclamation continues to undertake cost saving measures such as further 

standardizing O&M business practices and procedures and continually seeking 

measures to improve the efficiency of water use and power generation. Reclamation 

has been successful in doing this through changes in operations and installation of 

more efficient equipment. 

Question. Is the Bureau attempting to coordinate activities with other Federal 

agencies to avoid duplication of plant equipment and services, e.g., WAPA and 

Corps of Engineers? 

Answer. Reclamation, in conjunction with other Federal and State agencies, is utilizing the same microwave and radio communication systems. This has eliminated 

equipment duplication and generated cost savings. Reclamation coordinates monthly 

powerplant and transmission line outages with WAPA to avoid unnecessary outages 

and to allow both agencies to schedule work during each other’s outages. Reclama-
253 

tion and WAPA continue to communicate in an effort to avoid duplication and reduce costs. Reclamation-wide coordination of asset management and facility condition assessment activities has occurred with the Corps of Engineers, Hydro Quebec, 

and Bonneville Power Administration. Reclamation’s Great Plains Region has recently revised its information sharing agreement with its federal power customers. 

The new agreement includes Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, WAPA, as well 

as the power customers. Through the agreement the parties coordinate budget, operation, and maintenance activities. 

SITE SECURITY

Question. The Bureau is proposing to spend $43 million for site security, including $12 million which will be reimbursable from Federal power customers. These appear 

to be annual costs and not one-time expenses. 

Since these multi-purpose projects are national assets, benefiting millions of 

Americans, why are they reimbursable from power customers? 

Answer. Beginning in fiscal year 2005, annual costs associated with activities for 

guarding our facilities will be treated as project O&M costs subject to 

reimbursability based upon project cost allocations and consistent with prior practices. The project beneficiaries who will be assigned these costs will be primarily 

power customers, water districts and some M&I water contractors. 

Reclamation recognizes there are challenges ahead of us, such as working with 

our stakeholders in analyzing security related O&M costs to determine the beneficiary’s reimbursable obligation in fiscal year 2005 consistent with project specific 

authorizations and contracts. 

Question. Why has the Bureau changed its existing policy on reimbursability and 

why should the power customers be required to pay these costs? 

Answer. Between September 11, 2001 and September 30, 2004, Reclamation has 

or will spend $124 million in anti-terrorism dollars, which include guard and surveillance activities. 

Reclamation’s existing policy has always stated that upon project construction 

completion, the responsibility of O&M of single-purpose facilities transfers to the 

water-user entities responsible for the project’s construction costs. Beginning in fiscal year 2005, annual costs associated with activities for guarding our facilities will 

be treated as project O&M costs subject to reimbursability based upon project cost 

allocations. 

The majority of Reclamation’s expenditures for anti-terrorism measures, such as 

security reviews and subsequent implementation of anti-terrorism measures as a result of these reviews, are still considered non-reimbursable expenditures. 

HYDROPOWER

Question. The budget proposes that hydropower customers assume the cost of research and development expenses of the science and technology program. This program has always been a non-reimbursable activity of the Bureau. 

Why is the Bureau adding yet more costs to hydropower users? 

Answer. As a result of the Reclamation Science and Technology Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

we believe that it is appropriate to include hydropower research and development 

expenses as reimbursable costs in the Power Marketing Administrations’ rates since 

the power customers directly benefit from the successes of Reclamation’s hydropower research and development program related to hydropower. These research developments have resulted in significant cost savings to project customers. 

Question. Are there any activities with respect to reliability that you are not undertaking that you believe are appropriate? 

Answer. Reclamation continues to assess the reliability and long-term viability of 

our generating facilities. We believe that we are doing everything that is appropriate at this time. We have recently conducted a condition assessment of our major 

equipment and have found that 46 percent of our major power components are in 

poor condition. As a result of the 2003 re-assessment of the PART on hydropower, 

we have revised our long-term performance measures and goals, and aim to reduce 

this percentage to 40 percent by 2014. Reducing the number of components rated 

in poor condition will increase generating reliability, and help avoid costly unplanned maintenance and replacement due to component failure. We will be scheduling funding to address this issue over the next several years to assure that our 

plants remain reliable. Another area we are evaluating is the responsiveness of our 

governors and excitation systems. Many of our governors are mechanical and as 

these governors are replaced, we are looking at replacing them with digital equipment, which improves our unit’s responsiveness during periods of system distress. 
254 

Finally, North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) policy require generation owners to perform reactive capability and limit verification of generators with a capacity of 10 megawatts 

or greater every 5 years. The policy further requires dynamic testing, maintenance, 

and calibration of voltage regulators, limit functions, power system stabilizers, and 

governor controls. Also, NERC and WECC policy require organizations to develop 

and maintain documented ratings of power equipment including powerplant equipment. The ratings must be consistent with documented rating methodology. Reclamation is striving to meet these requirements. 

FIVE-YEAR EXPENDITURES

Question. Please provide a specific breakdown of expenditures during the past 5 

years by function and authorized project purposes. 

Answer. The Bureau appreciates the continued support the committee has provided over the years. The information requested, expenditures by function and authorized project purpose for the past 5 years, is voluminous. We would welcome the 

opportunity to discuss this request further with the committee staff and tailor the 

response to ensure it is suitable and useful. 

Question. I can be more specific, but it turns into three questions. The answer to 

these three questions should be a chart, probably with footnotes, explaining what 

has taken place with the funding provided. It should also show how they applied 

underfinancing to the project. Hope this helps. 

How much money has been allocated, and spent, on the MR&I program for the 

past 5 years? 

Answer. The attached worksheet provides the information you requested on the 

MR&I program for the Great Plains Region. 
255 

PROJECTS WITH RURAL WATER COMPONENTS—WATER & RELATED RESOURCES 1

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal 

Year 1999 

Enacted/ 

Final Expenditure 

Budget 

Fiscal 

Year 1999 

Expenditures 

Fiscal 

Year 2000 

Enacted/ 

Final Expenditure 

Budget 

Fiscal 

Year 2000 

Expenditures 

Fiscal 

Year 2001 

Enacted/ 

Final Expenditure 

Budget 

Fiscal 

Year 2001 

Expenditures 

Fiscal 

Year 2002 

Enacted/ 

Final Expenditure 

Budget 

Fiscal 

Year 2002 

Expenditures 

Fiscal 

Year 2003 

Enacted/ 

Final Expenditure 

Budget 

Fiscal 

Year 2003 

Expenditures 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Enacted 

Budget 

Fiscal Year 

2004 U/F 2

Budget 

Fiscal 

Year 2004 

Rescission 2

Budget 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Enacted w/ 

U/F and 

Resc. 

Budget 

Mni Wiconi Rural Water Component (only) .... *31,344 

32,706 

..............

32,131 

*29,400 

28,429 

..............

27,306 

*33,735 

31,715 

..............

31,681 

*37,489 

34,234 

..............

34,080 

*38,800 

37,115 

..............

36,011 

*31,471 

................

¥2,547 

................

¥171 

..............

*28,753 

................

Mid-Dakota Rural Water Component 

(only) .......................................................... *15,000 

19,208 

..............

19,195 

*14,000 

13,882 

..............

13,847 

*8,000 

9,539 

..............

9,459 

*15,000 

14,384 

..............

14,020 

*17,860 

17,297 

..............

17,295 

*15,000 

................

¥1,450 

................

¥80 

..............

*13,490 

................

Garrison Rural Water Component (only) ........ *13,413 

17,966 

..............

14,566 

*17,386 

17,431 

..............

16,678 

*14,059 

13,707 

..............

13,456 

*16,305 

14,349 

..............

14,183 

*13,933 

11,214 

..............

11,134 

*9,031 

................

¥63 

................

¥17 

..............

*8,951 

................

Fort Peck Rural County Water System ........... *1,500 

1,126 

..............

590 

*3,000 

3,412 

..............

84 

*1,500 

4,687 

..............

4,508 

*0 

397 

..............

331 

*0 

107 

..............

¥3 

*0 

................

*0 

................

0 

..............

0 

................

Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie .................. *360 

550 

..............

329 

*0 

221 

..............

199 

*435 

578 

..............

500 

*4,000 

3,697 

..............

3,627 

*7,500 

4,840 

..............

4,492 

*7,500 

................

*

¥719 

................

¥40 

..............

6,741 

................

Lewis and Clark Rural Water System ............ *0 

0 

..............

0 

*0 

600 

..............

10 

*1,000 

1,524 

..............

1,499 

*2,000 

1,835 

..............

1,824 

*7,000 

5,800 

..............

5,800 

*17,000 

................

*

¥1,630 

................

¥91 

..............

15,279 

................

Perkins County Rural Water System .............. *0 

0 

..............

0 

*0 

0 

..............

0 

*0 

0 

..............

0 

*3,400 

3,077 

..............

3,050 

*4,300 

3,622 

..............

3,619 

*1,000 

................

*

¥96 

................

¥5 

..............

899 

................

Rural Water Program—GREAT PLAINS REGION: 

Enacted Budget ................................ *61,617 .............. *63,786 .............. *58,729 .............. *78,194 .............. *89,393 .............. *81,002 *¥6,505 *¥404 *74,113 Expenditure Budget/Expenditures ..... *71,556 *66,811 *63,975 *58,124 *61,750 *61,103 *71,973 *71,115 *79,995 *78,348 *0 *0 *0 *0

* Figures marked with an *: see footnote 1. 1 Columns entitled ‘‘Enacted/Final Expenditure Budget’’: The first number in the column is marked with an asterisk to clearly show what was Enacted by Congress. The second number in the column, represents what was Enacted plus adjustments which can include prior year funds, carryover, underfinancing, rescissions, and fund transfers. 

Expenditure information must be compared to the Expenditure Budget in order to receive an accurate picture. 

2 The columns entitled Fiscal Year 2004 U/F and Fiscal Year 2004 Rescission provide a breakdown of how the reductions associated with underfinancing and the rescission were applied. 

In both instances, each project received an across-the-board reduction per the Fiscal Year 2004 Water and Energy Appropriation Act. For Garrison, the majority of the reductions were applied to the non MR&I components not shown on the 

chart. No reductions were applied to the $6 million allocated to the construction MR&I program. 
256 

Question. Did the extra $10 million that was provided by Congress in fiscal year 

2004 get spent on the MR&I program? 

Answer. The Great Plains Region’s fiscal year 2004 Enacted MR&I program was 

$81,917,000 which was $63,915,000 over the President’s requested amount of 

$18,002,000. Garrison was the only project that received a Congressional write-in 

of $10 million. Therefore, the following response is based on the assumption that 

the $10 million referred to is related to Garrison. However, we would welcome the 

opportunity to discuss this request further with the committee staff and tailor the 

response to ensure it is suitable and useful. The fiscal year 2004 President’s request 

for the Garrison project included zero dollars for MR&I construction and $3,031,000 

for MR&I operation and maintenance for the Tribal program. Of the additional $10 

million received for the Garrison project, $6 million was allocated for the MR&I construction program (bringing the total Garrison MR&I program to $9,031,000); $2 

million was allocated for Red River Valley to complete the studies and EIS on the 

schedule testified to in the December 2002 Senate Field Hearing; and $2 million 

was allocated to complete work at the Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge. 

Question. If not, is there any likelihood of the same occurring in fiscal year 2005? 

Answer. If Congress provided additional funds for general Garrison program purposes, we anticipate they would be allocated to the MR&I programs. 
(257) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS) 

ACCOMPANIED BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS, 

CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

Senator DOMENICI. Now, Senator Craig, I have to step out with 

some constituents. I wonder if you would let Panel Two, Mr. John 

Woodley, Assistant Secretary, and Lieutenant General Robert 

Flowers—although he’s not here, is that right? He’ll be here?— 

Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If you’d start 

that, I’ll be back very, very soon. 

Senator CRAIG [presiding]. So if the second panel would come forward, we’ll proceed with testimony from the Army Corps. Army 

first, yeah. 

Well, thank you all very much. Assistant Secretary Woodley, we 

appreciate you being here. 

We’ll allow you to proceed with your testimony, and then we’ll 

move to—I assume both you and the General are the ones prepared 

for the testimony. Is that correct? 

General FLOWERS. Yes, sir. 

Senator CRAIG. All right, fine. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify before the subcommittee about the President’s fiscal year 

2005 budget for the Civil Works function of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

I’m especially delighted to be accompanied this morning by a 

very distinguished soldier, Lieutenant General Robert Flowers, the 

50th Chief of Engineers. Mr. Chairman, this is General Flowers’ 

last opportunity to appear before the subcommittee, and so I think 

that should be made note of in the record, and I’d like to express 

my particular appreciation, on behalf of the President, for his very 

fine service as Chief of Engineers. 

May I also ask leave to summarize my statement and put a complete statement—— 

Senator CRAIG. Yeah—— 

Mr. WOODLEY [continuing]. In the record? 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. Your full statements will become a 

part of the committee record. Thank you. 

Please proceed. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Our total fiscal year 2005 Civil Works budget is 

$4.2 billion, which is about the same as last year’s Civil Works 
258 

budget request. This year, to develop the budget, we began the use 

of a performance-based approach built around programmatic goals 

for our eight business programs. This approach, we feel, has and 

will continue in the future to enable us to make the most effective 

use of the limited funding available to us. 

For new projects, the budget focuses on commercial navigation, 

flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The budget directs substantial funding to the ongoing construction projects that have among the highest economic and environmental returns to the Nation. We also have given priority to 11 

projects that we are able to complete in fiscal year 2005, and to 

eight projects that we consider high-priority projects, and to a number of dam safety and seepage correction projects. 

Funding to plan or design new projects this year is limited, and 

is targeted to the most productive study and design activities, including five new studies, 23 design efforts, and the current phases 

of ongoing studies, including an expanded Louisiana Coastal Area 

study. 

Mr. Chairman, the 2005 budget does not include a request for 

funding for beach renourishment. Our view is that non-Federal interests should carry out renourishment activities once the initial 

construction of the beaches has been completed. We have an exception to this, at a case in which we are obliged to perform renourishment under a court order. 

We have also asked for leave, to free up funding for higher-priority needs, to cancel unobligated balances of projects that may not 

be the best—the top investments, or, for one reason or another, are 

not ready to proceed. This recommended cancellation, if it’s approved, would take effect with the enactment of the fiscal year 

2005 appropriations. 

The budget also includes a number of initiatives for operation 

and maintenance of our existing projects. We ask leave to finance, 

up front, the operation and maintenance cost of hydropower facilities, with funds provided by three Federal Power Marketing Administrations. Second, we would ask to accomplish recreation modernizations by using new fees and by entering into planning and 

management partnerships. Third, we would continue antiterrorist 

protection at key projects and facilities. And finally, we ask to reserve a pool of funds for unforeseen and urgent maintenance and 

repairs at key projects. 

Mr. Chairman, I have three priorities in mind for the Civil 

Works program during my time as Assistant Secretary. You will 

see these priorities reflected, in part, in this budget, and I believe 

to a greater extent in the next. One priority is to develop the Civil 

Works budget and manage the program based on objective performance measures. In that regard, General Flowers and I have recently provided our Civil Works strategic plan to the committee, 

and we look forward to working with you on developing it further 

and hearing your views on it. A second priority is to improve the 

analytical tools that we use for water resource planning and decision-making. And my third priority is to improve the effectiveness 

and efficiency of the Corps’ regulatory program, the primarily wetlands and navigation regulatory program. 
259 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, this is a frugal budget that reflects the priorities 

of a Nation at war. Understandably, and I will say immediately, it 

does not fund all the good things that the Corps of Engineers is capable of doing, but it does move ahead with many important investments that will yield enormous returns for the Nation next year 

and in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of 

the Appropriations Committee and to present the President’s budget for the Civil 

Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2005. 

OVERVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2005 ARMY CIVIL WORKS BUDGET

The fiscal year 2005 budget for Army Civil Works provides funding to continue 

the development and restoration of the Nation’s water and related resources, the operation and maintenance of existing navigation, flood damage reduction, and multiple-purpose projects, the protection of the Nation’s regulated waters and wetlands, 

and the cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of the Nation’s early efforts to 

develop atomic weapons. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget for Army Civil Works includes new discretionary 

funding requiring appropriations of $4.215 billion and an estimated $4.132 billion 

in outlays from discretionary funding (see Table 1). These figures are approximately 

the same as in the fiscal year 2004 budget. 

The new discretionary funding includes $610 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for harbor operation and maintenance and dredged material disposal facility construction. The discretionary funding also includes $115 million from 

the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for construction and rehabilitation on the inland 

waterways. 

The budget includes proposed appropriations language for direct funding of hydropower facility operation and maintenance by Federal power marketing administrations. New discretionary funding of $150 million would be derived from direct funding in fiscal year 2005. This proposal is described in greater detail below. 

Other sources of new discretionary funding include $3.303 billion from the general 

fund and $37 million from Special Recreation User Fees. 

Additional program funding, over and above funding from the sources requiring 

discretionary appropriations, is estimated at $437 million. This total includes $71 

million from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for operation and maintenance of hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest, $287 million contributed by 

non-Federal interests for their shares of project costs and for project-related work, 

$63 million from the Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund, and $16 million 

from miscellaneous permanent appropriations. 

The budget proposes cancellation of at least $100 million of previous discretionary 

budget authority. Net discretionary budget authority, including this proposal and 

the direct funding proposal, is $3.965 billion. 

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING

Performance-based budgeting is one of the President’s Management Initiatives, 

and the one that is most central to the preparation of the budget. For the Army 

Civil Works program, performance planning is built around eight program areas: 

Navigation (including inland waterway navigation and coastal channels and harbors); Flood and Storm Damage Reduction (including from riverine flooding and 

coastal storms); Environment (including aquatic ecosystem restoration, stewardship 

of natural resources at operating projects, and the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action Program); Hydropower; Recreation; the Regulatory Program, Emergency 

Management; and Water Supply (storage at existing reservoirs). 

The first element in our performance planning is a strategic plan, which is required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). I am happy to announce that on March 22, 2004, General Flowers and I provided our strategic plan 

to the committees and subcommittees of Congress responsible for water develop-
260 

ment authorizations and appropriations, including this committee and subcommittee. This plan is a work in progress. We will continue to work with the Office 

of Management and Budget to establish program goals, objectives, and performance 

measures that are called for by GPRA and that provide a sound basis for setting 

performance targets and building future budgets. 

The second element in our performance planning is the use of a government-wide 

process to assess program performance, which first was instituted for the fiscal year 

2004 budget. These assessments are intended to improve the effectiveness of programs and to improve the quality of their management and oversight. Five business 

programs, program components, or sets of activities were assessed for the fiscal year 

2004 budget: the Hydropower program; the riverine flood damage reduction component; the inland waterway navigation component; the Emergency Management program; and wetlands-related activities apart from the Regulatory Program. For fiscal 

year 2005, the Regulatory Program was assessed. Two of the programs—the Regulatory Program and Emergency Management—have been rated as moderately effective and have received substantial funding in the fiscal year 2005 budget. 

The third element is to develop the Civil Works budget and manage the program 

based on objective performance measures. The fiscal year 2005 budget for Army 

Civil Works focuses funding on the most productive investments. This is reflected, 

for instance, in the allocation of funding to the most productive design activities, 

construction projects, and maintenance activities. At the same time, I recognize that 

we can do a better job of performance-based budgeting, and one of my priorities is 

to improve our capabilities in this area. I have placed a priority on making significant progress on further development of sound performance measures for each business program and on using the measures to build our fiscal year 2006 budget. A 

great deal of hard work is in store for us as we transition to this approach, but the 

advantages are enormous, and the Army is fully committed to this effort. 

FOCUS ON HIGH-RETURN NEW INVESTMENTS

The fiscal year 2005 budget for Army Civil Works targets funding to the new investments that have very high economic or environmental returns. The budget does 

so by emphasizing priority missions and allocating substantial funding to new and 

continuing high return continuing construction projects while de-emphasizing the 

design and initiation of new projects. However, the budget funds three new projects 

that have high economic or environmental returns and several new high priority 

studies that competed successfully for funding. The budget also discontinues Federal 

participation in beach renourishment activities, and proposes to cancel unobligated 

balances for projects that do not provide high returns or that are not Civil Works 

responsibilities. 

Priority Missions 

The budget emphasizes ongoing studies, projects and programs that provide substantial benefits in the priority missions of the Civil Works program for new investments, namely, commercial navigation, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and flood and 

storm damage reduction. 

The budget also provides funding for other areas of Corps involvement, including 

regulatory protection of waters and wetlands, cleanup of sites contaminated by the 

Nation’s early atomic weapons program, and the management of natural resources 

and provision of hydroelectric power and recreation services at Federally operated 

Civil Works projects. 

No funds are provided for studies and projects that carry out non-traditional missions that should remain the responsibility of non-Federal interests or other Federal 

agencies, such as wastewater treatment, irrigation water supply, and municipal and 

industrial water supply treatment and distribution. Furthermore, the budget does 

not fund individual studies and projects that are inconsistent with established policies governing the applicable missions. 

Ongoing, Budgeted Construction Projects 

In recent years, ongoing construction projects that the budget funds have had to 

compete for funding with numerous new construction starts. To maximize the net 

returns of the construction program and finish the construction backlog more quickly than under current trends, the budget directs funding to complete 11 ongoing 

projects in fiscal year 2005, and continues progress on projects consistent with longestablished policies, including eight projects that are the highest priorities in the 

Nation. It also provides substantial funding for dam safety investments. In addition, 

the budget funds three new projects with high economic and environmental returns. 

Altogether, the budget includes funding for construction of 149 projects, not including the projects constructed under the Continuing Authorities Program. 
261 

Consistent with this focus on projects already under construction, the budget includes funding to continue or complete design of 23 proposed projects that were selected based on their economic and environmental returns. The budget defers work 

on all lower priority design efforts. Similarly, we made an effort to prioritize studies 

of proposed projects. In general, funding is targeted to the most productive study 

and design activities, including $8 million for the expanded Louisiana Coastal Area 

Study. Funding is provided for five new studies that competed successfully with ongoing work. 

Beach Renourishment 

The budget does not include any funding for beach renourishment. The administration’s view is that non-Federal interests should carry out renourishment activities once the initial nourishment has been accomplished, just as they operate and 

maintain other types of projects once the installation is complete. This policy applies 

to all types of projects involving beach renourishment, including projects for which 

Project Cooperation Agreements already have been executed. Work under such 

agreements is subject to the availability of funding, and the new policy specifies that 

funding no longer will be sought for renourishment phases. 

We will continue to plan for and design shore protection projects, and we will continue to construct initial nourishment phases as well as the structural measures for 

coastal projects. We also will continue to deposit dredged material from navigation 

projects on the adjacent shores when it is the least-cost, environmentally acceptable 

disposal method. In addition, we will participate financially in one-time placements 

of dredged material for the beneficial use of shore protection, and we will perform 

follow-on placements for the beneficial use of shore protection if non-Federal interests finance the incremental costs. Within these ground rules, we will continue to 

participate in regional sediment management activities. 

There is one exception to the policy in fiscal year 2005, for the Westhampton 

Shores, New York, area. We are funding periodic renourishment program as ordered 

by the district court in the settlement of the case of Rapf et al. vs. Suffolk County 

of New York et al. 

Cancellation of Unobligated Balances 

To free up funding for higher priority needs, the budget proposes to cancel the 

unobligated balances of 41 projects that are not consistent with current policy. The 

cancellation would take effect with enactment of fiscal year 2005 appropriations. 

FINANCING AND MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES FOR OPERATING PROJECTS

The Operation and Maintenance program includes funding for four significant initiatives: direct funding of hydropower operation and maintenance costs; recreation 

modernization; a new emergency maintenance reserve fund; and anti-terror facility 

protection. 

Direct Financing of Hydropower Operation and Maintenance Costs 

Historically, each year the Army Civil Works program has financed the operation 

and maintenance costs of Corps of Engineers hydroelectric facilities, and Federal 

power marketing agencies have repaid the Treasury for these costs from the revenues provided by ratepayers. The exception has been in the Pacific Northwest, 

where under section 2406 of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 

102–486, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has directly financed the costs 

of operating and maintaining the Corps’ hydroelectric facilities from which it receives power. BPA has been providing operation and maintenance funds in this 

manner each year, beginning in fiscal year 1999. 

Each year, Corps facilities experience unplanned outages around 3 percent of the 

time. In 1999, the General Accounting Office found that the Corps’ hydropower facilities are twice as likely to experience ‘‘unplanned outages’’ as private sector facilities, because the Corps does not always have funds for maintenance and repairs 

when needed. 

To address this problem, the budget proposes that the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area Power 

Administration finance hydropower operation and maintenance costs directly, in a 

manner similar to the mechanism used by Bonneville. The budget contemplates that 

these power marketing administrations, in consultation with the Corps, would make 

funding available for those hydropower operation and maintenance expenditures 

that they believe are justified in order to provide economical, reliable hydropower 

to power customers. We believe that, as a consequence, unplanned outages would 

decline over time to levels comparable to the industry average. The administration 

is submitting this as an appropriations proposal. Under current Congressional 
262 

Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget scoring, the funds provided by 

the power marketing administrations offset appropriated funds without PAYGO consequences. 

Recreation Modernization 

The second initiative is to modernize recreation facilities. The recreation modernization initiative has three components. The first is a legislative proposal that: 

1) authorizes the Corps to establish a permanent recreation fee program that is consistent with the existing Federal Recreation User Fee Demonstration program; 2) 

authorizes the Corps to collect entrance fees; and 3) authorizes the Corps to retain 

all recreation use fees over $37 million per year and to use the retained fees for 

its recreation facilities. To support this proposal, we currently are developing a proposed schedule of recreation use fees, lease receipts, and other sources of revenue, 

showing the locations where we expect to collect revenue and the kinds and 

amounts of revenue we expect to collect at each location. 

The second is six recreation demonstration projects, at Texoma Lake in Texas, 

Shelbyville Lake in Illinois, Rathbun Lake in Iowa, W. Kerr Scott Lake in North 

Carolina, Cumberland Lake in Kentucky, and Beaver Lake in Arkansas. At each location, the Corps will demonstrate new planning, management and financing partnership arrangements with State and local government park authorities and private 

sector concessionaires. These will be designed to upgrade Corps recreation facilities 

at little or no cost to the Federal Government. If these six demonstration projects 

are a success, the Corps will expand the model to other Corps facilities in the future. 

The third is $6 million to upgrade Corps recreation facilities related to the Lewis 

and Clark Bicentennial commemoration. 

Emergency Maintenance Reserve 

The budget includes $35 million for an emergency maintenance reserve fund, from 

which the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works will make allocations to 

meet high-priority, unexpected, and urgent maintenance needs at key facilities. 

When an unexpected emergency occurs under current practice, it is sometimes difficult to find the needed funds on a timely basis. The new arrangement will enable 

us to respond to these situations promptly, without interfering with other program 

commitments. 

The Assistant Secretary will make the allocation decisions based on the urgency 

of the maintenance or repair requirements, the relative availability of funding from 

lower-priority work, and the likelihood that additional high-priority needs would be 

identified in the remainder of the fiscal year. 

Anti-Terrorist Facility Protection 

Since the events of September 11, 2001, the Civil Works program has received appropriations of $278 million to provide facility protection measures that have recurring costs (such as guards), to perform assessments of threats and consequences at 

critical facilities, and to design and implement the appropriate ‘‘hard’’ protection at 

those critical facilities. The administration is continuing its commitment to facility 

protection in fiscal year 2005, with a budget of $84 million for facility protection. 

Of the $84 million, $72 million is for projects funded from the Operation and Maintenance account and $12 million is for other projects and facilities. 

PRESIDENT’S MANAGEMENT AGENDA

We are pleased with the progress we are making on the President’s Management 

Agenda. Like most agencies, we started out in 2002 with ‘‘red’’ ratings across the 

board. Our status rating for the human capital initiative is now ‘‘yellow.’’ We now 

have ‘‘green’’ or ‘‘yellow’’ progress ratings for all five of the President’s Management 

Agenda initiatives. 

The Army Corps of Engineers has developed a sound, comprehensive human capital plan and has implemented its ‘‘USACE 2012’’ plan. The 2012 plan is the Corps 

guiding document for organizational changes and process changes to improve service 

delivery. 

The Corps continues to be a strong supporter of E-Gov initiatives such as Recreation One-Stop, Geospatial, and Disaster Management. It is aggressively working to 

improve the overall management of its information technology investments by extensively using the Federal Enterprise Architecture to identify opportunities to identify like systems and identify possible opportunities to collaborate. 

The Corps has developed a plan and management infrastructure to conduct competitive sourcing and has completed all preliminary planning steps for its first two 

standard competitions to be announced in fiscal year 2004. 
263 

To identify problems identified in its audits for 2002 and 2003, the Corps is improving documentation to support older assets. 

We are confident that our work on the President’s initiatives will yield greater 

program efficiency and effectiveness in the years to come. 

APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS

Although the budget was formulated largely by program area, it is presented to 

Congress by traditional appropriation account. 

General Investigations 

The budget for the General Investigations program is $90.5 million. This funding 

level reflects an emphasis on completing policy-consistent projects that are already 

budgeted in the Construction account, rather than continuing to plan, design, and 

initiate new work. 

Within this amount, $8.6 million is to continue or complete preconstruction engineering and design of the 22 projects with the highest expected economic or environmental returns. The remaining funding will be used to continue the ongoing phases 

of policy-consistent reconnaissance and feasibility studies, and to continue coordination, technical assistance, and research and development. The budget funds four 

new studies that competed successfully with ongoing work. These studies are as follows: Southern California Wetlands Restoration, California; Boulder Creek, Colorado; Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Environmental Restoration, Delaware and 

Maryland; and Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana. 

One of my priorities is to improve analytical tools to support water resource planning and decision-making. The budget addresses this, for instance, by increasing 

funding for research and development on modeling and forecasting tools, including 

$2.5 million for the Navigation Economic Technologies research program funded in 

this account. 

Construction 

The fiscal year 2005 budget for the Construction program is $1.4215 billion. Of 

that total, $115 million would be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 

to fund 50 percent of the costs of construction and major rehabilitation of inland 

waterway projects, and $10 million would be derived from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund to fund the Federal share of dredged material disposal facilities at operating coastal harbor projects. 

The budget proposes funding for three new starts that have very high economic 

and environmental returns: the Washington, DC, and Vicinity flood damage reduction project; the Rio Guanajibo, Puerto Rico, flood damage reduction project; and the 

Everglades Pilot Projects Program, Florida. The pilot projects program is part of the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which in turn is part of the Central 

and South Florida project. 

Substantial funding is provided for the 11 projects completing construction in fiscal year 2005, for dam safety assurance, seepage correction, and static instability 

correction projects, and for eight high priority projects nationwide. The high priority 

projects are the New York and New Jersey Harbor deepening project ($103 million); 

the Olmsted Locks and Dam, IL & KY, project ($75 million); projects to restore the 

Florida Everglades ($125 million) and the side channels of the Upper Mississippi 

River system ($28 million); two projects to provide flood damage reduction to urban 

areas, namely, the Sims Bayou, Houston, TX, project ($16 million) and the West 

Bank and Vicinity, New Orleans, LA, project ($37 million); and projects to meet environmental requirements in the Columbia River Basin ($107 million) and the Missouri River basin ($69 million). The Everglades work actually is comprised of three 

distinct projects, as is the Columbia River Basin work. 

The budget provides $52.9 million for the planning, design, and construction of 

projects under the Continuing Authorities Program. These are small projects for 

flood damage reduction, navigation, shoreline protection, streambank protection, 

navigation project impact mitigation, clearing and snagging, aquatic ecosystem restoration, project modifications for improvement of the environment, and beneficial 

uses of dredged material (including beneficial uses for environmental purposes as 

well as beneficial use for coastal storm damage reduction). 

Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries 

The budget includes $270 million for the Flood Control, Mississippi River and 

Tributaries account. 

The budget includes funding for preconstruction engineering and design for the 

Morganza to the Gulf, Louisiana, project. The budget also includes funding for one 
264 

new study of opportunities for the acquisition of additional real property interests 

in the Atchafalaya Basin. 

Operation and Maintenance 

The budget for Operation and Maintenance emphasizes essential operation and 

maintenance activities at Corps facilities, including maintenance dredging and 

structural repairs. The overall budget for the Operation and Maintenance account 

is $1.926 billion. 

The budget continues the past policy of directing funding for navigation maintenance primarily to those harbors and waterways that have high volumes of commercial traffic. For small ports and recreational harbors, the budget funds maintenance 

work where needed to support significant commercial navigation, commercial or subsistence fishing, or public transportation benefits. Approximately $1.103 billion is to fund projects and programs supporting navigation for commercial cargo, commercial or subsistence fishing, and public transportation. Within this amount, the budget provides about $539 million for deep draft 

harbors (harbors with authorized depths of greater than 14 feet); $28 million for 

shallow draft harbors; $411 million for inland waterways with commercial traffic of 

more than 1 billion ton-miles per year; and $49 million for waterways with less commercial traffic. An additional $74 million represents joint use costs at multi-purpose 

projects that are allocated to navigation. Approximately $823 million is for projects and programs other than navigation, 

including flood damage reduction ($286 million), recreation ($253 million), natural 

resources management ($92 million), hydroelectric power generation ($153 million), 

and emergency management ($40 million, including the $35 million emergency 

maintenance reserve). 

Regulatory Program 

The recent performance assessment of this program concluded that it is moderately effective overall. The budget provides $150 million, which is a substantial 

increase over the fiscal year 2004 enacted amount and reflects our assessment that 

this program needs additional funding. The activities funded in the budget include 

permit evaluation, enforcement, oversight of mitigation efforts, administrative appeals, watershed studies, special area management plans, and environmental impact statements. 

One of my priorities for the Civil Works program is to improve the effectiveness 

of aquatic resource protection and the efficiency of permit reviews and decision-making. The budget will enable us to reduce permit evaluation times, improve protection 

of aquatic resources, and continue wetlands protection through watershed approaches. 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) 

The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is an environmental cleanup program for sites contaminated as a result of the Nation’s early efforts to develop atomic weapons. Congress transferred the program from the Department of Energy in fiscal year 1998. We are continuing to implement needed cleanups at contaminated sites. This year’s budget is $140 million. 

General Expenses 

Funding budgeted for the General Expenses program is $167 million. These funds 

will be used for executive direction and management activities of the Corps of Engineers headquarters, the Corps division offices, and related support organizations. 

Within the budgeted amount, $7 million is to audit the Civil Works financial statements, a function formerly carried out by the Army Audit Agency (AAA) using its 

own funding. The AAA has done this work in the past, but it is not sufficiently independent of the Corps to conduct this audit under new General Accounting Office auditing standards. 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 

The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account finances response and recovery activities for flood, storm, and hurricane events, as well as preparedness for 

these natural events and for support to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

through the Federal Response Plan. 

The recent performance assessment of this program concluded that it is moderately effective overall. Accordingly, the fiscal year 2005 budget includes $50 million, which is the approximate amount the Corps of Engineers spends on flood and 

coastal storm emergency preparedness, response, and recovery activities in a typical 

year. This funding will reduce the likelihood of having to borrow from other accounts or obtain supplemental appropriations. 
265 

CONCLUSION

The Army Civil Works budget for fiscal year 2005 will enable us to move ahead 

with many important investments that will yield enormous returns for the Nation 

in the future. 

TABLE 1.—DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL WORKS FISCAL 

YEAR 2005 BUDGET 

Requested New Appropriations: 

General Investigations ........................................................................................................................ $90,500,000 

Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 1,421,500,000 

Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................................................ 1,926,000,000 

Regulatory Program ............................................................................................................................. 150,000,000 

Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries ............................................................................... 270,000,000 

General Expenses ................................................................................................................................ 167,000,000 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies ............................................................................................. 50,000,000 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program .............................................................................. 140,000,000 

TOTAL .............................................................................................................................................. 4,215,000,000 

Sources of New Appropriations: 

General Fund ....................................................................................................................................... 3,303,000,000 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund ......................................................................................................... 610,000,000 

(O&M) ......................................................................................................................................... (600,000,000 ) 

(Construction—Disposal Facilities) ........................................................................................... (10,000,000 ) 

Inland Waterways Trust Fund ............................................................................................................. 115,000,000 

Special Recreation User Fees ............................................................................................................. 37,000,000 

Power Marketing Administration Direct Funding ................................................................................ 150,000,000 

TOTAL .............................................................................................................................................. 4,215,000,000 

Additional New Resources: 

Rivers and Harbors Contributed Funds .............................................................................................. 287,000,000 

Bonneville Power Administration ........................................................................................................ 1 71,000,000 

Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund .......................................................................................... 63,000,000 

Permanent Appropriations ................................................................................................................... 16,000,000 

TOTAL .............................................................................................................................................. 437,000,000 

Total New Program Funding ........................................................................................................... 4,652,000,000 

Proposed Cancellation of Prior-Year Funds ................................................................................................. (100,000,000 ) 

1 Beginning in fiscal year 2005, budget authority from BPA is limited to budget authority for joint use costs. Funding for the specific costs of hydropower will be executed in a BPA account and will not count as Corps budget authority. Accordingly, the amount of $71 million for fiscal year 2005 appears to be a reduction from the total fiscal year 2004 amount of $143.205 million, but in fact is a slight increase from the corresponding fiscal year 2004 amount of $69.5 million for joint use costs. 

Senator DOMENICI [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

General, would you like to comment also? Excuse me, I didn’t 

have my mike on. Would you like to comment also? 

General FLOWERS. Yes, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Your statement will be made a part of the 

record. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS

General FLOWERS. Sir, I am honored, again, to be testifying before you, along with the Secretary, on the President’s fiscal year 

2005 budget for the Army’s Civil Works program. 

Today, thanks to this subcommittee’s strong support, this Civil 

Works program is balanced, responsive, and highly productive. I 

look forward to your continued partnership in this important program, so broadly beneficial to the Nation. 
266 

My complete statement covers more details on the fiscal year 

2005 program, including the backlog, transforming the Corps, our 

business-management system—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Oh, yeah. 

General FLOWERS [continuing]. And the Corps’ overall value to 

the Nation’s economy, the environment, and national defense. With 

your permission, I’ll summarize some of the main points. 

First, a word about the President’s budget and the value of the 

Civil Works program to the Nation’s economy and the environment. 

This budget funds the critical water-resources infrastructure that 

has improved the quality of our citizens’ lives and provided a foundation for the economic growth and development of this country. 

Our projects for navigation, flood protection, ecosystem restoration, 

hydropower generation, and recreation directly contribute to national economic well-being. The sum of benefits realized as reduced 

transportation costs, avoided flood and storm damages, and improvements in environmental value is considerable. 

And I’d like to share some numbers with you that illustrate the 

direct effect of the Civil Works mission. 

First, the navigation program enables 2.4 billion tons of commerce to move on navigable waterways. The U.S. Department of 

Transportation estimates that these cargo movements have created 

jobs for 13 million people. 

Second, the Corps flood-damage reduction structures have saved lives and property loss. Taxpayers save $21 billion in damages each 

year. 

And, third, almost all of our construction work and over half of 

our civil planning and engineering is completed by private-industry 

contractors funneling money directly into the economy. 

This budget also includes funding to support watershed studies. 

These studies will allow us to work collaboratively with many 

stakeholders. With the complexity of water problems today, we believe this is the direction we must take to develop the best, most 

comprehensive solutions. 

Moving now to our backlogs, we estimate it will cost approximately $11 billion to complete the construction projects funded in 

the fiscal year 2005 construction general budget. The maintenance 

backlog continues to be challenging. The work the Corps is completing on our infrastructure is a critical element to a strong economy. Sustaining this level of service becomes more of a challenge 

as our infrastructure ages. The fiscal year 2005 budget includes 

$1.926 billion for the operations and maintenance program. I can 

assure you that I will continue to do all that I can to make these 

programs as cost effective as possible. 

There are many who are interested in transforming the Corps, 

inside and outside of the organization. Some may have the larger 

goal of changes in current water policy in mind; others may want 

us to operate more efficiently and effectively. What I’d like to make 

clear is that we’re listening. I’ve met with individuals, industry 

groups, and interest groups to hear what they have to say. The 

Corps is undergoing sweeping changes as a result of our customer 

and stakeholder input. We are becoming a team of teams within 

the organization focusing on eight regional business centers, which 

will more efficiently deliver service to the public and the Armed 
267 

Forces. And let me assure you, I’m committed to working with you 

and all who are interested, and to doing all in my power to transform the Corps to meet the Nation’s needs. 

I’m very proud of the Civil Works program and its support to the 

national security strategy. The Corps’ Civil Works experience is 

proving invaluable as soldiers and civilians of the Corps of the Engineers help to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure. To date, over 1,000 civilian volunteer members have served in Iraq, sharing their knowledge and expertise with Iraqi engineers and other professionals, assisting the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Combined Joint 

Task Force in repairing and rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

The Corps is committed to staying at the leading edge in providing service to the Nation, and I truly appreciate your continued 

support to this end. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. That concludes my statement. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am honored to 

be testifying before your subcommittee today, along with the Assistant Secretary of 

the Army for Civil Works, the Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr., on the President’s 

fiscal year 2005 (fiscal year 2005) Budget for the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program. 

My statement covers the following 6 topics: 

—Summary of Fiscal Year 2005 Program Budget, 

—Civil Works Construction Backlog, 

—Civil Works Program Transformation, 

—Need for a More Robust Business Management System, 

—Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation’s Economy, and 

—Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation’s Defense. 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2005 PROGRAM BUDGET

Introduction 

This budget provides new funding for the Civil Works Program, including the Direct and Reimbursed programs, is expected to approach $5.602 billion. 

Direct Program funding, including discretionary and mandatory funding appropriated directly to the Corps, totals $4.652 billion. Discretionary funding, including 

amounts ultimately replaced by mandatory funding, totals $4.215 billion; additional 

mandatory funding totals $437 million. 

Reimbursed Program funding is projected to be $950 million. 

Direct Program 

The proposed budget reflects the administration’s commitment to continued sound 

development and management of the Nation’s water and related land resources. It 

provides for continued efficient operation of the Nation’s navigation, flood protection, 

and other water resource management infrastructure, fair regulation of the Nation’s 

wetlands, and restoration of the Nation’s important environmental resources, such 

as the Florida Everglades. 

The budget provides for continued funding of nearly all studies and projects underway, including many started in fiscal year 2005. It also provides for funding of 

4 new studies under the General Investigations (GI) program. 

Reimbursed Program 

Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Support Program we help nonDOD Federal agencies, State, and other countries with timely, cost-effective implementation of their programs, while maintaining and enhancing capabilities for execution of our Civil and Military Program missions. These customers rely on our extensive capabilities, experience, and successful track record. The work is principally 

technical oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and construc-
268 

tion contracts performed by private sector firms, and is fully funded by the customers. 

Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 60 other Federal agencies 

and several State and local governments. Total reimbursement for such work in fiscal year 2005 is projected to be $950 million. The largest share—nearly $250 million—is expected from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for cleanup of 

wastes at numerous sites under its Superfund program. Ninety percent of Reimbursed Program funding is provided by other Federal agencies. 

Staffing 

Total staffing for the Civil Works Program for fiscal year 2005 is 24,800 FTEs, 

unchanged from fiscal year 2004. Of the total, 23,700 FTEs are for the Direct Program and 1,100 FTEs are for the Reimbursed Program. Total staffing is allocated 

90.6 percent to districts, 4.9 percent to laboratories and other separate field operating agencies, 2.7 percent to division offices, and 1.8 percent to headquarters. 

CIVIL WORKS CONSTRUCTION BACKLOG

In the broadest sense, the ‘‘construction backlog’’ is unfunded work. For the Civil 

Works Program, it is defined more specifically, as the Federal share of unfunded 

continuing and future construction work at some point in time, e.g., the beginning 

of some funding period, such as fiscal year 2005. This definition can be further variously qualified. Such continuing and future work could include, for example, only 

work that is currently programmed on projects now actively under physical construction, while excluding such work where a project has not yet begun physical construction or where physical construction has been suspended for more than a year. 

At the end of fiscal year 2005, it will cost approximately $11 billion in non-inflated dollars to complete the construction projects of the Construction, General, 

Program funded in the fiscal year 2005 budget, which represents a decrease from 

last year. The decrease partly reflects a decision to display the backlog in fiscal year 

2005 dollars rather than inflating amounts to future dollars. The decrease is also 

the result of project completions, as well as the decision not to budget for periodic 

renourishment of shore protection projects. 

As part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the construction backlog, the Fiscal 

Year 2005 Budget focuses on completing those ongoing construction projects that are 

consistent with current policies and accelerating work on eight high-priority 

projects. We believe that narrowing the focus on funding and completing a smaller, 

more beneficial set of projects will bring higher net benefits to the Nation sooner. 

We need to be careful that we do not continually start new projects and subsequently stretch out the completion of existing ones. That is why the Budget proposes 

only three new starts of projects that have a very high benefit-cost ratio. 

Maintenance Program 

Water and related land resource management facilities of the Civil Works Program are aging. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are challenged to ensure that 

it continues to provide an appropriate level of service to the Nation. Sustaining such 

service, and the resultant flows of benefits, through proper operation and maintenance projects, is becoming increasingly more expensive as infrastructure ages. 

The ‘‘Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Program’’ includes costs funded under 

the Operation and Maintenance, General, and Mississippi River and Tributaries, 

Maintenance, appropriation accounts, for the operation, maintenance and security 

of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the Corps of Engineers, including administrative buildings and facilities and laboratories. Funds are also included 

for surveys and charting of northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters, 

clearing and straightening channels, and removal of obstructions to navigation. 

Work to be accomplished includes dredging, repair, and operation of structures and 

other facilities, as authorized in the various River and Harbor, Flood Control, and 

Water Resources Development Acts. Related activities include aquatic plant control, 

monitoring of completed coastal projects and, removal of sunken vessels. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget includes $1.926 billion for the Operation and Maintenance Program. In an effort to improve the efficiency of our investment in operation 

and maintenance, we are looking closely at how we determine the appropriate level 

of service and the amount of spending needed to support that level of service. Furthermore, we are searching for ways to reduce costs and thereby accomplish more 

with available resources. 
269 

CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM TRANSFORMATION

Throughout its long and distinguished history, the Civil Works Program has continually changed in response to advances in science, methods, and processes, changing public values and priorities, and laws. For our program to remain a viable contributor to national welfare, we must remain sensitive to such factors, and continue 

to reorient, rescope, and refocus the program in light of them. To that end, I’m committed to reforming the Civil Works Program to meet the Nation’s current water 

and related land resource management needs. 

We have been working very hard internally, within the Corps of Engineers, to 

transform. We are making our processes more open, and more collaborative. We are 

working to revitalize our planning capabilities, and to become more efficient, more 

centralized, with one planning center for each of our eight divisions. 

We are becoming a team of teams within the organization, focusing on eight regional business centers, which will move efficiently and deliver service to the public 

and the armed forces. 

Let me tell you about some of the major steps we’ve already taken: 

—We are continuing to spread the spirit and the word of the Corps’ Environmental Operating Principles—a clear commitment to accomplishing our work in 

environmentally sustainable ways—with the express purpose of instilling the 

principles as individual values in all members of the Corps team. 

—We are continuing a rigorous training curriculum to improve our planning capability. This will ensure that the best science is applied in project development 

and that our planners will integrate economics and ecology in developing Corps 

projects. We’re cooperating with major universities and have begun to sponsor 

graduate education in water resources planning. We’ve re-instituted our very 

successful Planning Associates Program, the first class graduated last year. 

—Our Fiscal Year 2005 Budget for the Research and Development (R&D) Program includes funding to improve economic models. One of our principal efforts 

will be to focus on economic methods and tools for navigation evaluations designed to address, update, and improve specific models, and to address modeling 

issues raised by the Corps and others. We need to make substantial modeling 

advances to support decision making on proposed major investments. 

—We have redoubled our efforts to engage Federal, State, and local agencies, 

stakeholders, and the public in meaningful dialogue. We have brought the 

major resource agencies to the table to assist in decision-making. 

—The Corps and ASA(CW) have allocated additional resources to strengthen our 

internal review capability, and are considering other measures to further improve such capability. With our restructuring under USACE 2012, we have just 

created an Office of Water Project Review here in Headquarters which effectively doubled the size of our policy compliance review staff. The goal is to have 

our economists, plan formulation specialists, and environmental reviewers focus 

on early involvement in study development to assure compliance with established policy as projects are being developed. This group is equipped to additionally oversee administration of external independent review on controversial and 

complex projects through contracts with outside experts. Over the past year, we 

have also developed a series of policy compliance checklists to assist District 

and Division Commanders in the early identification and resolution of issues. 

I am committed to working with field commanders in providing training, lessons 

learned and other tools to strengthen the policy compliance quality control/quality assurance process. 

—We are making good progress on developing a new Civil Works Strategic Plan 

that emphasizes the sustainable development, management and protection of 

our Nation’s water and related land resources. 

—We have established 5 national planning centers of expertise staffed with engineers and scientists—a step that is essential for successfully addressing the 

issues that increasingly arise in planning a water resources project, especially 

those that are costly, complex, or controversial, or which otherwise require very 

specialized planning work. 

We’re committed to change that leads to open and transparent modernization of 

the Civil Works Program for the 21st Century. To this end, we’re committed to continuing the dialogue with you and the Corps Reform Network Steering Committee. 

Additionally, I have issued communication principles to ensure open, effective, and 

timely two-way communication with the entire community of water resources interests. We know well that we must continue to listen and communicate effectively in 

order to remain relevant. 
270 

NEED FOR A MORE ROBUST BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Introduction 

We have a reputation as the world’s premier public engineering organization, 

which we aim to keep. Our challenge, to this end, is to ‘‘stay at the leading edge’’ 

in service to the Army, Federal Government, and Nation. The degree to which we 

will succeed will depend largely upon improved business operations. To enable providing service of highest relevance, we must improve our operations for more expeditious and productive performance. In recognition of this, I have been engaged, 

throughout my tenure as Chief, in an effort, initiated by my predecessor, to reengineer the organizations and business operations of the Corps of Engineers Civil 

Works and Military Programs. In that effort we have selected the project management way of doing business, or ‘‘modus operandi,’’ as the basis for developing a business management system and attendant organizations and operations. Accordingly, 

we have come to call our effort the Project Management Business Process (PMBP) 

Initiative. 

Project Management Business Process Initiative 

Rationale for Selection 

Our philosophy is that everything we do is a project, and every employee is a 

member of some one or more project teams. Selection of the project management 

modus operandi as the basis for developing a business management system is consistent with this philosophy. Furthermore, the Corps has used project management 

principles and methods in accomplishment of much of its business throughout its 

existence, providing seamless, flexible, efficient, and effective service for its customers. Applying this highly successful model to all of our business was eminently 

logical. 

Purpose 

In order that our 41 districts, 8 laboratories, 2 centers, and 8 divisions to work 

together as one United States Army Corps of Engineers (UCSACE), we established 

common business practices that transcend organizational and geographic boundaries. Accordingly, the purpose of our PMBP Initiative is to develop, implement, and 

sustain a set of modern, standardized business processes, based on industry’s best 

business practices, and an automated information system (AIS) to facilitate use of 

the PMBP throughout USACE. In short we call our Project Management AIS ‘‘P2’’. 

Implementation 

The PMBP Initiative focuses on the business relationships between and among 

people, including customers and stakeholders; process, and communication. To create and sustain the PMBP we must examine and define, to the PMBP system, how 

we do our work. In the process, we are transforming ourselves into a customer-focused, team-based, learning organization. Implementation of PMBP will be accomplished in four steps, described below, under the aegis of subject matter experts 

from all functions and echelons of the Corps. 

Business Process Manual 

The PMBP Manual provides guidance for achieving our policy and doctrine. It establishes standard business processes for Corps-wide application that: 

—ensure consistency in program and project execution, 

—focus on meeting customer expectations, 

—set parameters for means to measure progress across the entire organization, 

and 

—enhance our ability to function both regionally and virtually with efficient management of diverse resources. 

These standard business processes are used to accomplish project delivery and 

provide services. They enable sharing workforce resources throughout the Corps to 

complete projects. If a project delivery team needs someone with a particular skill 

to accomplish work on its project, it can borrow service of whomever may be available with that skill in any Corps office. The processes enable effective management 

of projects in all lines of business in our Civil Works and Military Programs. The 

processes are open for continuous improvement, giving all team members opportunity to change them for the better. This will lead to addressment of concerns of 

project managers, technical experts, and customers to assure improvements in quality, project performance, and customer satisfaction. 

Automated Information System ‘‘P2’’ 

Management of projects in accordance with the PMBP will be facilitated through 

use of ‘‘P2’’—an automated information system. This system, expanding upon and 
271 

replacing PROMIS, will be used by the Corps team for project delivery in all lines 

of work. It comprises commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software configured with templates of our standard business processes to assist project delivery teams in managing their projects. The manufactures of this software—Oracle, Primavera, and 

Project Partners—are assisting the Corps in configuring the software to provide the 

templates. 

P2 software employs state-of-the-art technology embracing program and project 

management best-practices and enabling compliance to our PMBP Business Manual. 

P2 will become the principal tool of Corps project and technical managers in collecting, manipulating and storing program and project data. P2 provides a single 

source of all project-related information for all programs and projects managed by 

field commands, and will interface with other modernized systems to assure singlesource data entry. P2 will enable streamlined project and resource management, affording wider availability and Web interfaces. And, finally, because of lower costs 

to maintain and upgrade COTS software in future years, P2 will be more cost-effective than PROMIS. 

PMBP Training 

We have developed a training curriculum to promote PBBP as our new way of 

conducting business within the Corps and to guide individuals and organizations in 

the progressive development of skills for using PMBP. The curriculum promotes cultural change through individual self-paced compact-disk courses followed by small 

group discussions on the courses. Each individual covers the material and shares 

his/her interpretation with others in facilitated small group discussions. This process promotes common understanding of PMBP, its purpose, the roles of individuals, 

and the means to develop projects though teamwork. 

Summary 

In summary, the PMBP is being implemented Corps-wide to manage all Corps 

projects more efficiently and effectively. Supporting policy and doctrine, definitions 

of our business processes, and curriculum are in now in place Corps-wide. We are 

currently in the process of deploying P2 throughout the Corps. P2 is scheduled to 

be fully deployed during June of this year. Once fully deployed, the PMBP system 

will greatly enhance our ability to better support the Army, other Federal agencies, 

and the Nation. 

VALUE OF THE CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM TO THE NATION’S ECONOMY AND DEFENSE

The National Welfare 

Water resources management infrastructure has improved the quality of our citizens’ lives and supported the economic growth and development of this country. Our 

systems for navigation, flood and storm damage reduction projects, and efforts to restore aquatic ecosystems contribute to our national welfare. The stream of net benefits, realized as reduced transportation costs, avoided flood and storm damages, and 

improvements in environmental value can be considerable. 

Research and Development 

Civil Works Program research and development provides the Nation with innovative engineering products, some of which can have applications in both civil and 

military infrastructure spheres. By creating products that improve the efficiency 

and competitiveness of the Nation’s engineering and construction industry and providing more cost-effective ways to operate and maintain infrastructure, Civil Works 

Program research and development contributes to the national economy. 

The National Defense 

The Civil Works Program is a valuable asset in support of the National Security 

Strategy in that it provides a way to maintain a trained engineering workforce, with 

world-class expertise, capable of responding to a variety of situations across the 

spectrum of national defenses This force is familiar with the Army culture and responsive to the chain of command. Skills developed in managing large water and 

land resource management projects transfer to most tactical engineering-related operations. As a byproduct, Army Engineer officers assigned to the Civil Works Program receive valuable training, in contracting and managing large projects. 

The Corps of Engineers continues to contribute to the ongoing war on terrorism, 

as our civil works experience proves invaluable in restoring and rebuilding Iraqi and 

Afghanistan infrastructure. To date, over 1,000 Corps soldiers and civilians have 

volunteered to serve in Iraq, sharing their technical knowledge and expertise along 

with their project management skills and experience with Iraqi Engineers and other 

professionals. Corps employees have also served in other Central Command areas 
272 

of operations providing a wide range of services and support to the CENTCOM commander’s efforts. 

In Iraq, we have been deeply involved in the restoration of the Iraqi Oil industry. 

Our involvement has helped ensure that more than 268 Million Barrels of crude oil 

have been exported, resulting in more than $7 billion being returned to the Iraqi 

economy. This income is forming the basis of the emerging national economy in 

Iraq, with much of the profit being reinvested in restoring Iraqi infrastructure. We 

are also assisting in the procurement of refined oil products in Iraq, which are essential to every day life in Iraq. 

The Corps is proud to have worked closely with the Coalition Provisional Authority, U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Iraqi Governing Council in 

restoring reliable electricity throughout Iraq. When it became obvious that years of 

neglect and sabotage had brought the Iraqi electrical power production and transmission to near collapse, the Corps, working with the CPA and USAID exercised 

its time-proven civil emergency response capabilities and provided a much-needed 

boost to electricity delivery across Iraq. We continue to assist the CPA and USAID 

in electrical power production and distribution, and today, the average Iraqi has 

greater access to electricity than he had before the war. No longer is access to electricity a measure of loyalty to the Iraqi regime. 

The Corps is also playing a major role in securing and making safe the more 

600,000 tons of former regime munitions spread cross Iraq through our Captured 

Enemy Ammunition mission. As of February 10, 350,000 tons of captured enemy 

ammunition had been secured and protected from the hands of saboteurs and terrorists. Another 43,00 tons has been destroyed. This mission is vital to the safety of 

our soldiers, coalition partners, and innocent citizens of Iraq, as it helps deny terrorists access to raw materials they need to make weapons and explosives. 

We are also contributing to the continuous improvement of the safety and quality 

of life for soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in both Iraq and Afghanistan as we 

continue to construct and upgrade their living and working areas. In Afghanistan, 

we are also working with the USAID and the Ministry of Transportation as they 

restore the infrastructure necessary for a prosperous Nation. 

HOMELAND SECURITY

In addition to playing an important role in supporting the war on global terrorism. We are providing security for critical physical infrastructure, throughout the 

Nation, including components of transportation, water, and power systems vital to 

our Nation’s welfare. The Corps is also a key member of the Federal Response Plan 

team with proven experience in support of disaster response. 

The Civil Works Program has completed over 300 security reviews and assessments of our inventory of locks, dams, hydropower projects and other facilities. We 

have improved our security engineering capability and prioritized infrastructure and 

are currently implementing recommended features at the highest priority security 

improvement projects. 

For fiscal year 2005, $84 million is targeted for security enhancements at key 

Corps facilities. Facility security systems can include cameras, lighting, fencing, 

structure hardening, and access control devices designed to improve detection and 

delay at each facility. 

CONCLUSION

Under both our Civil Works and Military Programs, we are committed to staying 

at the leading edge in service to the Nation. In support of that, we are working with 

others to transform our Civil Works Program. We’re committed to change that leads 

to open and transparent modernization of the Civil Works Program for the 21st 

Century. We also are strengthening our business management capability for best 

performance of both programs Corps-wide. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. This concludes my 

statement. 

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Craig, would you come down with 

me? We have a Senate photographer. This is the last appearance 

of the General, and we’d like to take a picture. 

Senator CRAIG. I’m sure he’ll want this committee etched firmly 

in his memory banks. 

Senator DOMENICI. Come on, we’ll do it up here. Actually, I think 

that his appearance before us will be memorable. 
273 

And good, not bad. Right here. Gosh, I’ve got to straighten up 

here. I don’t look like a general, but—thank you. He came in a 

hurry. 

General FLOWERS. Thank you, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. Mr. Secretary, we’re not going to take 

your picture. You’re probably going to be around here a little while. 

Mr. WOODLEY. You’re very optimistic. 

Senator CRAIG. We’re hoping. 

Senator DOMENICI. I am. Why not? 

Well, I want to say that all of these good things that you all have 

talked about may not get done, because the President’s budget is 

pretty weak. We may be challenged, but we’re doing the best we 

can on the numbers, and we figure that the fiscal year 2004 enacted is $4.571 billion, and the real request for 2005 is $4.065 billion. The difference is $506 million. That’s the cut. Now, I hope 

that’s wrong, but that’s what my staff tells me. Now, I don’t know 

how we can do all the things we have to do with those kinds of 

budgets. 

General, I want to say, for the record, that you’ve gone through 

some hard times. You’ve gone through a period of time when you 

were strained by accusations and allegations that turned out to be 

much, much less than the hullabaloo made about them. But the 

Corps continues on. 

And I would like to share with my colleagues, who may not already be aware, that the Corps is the project management in Iraq. 

They are the agent. They are the agency directly tasked with the 

physical reconstruction of Iraq because of both its expertise and in 

management, on a large scale, and its rehabilitation of critical infrastructure. I find it ironic that the Corps’ talent that we are 

heavily relying on in Iraq is the very same one that is most negatively impacted by the budget of the administration. 

I believe the administration, if it had its way, the Corps would 

merely become an operations and maintenance agency. I will tell 

you, Mr. Secretary, that the very core talent we are utilizing in 

Iraq was only developed as a direct result of the domestic work 

that we’re doing in all of our States. 

I think the administration is missing the point, that this country’s economic well-being is closely linked to the waterways, be 

they rivers, harbors, or wetlands. Further, it’s our interest to ensure that we maintain these resources for our continued successful 

competition with the world marketplace. We talk a lot about it, but 

we never mention that our waterways, our harbors are terrifically 

important as that goes on in the world. 

This country has an aging water-resource infrastructure. For example, 50 percent of the Bureau of Reclamation’s dams were built 

from 1900 into the 1950’s, before the current state-of-the-art construction and the techniques that go with it; therefore, they require 

maintenance of a special type. Even though the budgets are tight, 

I am concerned that no one is working to address the longer-term 

problem, an aging infrastructure, one of these problems that we all 

put off. We absolutely have to address them. 

It costs us more when we delay them, and we are going to wait 

around until something drastic happens, and then somebody’s 

going to be blamed. At least we know it, at least you tell us, at 
274 

least you warn us. Nobody seems terribly interested, from what I 

can tell. 

Now, I note that in my opening statement, which I’ll make part 

of the record that the administration’s budget is about 11 percent, 

that’s what that number is, below the 2004 funding level. Now, 

that’s my evaluation, because I take into consideration some things 

the administration assumes we’re going to get, that will be moved 

over to the budget and be a plus. Same thing with the Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

Mr. Woodley, if the Congress were to enact the President’s request—I don’t intend to put you, as an administration appointee, 

in too much of a bind—but if we were to enact the President’s request, without modification, can you tell us now, or would you prefer to tell us in writing, what the impact on the Corps of Engineers 

would be? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Mr. Chairman, I’ll explain—I’ll give you my views 

to the maximum extent possible now. If you’d like for me to elaborate in writing, I’d be delighted to. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, we need to know. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes. This is a very frugal budget that will allow 

us to continue generally with the things that are underway in 

2005, with contracts that are already in place in 2004. It will allow 

us to move forward in an appropriate way on the 11 projects that 

are expected to be completed in 2005. It will allow us to continue 

in an aggressive way with the priority projects that we’ve identified, that are very good projects. But it will cut back substantially 

on our ability to do studies that are needed for future work, going 

forward, and it definitely will not allow us to make a great deal of 

headway on deferred maintenance, for instance. It is a very frugal 

budget. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Secretary, the budget contains multiple proposals, which, if enacted as proposed, would 

terminate many ongoing projects. You know that. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. The Energy and Water bill, and the proposal 

is to carry a general provision as part of that to cancel specific 

projects. States affected are Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, North 

Dakota, West Virginia, just to name a few. Specifically, there are 

29 projects which would be legislatively terminated. How this list 

was arrived at, I don’t know. Maybe you know. Do you? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir, I do. 

Senator DOMENICI. Do you want to tell us? 

Mr. WOODLEY. These are projects that, for a variety of reasons, 

it was felt were not the best investment at the time or were not 

prepared and fully vetted and ready to proceed with the investment 

in fiscal year 2005. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I’ll tell you, I hope you know that this 

committee and this chairman are put in a terrific bind because you 

may not know, but the General knows; he’s been around here long 

enough, but we don’t have complete control over this. Senators 

want projects. Senators have approved of a number of these 

projects. And you can sit around all you want over there saying 

they don’t make sense, et cetera, but there are none of them that 

don’t fit the cost-benefit ratios required by the Corps. 
275 

You now say they don’t fit, whatever you just said—but the cost 

benefit was established as a way to clear projects so they would not 

be irrelevant, pork-barrel, and whatever else you call them. How 

many of these projects are under construction, if you know? And 

what would be the impact of terminating? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I would have to provide that for you, unless—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Do you know, on the Corps side, General? 

General FLOWERS. I think there are 12 projects currently under 

contract, and 5 more were planned to be awarded in fiscal year 

2004, so 17 projects, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Seventeen projects, between those that are 

in-being, ongoing, and five that were ready to go that Senators and 

their States are expecting. 

General FLOWERS. That’s correct, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. 

The Corps is carrying out a study to restore the Bosque along the 

Rio Grande, in Albuquerque. That’s our green way that runs 

through it. You’ve been there, General, I think. 

General FLOWERS. Yes, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Can you update me on the status of the study 

and next steps? And when do you anticipate the project will be 

ready for construction authorization? 

Anybody know? 

General FLOWERS. Yes, sir. We have completed the reconnaissance phase through—or will complete that, through fiscal year 

2004 funding. And fiscal year 2005 funds are used to initiate the 

feasibility study. And so the budget does include $175,000 toward 

completing the study. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. Now, I’m fully aware, General and Mr. 

Secretary, that we are short of money, but, I’ll tell you, I don’t intend to wait around forever for this project. It’s very important. It’s 

one that will establish, for the city of Albuquerque, kind of what 

the city is, and that’s pretty important, if you know about cities. 

I want to ask a question about the internal operation of the OMB 

versus the Corps. What I’ve heard is startling, but I’d like you to 

tell me. 

Mr. Woodley, how many OMB examiners does the Corps, which is a $4.5 billion agency, have? And how many does the rest of the 

Department of Defense have? Who knows? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Senator DOMENICI. General? 

General FLOWERS. Sir, I think the last count I had, there were 

eight Corps examiners. That includes the two supervisors that are 

a part of that group. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. 

General FLOWERS. And I am not sure on the number for the rest 

of the Department of Defense, but I believe that number to be 

three. 

Senator DOMENICI. Three. Well, I wonder who makes the decision that the Corps of Engineers needs eight examiners, and all of 

the Department of Defense has three. Who makes that kind of decision? Who knows? You don’t know? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I would have to ask the director of the—— 

Senator DOMENICI. OMB. 
276 

Mr. WOODLEY [continuing]. Of the office, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, we’re going to ask him. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I don’t know. 

Senator DOMENICI. If the committee doesn’t mind, we’ll ask him 

now, as a result of this hearing. And if he doesn’t answer, we’ll 

haul him up here and ask him why. 

I’m of the opinion that they’re out to get you and it’s rather 

strange to me that this goes on, and nobody raises any Cain. But 

we will. That’s an unfortunate situation, unless they have some 

justification that I’m not aware of. 

I want to close by telling you I have about eight or nine questions, but we’re close to lunch, and we have two Senators who want 

to ask questions, and I want to let ’em. 

Senator Craig, would you mind if we let the Senator proceed 

with a few questions? She’s told me it’s going to take 6 minutes. 

But then she suggested 6 minutes on Senate time. 

And then I suggested 6 minutes on the chairman’s time. 

Senator MURRAY. And I’m not sure which is better. I’ll take the 

better one. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. Proceed. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of 

you for being here today. 

General Flowers, as you know, I and my Northwest colleagues 

have been supporting the Columbia River Channel Improvement 

Project. With the support of Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, 

I’ve been able to provide $10 million for that project over the past 

4 years. Each time, this subcommittee has had to add money, because the President’s budget never provides any funds for the 

project, and this year is no different. 

This page from the budget shows that, once again, the administration’s budget is zero for this project, and I wanted to be here 

today to ask you a series of questions about the Columbia River 

Channel Improvement Project and the administration’s lack of 

funding. 

First, General Flowers, is it true that the recon study, feasibility 

study, authorization, and Chief of Engineer’s report on the Columbia River Channel Improvement Project are all complete? 

General FLOWERS. Yes, ma’am, it is. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. General, in its original budget submittal to the Office of Management and Budget, did the Corps request funding for the Columbia River Channel Improvement 

Project in fiscal year 2005? And if they did, how much did they ask 

for? 

General FLOWERS. Ma’am, there are a number of internal deliberations that go on inside the Agency and Administration, and 

there’s a process that’s put together to vet projects before—and 

clear them—before they can be included in the budget, and this one 

was not fully vetted and cleared, so it was not. 

Senator MURRAY. So the Corps did not request funding for this 

project. 

General FLOWERS. No, ma’am. 
277 

Senator MURRAY. Well, it was my understanding that the Corps 

did want to move on this project. Can you tell us why the President’s budget did not contain any funding for this? 

General FLOWERS. We were—the project was not cleared by 

OMB. 

Senator MURRAY. Was not cleared by OMB. General, what would 

be the minimum funding level necessary to move on this project in 

fiscal year 2005? 

General FLOWERS. It’s $15 million, ma’am. 

Senator MURRAY. Okay. Well, I want to ask you about a Texas 

project, called Brazos Island. And let me be clear with the committee, I don’t know anything about that project, I have no position 

on it, but I do find its situation really interesting in comparison to 

the Columbia River Project. 

Have the recon study and feasibility study been completed for 

the Brazos Island Project? 

General FLOWERS. No, ma’am. 

Senator MURRAY. Has not. Has the Chief Engineer’s report been 

completed for that project? 

General FLOWERS. Has not. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, in its original 2005 budget submittal to 

the Office of Management and Budget, did the Corps request construction funding for Brazos Island? 

General FLOWERS. No, ma’am. We—I would not request funds for 

a project that did not have a favorable Chief’s report. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, who put funding in, then, for Brazos Island? 

General FLOWERS. I do not know. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, in light of the Brazos Island budget, it 

seems clear that OMB could have provided funding for the Columbia River Channel Improvement Project based on same criteria. 

Would you agree with that? 

General FLOWERS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MURRAY. The Corps budget has language suggesting 

that the administration may propose construction funding in fiscal 

2005, pending OMB review. Has the ASA report been submitted to 

OMB for review? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Do you want me to answer that, ma’am? 

Senator MURRAY. Yes. Well, I would prefer that the General did. 

General FLOWERS. Yes. The answer is yes, ma’am. 

Senator MURRAY. Okay. Should we expect a fiscal year 2005 revised budget request supporting construction for Columbia River 

Channel Project? And if so, when? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Well, I’m sorry, I must not have understood the 

prior question—— 

Senator MURRAY. Should—— 

Mr. WOODLEY [continuing]. Senator. 

Senator MURRAY. Well—— 

Mr. WOODLEY. I apologize. Let me say, Senator, that I have just 

returned—— 

Senator MURRAY. I—— 

Mr. WOODLEY [continuing]. From the region. 

Senator MURRAY. I understand. 
278 

Mr. WOODLEY. I spoke with the directors of the ports and with 

the leaders of the division and district. We are very anxious to get 

that project moving forward, in spite of the fact that, as you know, 

we are facing litigation with respect to the project that I certainly 

hope will not be any kind of impediment to us. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, I understand that, but—— 

Mr. WOODLEY. As I understand the status right now, the report 

is under review in my office. I have given it the highest priority, 

and I want it to be sent to OMB as soon as possible. And I want 

it to be sent this month. 

Senator MURRAY. So are we to expect a revised budget request 

supporting construction? 

Mr. WOODLEY. That is certainly something that is seriously 

under consideration. I certainly am not in a position to make a 

commitment to that, but it is under very serious consideration, and 

it will be done as soon as possible. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, given the shortfall in the Corps overall 

budget, what projects that are included are going to give up funding for the Channel River Improvement Project? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I think that we would have to consult on that and 

see what other adjustments can be made elsewhere in our budget, 

or elsewhere, working very closely with the Office of Management 

and Budget to provide the funding at the appropriate level for fiscal year 2005, but that is a—— 

Senator MURRAY. Well—— 

Mr. WOODLEY [continuing]. Project that I am anxious to move 

forward. I am—— 

Senator MURRAY. So you can’t—— 

Mr. WOODLEY [continuing]. Doing everything I can—— 

Senator MURRAY [continuing]. Tell us where the money’ll come 

from right now? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Not today. No, ma’am. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, General Flowers, another project, the 

Green/Duwamish Restoration Program, was given a new start by 

this subcommittee in 2004. It’s authorized, and its studies are complete. Can you tell me if the Chief of Engineer’s report on that program is complete? 

General FLOWERS. Yes, it is. 

Senator MURRAY. Can you tell me why OMB has not provided an 

administration position on that program, and not provided any 

funding for that program? 

General FLOWERS. No, ma’am, I cannot. To my knowledge, it’s 

still under OMB review. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, General—Mr. Chairman, really—I am 

concerned about the role that OMB seems to be playing in delaying 

or advancing these projects, and I’m wondering if OMB is also playing a role in the final position of the Chief of Engineer’s report. 

Can we be assured, General, that the Corps alone is determining 

all final reports and can stand before a judge and swear to each 

one’s integrity? 

General FLOWERS. Ma’am, until this year, the answer to that 

question would have been absolutely yes, but I am now concerned. 

And I would like to give a very brief explanation. 
279 

No intent to beat up on OMB. I think they are civil servants, 

who are trying to do their job. And in so doing, they are now trying 

to take a more active role in looking at projects as the Corps is 

going through its process. And I commit to you that I will resist 

the—I will resist any attacks on the integrity of the Chief’s report, 

because my job is to provide you the best engineering and science 

and recommendations—— 

Senator MURRAY. Sure. 

General FLOWERS [continuing]. Based on that, that’s possible. 

But there is a tendency now for the Office of Management and 

Budget to try to clear pieces of our process before we are permitted 

to continue. And we are internally debating that right now, and I 

can’t tell you what the outcome will be. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, thank you, General, for your honesty. 

Mr. Chairman, I find that deeply disconcerting, and I hope this 

committee pursues that. 

Senator DOMENICI. You heard me awhile ago. 

Senator MURRAY. I did. 

Senator DOMENICI. The reason they can do it is because they 

have so many of their people, OMB’s people, hanging around the 

Corps—— 

Senator MURRAY. Yeah. 

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. Doing all kinds of investigations 

and analysis, and that’s a lot. I mean, there are some big departments that don’t have eight, I can tell you that. If they did, they 

wouldn’t have enough space for OMB. They’d be coming out— 

they’d have to have an office of their own. 

Senator Craig. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Flowers, what the Senator from Washington has just led 

you through is something that is strongly supported by the delegations of the three States affected by that Lower Columbia Basin— 

or Lower Columbia River dredging. If we want to render the Port 

of Portland and Tacoma, and all of that area down through there, 

ineffective after hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, all 

the way through to Lewiston, Idaho, which is the last port facility 

in that series of facilities along the Snake and the Columbia system, then we will do so by simply not dredging that stretch from 

Portland, west to the mouth. And it’s been a long time coming, a 

tremendous investment has been made, phenomenal efforts at environmental mitigation have occurred. It is ripe and ready, and there 

is no reason it should not move forward. 

Or you simply turn the lights out at the Port of Portland, and 

then you progressively turn the lights out up the system, and that 

is not our intent. It will not be our intent. And I’m glad to hear 

that it’s under critical review again. I hope it becomes a priority, 

posthaste, as it relates to funding. Enough said about that. 

All I will comment, Mr. Secretary—as it relates to the 41 projects 

that are not consistent with current policy, here’s the operative 

question. And the question goes like this. Senator x says to this 

Chairman, ‘‘Mr. Chairman, is one of my projects of the 41?’’ And 

if it is, then that Senator is going to put phenomenal pressure on 

this chairman to deny you what you’re attempting to do. I’ve not 
280 

yet asked that operative question of the chairman ‘‘Are any one of 

these 41 in Idaho?’’, but the question will get asked. Here is—— 

Senator DOMENICI. And then, besides, when you get the answer, 

if it is that it is, you will go to work—— 

Senator CRAIG. Of course. 

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. In the committee to try to get it. 

Senator CRAIG. Yeah. 

Senator DOMENICI. Not just me. If you go to work on me, I don’t 

have all the votes; I might say I won’t do that, Senator Craig. But 

then you’ll go to work on Senators, and they will have what we always have, and that’s that Senators of the United States want it. 

Senator CRAIG. Yeah. 

Senator DOMENICI. All right? 

Senator CRAIG. Yeah. 

Mr. Secretary, here is—before I close, General Flowers, let me 

again thank you for your service to this country and to this area, 

and, most importantly, your work before this committee, your 

forthright-fulness. We appreciate it greatly, and we thank you, and 

we hope you have success in a different role in a different life. 

General FLOWERS. Thank you, sir. 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Secretary, let me turn to you for my last 

question, and it’s a bit involved, but I think it’s an important one. 

And, Mr. Chairman, for the work that you’ve been doing the last 

good number of years, along with me and others, I think this is an 

important question. 

Congress has been working on a comprehensive energy bill for 

over 3 years now, and this chairman has led a phenomenal effort. 

There is no question that our country needs an energy policy, and 

we’ve been trying to deliver that to the American people. One of 

the key elements of the pending legislation is infrastructure reform. 

Although we’ve focused on infrastructure nationwide, there is a 

growing concern about natural-gas infrastructure in the Northeast. 

The market for natural gas has grown considerably in the Northeast, and new pipeline construction is critical to meet this growth. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the jurisdictional 

agency for reviewing and approving natural-gas pipeline construction in the United States. 

Like the hydroelectric licensing process at FERC, the pipeline 

construction process at FERC is substantial and complicated, but 

I’m learning that the process is becoming even more complicated 

because other agencies, like the Corps are also involved in the pipeline construction process and bringing their own understanding of 

purpose and need to the project. In the Corps’ case, your agency is 

involved in a—is a consequence—the Corps’ involvement is a consequence of the Clean Water Act authority to issue Section 404 permits before construction can take place. 

Here’s my problem. FERC is the agency given the responsibility 

to determine whether a pipeline project can—should be constructed. That determination must include an assessment of need, 

as well as environmental impact. By law, the Corps, as well as 

other interested Federal and State agencies, have been given the 

opportunity to participate in the process. 
281 

Here are the questions. Why, then, would it take over 17 months 

since the issuance of the FERC certificate for the Islander East 

Pipeline for the Corps to act on a Section 404 permit for that 

project? If you don’t have the answer, I’d like to know the answer. 

Seventeen months. A year and a half, or nearly that. Why would 

you act in a sequential fashion after the Commission has acted on 

this project? 

My bigger question is—and one more focused on the purpose of 

this hearing today—why are you using resources to redo work already done by a Federal agency with the exclusive jurisdiction of 

determining the need and environmental sufficiency of a pipeline 

project? This is government redundancy run amok. Or by at least 

appearance, it is. 

What expertise does your district office have in pipeline siting 

and construction that would put your staff in a position to secondguess the Commission’s staff, public review, and determination of 

what constitutes a reasonable set of viable alternatives? Would you 

support the concept of one Federal—one lead Federal agency record 

for the review of infrastructure proposals by all agencies? 

Those are the series of questions that we’re trying to address in 

the energy bill. And in sorting through what’s going on out there, 

the Islander East Pipeline appears to be a perfect example of why 

we ought to be changing the way this system doesn’t work. 

Your response? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Senator, certainly the question of taking 17 

months on a single permit cries out for an investigation, and I will 

investigate that. I am not aware of the details of the project as I 

sit here before you. We are very much in need of a streamlined 

process, and the administration has been working on streamlining 

our processes in many arenas. I’m aware of transportation work, 

I’m aware of some work in the energy arena, and the Corps has 

been part of that, and I want to continue that and foster it and 

support it in every way. 

We have to proceed very carefully, however, because of the potential for litigation in these contexts. I’m concerned. For instance, if 

you look at the situation that we’re facing with coal mining in the 

Appalachian region, where we have the Office of Surface Mining, 

for many years the Corps deferred to their expertise in this arena, 

which I believe was entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, a Federal 

court decided that it was not appropriate, and we have a very difficult situation that we are trying to manage in that region to get 

a permitting operation in place there that will be effective and efficient, and will survive Federal court scrutiny. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I’ve asked a series of questions, and I would 

hope that you would search for answers—— 

Mr. WOODLEY. I will, indeed. 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. Because the reason it is asked is, in 

part, to be critical, but it is also to point out that you may be part 

of a problem. And it’s a problem we’re trying to solve. And when 

you have district offices who would assume to have the expertise 

that a national office who specializes in a given area has, and 

would second-guess them or third-guess them, that’s a kind of duplication this country can ill afford. And I’ve not even talked about 

State agencies’ roles yet, or role that they play in these siting situ-
282 

ations. While they are critical—and we’re trying to bring a major 

delivery system down out of Alaska into the Lower 48 to distribute 

gas and drive down costs and hopefully drive up employment and 

avoid the dislocation of industries that are today employing thousands of people that are now going offshore, and we can’t—and we 

have to wait 17 months for a process, why should we do our effort? 

Unless we go right down to the system and clean it out. 

Now, I know that the administration is very intent on trying to 

streamline and organize. We’ve talked about centralizing and—so 

that we can get a certification or a movement process that isn’t redundant upon—this idea of time, time, time. The chairman spoke 

of my effort in hydro relicensing. Perfect example is right here now 

in pipeline. You know, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 years? Because agencies upon 

agencies thought they knew better than somebody else and could 

dot an ‘‘i’’ better than somebody else could? It would seem to me 

almost easier to do it within your authority, to do it reasonably. 

And if you get locked up in the courts, you might get into court and 

get a decision sooner than 17 months. And you’re not even guaranteed now that you will get that after the fact. So another 17 

months from now, we may still be waiting for this to be processed 

by a court. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yup. 

Senator CRAIG. And now we’re into another couple of years. I 

mean, I’ve spoken my frustration here. I’m very happy to work 

with you on this. These kinds of problems have to get resolved, unless our country just implodes on its own ability to produce and 

supply energy, and we drive everything offshore. Shame on us if we 

do. But if we can solve it, and we’re trying to, and we want you 

to work with us, here’s a good example. And maybe this ought to 

be a template by which we can make a decision on what ought to 

be improved and changed. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator CRAIG. I thank you all very much. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, General, you got by without me asking 

you about our famous Acequias in New Mexico, but I think we’ve 

at least taught you how to say it. 

General FLOWERS. Yes, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. These are these little ditches in New Mexico 

that are historic, and it’s one of the few projects that you don’t 

have to have a cost-benefit ratio, because there’s a statute saying 

we want to protect them. They’re 400 years old. 

But I will say, just ask, there’s nothing holding this project up 

other than budgeting, is that right? 

General FLOWERS. No, sir, there’s nothing holding it up. 

Senator DOMENICI. All right. And this is another year where the 

administration didn’t fund it. Didn’t even fund $2 million worth. 

We’ll find it and keep it going. 

Let me ask, General, what’s the difference between the Corps 

that you are part of and the soldiers that are part of the Corps that 

are going to Iraq? Aren’t they all the same? 

General FLOWERS. Yes, sir. We have a way of describing ourselves. We call ourselves the Engineer Regiment, and it’s made up 

of soldiers from all components—active, guard, and reserve—Department of the Army civilians, and contractors, who work, in some 
283 

cases as part of our staff, and who perform all of the work that we 

do. Then the Civil Works program that is a great part of the Corps 

of Engineers is a capability that the Nation leverages, particularly 

when it transitions from peace into conflict, or conflict back into 

peace. And, as I mentioned, we’ve had over a thousand of our civilian employees volunteer and serve, many from our Civil Works program, and have served both in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Senator DOMENICI. I tell you why it comes to my mind. You know 

there’s such a rotation system, and it’s so firm that we lose our 

colonel in New Mexico just about the time he understands how to 

say Acequia and just about the time he knows what New Mexico’s 

problems are. But this last time, he was down on the Rio Grande 

River, where such a beautiful job was being done in cutting down 

salt cedar and burned-down trees, and he didn’t look too happy. 

And I asked him what was the matter. He said, ‘‘Well, I’m going 

to leave here in a couple of weeks, and I have a wife and one 

baby—and she’s pregnant—and I’m going to Iraq.’’ I had no idea, 

at that point, that somebody like that would go to Iraq, but I found 

out from him that he’s very much needed, and he’ll go over there 

and fit right in and be part of the team that’s building things, 

right? 

General FLOWERS. Yes, sir. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator DOMENICI. And they’re good at it, and it is amazing, to 

me. And I’m going to find out why that the Office of Management 

and Budget spends so much time and effort and so many people 

dedicated to trying to find out what you do and how you do it, and 

what you do right and what you do wrong. I just don’t understand 

it. I’m going to ask them how many they’d need if they gave this 

ratio to all the departments in the government. It would be a very 

interesting fact. In fact, we’ll submit that question to them as a result of this meeting, just tell them we’ve heard about this and 

found out about this and we’d like to know. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

Question. The Corps started studying the Tatitlek breakwater and harbor in 1994, 

it was approved as a Section 107 project in 1995, the study phase was almost completed in 2001, with a draft report circulated within the Corps and submitted to the 

Pacific Ocean Division. Since then it has been stalled with little progress in the last 

2 years. Does the Corps plan to get this project back on track? 

Answer. A Draft Detailed Project Report and EIS was presented to the Local 

Sponsor and the Village of Tatitlek on March 11, 2004 regarding development of a 

harbor at Tatitlek using the Section 107 Continuing Authority Program for small 

navigation projects. The cost for the National Economic Development plan was estimated at $10.3 million of which a non-Federal sponsor would need to provide about 

$6.8 million due to the $4 million statutory Federal limit on Section 107 projects. 

The Local Sponsor (Alaska DOT and PF) and the Village of Tatitlek are currently 

evaluating their options and trying to identify potential sources of funds to build 

a harbor. Due to depletion of existing funds, if the Local Sponsor decides to continue 

the Section 107 study, the Local Sponsor will be required to provide additional 

matching funds (as required by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986) to 

finalize the Detailed Project Report and EIS. 

Question. Language was included in the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations 

Bill to waive the matching requirements for the City of Sitka to correct the design 
284 

deficiency for the breakwater for the Thomsen Harbor. However, the Corps has informed us that the language was not sufficient to waive the local match and that 

Sitka must still provide a match to redesign the breakwater that was not designed/ 

constructed properly in the first place. Does the Corps intend to require Sitka to 

fund the local match of the breakwater for a second time? 

Answer. The State of Alaska, rather than the City and Borough of Sitka (CBS), 

funded construction of the Thomsen Harbor breakwaters. The breaks in the breakwaters were installed at the request of environmental resource agencies with the 

full knowledge of the State and the CBS. At the time the State and the CBS did 

not want to spend the money and take the time required to conduct a physical 

model study of the breakwaters configuration. If physical modeling were performed 

at that time, the deficiency in the breakwaters would have been apparent. A technical study, which includes physical modeling and updates of the economics and environmental aspects of Thomsen Harbor, would need to be performed before design 

and construction could be initiated. Unfortunately, the language to waive cost sharing in the fiscal year 2004 Appropriation Bill Senate Report does not override the 

cost sharing law of WRDA 1986. 

Question. All of the Alaska District construction projects require additional funding for the projects to stay on track. Why is there such limited funding for construction projects in Alaska? Answer. The Alaska District has received almost $20 million from other Districts 

in fiscal year 2004 for construction projects. The Alaska District has funding for four 

construction projects in the fiscal year 2005 budget proposal, Chignik, Nome, St. 

Paul, and Sand Point harbors. The funding for these projects was limited to the appropriate amount consistent with the administration’s assessment of national priorities for Federal investments. Additional capabilities have been expressed for each 

of these projects as follows: Chignik—$3 million, Nome—$23 million, St. Paul—$16 

million, and Sand Point harbor—$10 million. Kake Dam, False Pass, Seward, and 

Wrangell harbors will also be under construction in fiscal year 2005 but have not 

been budgeted. Kake Dam’s outcome is not considered a high priority by the administration and the remaining projects will not be budgeted until after OMB review 

of the respective decision documents is complete. Capabilities for these projects are 

Kake Dam—$7 million, False Pass—$10 million, Seward—$6 million, and Wrangell 

harbor—$10 million. 

Question. There is $50,000 in fiscal year 2005 budget for the Anchorage Harbor 

Deepening. Is the Corps coordinating this work with the Port of Anchorage with regard to the port expansion? 

Answer. Yes, we have been working closely with the Port of Anchorage and congressional staffers to develop authorizing language for dredging that will be required as a result of the port expansion. 

Question. There is no funding in the fiscal year 2005 budget for ongoing construction work at Seward Harbor. Does the Corps intend to complete this project? 

Answer. Please refer to the response to question No. 3. The construction contract 

for Seward Harbor was awarded on Feb. 3, 2004 in the amount of $8.47 million. 

Alaska District was given authority and funding (Public Law 108–7) to award the 

construction contract even though OMB has not approved the feasibility report. The 

Corps will not be allowed to budget for this project until it receives OMB approval 

of the project. The anticipated construction placement in fiscal year 2005 for this 

project is $6 million, which will complete this project. If sufficient funding is available, the Corps intends to complete construction activities in fiscal year 2005. 

Question. The Permit for King Cove road was issued on January 22, 2004 and the 

preferred alternative for the road is one supported by the community which extends 

the road 17 miles and utilizes a hover craft to cross Cold Bay to King Cove. Do you 

anticipate any further problems or potential delays for King Cove road? 

Answer. There is no reason to expect any delays caused by permitting requirements. Aleutian East Borough has awarded the construction contract to SKW (Arctic Slope Regional Corporation-Nugget); they are scheduled to start fieldwork in 

June 2004. The Corps has received no indication from any organization or group indicating that there would be any legal challenge to the permit authorization. 

Question. I understand there are some concerns with work being done at St. Paul 

Harbor regarding NOAA requesting the Corps to perform diesel seep site remediation. What is the status of these discussions? 

Answer. NOAA did ask the Alaska District to modify the existing Saint Paul Harbor, Phase II, contract. We had several concerns about modifying the existing contract, and suggested that we use another contract mechanism that would allow the 

diesel seep work to be awarded in fiscal year 2004 and performed in fiscal year 

2005. NOAA has verbally informed us that they will use one of their own contracts 

to perform the work in fiscal year 2004. We will continue to work closely with 
285 

NOAA to assure that our respective work that is in the same area proceeds smoothly. 

Question. It is my understanding that the Corps does not believe that there will 

be any Federal interest in the proposed Knik Arm Bridge. What is your understanding of this matter and do you believe the Corps should be involved in the planning, be it greater dredging and deepening in the Cook Inlet, or otherwise for the 

Knik Arm Bridge? 

Answer. The Corps is still performing the Knik Arm Bridge reconnaissance study. 

Funding is being used to complete a 905(b) assessment that will determine if there 

is Federal interest in further studies. However, the addition of bridge approaches, 

abutments, and piers could greatly affect the sediment deposition patterns and tidal 

currents at the Port of Anchorage, which in turn will affect the ongoing operation 

and maintenance of the Corps’ navigation project. If the 905(b) assessment recommends proceeding with a feasibility study, these affects on the port will be included in the future study. Due to the large tides and complex tidal currents in 

Cook Inlet, a detailed hydrodynamic mathematical and physical model would be 

needed to identify the most acceptable design for the bridge length, abutments, and 

pier configuration required to maintain efficient operations at the Port of Anchorage. Other authorities that would enable Corps assistance in future planning studies in Cook Inlet include Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (Public Law 

91–611) which authorizes the Corps to assess modification of existing projects due 

to changed physical or economic conditions. The Section 216 language is as follows. 

‘‘The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized 

to review the operation of projects the construction of which has been completed and 

which were constructed by the Corps of Engineers in the interest of navigation, 

flood control, water supply, and related purposes, when found advisable due to significantly changed physical or economic conditions, and to report thereon to Congress with recommendations on the advisability of modifying the structures or their 

operation, and for improving the quality of the environment in the overall public 

interest.’’ 

We have also met with members of the Knik Arm Bridge Authority to discuss future Corps assistance. There was some interest expressed in using our physical 

model capabilities, engineering services such as surveying and drilling, and gathering data, developing, and performing portions of the EIS. Unless other specific 

Congressional instructions and funding are provided, these services could be provided under such programs as Planning Assistance to States and cost shared 50/ 

50 with the Sponsor. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator DOMENICI. Okay, we’re in recess until the call of the 

Chair. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., Tuesday, April 20, the hearings were 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(287) 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—At the direction of the subcommittee chairman, 

the following statements received by the subcommittee are made 

part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2005 Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act.] 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF HARBOR

COMMISSIONERS AND PORT OF LOS ANGELES

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to submit testimony in support of the Channel Deepening Project at the Port of Los 

Angeles, the largest container seaport in the United States. Our testimony speaks 

in support of an fiscal year 2005 appropriation of $35 million for the Federal share 

of continued construction of the Channel Deepening Project at the Port of Los Angeles. This critical Federal navigation improvement project underpins the United 

States’ decisive role in international trade. Consistent with the goals and priorities 

of the administration and Congress, the Channel Deepening Project will provide immediate and significant economic return to the Nation, fulfill the commitment to environmental stewardship, and foster positive international relations. We respectfully 

request the subcommittee to fully fund our fiscal year 2005 appropriation request 

of $35 million. 

The Corps of Engineers recently revised the cost of the Channel Deepening 

Project, and the Federal share, to account for credits for in-kind services provided 

by the Port and other project modifications. The Corps issued these credits before 

the Port and Corps’ execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement. The modifications include adjustments to the disposal costs for dredged material, adjustments for 

construction contract changes, and project administration costs. The Corps’ revised 

cost is now $222,000,000, representing a Federal share of $72,000,000 and a local 

share of $150,000,000. Furthermore, in fiscal year 2003, we experienced a funding 

shortfall challenging the Port to meet construction contract earnings. As such, under 

authority provided by Section 11 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1929, the Port 

of Los Angeles advanced more than $13,000,000 to the Corps of Engineers to cover 

the shortfall, and avoid costly construction shutdown or debt service due to interest 

accruals. Similarly, fiscal year 2004 funding shortfalls may also prove to be insufficient to meet construction contract earnings and could significantly slow the current 

construction schedule for this year. Mr. Chairman, while we are so grateful that the 

President’s fiscal year 2005 budget includes $23 million for the Channel Deepening 

Project, the previous funding shortfalls and the increased project costs compel us to 

request the higher funding level. As you may be aware, the Corps of Engineers reprogrammed $23 million from the South Pacific Division last year without allocating 
288 

any portion of those dollars to the Channel Deepening project that is performing 

well. 

Dramatic increases in Pacific Rim and Latin American trade volumes have made 

infrastructure development at the Port of Los Angeles more critical than ever, with 

more than 42 percent of containerized cargo entering the United States through the 

San Pedro Bay port complex. The Port of Los Angeles, alone, handled more than 

7.2 million 20-foot equivalent units of containers (TEUs) in calendar year 2003 (a 

20 percent increase over 2002), representing ongoing unprecedented growth for any 

American seaport. This burgeoning trade has resulted in the manufacture of larger 

state-of-the-art container ships. As such, the Port embarked upon the Channel 

Deepening Project—along with its Federal partner, the Army Corps of Engineers— 

to deepen its Federal channel from –45 feet to –53 feet. Currently, more than 50 

of these state-of-the-art container ships are on order to serve the United States 

West Coast container fleet. The first of these deeper-draft ships is scheduled to call 

at the Port of Los Angeles in August of this year, carrying 8,000 TEUs and drafting 

at –50 feet. 

As we have testified before, cargo throughput for the San Pedro Bay—and the 

Port of Los Angeles in particular—has a tremendous impact on the United States 

economy. We at the Port of Los Angeles cannot over emphasize this fact. The ability 

of the Port to meet the spiraling demands of this phenomenal growth in international trade is dependent upon the speedy construction of sufficiently deep navigation channels to accommodate the new container ships. These new ships provide 

greater efficiencies in cargo transportation, carrying more than 8,000 TEUs and onethird more cargo and making available to the American consumers more product inventory at lower prices on imported goods. In addition, exports from the United 

States become more competitive in foreign markets. However, for American seaports 

to keep up, they must, immediately, make the necessary infrastructure improvements that will enable them to participate in this rapidly changing global trading 

arena. 

Mr. Chairman, these state-of-the-art container ships represent the new competitive requirements for international container shipping efficiencies in the 21st Century, as evidenced by the increased volume of international commerce and the new 

deeper-draft container ships now on order for service at ports across the United 

States within the next few years. It is imperative that Congress appropriates the 

requested funding that will enable the Channel Deepening Project to continue on 

schedule through the project’s anticipated completion in 2006 to meet these new efficiencies. 

The Channel Deepening Project is clearly a commercial navigation project of national economic significance and one that will yield exponential economic and environmental returns to the United States well into the future. The national economic 

benefits are evidenced by the creation of more than 1 million permanent well-paying 

jobs across the United States; more than $1 billion in wages and salaries, as well 

as local, State and Federal sales and income tax revenues deposited into the Federal 

treasury. As an aside, the 7.2 million TEUs handled by the Port of Los Angeles in 

2003 had a commercial value of more than $300 billion in container cargo, with significant tax revenues accruing to the Federal Government. Similarly, according to 

the U.S. Customs Service, users of the Port pay approximately $12 million a day 

in Customs duties, with the Los Angeles Customs District leading the Nation in 

total duties collected for maritime activities. As you can see, the return on the Federal investment at the Port of Los Angeles is real and quantifiable, and we expect 

it to surpass the cost-benefit ratio as determined by the Corps of Engineers’ project 

Feasibility Study many times over. The Federal investment in the Channel Deepening Project will ensure that the Port of Los Angeles, the Nation’s largest container 

seaport, remains at the forefront of the new international trade network well into 

the 21st Century. The Channel Deepening Project marks the second phase of the 

2020 Infrastructure Development Plan that begun with the Pier 400 Deep-Draft 

Navigation and Landfill Project. The Port of Los Angeles is moving forward with 

the 2020 Plan designed to meet the extraordinary infrastructure demands placed on 

it in the face of the continued explosion in international trade. Mr. Chairman, the 

Port of Los Angeles respectfully urges your subcommittee to include an earmark of 

$35 million for fiscal year 2005 to support the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ continued construction of the Channel Deepening navigation project on behalf of the Port 

of Los Angeles. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this testimony in support 

of continued Congressional support of the Channel Deepening Project at the Port 

of Los Angeles. The Port has long valued the support of your subcommittee and its 

appreciation of the port industry’s importance to the economic vitality of the United 
289 

States, and, in particular, the role of the Port of Los Angeles in contributing to this 

country’s economic strength. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER

Chairman Domenici and members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony requesting the 

$1.8 million needed to construct Stage 3 of the Stillwater, Minnesota flood control 

project. In 2001, the City experienced its seventeenth flood since 1941, immediately 

after the Corps completed construction work on Lock and Dam No. 3 20 miles South 

of the convergence of the Mississippi River and the St. Croix River. 

The first two stages of the project have been completed, and Congress appropriated $2.3 million in the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations Bill to begin construction 

the critical Stage 3 of the project. The $1.5 million in Federal funds requested this 

year, plus State appropriated, and local funds should be sufficient to complete the 

$13.2 million project. 

The project is divided into three stages. Stage 1 included the repair and reconstruction of the existing retaining wall which extends 1,000 feet from Nelson Street 

on the South to the gazebo on the North end of the levee wall system. Stage 2 consists of the extension of the levee wall about 900 feet from the gazebo North around 

Mulberry Point. 

The completion of Stage 2 was delayed by floods of 1997, costing the City and the 

Federal Government nearly a half million dollars. After the waters subsided, it was 

discovered that the soil beneath the planned levee extension was very unstable, requiring a revision of plans, and the addition of another stage in the construction 

process. 

The flood waters of the St. Croix River did not recede until August of 1997. The 

construction area remained under water preventing construction work to proceed as 

scheduled. Lowell Park, which extends the full length of the levee wall system, several structures, and the emergency roadway which is used to provide emergency 

medical assistance for those using the recreational St. Croix River, and as a water 

source for local fire departments, were all either under water or inaccessible. 

Phase I, the repair and reconstruction of the original levee wall, was completed 

in the Summer of 1998. Work on Stage 1 was completed in late Summer of 1997, 

and additional soil borings were taken for Stage 2. The soil was found to be very 

unstable, and unable to support the levee system designed for Stage 2 of the project. 

The construction of Stage 2 required remedial action, and was been designated as 

Stage 2S. A contract was awarded for Phase 2S in November, 1998, and was completed in 1999. Phase 2 was begun in the late Fall of 1999, and the major construction work was completed at the end of the year 2000. Only some landscaping, and 

finishing work on the levee wall system remains to be done. The Design Memorandum schedule calls for the construction of Stage 3 in fiscal year 2002, and to be 

completed in fiscal year 2003, according to the Corps schedule. 

Stage 3 expands the flood protection system by constructing a 3 foot flood wall, 

and driving sheet piling below the surface to reduce seepage and to provide a base 

for the wall. The flood wall will be constructed about 125 feet inland from the riverbank. Stages 1 and 2 were critical to the protection of the fragile waterfront, and 

also, to prevent minor flooding on the North end of the riverfront. Stage 3 is the 

component that provides the flood protection for the City. The rising elevation of the 

terrain, the flood wall, and minimal emergency measures are designed to provide 

the City with up to 100 year flood protection. 

The Mayor, City Council Members, and Engineering staff all understand that 

Stage 3 of the flood control project is essential for the protection of life and property 

of the citizens, that the Stage 3 flood wall is a critical phase of the project, and that 

the project must be completed at the earliest possible date. The Corps acknowledged 

the necessity for all three stages of the project when the Design Memorandum included plans for all three stages. 

The U.S. Congress directed the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief 

of Engineers to proceed with the design and construction to complete the Stillwater 

Levee and Flood Control Project under Section 124 of the Omnibus Appropriations 

Act for fiscal year 2005. The City and the State of Minnesota have allocated matching funds for this work, and it is in an escrow account for that purpose. The Corps 

of Engineers have said the monies appropriated to begin this work on Stage 3 have 

been redirected, and Federal funds are not available. 

This fact is born out by the support of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Governor of Minnesota, and the State Legislature. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources made funds available based on this premise. The 
290 

State has appropriated half of the Non-Federal matching funds needed to complete 

Stage 3 of the project, as well as for Stages 1 and 2. The City has provided the remainder of the required matching funds, consequently, only the Federal share is 

missing to complete the project. 

STILLWATER—A NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

The City of Stillwater is recognized for the 66 historic sites on the National Register of the U.S. Department of Interior, as well as other historic structures. Many 

of these sites are located in the flood plain of the St. Croix River. Designated the 

‘‘Birthplace of Minnesota,’’ the City of Stillwater was founded in 1843. 

When Wisconsin became a State in 1848, a portion of land West of the St. Croix 

and Mississippi Rivers, including much of what is now the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, was excluded. The prominent citizens of the excluded area 

convened in Stillwater on August 26, 1848, passed a resolution to be presented to 

Congress asking that a ‘‘new territory be formed,’’ and that the territory be named 

‘‘Minnesota.’’ Henry Sibley carried the petition to Washington, DC, and in March, 

1849, Minnesota Territory was established. Stillwater then became the only city in 

the Nation to become the county seat of two different territories, St. Croix County 

in Wisconsin, and Washington County, Minnesota. The Stillwater Convention firmly 

established Stillwater as the ‘‘Birthplace of Minnesota.’’ 

Stillwater grew and prospered as the Lumber Capitol of the Midwest. Billions of 

feet of timber was cut, and floated down the St. Croix to the nine sawmills that 

were located on the riverbank of the St. Croix at Stillwater between 1848 and 1914. 

More logs were carried through the boom site North of Stillwater than any other 

place in the United States. Three billion feet of lumber was produced by the nine 

lumber mills in the 1880’s alone. All nine lumber mills wee located on the riverfront 

The lumber from the Stillwater mills were the primary source of wood-constructed 

buildings throughout the Midwest. 

Much of the lumber was carried down the St. Croix to the Mississippi River, and 

on to St. Louis, the ‘‘jumping off’’ point for the Westward movement. Sawdust and 

wood debris from these mills helped created the fragile riverbank that the levee wall 

system protects today. 

Later in the 19th Century, five railroads carried lumber from Stillwater Westward 

to Nebraska, North and South Dakota, and points West, as the Nation expanded 

beyond the Mississippi River into the plains States. Many of the Midwest’s oldest 

buildings still carry the mark of the Stillwater mills. 

As a result of Stillwater’s place in the history of the Midwest, the lumber industry, the unique homes built by Minnesota’s first millionaires, and the birthplace of 

both Minnesota Territory and the State of Minnesota, 66 sites are included on the 

National Register of Historic Places. All of the downtown area, which is located in 

the 100-year flood plain, is included in this recognition. 

THE IMPACT OF LOCK AND DAM NO. 3 ON FLOODS—STILLWATER

The Lock and Dam No. 3 was constructed in 1937–38 on the Mississippi River 

at Red Wing, Minnesota. The Lock and Dam construction raised the level of the St. 

Croix at Stillwater by 8 to 10 feet. It has made the City of Stillwater vulnerable 

during periods of high water and flooding of the St. Croix since that time. Records 

prove that the lock and dam construction, raising the water levels of both the Mississippi and the St. Croix River, has markedly increased the incidence of flooding 

at Stillwater. The culpability of the Corps is clearly evident. 

The Mississippi and the St. Croix Rivers merge about 14 miles South of Stillwater. When constructing the Lock and Dam at Red Wing in 1938, the Federal officials recognized that detaining the flow of the Mississippi would back up the water 

in the St. Croix at Stillwater. A 1,000 foot levee wall system was constructed at 

Stillwater by the WPA under the supervision of the Corps to protect the fragile waterfront. 

From 1850 to 1938, the 88 years prior to the construction of Lock and Dam No. 

3, only four floods were reported by historians. None were the result of Spring snow 

melts. The 1852 flood was the result of a cloudburst, the destruction of a dam built 

on McKusick Lake above the City, and was not the result of the flooding of the St. 

Croix River. The floods of June 14, 1885, and May 9, 1894, as well as the 1852 flood, 

were all the result of cloudbursts in or above Stillwater. These floods resulted in 

both loss of life and significant property losses in the City. 

Since the completion of the Lock and Dam 60 years ago, the St. Croix has flooded 

on 17 occasions, and only four times in the 90 years preceding the construction of 

the Lock and Dam. None of the four were the result of high water on the St. Croix 

River. Four floods were recorded in the 1940’s, immediately after the completion of 
291 

the lock and dam at Red Wing. The 1952, 1965, and 1969 floods were record-breaking floods, the result of a heavy snow fall, and early Springs rainfall, coupled with 

warm weather. Record flooding was avoided in 1997, by the early planning of City 

officials, the construction of a huge emergency levee requiring thousands of truck 

loads of clay and sand, the work of hundreds of volunteers, and luck in the avoidance of a severe rainstorm in or around the flood event. 

The 2001 flood was second worst flood in the 160 year history of the City. It was 

only topped only by the flood of 1965. The careful planning and preparation by the 

City, hundreds of volunteer workers included high school students and younger, 

local citizens from Minnesota and Wisconsin, and dozens of inmates from the nearby State prison were given credit for preventing a major catastrophe for the City. 

The water pump rental, thousands of yards of sand and fill, and a ‘‘round the clock’’ 

line up of trucks, cost the Federal, State, and local governments nearly $1.3 million. 

The planning and preparation of City officials, and adequate lead time have allowed the construction of levees high enough to avoid massive flooding in the historic section of the City during most of the floods, and to prevent further loss of life. 

However, a 4–5 inch rainfall during high water levels would be devastating to the 

City. Such rainfalls are not infrequent in the St. Croix Valley, and can not be anticipated. A major concern is the safety of the volunteers. Working around heavy equipment and massive trucks, day and night, and on top of 20 foot emergency levees 

over swirling flood waters, it is only a matter time until we have serious injuries 

or loss of life. 

A wet Fall that saturates the soil, heavy snows during the Winter, extended warm 

spells in the Spring, coupled with persistent Spring rains, and cloudbursts as experienced in the past, will all come together in the same year at some point in time. 

At that point, the City’s emergency responses to flood control will not be sufficient 

to cope with the flood waters. 

History bears out the City’s contention that the raising of the river levels by ten 

feet in 1938, when Lock and Dam No. 3 was constructed, greatly increases the flooding potential faced by the City during the past 60 years. On this basis alone, the 

Federal Government must share in the responsibility for providing a remedy. The 

construction of the Stage 3 flood wall at Stillwater will provide this safety. 

ENVIRONMENT THREATENED DURING FLOOD EVENTS

The St. Croix River was designated as one of the first Wild and Scenic Rivers by 

Congress and is protected under both Federal and State laws, as well as by local 

ordinances. The St. Croix River is carefully monitored by the Federal Government, 

an Interstate Commission, and the DNR’s by both the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota. 

The City’s concern is the trunk sanitary sewer line and pumping stations for the 

City of Stillwater. The sewer line runs adjacent to the riverfront and is frequently 

under water during major flood events. More than 2 million gallons of raw sewage 

is handled daily by the sewer line and pumping stations that follow the riverfront. 

Engineers have advised the City that extended flooding of the flood plain could result in the rupturing of the trunk line or the surcharging of the pumping stations. 

Either of these event would result in the direct flow of raw sewage into the St. 

Croix River. It would be impossible to repair the system during the high water of 

a flood event. During the 1997 floods, one pumping station and a portion of the 

trunk sewer line remained under water for 95 days, and required careful monitoring 

by the City workers. 

The protection of the river is not only the dominant theme of the State and Federal governments, but also by the counties and municipalities that line the riverbanks of the St. Croix. However, the greatest protectors of the river are the citizens 

themselves who take advantage of the crystal blue waters of the St. Croix for fishing, boating, and other recreational and scenic purposes. 

The topography of the City of Stillwater requires the location of the trunk sanitary sewer line and pumping stations at the base of the City’s hub, adjacent to the 

riverfront. The City is built on two hills that slope toward the river, abruptly interrupted by sandstone bluffs extending 50–75 feet high above the river level. The sanitary sewer system serving the 16,000 Stillwater residents flows into the trunk 

sewer line that runs parallel to the riverfront. It can not be moved. The 2 million 

gallons of raw sewage handled by the system each day, is gathered in the trunk 

sewer line and pumped Southward to the water treatment plant. 

According to engineering studies, the trunk line and the pumping stations are 

both susceptible to rupture or surcharging during periods of flooding. Little could 

be done to stop the flow of raw sewage into the St. Croix until the water receded. 

During recent floods, it is not unusual for high water levels to persist for as much 
292 

as 2–5 months. Such an event could release 120 million gallons of raw sewage into 

one of America’s most pristine rivers over that period of time. If for no other reason 

than the protection of the river, the City believes the Stage 3 flood wall must be 

constructed with no delay. 

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

The Stillwater Flood Control and Retaining Wall project first was authorized in 

section 363 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992. An allocation 

of $2.4 million was made in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act 

of 1994. 

A Committee Report described the project in three parts—to repair, extend, and 

expand the levee wall system on the St. Croix River at Stillwater, Minnesota: 

—‘‘To repair’’ (Stage 1) the original existing levee wall system constructed in 1936; 

—‘‘To extend’’ (Stage 2) the original wall by approximately 900 feet to prevent the 

annual flooding that occurs at that location; and 

—‘‘To expand’’ (Stage 3) the system by constructing the flood wall about 125 feet 

inland from the levee wall system to protect the downtown and residential section in the flood plain. 

In 1995, the Design Memorandum confirmed the cost estimate for the project was 

much too low, and the project was reauthorized for $11.6 million by Congress in the 

1996 WRDA legislation. In 2001, the Corps estimated the Federal cost at $9.86 million, the non-Federal cost at $3.29 million, and the total cost of the project to be 

$13.15 million. Congress appropriated $2 million in fiscal year 2002 for the construction of the Stage 3 flood wall. The Corps chose not to use these funds for that 

purpose, and were redirected to other projects. Congress then directed the Corps to 

design and construct the Stage 3 flood wall in Section 124 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005. While the Corps has now met with the City, and 

appears willing to move ahead as Congress as instructed, we are awaiting Corps action to prepare a Project Cooperation Agreement for all to sign. 

Since the reauthorization of the project 5 years ago, and the completion of the feasibility study, both Stage 1 and 2 have been completed. Only the completion of Stage 

3 will provide the City with the flood protection that is critically needed. The reconstruction of the existing levee wall system, the extension of the levee wall, and the 

construction of the flood wall are all critical to the safety of the citizens, the protection of property, and the preservation of historic sites that contributed to the growth 

and expansion of the Midwest in the last half of the 19th Century. 

SUMMARY

The Mayor and Council for the City of Stillwater, Washington County Officials, 

the Governor and Minnesota State Legislature, and bipartisan support of Minnesota 

Representatives and Senators in Congress, all recognize the significant importance 

of completing this project by constructing the Stage 3 flood wall on the St. Croix 

River at Stillwater. They are committed to the completion of the Flood Wall Project 

at Stillwater. It is critical to the protection of property, the preservation of our history, the respect of historic Indian sites, and the safety of our citizens and their 

homes and business. 

We respectfully urge the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for Appropriations to allocate the $1.8 million needed to begin construction of the Stage 

3 flood wall in the fiscal year 2005 Appropriations Bill. If you have questions or 

would like additional information regarding this project, please call on us. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA

Chairman Domenici and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the City Council and the 

citizens of Granite Falls, Minnesota. We are requesting $1.2 million in Federal 

funds for the development of the Detailed Design Report (DDR) plans and specifications, and critical preventative measures to protect the city from future flooding of 

the Minnesota River. 

This request is based on the ‘‘Supplement to the Locally Preferred Plan for Flood 

Damage Reduction, January, 2002’’ prepared on behalf of FEMA, the City, and information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 205 study not yet completed. This project was authorized in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee bill, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. The project has now been 

authorized for $8 million in Federal funds in H. Res. 2557, Sec. 3061 as a Section 
293 

205 project, in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 

Stat. 4184) as needed. 

The problems confronting the City require a carefully planned project. The geological features of the terrain discourages the construction of diversion channels due 

to the granite subsurface of the soil. Homes and businesses are being relocated 

using FEMA, State and local resources. The existing uncertified and inadequate 

levee system will be improved to provide adequate protection for the communities, 

and the Municipal Power Plant adjacent to the Minnesota River will require relocation. 

THE CITY OF GRANITE FALLS

The City of Granite Falls is a community of slightly more than 3,000 citizens, is 

located in West Central Minnesota about 122 miles west of St. Paul. The Minnesota 

River runs through the northern and eastern portions of the City, and is directly 

adjacent to the downtown area. The majority of the City’s residential and commercial properties are located on the west bank of the Minnesota River in Yellow Medicine County. Low-lying residential areas on the north end of the City, structures in 

the commercial business district along the river, and residences located next to the 

secondary river channels in the southwest part of the City are especially vulnerable 

to flooding. 

RECENT DISASTERS

While the river represents a valuable resource to the community, it has taken a 

severe toll on residents and businesses during Spring floods. The 1997 floods which 

devastated much of Western Minnesota and North Dakota did not spare Granite 

Falls. The Flood drove many from their homes and their downtown businesses, and 

resulted in millions of dollars in damages. Virtually every downtown business was 

flooded. More than $850,000 was spent by the city, and another $175,000 by the 

Corps of Engineers to fight the flood. 

Hundreds of volunteers from Granite Falls area and the State prevented further 

devastation as the Minnesota River has a peak discharge of 53,000 cubic feet per 

second. That’s more than 3 million cubic feet of flood water per minute. The rushing 

water was within inches of the top of the temporary dike as volunteers continued 

to stack sand bags. If the water had topped the dike, literally dozens of the workers’ 

lives would have been severely endangered. Total costs and damages exceeded $5 

million. 

In July of 2000, the city was hit by an F–4 tornado. An F–5 tornado is the top 

of the scale. One person was killed, 14 badly injured, and 325 homes were either 

totally destroyed or severely damaged. The tornado caused more than $26 million 

in damages in the community. 

The following year, 2001, the City was again hit by another record flood event. 

Though not as severe as the 1997 flooding, damage was reduced significantly by 

careful City planning and preparation with Federal and State governmental units. 

Even so, the costs to fight the flood exceeded half a million dollars for the City and 

the Corps of Engineers, and much of the downtown commercial area was evacuated. 

Other significant floods have occurred in 1951, 1952, 1965, 1969, and 1994. While 

floods have cost the community millions of dollars in extensive property damage and 

economic hardship, the primary concern is the significant risk to the hundreds of 

volunteers whose work is required building levees during flood events to protect the 

homes and business. 

Preparation for fighting disaster costs have reached nearly $4 million in the past 

4 years. That amounts to thousands of dollars to every property owner in the City. 

Other significant flood events have occurred in 1951, 1962, 1965, 1969, and 1994. 

While floods have cost the community millions of dollars in extensive property 

damage and economic hardship, the primary concern is the significant risk to the 

hundreds of volunteers whose work is required building levees during flood events 

to protect the homes and businesses. Total flood damages and costs are more than 

$30 million from 1997 through 2001. 

Granite Falls has received financial support from FEMA, the Corps of Engineers, 

and the State of Minnesota to clean up after the disasters and to repair damages. 

Funds have been received to repair streets, housing rehabilitation and construction, 

economic development, and special services. All the help has been directed toward 

restoration after the floods and tornado event, but no funds have been available to 

prevent future flooding. 
294 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECTION 205 STUDY

Following the 1997 flood, the Corps of Engineers initiated a Section 205 study in 

May, 1998, to evaluate the extent of the flooding problem in Granite Falls, and to 

explore possible remedies. The study is essentially complete, but has not been released to date. The major problems of cost and funding level addressed in the 205 

study have been resolved in the project authorization in H. Res. 2557. 

STUDIES CONDUCTED

The City, through a FEMA project grant under the direction of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MN/DNR, conducted a study of the flood problems 

confronting Granite Falls. The overall objective of the study was to evaluate hazards 

for the Granite Falls area, and to develop preliminary evaluation and prioritization 

for those hazards. 

The Report states, ‘‘Because of the tremendous impacts of flooding on the Granite 

Falls community, and the relative frequency of flooding events, the report begins 

with an all hazard evaluation, but then focuses on flood hazards, and presents mitigation options and preliminary costs for implementing those options.’’ 

The Report evaluated each area of the community, determined the risk factors, 

and suggested options available to protect the area against flooding. In the conclusion of the Report, it was recommended the most economical solution to provide the 

necessary protection was buy out many of the properties and move them to a location outside the flood plain. This work is currently in progress. 

The elevation of other areas would have to be raised, pump stations would need 

to be installed, some levees constructed, and the sanitary lift station and the water 

plant would need to be relocated. It is estimated the cost of this work would be approximately $12 million. 

The Supplement to the Locally Preferred Plan (SLPP) provides a level of flood 

protection for flood events up to the 500-year event. The 1998 Corps of Engineers 

205 study indicates the 500-year level of protection is about the same as the 100- 

year flood plus 3 feet of freeboard. This level of protection is necessary as the result 

of a reevaluation by FEMA which indicated that the current level of protection for 

Granite Falls was violated in both the 1997 and the 2001 flood events. 

The SLPP identifies seven areas severely impacted by flooding, suggests the remedial action needed, and the cost of such work. Relocation costs are not included in 

this report. The City believes that with the financial assistance received from FEMA 

to relocate many of the structures in low lying areas, the remaining project needs 

are appropriately addressed under flood protection programs administered by the 

Corps of Engineers. 

The Locally Preferred Plan includes the removal of about 41 structures in the 

lower areas of the City, including several in the commercial district. FEMA has provided the funds for 25 structure moves, leaving only 15 additional structures to be 

moved as a part of the project. 

APPROPRIATION REQUEST

The city requests $1.2 million from the committee for the purpose of the development of the Detailed Design Report, preparation of plans and specifications, and the 

placement of pumps stations at two of three critical locations in the city. These 

pump stations will provide some immediate flood relief during an emergency, but 

are also needed permanently as a part of the total project. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. And may I also take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the St. Paul District Office of the Army Corps 

of Engineers for their help and assistance during the crisis we have experienced in 

recent years. We will be happy to respond to any questions you may have regarding 

the needs of the city, and the flood protection project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA

Chairman and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the City Council and the citizens 

of Crookston, Minnesota. We are requesting $1.2 million in Federal funds for the 

development of the supplement to the environmental assessment study, to prepare 

the design, and to initiate construction work in the fiscal year 2004 Appropriations 

Bill. The purpose of this request is to provide flood protection for the Chase/Loring 

and Sampson neighborhoods in the City. This request is based on the Feasibility 

Report Supplement: Local Flood Control completed on April 30, 2002. 
295 

First, we would like to thank you and the members of this committee for the $2.202 million appropriation you provided for the Crookston Flood Control Project 

in the fiscal year 2003 Appropriation Conference Report. These funds made it possible to complete the work on Stage 2 of the project. 

Stages 1 and 2 of the project has provided 100-year flood protection for Thorndale, 

Woods, and Downtown/Riverside neighborhoods. This is a tremendous step forward, 

and we are very appreciative of the support given us by this committee and the 

Army Corps of Engineers. However, the project still leaves two of our most vulnerable neighborhoods, Sampson and Chase/Loring, fully susceptible to future flooding 

when the Red Lake River again leaves its banks. 

The City of Crookston is located in the Red River Valley of Western Minnesota, 

in Polk County, 25 miles East of Grand Forks, North Dakota. The Red Lake River 

winds its way through the City from its source at the Upper and Lower Red Lakes, 

and flows into the Red River at Grand Forks. The early settlers in Crookston built 

their homes in the crooks of the river to be close to the water supply vital to their 

existence. As a result, five neighborhoods were established that became the City of 

Crookston. The population of the City has remained constant over the past decade 

at about 8,200 citizens. 

The community was settled in 1872, when the first railroad route was announced 

crossing the Red Lake River where Crookston now stands, and later, extending to 

Canada. The economy of Crookston is based primarily on agriculture. It is the home 

of the University of Minnesota Crookston, a technology oriented school with a full 

academic program enrolling approximately 2,500 students. 

The City of Crookston has two recent major flood events—1997 and again in 2001. 

The flood of record was at a stage of 27.3 feet in 1969, and the 1997 flood exceeded 

it with a stage of 28.6. The 2001 flood on the Red Lake River at Crookston was 

26.38 feet or 11 feet above flood stage. For both flood events, the city was able with 

the help of the Corps of Engineers and the State of Minnesota to take extreme 

emergency actions to prevent catastrophic losses throughout the community. 

The 1997 flood came within inches of inundating the community with huge potential for loss of life. This flood further emphasized the need for a long-term flood 

damage reduction project to protect the citizens and the community. 

These floods also demonstrated that flood damage reduction must be at a 100-year 

level, consistent with the authorized project, and needs to be looked at from a total 

community perspective. ‘‘Piecemealing’’ a project, by protecting only certain areas, 

will not eliminate the need for significant federally subsidized flood emergency reimbursements in the future. Not including State and local expenditures, use of resources, and purchase of materials, the Federal costs alone incurred in 1997, totaled 

nearly $1.5 million. State and local costs were estimated at a similar amount, 

whereby, the 1997 flood costs totaled nearly $3 million. 

Both floods contributed to the progressive deterioration of the emergency levee 

system. The reliability of this system is now much worse than what was reported 

in the pre-flood 1997 feasibility report. The recent flood and the documented and 

visual impact of the 1997 flood at Grand Forks, ND, and East Grand Forks, MN 

demonstrated that failure of the emergency system would be catastrophic. Not only 

would many structures incur irreparable damage, the social and economic impact 

from the loss of property value/tax base and cohesion would devastate the community, potentially threatening the long-term viability and survival of Crookston. 

Due to recent flood events, the views of the City and its residents, the emphasis 

of the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources through the flood mitigation program, an efforts of the Minnesota Flood Relief Task Force, there is a renewed commitment to provide long-term flood damage reduction for the three remaining neighborhoods. 

The reason that these areas were not included in the 1997 feasibility study was 

because these areas were incorrectly considered independent, and concern that the 

overall benefits may not cover the costs to provide protection. The primary reason 

was a low cost-to-benefit ratio was real estate costs. There were too many structures 

that needed to be relocated or purchased. 

Reassessing earlier alternative flood damage reduction plans, there are further 

justifications for protecting a larger portion of Crookston, and ways to reduce costs, 

while continuing to maintain the necessary degree of flood damage reduction. Likewise, the benefits in some of these areas increased, based on new benefit categories 

identified in the Grand Forks, ND, and East Grand Forks, MN December 1997 feasibility study. The State of Minnesota has already committed to full protection for 

all of the six neighborhoods in the City of Crookston. 

The cost/benefit ratio for the three stages of the project is 1.03. Evaluation by the 

Corps of Engineers determined a cost benefit ratio for the Chase/Loring and Sampson authorized in the House WRDA at 1.25. Continuing assessment of the project 
296 

plans will increase the project benefits even further. The City believes that the 

project should not be assessed incrementally, but as a total project as were other 

communities severely affected by the 1997 and 2001 floods in the Red River Valley. 

All of the property owners in Crookston have assessed themselves flood protection 

fees for the past 11 years to provide the local funds needed to make their families 

safe during flood events. Without providing the protection needed for the Sampson 

and Chase/Loring Neighborhoods, the work is only half done. Since all of the citizens have been paying these assessments, it is not right that the Crookston Flood 

Control Project would protect only half the community. 

CONDITIONS CHANGE SINCE 1997

Since the completion of the feasibility report in early 1997, events have greatly 

impacted flood damage reduction for the city. The floods of 1997 and 2001 have been 

a wake up call regarding the vulnerability of the City and its residents. There is 

no way that the 1997 feasibility study could have predicted these events. They demonstrated the extent of the deterioration of the existing emergency system, and new 

thinking on how to more cost effectively reduce flood damages in unprotected areas. 

The replacement of the city dam is now underway. 

The revised engineering assessment of the trunk sanitary sewer system located 

in the Sampson addition, and the electrical distribution substation located in the 

Chase/Loring addition. Although, not a change, the revised engineering assessment 

of the sanitary sewer system found conditions that were slightly different from the 

analysis in the 1997 feasibility report. Several key essential features of the sanitary 

sewer system for the entire community are located in the Sampson neighborhood. 

Losses to these features would certainly cause the system to fail, including the system located in areas protected by the Federal project. 

Similarly, the electrical distribution substation located in the Chase/Loring neighborhood services those areas protected by Stages 1 and 2 of the project. The loss 

of the substation would at least affect most of the neighborhoods, including those 

protected by the original authorized project. It would at least temporarily result in 

a loss of power, and the loss of critical flood damage reduction measures (i.e. pump 

stations) of the permanent project and to the sanitary sewer system. 

FLOODING EVENTS AND THEIR CAUSES

Floods occurring over the past 40 years have created significant damage to homes 

and businesses, and have resulted in the loss of lives as well. They include the flood 

events of 1965, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1978, 1979, 1996, and 1997. Floods have been documented at Crookston as early as 1887. The 1950 flood, though not the maximum 

flood of record, created the most damage to the City and resulted in the deaths of 

two citizens from the community. 

Between 1950 and 1965, clay levees were constructed through local efforts in an 

attempt to ameliorate the damages from the flooding of the Red Lake River. The 

floods of 1965, however, demonstrated these efforts were not adequate to hold back 

the torrents of water during significant flood events. While certain areas of the City 

received some flood protection, severe damages occurred in the South Main Street 

area. This section of the City has since been totally cleared. 

The 1969 flood established new high water marks, and again, it was necessary 

to carry out extreme emergency measures. These efforts were successful in protecting the community from severe damages. Recognizing the need for more protection, another locally financed project was initiated, extending, enlarging, and raising 

the height of the levee wall system. 

The flood of 1997, was the ‘‘grandaddy’’ of all floods. It established the highest 

water mark in recorded history when the Red Lake River crested at 28.6 feet above 

flood stage, the equivalent of a three-story building. It is described as a 500-year 

flood event. 

Only the careful planning and preparation by City officials in cooperation with the 

Corps of Engineers, the State of Minnesota, FEMA, the National Guard, and many 

private citizens, were damages reduced, and fortunately, no lives were lost. Prior 

to the crest of the flood, the City of Crookston completed the work of adding two 

feet of clay and sandbags to the entire levee system throughout the town. The Corps 

of Engineers constructed clay dikes as a second line of defense, sacrificing a few 

homes for the good of many others. As a precautionary measure, 400 residents evacuated from their homes during the height of the flood. These efforts spared 

Crookston from the devastation experienced by neighboring towns, allowing the City 

to provide for 8,000 persons evacuated from their homes in nearby communities, But 

this disaster and the potential devastation that such floods can bring, emphasized 
297 

the critical importance of replacing the temporary earthen and clay dikes with a 

well-planned, permanent flood control system. 

There are several causative factors that have created flood conditions for the Red 

River Valley and the City of Crookston. The Red River of the North did not carve 

out the valley, it merely meanders back and forth through the lowest parts of the 

floor of the ancient Glacial Lake Agassiz. 

With no definitive flood plain to channel flood torrents, the slow-moving flood waters quickly overrun the shallow river banks and spread out over the flat floor of 

the former glacial lake bed. The small river’s gradient is on one-half foot per mile, 

as opposed to areas in Southwestern Minnesota where in one instance, the gradient 

establishes a 19 foot drop in one mile. Both extremes have created problems. 

The Red Lake River flows into Crookston from the Northeast, winds it way 

through the City, and flows out of the City, turning in a Northwesterly direction 

toward its confluence with the Red River at Grand Forks, North Dakota. The 

merged rivers then flow due North into Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. As the snow 

melts in the Southern portion of the valley, ice often remains in the channel to the 

North. Ice and other debris flowing North pile up against the river ice creating ice 

dams. These barriers back up the water and increase the flood crest upstream. 

The extremely level terrain also creates a phenomenon during the Spring thaw 

which is called ‘‘overland flooding.’’ As the snow melts, the huge volume of water 

can overwhelm the network of shallow ditches and creeks. Unable to enter the 

choked stream channels, the water travels overland until it meets small terrain barriers such as railroad beds and road grades, creating huge bodies of water. 

In addition to the topography of the area, a combination of factors such as agricultural drainage, the loss of wetlands, the Federal governments work in the Red River 

Basin, and the construction of the county ditch systems, all these factors have contributed to the vulnerability of the area. 

KEY POINTS OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

1992—Feasibility Cost Share Agreement signed. 

1997—Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment completed. 

1997—National Economic Development optimizational analysis waived to provide 

the entire project with 100-year flood protection. 

1998—Preconstruction engineering and design efforts begun. 

1999—Project authorized for construction in the Water Resource Development Act 

of 1999. 

2000—Plans, specifications, and design work for Stage 1 completed. 

2000—Congress appropriates $1 million for Stage 1 construction. 

2000—Plans and Specifications for Stage 2 commenced. 

2001—Corps of Engineers total cost estimates for the project to be $10.8 million. 

2001—Congress provides $2 million for the construction of Stage 2 of the 

Crookston Flood Control Project in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. 

2002—Bids were accepted and construction contract awarded for Stage 2 work. 

2002—Congress provides $3.202 million to complete Stage 2 construction work. 

2002—The Feasibility Report Supplement was completed. 

2003—Construction work continues on Stage 2. 

2003—House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reauthorizes 

Crookston Flood Control Project to include Sampson and Chase/Loring neighborhoods. 

2003—Request made to Congress for $1.2 million to provide flood protection for 

the Sampson and Chase/Loring neighborhoods. 

2003—Senate delays passage of the Water Resources Development Act until 2004. 

2004—Senate Environment and Public Works schedule WRDA mark-up for 

Spring, 2004. 

NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PROJECT

The citizens of Crookston have demonstrated their commitment to the project 

each year since 1997. Every year for since 1997, they have voted to assess themselves a flood control project fee, over and above their property taxes. This action 

by the community has resulted in raising about $1.4 million up to the present time. 

One third of these local funds were used to meet part of the 50 percent match for 

the $1.2 million feasibility study, and the remainder will be used as a part of the 

non-Federal match for the construction Stages of the flood control project. 

The State of Minnesota has also made a significant contribution to the project. 

They have appropriated $3.3 million for the dual purpose of providing funds to 

match the Federal contribution, and to buy out homes that have been lost in the 
298 

construction of the flood control measures. Nineteen families were required to lose 

their homes to the project, including one farm. The State funds were used both for 

the purchase of the homesteads, and the relocation of the affected families. For these reasons, we respectfully request this subcommittee to appropriate $1.2 

million of Federal funds in the fiscal year 2004 Appropriations Act to be used for 

the environmental assessment, preconstruction costs, and immediate work on the 

protection of the electrical substation and the pumping stations to avoid severe personal, ecological and environmental disasters in the Community. The committee’s 

favorable response to this request will prevent any delays affecting the completion 

of the project, and avoid cost overruns that inevitably occur when construction is 

delayed. 

In closing, I would like to say there is nothing more important to me as Mayor, 

and to each Member of the Crookston City Council, than the safety of our citizens, 

and the protection of their homes and property. We can not give them this assurance until we have completed this flood control project. May I also say that our association with the St. Paul District of the Army Corps of Engineers throughout this 

process has been outstanding. They are an extraordinary organization, working on 

the scene during flood conditions, and assisting us as we attempt to resolve this 

problem that threatens our citizens. We could not ask for a better partner in this 

project. 

Thank you for the opportunity to bring this important matter to your attention 

through this statement. I will be delighted to respond to any questions you may 

have about the project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHEASTERN FEDERAL POWER CUSTOMERS, INC. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the Southeastern 

Federal Power Customers, Inc. (‘‘SeFPC’’), I am pleased to provide testimony in reference to the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Army Corps 

of Engineers (‘‘Corps’’). My testimony will focus primarily on the budget request for 

the Corps’ South Atlantic Division (‘‘SAD’’) and the Nashville District of the Great 

Lakes and Ohio River Division (‘‘LRD’’). In addition, the SeFPC customers would 

like to express our interests related to proposed legislation that would authorize direct funding for Corps’ Operations and Maintenance (‘‘O&M’’) activities at Federal 

hydropower projects. 

The SeFPC has enjoyed a long and successful relationship with the Corps’ SAD 

and LRD offices that has greatly benefited the approximately 5.8 million customers 

of the SeFPC members. As the subcommittee is aware, the Corps is responsible for 

operating and maintaining Federal hydropower generating facilities. The Southeastern Power Administration (‘‘SEPA’’) then markets the energy and capacity that 

is generated from the Federal projects in the Southeast. The SeFPC represents some 

238 rural cooperatives and municipally owned electric systems in the States of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and 

Virginia, which purchase power from SEPA. In some cases, SEPA supplies as much 

as 25 percent of the power and 10 percent of the energy needs of SeFPC customers, 

who greatly rely on this power. 

DRASTIC CUTS IN THE CORPS’ BUDGET

The SeFPC membership is dedicated to providing reliable and economic power for 

its consumers. We therefore are concerned that the President has proposed a 13 percent reduction in the Corps’ budget for fiscal year 2005. With these reductions in 

funding, the Corps will not be able to undertake the O&M and Renewals and Replacements (‘‘R&R’’) work necessary to ensure the long-term reliability of the Southeastern Federal hydropower facilities. We are particularly concerned about the effects of the proposed budget cuts on ongoing O&M work on infrastructure of hydropower projects whose output is marketed by SEPA. The proposed reductions will 

particularly impede the Corps’ work in the following SEPA projects: Walter F. 

George, J. Strom Thurmond, John H. Kerr, Allatoona, and Carters. 

We also are concerned the President’s budget request has zeroed out funds for 

construction at many of the projects operated by the Corps. We remain especially 

troubled by the badly needed rehabilitation of generating facilities in the Cumberland River System operated and maintained by LRD, as well as other Federal 

hydropower generating facilities throughout the Southeast. The age of many of the 

hydroelectric generating facilities in SEPA’s service area is nearing the 50-year 

mark, when major rehabilitations are critical if the projects are to continue. Regrettably, the fiscal year 2005 budget request does not place a high priority on these 

critical needs. 
299 

When a generating unit becomes inoperable, SEPA may be forced to pursue the 

purchase of expensive replacement power; this could result in a reduction of energy 

and capacity, forcing the SeFPC members to purchase expensive capacity elsewhere. 

This has occurred so frequently in the last several years that the new SEPA rate 

design now includes a charge by customers to cover this replacement power. Such 

a result is inappropriate because preference customers already have contributed to 

the Corps’ O&M and R&R expenses, in essence double-charging the customers and 

their consumers. In fact, revenue from the rates paid by the preference customers 

has enabled SEPA to repay on time the original investment incurred to construct 

these projects. However, when generating units deteriorate, reliability decreases, 

and O&M expenses greatly increase. 

We are working on a long-term customer funding proposal that would facilitate 

this badly needed R&R work at hydroelectric facilities in the LRD. We anticipate, 

however, that this long-term initiative will not be finalized for a number of years. 

In the meantime, some of these facilities will not be able to continue generating 

without Federal funds. 

ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSAL FOR DIRECT FUNDING OF O&M

It is important to note that the relationship of the Corps, SEPA, and the SeFPC, 

forged pursuant to the Federal Power Marketing Program, is separate and distinct 

from other Corps’ activities. The Federal Power Marketing Program is designed to 

pay for itself—consumers are responsible for repaying the Federal taxpayer investment in the Corps’ multi-purpose hydroelectric facilities. In the rates charged by 

SEPA to preference customers, a portion of each rate is devoted to future O&M and 

R&R activities at these facilities. In turn, these revenues are deposited in the U.S. 

Treasury and used to reimburse Congressionally appropriated funds for O&M and 

R&R expenses at the Corps’ hydropower facilities. Funds collected from consumers 

may also be used for the hydropower share of joint costs of dam activities that also 

benefit recreation, navigation and flood control. To date, preference customers have 

paid in SEPA rates over $114 million in excess of amounts spent by the Corps on 

O&M and R&R. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget request proposes to alter this funding arrangement. This year’s budget includes a provision from the President’s fiscal 

year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 requests calling for direct funding of routine O&M 

for hydropower facilities marketed by SEPA and the other Federal PMAs. While we 

support the concept of direct funding for O&M expenses, we want to ensure that 

any direct funding legislation would include safeguards to prevent the Corps from 

utilizing an alternative source of funding that could lead to significant rate increases. Specifically, we believe the PMAs must have the final say in determining 

the amount of funding available for the Corps each year. In this regard, funds provided for Corps’ O&M should under this new mechanism have a neutral effect on 

rate levels. Also, the Corps and the PMAs must consult with the PMA customers 

regarding amounts the PMAs will collect for O&M activities. Finally, the Corps 

must be prohibited statutorily from reprogramming funds provided by the PMAs 

under this direct funding mechanism. 

In advancing the direct funding proposal, the administration has reduced funds 

in the Corps’ O&M budget by $150 million. Therefore, in the event the proposed legislation is not enacted, this funding should be restored to the Corps’ O&M budget. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration of our comments on the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Corps. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Reid, and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of the City of Flagstaff, 

Arizona in support of $10 million in the Army Corps of Engineers budget for the 

Rio de Flag flood control project in fiscal year 2005. I believe this project is critically 

important to the City, to northern Arizona, and, ultimately, to the Nation. 

As you may know, Mr. Chairman, with this subcommittee’s help last year, Rio de 

Flag received $3.5 million to continue construction on this important project. We are 

extremely grateful that the subcommittee boosted this project well above the president’s request, and we would appreciate your continued support for this project in 

fiscal year 2005. 

Like many other projects under the Army Corps’ jurisdiction, Rio de Flag received 

no funding in the president’s fiscal year 2005 budget, although the Corps has expressed capability of $10 million to continue construction on the project. We are 
300 

hopeful that the subcommittee will fund the Rio de Flag project at $10 million when 

drafting its bill in order to keep the project on an optimal schedule. 

Flooding along the Rio de Flag dates back as far as 1888. The Army Corps has 

identified a Federal interest in solving this long-standing flooding problem through 

the Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona—Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact 

Study (EIS). The recommended plan contained in this feasibility report was developed based on the following opportunities: (1) flood control and flood damage reduction; (2) environmental mitigation and enhancement; (3) water resource management; (4) public recreation; and (5) redevelopment opportunities. This plan will result in benefits to not only the local community, but to the region and the Nation. 

The feasibility study by the Corps of Engineers has revealed that a 500-year flood 

could cause serious economic hardship to the City. In fact, a devastating 500-year 

flood could damage or destroy approximately 1,500 structures valued at more than 

$395 million. Similarly, a 100-year flood would cause an estimated $95 million in 

damages. In the event of a catastrophic flood, over half of Flagstaff’s population of 

57,000 would be directly impacted or affected. 

In addition, a wide range of residential, commercial, downtown business and tourism, and industrial properties are at risk. Damages could also occur to numerous 

historic structures and historic Route 66. The Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), one of the primary east-west corridors for rail freight, could be destroyed, as well as U.S. Interstate 40, one of the country’s most important east-west 

interstate links. Additionally, a significant portion of Northern Arizona University 

(NAU) could incur catastrophic physical damages, disruptions, and closings. Public 

infrastructure (e.g., streets, bridges, water, and sewer facilities), and franchised utilities (e.g., power and telecommunications) could be affected or destroyed. Transportation disruptions could make large areas of the City inaccessible for days. 

Mr. Chairman, the intense wildfires that have devastated the West during the 

last several years have only exacerbated the flood potential and hazard in Flagstaff. 

An intense wildfire near Flagstaff could strip the soil of ground cover and vegetation, which could, in turn, increase runoff and pose an even greater threat of a catastrophic flood. 

In short, a large flood could cripple Flagstaff for years. This is why the City believes it is important to ensure that this project remains on schedule and that the 

Corps is able to maximize its capability of $10 million in fiscal year 2005 for construction of this flood control project. 

In the City’s discussions with the Corps, both the central office in Washington and 

its Los Angeles District Office also believe that the Rio de Flag project is of the utmost importance and both offices believe the project should be placed high on the 

subcommittee’s priority list. We are hopeful that the subcommittee will consider this 

advice and also place the project high on its priority list and fully fund the project 

at $10 million for fiscal year 2005. 

As you may know, project construction and implementation of Rio de Flag was 

authorized in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000. The total 

project cost is estimated to be $30,000,000 in and above the reconnaissance study 

or the feasibility study. The Non-Federal share is currently $10,500,000 and the 

Federal share is currently $19,500,000. Final project costs must be adjusted based 

on Value Engineering and final design features. It is important to note the City of 

Flagstaff has already committed more than $10,500,000 to this project, and an additional $2,000,000 in excess of its cost share agreement. This clearly demonstrates 

the City’s commitment to completing this important project. 

The City of Flagstaff, as the non-Federal sponsor, is responsible for all costs related to required Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way, Relocations, and Disposals 

(LERRD’s). The City has already secured the necessary property rights to begin construction in 2004. Implementation of the City’s Downtown and Southside Redevelopment Initiatives ($100,000,000 in private funds) are entirely dependent on the success of the Rio de Flag project. The Rio de Flag project will also provide a critical 

missing bike/pedestrian connection under Route 66 and the BNSF Railroad to replace the existing hazardous at grade crossings. 

Both design and construction are divided into two phases. Phase I construction 

will commence in 2004. Phase II of the project is scheduled to commence in April 

of 2005. 

Mr. Chairman, the Rio de Flag project is exactly the kind of project that was envisioned when the Corps was created because it will avert catastrophic floods, it will 

save lives and property, and it will promote economic growth. In short, this project 

is a win-win for the Federal Government, the City, and the surrounding communities. 

Furthermore, the amount of money invested in this project by the Federal Government—approximately $19 million—will be saved exponentially in costs to the Fed-
301 

eral Government in the case of a large and catastrophic flood, which could be more 

than $395 million. It will also promote economic growth and redevelopment along 

areas that are currently underserved because of the flood potential. 

In conclusion, the Rio de Flag project should be considered a high priority for this 

subcommittee, and I encourage you to support full funding of $10 million for this 

project in the fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FIFTH LOUISIANA LEVEE DISTRICT

In order to continue the essential level of construction on the Mississippi River 

and Tributaries Project (MR&T), and to provide proper maintenance of the completed portions, it is crucial that the $450 million, as requested by the Mississippi 

Valley Flood Control Association for fiscal year 2005 (copy attached), be appropriated for the MR&T Project. 

Less than $10 billion has been invested in the MR&T Project since its authorization following the great flood of 1927, but even in its incomplete stage, the MR&T 

project has prevented over $180 billion in flood damages and makes possible about 

$900 million in navigation benefits each year. 

Levee enlargements have been completed along most of the Mississippi River 

Levee, with one exception being portions of the system in Louisiana where people 

and property remain vulnerable to a Levee that is the lowest in the MR&T system, 

even though it conducts to the Gulf 41 percent of the total water runoff of the Nation. It is imperative that construction of these Levees remain a top priority for the 

administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and that adequate funding be 

provided. 

We urge Congress to increase the $4.21 billion contained in the President’s Budget Request for the entire Corps of Engineers’ Works Program. At least $6.00 billion 

is required in order that the Corps not halt or delay contracts, shut down facilities, 

or otherwise disrupt the economic well-being of this Nation. Failure to provide this 

much needed additional funding will have a serious detrimental effect on the economic conditions in our already depressed area. 

We continue to emphasize our objection to dividing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers into separate, smaller entities and transferring to the administration of other 

established departments. It is vital to the people of Louisiana and to the Nation that 

the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project be completed as designed and as 

quickly as possible. To transfer any part of the Civil Works mission, or to ‘‘outsource’’ or contract-out positions in the Corps’ Civil Works organization, as proposed 

by the Secretary of The Army, will wreck the current construction and maintenance 

time table and eliminate approximately 32,000 current employees. 

We urge your support for protection of the structure of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers as it currently exists. 

We respectfully request that funds be increased for the Corps of Engineers’ Works 

Program and $450 million be appropriated for the MR&T Project for the coming fiscal year. 

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION—FISCAL YEAR 2005 CIVIL WORKS REQUESTED 

BUDGET—MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES PROJECT—MAINTENANCE 

Project President’s 

Budget MVFCA Request 

Wappapello Lake, MO .............................................................................................................. $4,046,000 $6,352,000 

Mississippi River Levees ......................................................................................................... 7,665,000 14,915,000 

Dredging .................................................................................................................................. 20,515,000 20,515,000 

Revetment and Dikes .............................................................................................................. 48,760,000 48,760,000 

Memphis Harbor, TN ............................................................................................................... 1,205,000 2,010,000 

Helena Harbor, TN ................................................................................................................... 385,000 510,000 

Greenville Harbor, MS ............................................................................................................. 29,000 412,000 

Vicksburg Harbor, MS ............................................................................................................. 32,000 345,000 

St. Francis River & Tribs, AR ................................................................................................. 6,080,000 8,805,000 

White River Backwater, AR ..................................................................................................... 1,316,000 2,260,000 

North Bank, Arkansas River, AR ............................................................................................. 146,000 146,000 

South Bank, Arkansas River, AR ............................................................................................ 122,000 122,000 

Boeuf & Tensas Rivers, LA ..................................................................................................... 2,160,000 2,160,000 

Red River Backwater, LA ........................................................................................................ 3,083,000 7,390,000 

Yazoo Basin, Sardis Lake, MS ................................................................................................ 7,046,000 19,322,000 
302 

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION—FISCAL YEAR 2005 CIVIL WORKS REQUESTED 

BUDGET—MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES PROJECT—MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Project President’s 

Budget MVFCA Request 

Yazoo Basin, Arkabutla Lake, MS ........................................................................................... 5,710,000 12,900,000 

Yazoo Basin, Enid Lake, MS ................................................................................................... 4,954,000 13,679,000 

Yazoo Basin, Grenada Lake, MS ............................................................................................. 5,553,000 10,101,000 

Yazoo Basin, Greenwood, MS .................................................................................................. 585,000 2,035,000 

Yazoo Basin, Yazoo City, MS .................................................................................................. 729,000 729,000 

Yazoo Basin, Main Stem, MS .................................................................................................. 1,013,000 3,966,000 

Yazoo Basin, Tributaries, MS .................................................................................................. 923,000 923,000 

Yazoo Basin, Whittington Aux Channel, MS ........................................................................... 400,000 400,000 

Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower, MS ............................................................................................ 139,000 2,139,000 

Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater, MS ........................................................................................ 440,000 926,000 

Lower Red River, South Bank, LA ........................................................................................... 105,000 105,000 

Bonnet Carre, LA ..................................................................................................................... 2,310,000 3,100,000 

Old River, LA ........................................................................................................................... 7,350,000 29,900,000 

Atchafalaya Basin, LA ............................................................................................................. 13,000,000 25,000,000 

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, LA ............................................................................................. 2,775,000 4,200,000 

Baton Rouge Harbor Devil’s Swamp, LA ................................................................................ 14,000 300,000 

Miss Delta Region, LA ............................................................................................................. 588,000 588,000 

Bayou Cocodrie & Tribs, LA .................................................................................................... 65,000 65,000 

Inspection of Completed Works .............................................................................................. 1,500,000 1,700,000 

Mapping .................................................................................................................................. 1,112,000 1,325,000 

Total MR&T Maintenance .......................................................................................... 151,855,000 248,105,000 

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION—FISCAL YEAR 2005 CIVIL WORKS REQUESTED 

BUDGET—MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS 

Project and State President’s 

Budget MVFCA Request 

Surveys, Continuation of Planning and Engineering & Advance Engineering & Design: 

Memphis Harbor, TN ...................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Germantown, TN ............................................................................................................. $27,000 $27,000 

Millington, TN ................................................................................................................. 100,000 100,000 

Fletcher Creek, TN .......................................................................................................... 93,000 93,000 

Memphis Metro Storm Water Management, TN ............................................................. ........................ 100,000 

Bayou Meto, AR .............................................................................................................. ........................ 2,447,000 

Germantown, TN ............................................................................................................. ........................ 200,000 

Southeast Arkansas ....................................................................................................... ........................ 600,000 

Coldwater Basin Below Arkabutla Lake, MS ................................................................. 203,000 750,000 

Quiver River, MS ............................................................................................................ ........................ 100,000 

Spring Bayou, LA ............................................................................................................ 500,000 600,000 

Point Coupee to St. Mary Parish, LA ............................................................................. ........................ 100,000 

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, LA* ..................................................................... 100,000 100,000 

Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico ............................................................................. 435,000 435,000 

Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico .............................................................................. 1,500,000 10,000,000 

Donaldsonville, LA to the Gulf of Mexico ...................................................................... 800,000 1,200,000

Tensas River, LA ............................................................................................................ ........................ 500,000 

Donaldsonville Port Development, LA ............................................................................ ........................ 100,000 

Collection & Study of Basic Data ................................................................................. 700,000 700,000 

Subtotal, Surveys, Continuation of Planning & Engineering & Advance Engineering & Design ......................................................................................................... 4,458,000 18,152,000 

Construction: 

St. John’s Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO ................................................................. 8,300,000 8,300,000 

Eight Mile Creek, AR ...................................................................................................... 1,357,000 3,293,000 

Helena & Vicinity, AR ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Grand Prairie Region, AR ............................................................................................... ........................ 20,000,000 

Bayou Meto, AR .............................................................................................................. ........................ 18,000,000 

West Tennessee Tributaries, TN ..................................................................................... ........................ 700,000 

Nonconnah Creek, TN ..................................................................................................... 2,153,000 2,753,000 
303 

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION—FISCAL YEAR 2005 CIVIL WORKS REQUESTED 

BUDGET—MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS—Continued 

Project and State President’s 

Budget MVFCA Request 

Wolf River, Memphis, TN ............................................................................................... ........................ 2,400,000 

August to Clarendon Levee, Lower White River, AR ...................................................... ........................ 2,000,000 

St. Francis Basin, MO & AR .......................................................................................... 3,000,000 9,500,000 

Yazoo Basin, MS ............................................................................................................ 5,850,000 62,775,000 

Atchafalaya Basin, LA .................................................................................................... 22,495,000 32,500,000 

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, LA .................................................................................... 7,200,000 10,000,000 

MS Delta Region, LA ...................................................................................................... 1,800,000 4,700,000 

Horn Lake Creek, MS ..................................................................................................... ........................ 203,000 

MS & LA Estaurine Area, MS & LA ............................................................................... ........................ 50,000 

Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA ................................................. 36,882,000 44,082,000 

Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA ............................................... 38,960,000 54,800,000 

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................... 127,997,000 276,056,000 

Subtotal, Maintenance ............................................................................................... 151,855,000 248,105,000 

Subtotal, Mississippi River & Tributaries ................................................................. 284,310,000 542,313,000 

Less Reduction for Savings & Slippage ................................................................... ¥14,310,000 92,313,000 

Grand Total, Mississippi River & Tributaries ........................................................... 270,000,000 450,000,000 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND

DEVELOPMENT

On behalf of the State of Louisiana and its twenty levee boards, we present recommendations for fiscal year 2005 appropriations for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Civil Works Projects in Louisiana. 

Louisiana contains the terminus of the Mississippi River, third largest drainage 

basin in the world, draining 41 percent, or 11⁄4 million square miles, of the contiguous United States and parts of two Canadian provinces. When combined with the 

other interstate rivers flowing through the State, almost 50 percent of the contiguous land mass of this Nation drains through Louisiana. This same river drainage 

system forms the backbone of the federally constructed Inland Waterway System 

that provides our heartland cost effective access to the global marketplace via the 

230 mile deepwater channel of the lower Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to the 

Gulf. This strategic gateway to international markets is the largest port complex in 

the world ranking Louisiana first in the Nation in volume of waterborne traffic. We 

are distressed that the Administration’s budget proposals in recent years indicate 

a lack of concern for the preservation and efficient operation of this system. The Inland Waterway System—the whole system—allowed industrial facilities scattered 

throughout the central portion of the Nation to obtain raw materials and fuel from 

distant locations and to reach worldwide markets. These industries, and most of the 

agricultural industries in mid-America, are heavily dependent on the federally 

maintained navigable waterways to remain globally competitive in transporting 

their products. To consider maintenance of only the main-stem portion of the waterway system at the expense of the connector branches will wreak havoc on the economies of all the communities located on these so-called low-use branch waterways. 

A comprehensive and extensive flood control system is required to protect the 

landside facilities and related industries supporting that waterborne commerce. In 

Louisiana there are almost 3,000 miles of levees (1,500 in the MR&T system) constructed jointly by Federal, State and local entities that provide protection from 

riverine and tidal flooding. Louisiana’s 20 levee boards are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of these levees which allow one-third of Louisiana to be habitable year-round. The petrochemical, oil and gas industries in Louisiana that contribute to the economic well being of the Nation are almost totally dependent on the 

federally constructed flood control system to protect their facilities. But these same 

levees and channel improvements that benefit the entire Nation have been blamed 

for the rapid deterioration of our coastal wetlands. The loss of these wetlands is adversely impacting both the area’s natural resources and the effectiveness of our hurricane protection system. These wetlands are not Louisiana’s alone; they constitute 

40 percent of the Nation’s wetlands and their restoration must be considered a national priority. 
304 

The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project (MR&T) has been underway since 

1928 and isn’t scheduled for completion until beyond 2031. The Administration’s 

proposed budget of $270 Million for fiscal year 2005 is totally unacceptable. We 

strongly support the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association’s request for $450 

Million for the MR&T Project. We urge support of this requested level of funding. 

In making the following funding recommendations for Louisiana projects regarding specific construction, studies, and operation and maintenance items, the State 

of Louisiana would hope that Congress and the Administration will honor their 

prior commitments to infrastructure development and continue to fund our requests. 

It is appropriate that the Federal Government has committed to providing combined 

flood control and navigation measures that benefit the economy of both Louisiana 

and the rest of the Nation. We believe these types of water resources projects are 

the most cost effective projects in the Federal budget, having to meet stringent economic criteria not required by other programs. 

We wish to express our thanks to the Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy 

and Water Development of the House and Senate for allowing us to present this 

brief on the needs of Louisiana for fiscal year 2005. We solicit your favorable consideration and request this statement be included in the formal hearing record. 

The State of Louisiana requests funding for the following projects that differs 

from what is in the fiscal year 2005 Administration Budget or is a project of particular importance for the State. Those items that the State of Louisiana believes 

have been appropriately funded have not been included. 

FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, HURRICANE PROTECTION & WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2005 FOR LOUSIANA 

Louisiana Administrative 

Budget 

Louisiana 

Request 

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS: 

STUDIES: 

Amite River-Ecosystem Restoration, LA ................................................................ $250,000 $250,000 

Amite River & Tributaries, LA—Bayou Manchac ................................................. 100,000 1,000,000 

Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf & Black, LA ......................................... 350,000 800,000 

Calcasieu Lock, LA ................................................................................................ 200,000 1,000,000 

Calcasieu River Basin, LA .................................................................................... 350,000 350,000 

Calcasieu River Pass Ship Channel Enlargement, LA ......................................... 50,000 500,000 

Hurricane Protection, LA ....................................................................................... ........................ 200,000 

LCA—Ecosystem Restoration, LA ......................................................................... 8,000,000 12,000,000 

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, LA ......................................................................... 225,000 225,000 

Plaquemines Parish, LA ........................................................................................ 300,000 500,000 

Port of Iberia, LA .................................................................................................. 350,000 730,000 

St. Bernard Parish Urban Flood Control, LA ........................................................ 300,000 550,000 

St. Charles Parish Urban Flood Control, LA ......................................................... 300,000 800,000 

St. John the Baptist Parish, LA ............................................................................ ........................ 600,000 

Southwest, AR (AR, LA) ........................................................................................ ........................ 427,000 

Bossier Parish Levee & FC ................................................................................... ........................ 385,000 

Cross Lake Water Supply ...................................................................................... ........................ 500,000 

JBJWW .................................................................................................................... ........................ 100,000 

Pearl River, MS & LA ............................................................................................ ........................ 100,000 

Pearl River, Bogalusa (MS) .................................................................................. ........................ 100,000 

PED: 

Bayou Sorrel Lock, LA .................................................................................................... 550,000 550,000 

Lafayette Parish, LA ....................................................................................................... ........................ 327,000 

West Shore—Lake Pontchartrain, LA ............................................................................ ........................ 400,000 

West Baton Rouge Parish, LA ........................................................................................ ........................ 500,000 

NEW STUDIES: 

Bayou Nezpique Watershed, LA ..................................................................................... ........................ 100,000 

Millennium Port, LA ....................................................................................................... ........................ 100,000 

Port Fourchon Enlargement, LA ..................................................................................... ........................ 100,000 

Port of West St. Mary .................................................................................................... ........................ 100,000 

Southwest La Multi-Purpose Water Resources, LA ........................................................ ........................ 100,000 

Tangipahoa River Ecosystem Restoration, LA ............................................................... ........................ 100,000 

CONSTRUCTION GENERAL: 

Comite River, LA ............................................................................................................ 1,500,000 9,900,000 

East Baton Rouge Parish, LA ........................................................................................ ........................ 8,000,000 

Grand Isle, LA ................................................................................................................ ........................ 1,900,000 

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA (IWWTF & CG) ............................................... 10,000,000 24,000,000 
305 

FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, HURRICANE PROTECTION & WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2005 FOR LOUSIANA—Continued 

Louisiana Administrative 

Budget 

Louisiana 

Request 

Lake Pontchartrain, LA .................................................................................................. 3,937,000 22,500,000 

Larose to Golden Meadow, LA ....................................................................................... 583,000 1,500,000 

New Orleans to Venice, LA ............................................................................................ 2,965,000 6,600,000 

Southeast, LA ................................................................................................................. 30,000,000 78,000,000 

West Bank and Vicinity, New Orleans, LA ..................................................................... 37,000,000 59,800,000 

Red River Below Den Dam (AR, LA) .............................................................................. ........................ 7,000,000 

Red River Emergency (AR, LA) ...................................................................................... ........................ 10,000,000 

J Bennett Johnston Waterway, MS River to Shreveport ................................................. 4,000,000 20,000,000 

Ouachita River Levees ................................................................................................... ........................ 3,800,000 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE GENERAL: 

Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf & Black ........................................................ 13,813,000 26,600,000 

Barataria Bay Waterway ................................................................................................ ........................ 4,600,000 

Bayou Lacombe .............................................................................................................. ........................ 860,000 

Bayou Lafourche ............................................................................................................. ........................ 1,100,000 

Bayou Segnette .............................................................................................................. ........................ 1,400,000 

Bayou Teche ................................................................................................................... ........................ 300,000 

Calcasieu River & Pass ................................................................................................. 13,285,000 21,800,000 

(T) Chefuncte River ........................................................................................................ ........................ 800,000 

Freshwater Bayou ........................................................................................................... 1,678,000 3,700,000 

Grand Isle, LA & Vicinity ............................................................................................... ........................ 800,000 

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway ........................................................................................... 17,476,000 27,300,000 

Houma Navigation Canal ............................................................................................... 3,070,000 3,300,000 

Mermentau River ............................................................................................................ 4,410,000 6,500,000 

Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf .................................................................. 59,125,000 74,400,000 

Mississippi River—Gulf Outlet ...................................................................................... 13,004,000 45,000,000 

Mississippi River, Outlets at Venice ............................................................................. 424,000 3,700,000 

Tangipahoa River ........................................................................................................... ........................ 800,000 

Waterway Empire to the Gulf ........................................................................................ ........................ 240,000 

Waterway Intracoastal Waterway to Bayou Dulace ....................................................... ........................ 200,000 

Ouachita & Black Rivers (AR, LA) ................................................................................. 1,974,000 18,123,000 

Bayou Bodcau ................................................................................................................ 776,000 776,000 

Caddo Lake .................................................................................................................... 182,000 182,000 

Wallace Lake .................................................................................................................. 290,000 290,000 

Bayou Pierre ................................................................................................................... 28,000 28,000 

J Bennett Johnston Waterway ........................................................................................ 10,600,000 18,098,000 

Lake Providence Harbor ................................................................................................. 38,000 451,000 

Madison Parish Port ....................................................................................................... 20,000 120,000 

Note.—The projects listed above are only those in Louisiana (except where noted) and directly affect the State. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL 

YEAR 2005 FOR LOUISIANA 

Louisiana Administrative Budget Louisiana 

Request 

FC, MR&T GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS: 

Alexandria to the Gulf ................................................................................................... $435,000 $435,000 

Donaldsonville to the Gulf ............................................................................................. 800,000 1,200,000 

Morganza to the Gulf, PED ............................................................................................ 1,500,000 10,000,000 

Collection & Study Data ................................................................................................ 200,000 200,000 

Collect & Study of Basic Data (AR, LA, MS) ................................................................ 300,000 300,000 

Spring Bayou Area, LA ................................................................................................... 500,000 600,000 

Tensas River Basin, LA .................................................................................................. 0 500,000 

NEW STUDIES: Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Land Study, LA .................................... 0 100,000 

FC, MR&T CONSTRUCTION: 

Atchafalaya Basin .......................................................................................................... 22,495,000 32,500,000 

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System ............................................................................. 7,200,000 10,000,000 

Channel Improvement .................................................................................................... 10,105,000 10,105,000 

Mississippi Delta Region (FED) ..................................................................................... 1,800,000 4,700,000 

Mississippi River Levees, LA ......................................................................................... 2,680,000 2,680,000 

MS—LA Estuarine Area ................................................................................................. 0 50,000 

Mississippi River Levees (AR, LA, MS) .......................................................................... 20,850,000 30,850,000 
306 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL 

YEAR 2005 FOR LOUISIANA—Continued 

Louisiana Administrative Budget 

Louisiana 

Request 

Channel Improvement (AR, LA, MS) .............................................................................. 13,582,000 16,782,000 

FC, MR&T MAINTENANCE: 

Atchafalaya Basin .......................................................................................................... 13,000,000 25,000,000 

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System ............................................................................. 2,775,000 4,200,000 

Baton Rouge Harbor (Devil’s Swamp) ........................................................................... 14,000 300,000 

Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries .................................................................................... 65,000 65,000

Bonnet Carre Spillway ................................................................................................... 2,310,000 3,100,000 

Channel Improvement .................................................................................................... 15,675,000 15,675,000 

Dredging ......................................................................................................................... 700,000 700,000 

Inspection of Completed Works ..................................................................................... 383,000 383,000 

Mapping ......................................................................................................................... 396,000 396,000 

MS Delta Region ............................................................................................................ 588,000 588,000 

Mississippi River Levees, LA ......................................................................................... 790,000 5,200,000 

Old River ........................................................................................................................ 7,350,000 29,900,000 

Mississippi River Levees (AR, LA, MS) .......................................................................... 2,670,000 3,270,000 

Revetments & Dikes (AR, LA, MS) ................................................................................. 13,400,000 13,400,000 

Dredging (AR, LA, MS) ................................................................................................... 6,265,000 6,265,000 

Mapping (AR, LA, MS) .................................................................................................... 329,000 329,000 

Inspection of Completed Works (AR, LA, MS) ............................................................... 338,000 338,000 

Boeuf & Tensas Rivers .................................................................................................. 2,160,000 2,160,000 

Red River Backwater ..................................................................................................... 3,083,000 7,390,000 

Lower Red River ............................................................................................................. 105,000 105,000 

Note.—The projects listed above are only those in Louisiana (except when noted) and directly affect the State. We realize that there are other projects in the Valley. We endorse the recommendations of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE DAM SAFETY OFFICIALS

Chairman Domenici and members of the subcommittee, the Association of State 

Dam Safety Officials is pleased to offer this testimony on the President’s proposed 

budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) fiscal year 2005. The Association’s testimony includes issues related to the safety and security of the dams 

owned or operated by the USACOE and in support of the National Inventory of 

Dams (NID) authorized by the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002. 

The Association of State Dam Safety Officials is a national non-profit organization 

of more than 2000 State, Federal and local dam safety professionals and private sector individuals dedicated to improving dam safety through research, education and 

communications. Our goal simply is to save lives, prevent damage to property and 

to maintain the benefits of dams by preventing dam failures. Several dramatic dam 

failures in the United States called attention to the catastrophic consequences of 

failures. The failure of the federally-owned Teton Dam in 1976 caused 14 deaths 

and over $1 billion in damages, and is a constant reminder of the potential consequences associated with dams and the obligations to assure that dams are properly constructed, operated and maintained. 

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF DAMS

The National Inventory of Dams is a computer database, maintained by the 

USACOE, that houses vital information of Federal and non-Federal dams across the 

United States. The database tracks information about the dam’s location, size, use, 

type, proximity to nearest town, hazard classification, age, height and many other 

technical data fields. The database can be used for States or Federal agencies to access comprehensive information for planning, security alerts or to use within a 

Graphic Information System (GIS) vital in tracking lifeline systems and responding 

to emergency events through using the geographic and mapping abilities along with 

the engineering information within the NID database. 

The NID can be used by policy makers as a tool when evaluating national or local 

dam safety issues. For example, it is extremely useful in establishing the average 

age of the dams in the United States, or identifying the number and location of a 

particular type of dam construction (i.e. the number and location of ‘‘thin arch’’ 

dams greater than 100 feet in height). In addition, the Federal Emergency Agency 

uses this data to compute State grant assistance funds, in accordance with the Na-
307 

tional Dam Safety Program and to assess the status of Federal and non-Federal 

dams. 

There are over 78,000 dams on the National Inventory of Dams in the country. 

It is essential that this data be current and accurate in order to have access to this 

critical data when needed and to be able to track trends in assessing dam safety 

improvements. The NID can meet this need, but it is only as accurate as the last 

update. The NID has not been updated since 2000. The database must be continually updated as the dam information is constantly changing (i.e. new ownership, 

major repairs, removal of dams, increasing the height and storage, additional downstream development or changes to the dam’s hazard classification). This data is now 

even more important as the intelligence community and Federal law enforcement 

agencies have identified dams as a specific target of potential terrorists attacks. The 

data can also be of tremendous benefit to Federal agencies such as FEMA, NWS, 

USGS and the new Department of Homeland Security for locating large dams, for 

watershed planning, flood control planning or emergency response to failures or extreme storm events. 

Correct and timely data is vital to the national effort to assess and protect our 

critical infrastructure, including dams, from intentional acts of terrorists. The 

Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 7 requires the Federal Government 

to ‘‘protect critical infrastructure and key resources’’ and includes a ‘‘strategy to 

identify, prioritize and coordinate the protection of critical infrastructure.’’ This cannot be accomplished without an accurate NID. 

Continuing updates and improvements to this database resource should be a higher priority. Federal agencies that own dams as well as State dam safety programs 

provide updated information and corrections to the data fields, which provides for 

accurate and current data. The NID is also an integral part of the biennial report 

to Congress which evaluates the performance of the National Dam Safety Program 

and status of the safety of the Nation’s dams. 

The Association respectfully requests that the subcommittee recognize the importance of this national dam database and increase the appropriation amount from the 

proposed funding level in the President’s budget of $222,000 to the full authorized 

funding amount of $500,000. 

DAM SAFETY, SECURITY, AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The USACOE is recognized as a national leader in dam construction and dam 

safety. The USACOE currently owns or operates 700 dams in the United States, and 

these dams, like other critical components of the national infrastructure are aging 

and the require vigilant inspection as well as routine maintenance. In addition, the 

security of our Nation’s infrastructure is a major concern. Dams, especially the large 

federally-owned dams are a potential target for terrorists attacks. 

The USACOE dams are typically very large, provide flood protection, water supply, hydropower, recreation and many are critical to the waterway navigation on the 

Nation’s major rivers. The consequences of a failure or misoperation of one of these 

dams can cause enormous loss of life and property damage, as well as the loss of 

the benefits provided by the dam. Therefore, the Association strongly supports appropriations necessary to make needed repairs, to conduct security assessments and 

improvements wherever necessary. The Association believes that operation and 

maintenance are critical to the continued safe performance of the dams. Too often 

deferred maintenance causes a small problem to become larger and more costly; and 

if left unattended, may cause the dam to become more susceptible to failure. 

The Association applauds the administration’s recognition of the importance and 

value of the USACOE’s Dam Safety Program and the need to fund dam maintenance of USACOE dams. ASDSO respectfully asks that the subcommittee recognize 

that inspections, safety repairs, security and routine maintenance are all essential 

to assure the safety and the continuing benefits of USACOE dams. 

The Association specifically requests that the subcommittee: 

—Support the administration’s increase in appropriations for the USACOE Dam 

Safety Program non-project management funds at $250,000; 

—Increase in appropriations for the USACOE Dam Security Program non-project 

management funds to $100,000 from the proposed $30,000 to include assistance 

to the State dam safety programs in conducting security vulnerability assessments and for training in the dam security assessment tools such as RAM–D; 

—Restore the USACOE ‘‘Planning Assistance to States Program’’ to the 

$6,500,000 of fiscal year 2004 from the proposed $4,650,000 to provide much 

needed assistance to the States to cost-share dambreak modeling, flood studies, 

developing emergency evacuation plans and to jointly conduct security vulnerability assessments; and 
308 

—Support the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget for $35,000,000 for emergency maintenance/repairs. 

Finally, while the security of the USACOE dams is currently a major priority, the 

continued safety, repair and maintenance of the USCOE dams should also continue 

as a major appropriations priority and not be diminished. Improved security on an 

unsafe dam may deter an attack, but it still leaves the lives and property downstream at an unnecessary risk. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity 

to provide this testimony in support of safe dams. We look forward to working with 

the subcommittee and staff on this important national issue. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, my name is Lew 

Meibergen. I am Chairman of the Board of Johnston Enterprises headquartered in 

Enid, Oklahoma. It is my honor to serve as Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin 

Interstate Committee, members of which are appointed by the governors of the 

great States of Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. 

In these times of war on terrorism, homeland defense and needed economic recovery, our thanks go to each of you, your staff members and the Congress. Your efforts 

to protect our Nation’s infrastructure and stimulate economic growth in a time of 

budget constraints are both needed and appreciated. 

Our Nation’s growing dependence on others for energy, and the need to protect 

and improve our environment, make your efforts especially important. Greater use 

and development of one of our Nation’s most important transportation modes—our 

navigable inland waterways—will help remedy these problems. At the same time, 

these fuel-efficient and cost-effective waterways keep us competitive in international 

markets. In this regard, we must maintain our inland waterway transportation system. We ask that the Congress restore adequate funding to the Corps of Engineers 

budget—$5.5 billion in fiscal year 2005—to keep the Nation’s navigation system 

from further deterioration. If this catastrophic problem is not addressed immediately, we are in real danger of losing the use of this most important transportation 

mode. 

As Chairman of the Interstate Committee, I present this summary testimony as 

a compilation of the most important projects from each of the member States. Each 

of the States unanimously supports these projects without reservation. I request 

that the copies of each State’s individual statement be made a part of the record, 

along with this testimony. 

Backlog of Channel Structure Maintenance McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System 

A $10 million Congressional add to the fiscal year 2005 Operation and Maintenance budget is urgently needed for critical repairs to damaged and deteriorated 

dikes and revetments to maintain channel alignment and provide original channel 

configuration while reducing the need for dredging. 

Equus Beds Aquifer—Kansas 

Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.—Continuation of a City of 

Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and State of Kansas project to 

construct storage and recovery facilities for a major groundwater resource supplying 

water to more than 20 percent of Kansas municipal, industrial and irrigation users. 

The project will capture and recharge in excess of 100 million gallons per day and 

will also reduce on-going degradation of the existing groundwater by minimizing migration of saline water. Federal authorization of the project and continued Federal 

funding is requested in the minimum amount of $1.5 million for fiscal year 2005. 

Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study, Arkansas and Oklahoma 

This study will evaluate how to optimize the reservoirs in Oklahoma and Arkansas that provide flows into the river with a view toward improving the number of 

days per year that the navigation system will accommodate tows. It will also investigate the impacts of deepening and widening the navigation channel. We request 

funding in the amount of $1.253 million to complete the study in fiscal year 2005. 

This is $735,000 above the President’s budget request of $500,000. 

The testimony we present reveals our firm belief that our inland waterways and 

the Corps of Engineers’ efforts are especially important to our Nation in this time 

of trial. Transportation infrastructure like the inland waterways, need to be operated and maintained for the benefit of the populace. Without adequate annual budgets, this is impossible. 
309 

Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, we respectfully request that you and 

members of your staff review and respond in a positive way to the attached individual statements from each of our States which set forth specific requests pertaining to those States. 

We sincerely appreciate your consideration and assistance. 

ARKANSAS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL LATTURE, II, CHAIRMAN FOR ARKANSAS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present testimony to this most important committee. I serve as Executive Director 

for the Little Rock Port Authority and as Arkansas Chairman for the Interstate 

Committee. Other committee members representing Arkansas, in whose behalf this 

statement is made, are Messrs. Wally Gieringer of Hot Springs Village, retired Executive Director of the Pine Bluff-Jefferson County Port Authority; Scott McGeorge, 

President, Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel Company, Pine Bluff; Barry McKuin of 

Morrilton, President of the Conway County Economic Development Corporation; and 

N.M. ‘‘Buck’’ Shell, CEO, Five Rivers Distribution in Van Buren and Fort Smith, 

Arkansas. 

We call to your attention three projects on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 

Navigation System (the ‘‘System’’) that are especially important to navigation and 

the economy of this multi-State area: Backlog of Channel Structure Maintenance, 

Maintenance Dredging, and Ark-White Cutoff as related to the Arkansas River. 

Backlog of Channel Structure Maintenance 

—A $10 million Congressional Add to the fiscal year 2005 Operation and Maintenance Budget is urgently needed for critical repairs to damaged and deteriorated dikes and revetments to maintain channel alignment and provide original 

channel configuration while reducing the need for dredging. 

—More than a decade of neglect to our navigation structures while funding the 

construction of Montgomery Point Lock & Dam has created a critical backlog 

of channel structure work that threatens the viability of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. 

—Current grain prices offer a rare potential for our farming mid-section of the 

Nation yet a failure to deliver these commodities to market due to neglect of 

our transportation system would have serious economic impacts rippling 

through the entire Arkansas River Basin. 

Maintenance Dredging 

—A $3 million Congressional Add is needed for Maintenance Dredging in known 

problem areas with siltation capable of restricting or closing the navigation 

channel. 

—A closure of the System for even a short period would create transportation 

problems with devastating economic impacts on Arkansas and our Nation at a 

time when commodity shipments are at record levels. 

—These funds will help ensure the System remains open and allow users to maximize tonnage by preventing the need for light loading. 

Ark-White Cutoff 

—A cutoff is developing between the Arkansas and White Rivers which, if not corrected, could have dramatic adverse effects on the navigation system as well as 

significant bottomland hardwoods and pristine environment that provides 

unique wildlife habitat in southeast Arkansas. 

—Unless corrected, it is inevitable that a major cutoff will occur negatively impacting navigation on the river, significantly increasing siltation and dredging 

requirements and, at worst, cutting off the lower end of the Navigation System 

from the Mississippi River. 

—Therefore, a $2 million Congressional Add is needed to further the study of this 

area and lead to a solution, which will prevent erosion, cutoffs, and detrimental 

siltation. 

In addition to these three vital requests, we urge you to continue to support funding for the Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System which provides low-cost and dependable transportation for farm products, construction aggregates, raw materials and finished products important to our Nation’s economic recovery. 

It is also most important that you continue construction authority of the McClellan-Kerr Project until remaining channel stabilization problems identified by the 

Little Rock District Corps of Engineers have been resolved. The Corps needs to de-
310 

velop a permanent solution to the threat of cutoffs developing in the lower reaches 

of the navigation system and to use environmentally sustainable methods under the 

existing construction authority. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the work of this essential committee and thank you 

for your efforts that contribute so much to the social and economic well-being of the 

United States of America. 

We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the Chairman of the 

Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee and urge you to favorably consider 

these requests that are so important to the economic recovery of our region and Nation. 

COLORADO

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES BRODERICK, CHAIRMAN FOR COLORADO

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to present testimony before this committee. My name is James Broderick, I 

am the Executive Director of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District 

and serve as Colorado Chairman for the Interstate Committee. 

The critical water resource projects in the Colorado portion of the Arkansas River 

Basin are summarized below. The projects are environmental and conservation oriented and have regional and multi-State impact. We are grateful for your leadership 

and your past commitment to our area. This request is for two projects $554,000 to provide for: 

—Design, installation, and operation of weighing lysimeters at the Colorado State 

University Agricultural Experiment Station at Rocky Ford, Colorado 

($422,000).—Install and operate a set of three monolithic continuous weighing 

(direct load cell) lysimeters to accurately measure evapotranspiration of a reference crop and of production crops under a variety of field conditions typical 

of the lower Arkansas River Valley in Colorado. —Enhancement of the CoAgMet Electronic Weather Station Network in the Lower 

Arkansas River Basin ($132,000).—Enhance and improve the existing and new 

Colorado Agriculture Meteorological (CoAgMet) weather in the Lower Arkansas 

River Basin and provide for its adequate operation and maintenance in order 

to provide accurate data for predicting evapotranspiration using the PenmanMonteith method. 

In recent litigation the Penman Monteith method has been recognized as the preferred procedure for calculating crop water use, replacing the Blaney-Criddle method historically used in Colorado. The importance of this change is that the Penman 

Monteith method, requires more data and information than Blaney-Criddle in order 

to be used properly. The Penman-Monteith method will increasingly be used to calculate crop consumptive use to determine the transferable consumptive use for 

changes of agricultural water rights to municipal use in the Arkansas River Basin 

and elsewhere in the State. 

We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the Chairman of the 

Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to your most important subcommittee and urge you to favorably consider our request for needed infrastructure investments in the natural and transportation resources of our Nation. 

KANSAS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD H. HOLMAN, CHAIRMAN FOR KANSAS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Gerald H. Holman, Senior 

Vice President of the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce, Wichita, Kansas and 

Chairman of the Kansas Interstate Committee for the Arkansas Basin Development 

Association (ABDA). I also serve as Chairman of ABDA. 

The Kansas ABDA representatives join with our colleagues from the other Arkansas River Basin States to form the multi-State Arkansas Basin Development Association. We fully endorse the summary statement presented to you by the Chairman 

of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. 

We are pleased to report that the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam Project will 

be operational by July 2004 and that a formal dedication ceremony is scheduled for 

July 16, 2004. Completion of this critical project through your support will maintain 

viable navigation for commerce on the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System. This inland waterway is vital to the economic health of our multi-State area. The Federal 

Government invested $1.3 billion in the project. Other public and private investment totals in excess of $4.2 billion and over 50,000 jobs have been created. Increasing the depth of the navigation channel to 12 feet will increase the performance of 
311 

the navigation system by allowing shippers to move one-third more cargo per barge. 

We request funding in the amount of $1.235 million to complete Phase II of the Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study which will examine the feasibility 

of increasing the channel depth. 

The critical water resources projects in the Kansas portion of the Arkansas River 

Basin are identified below. The projects are safety, environmental and conservation 

oriented and all have regional and/or multi-State impact. We are grateful for your 

past commitment to critical needs in Kansas. 

We ask for your continued support for this important Bureau of Reclamation 

project on behalf of the Wichita/South Central Kansas area: 

Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.—This is the continuation of a 

Bureau of Reclamation project jointly endorsed by the City of Wichita, Groundwater 

Management District No. 2 and the State of Kansas. This model technology has 

proven the feasibility of recharging a major groundwater aquifer supplying water to 

nearly 600,000 irrigation, municipal and industrial users. The demonstration project 

has successfully recharged more than one billion gallons of water from the Little Arkansas River. The project is essential to help protect the aquifer from on-going degradation caused by the migration of saline water. 

The State of Kansas supports this much-needed project in order to secure the 

quality of life and economic future for more than 20 percent of the State’s population. The project is included within the Kansas Water Plan. All interested parties 

fully support the project as the needed cornerstone for the area agricultural economy and for the economy of the Wichita metropolitan area. 

The demonstration project has confirmed earlier engineering models that the full 

scale aquifer storage and recovery project is feasible and capable of meeting the increasing water resource needs of the area to the mid-21st century. Presently, the 

Equus Beds provide approximately half of the Wichita regional municipal water 

supply. The Equus Beds are also vital to the surrounding agricultural economy. Environmental protection of the aquifer, which this strategic project provides, has increasing importance to ensure quality water for the future since south central Kansas will rely to an even greater extent on the Equus Beds aquifer for water resources. The aquifer storage and recovery project is a vital component of Wichita’s comprehensive and integrated water supply strategy. The full scale design concept for 

the aquifer storage and recovery project calls for a multi-year construction program. 

Phase One is estimated to cost $17.1 million. The total project involving the capture 

and recharge of more than 100 million gallons of water per day is estimated to cost 

$110 million over 10 years. This is substantially less costly, both environmentally 

and economically, when compared with reservoir construction or other alternatives. 

We are grateful for your previous cost share funding during the demonstration 

phase, as a compliment to funds provided by the City of Wichita. As we enter the 

construction phase, we request continued Congressional support: 

—by authorizing as a Federal project, the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project 

and directing the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in its final design and 

construction to completion; and 

—through continued cost share funding of the full-scale Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project in the minimum amount of $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2005. 

Many of our agricultural communities have historically experienced major flood 

disasters, some of which have resulted in multi-State hardships involving portions 

of the State of Oklahoma. The flood of 1998 emphasized again the need to rapidly 

move needed projects to completion. Major losses also took place in the Wichita metropolitan area. Projects in addition to local protection are also important. Our small 

communities lack the necessary funds and engineering expertise and Federal assistance is needed. This committee has given its previous support to Corps of Engineers 

projects in Kansas and we request your continued support for the following: 

—Arkansas City, Kansas Flood Protection.—Unfortunately, this project was not 

completed prior to the flood of 1998. The flood demonstrated again the critical 

need to protect the environment, homes and businesses from catastrophic damages from either Walnut River or Arkansas River flooding. When the project is 

complete, damage in a multi-county area will be eliminated and benefits to the 

State of Oklahoma just a few miles south will also result. The Secretary of the 

Army was authorized to construct the project in fiscal year 1997. The project 

is slated for completion in fiscal year 2005 but the funding is not adequate in 

the President’s budget. We request your continued support in the amount of 

$3.619 million, which is $2.619 million above the President’s budget request so 

the Corps of Engineers can complete this project. 

—Walnut River Basin, Kansas Feasibility Study.—This basin including the Whitewater and Little Walnut Rivers is located in south central Kansas. The feasi-
312 

bility study will identify ecosystem resources, evaluate the system qualities, determine past losses and current needs, and evaluate potential restoration and 

preservation measures. The non-Federal sponsor is the Kansas Water Office 

who believes that environmental restoration is a primary need in the basin. Environmental restoration features may also stabilize and protect streambanks 

from erosion and improve the water quality in the basin. The need for fiscal 

year 2005 is $305,000 which is $86,000 more than the President’s budget request. —Silver-Grouse Creek Reconnaissance Study.—The Silver-Grouse Creek area in 

south central Kansas is a location of natural geologic, archaeological and biologic attributes of the watershed. Periodic flooding downstream of the reconnaissance area impacts neighboring Oklahoma. Smaller Kansas communities without technical, financial and managerial capacities are all investigating future 

sources of water supply which potentially could be satisfied through impoundment of water. A reconnaissance study will identify water resource, flooding and 

ecosystem restoration issues and will also establish whether there is Federal interest in feasibility level studies. The Cowley County Commission has requested 

a feasibility study be conducted by the Corps. The Lt. Governor of Kansas has 

requested an evaluation through the State Water Planning Process and the 

Kansas Water Authority has supported this request. Funding is requested in 

the amount of $100,000 for fiscal year 2005. —Grand Lake Feasibility Study.—A need exists to complete evaluation of water 

resource problems in the Grand-Neosho River basin in Kansas and Oklahoma 

to evaluate solutions to upstream flooding problems associated with the adequacy of existing real estate easements necessary for flood control operations of 

Grand Lake, Oklahoma. A study authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 was completed in September of 1998 and determined that if 

the project were constructed based on current criteria, additional easements 

would be required. Section 449 of WRDA 2000 directed the Secretary to evaluate backwater effects specifically due to flood control operations on land around 

Grand Lake. That study indicated that Federal actions have been a significant 

cause of the backwater effects and according to WRDA 2000, the feasibility 

study should be 100 percent federally funded. A Feasibility study is necessary 

to determine the most cost-effective solution to the real estate inadequacies. 

Changes in the operations of the project or other upstream changes could have 

a significant impact on flood control, hydropower, and navigation operations in 

the Grand (Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River basin system, as 

well. We request funding in the amount of $450,000 in fiscal year 2005 to fully 

fund Feasibility studies evaluating solutions to upstream flooding associated 

with existing easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake. 

Although this has been a Congressional add for the past 2 years, no money was 

made available in the fiscal year 2005 President’s budget request. 

—Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study.—A need exists for a basin-wide 

water resource planning effort in the Grand-Neosho River basin, apart from the 

issues associated with Grand Lake, Oklahoma. A federal interest has been determined from the reconnaissance study as a result from a Congressional add 

in fiscal year 2003 and another add appropriated in fiscal year 2004. Additional 

funds are needed to continue the feasibility stage of the project. The study 

would focus on the evaluation of institutional measures needed to improve the 

quality of the aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the basin and to assist communities, landowners, and other interests in southeastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma in the development of non-structural measures to reduce 

flood damages. We request funding in the amount of $225,000 in fiscal year 

2005. 

—Continuing Authorities Programs.—We support funding of needed programs including the Small Flood Control Projects Program (Section 205 of the 1948 

Flood Control Act, as amended), Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206 of 

the 1996 Water Resources Development Act, as amended), Ecosystem Restoration (Section 1135 of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act, as amended) 

as well as the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program (Section 14 of the 

1946 Flood Control Act, as amended). Smaller communities in Kansas (Iola, Liberal, McPherson, Augusta, Parsons, Altoona, Kinsley, Newton, Arkansas City, 

Coffeyville and Medicine Lodge) have previously requested assistance from the 

Corps of Engineers under the Section 205 and Section 14 programs. The City 

of Wichita is also requesting funding through these programs to address flooding problems. We urge you to support an increase of these programs to a $65 

million programmatic limit for the Small Flood Control Projects Program, $35 

million for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, $35 million for the Ecosystem Res-
313 

toration Program and $25 million for the Emergency Streambank Stabilization 

Program. 

The Ecosystem Restoration Programs are relatively new programs which offer 

the Corps of Engineers a unique opportunity to work to restore valuable habitat, wetlands, and other important environmental features which previously 

could not be considered. Preliminary Restoration Plan studies are underway at 

Newton, Garden City and Neosho County. 

The Planning Assistance to States Program under section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, as amended, provides federal funding to assist the States in water resource planning. The State of Kansas is grateful for 

previous funding under this program which has assisted small Kansas communities in cost sharing needed resource planning as called for and approved in 

the Kansas State Water Plan. We request continued funding of this program 

at the $10 million programmatic limit which will allow the State of Kansas to 

receive the $500,000 limit. 

Finally, we are very grateful that both the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation have the expertise needed for the development and protection of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have the integrity and continuity these 

agencies provide on major public projects. Your continued support of these vital 

agencies, including funding, will be appreciated. Our infrastructure must be maintained and where needed, enhanced for the future. 

Mr. Chairman and members of these committees, we thank you for the dedicated 

manner in which you have dealt with the Water Resources Programs and for allowing us to present our funding requests. 

Thank you very much. 

OKLAHOMA

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES M. HEWGLEY, JR., CHAIRMAN FOR OKLAHOMA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am James M. Hewgley, Jr., Oklahoma Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, from Tulsa, 

Oklahoma. 

It is my privilege to present this statement on behalf of the Oklahoma Members 

of our committee in support of adequate funding for water resource development 

projects in our area of the Arkansas River Basin. Other members of the committee 

are: Mr. Ted Coombes, Tulsa; Mr. A. Earnest Gilder, Muskogee; Mr. Terry McDonald, Tulsa; and Mr. Lew Meibergen, Enid, who also serves as Chairman of the combined Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. 

Together with representatives of the other Arkansas River Basin States, we fully 

endorse the statement presented to you by the Chairman of the Arkansas River 

Basin Interstate Committee. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views of 

the special needs of our States concerning several studies and projects. 

Montgomery Point Lock and Dam—Montgomery Point, Arkansas.—We have come 

to you with requests for funding for this much-needed project for many years now. 

We are pleased to tell you this year we will not ask for additional funds for this 

project as it is due to be operational by July. We will have a formal dedication on 

July 16, 2004 at the site. We are very grateful for your help and support to see this 

project through to its completion. 

There may well be some funds needed for final cleanup and additional maintenance and operational equipment. In that event the Corps of Engineers should be 

able to schedule those funds from their regular appropriations. 

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to point out to this distinguished committee that 

this navigation system has brought low cost water transportation to Oklahoma, Arkansas and the surrounding States. There has been over $5.5 billion invested in the 

construction and development of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation system by the Federal Government ($1.3 billion) and the public and private ($4.2 billion∂) sector, resulting in the creation of over 50,000 jobs in this partnered project. 

Maintenance of the navigation system.—We request additional funding in the 

amount of $2 million, over and above normal funding, for deferred channel maintenance. These funds would be used for such things as repair of bank stabilization 

work, needed advance maintenance dredging, and other repairs needed on the system’s components that have deteriorated over the past three decades. 

In addition to the system-wide needed maintenance items mentioned above, the 

budget for the Corps of Engineers for the past several years has been insufficient 

to allow proper maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System—Oklahoma portion. As a result, the backlog of maintenance items has continued to increase. If these important maintenance issues are not addressed soon, the 

reliability of the system will be jeopardized. The portion of the system in Oklahoma 
314 

alone is responsible for returning $2.6 billion in annual benefits to the regional 

economy. We therefore request that $3.8 million be added to the budget to accomplish the critical infrastructure maintenance items following: Repair weir at L&D 

14; repair tainter gates at L&D 17; upgrade gate motor controls at L&D 14; 

dewater, inspect, repair Locks 14, 15, & 16; repair tainter gates at L&D 18; L&D 

14–18—remote control tainter gates; R.S. Kerr—repair miter gates; R.S. Kerr—repair Lock 15 support cell; replace pole lighting—Locks 14–18; replace tainter gate 

limit switches—R.S. Kerr. These are the very worst of the needed repairs of the 

many awaiting proper preventive maintenance and repair. 

Tow Haulage Equipment—Oklahoma.—We also request funding of $2.5 million to 

initiate the installation of tow haulage equipment on the locks located along the Arkansas River Portion of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. 

Total cost for these three locks is $4.7 million. This project will involve installation 

of tow haulage equipment on W.D. Mayo Lock and Dam No. 14, Robert S. Kerr Lock 

and Dam No. 15, and Webbers Falls Lock and Dam No. 16, on the Oklahoma portion of the waterway. The tow haulage equipment is needed to make transportation 

of barges more efficient and economical by allowing less time for tows to pass 

through the various locks. 

Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study, Arkansas and Oklahoma.— 

We are especially pleased that the budget includes funds to continue the Arkansas 

River Navigation Study, a feasibility study which is examining opportunities to optimize the Arkansas River system. The system of multipurpose lakes in Arkansas and 

Oklahoma on the Arkansas River and its tributaries supports the McClellan-Kerr 

Arkansas River Navigation System, which was opened for navigation to the Port of 

Catoosa near Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1970. The navigation system consists of 445 miles 

of waterway that passes through the States of Oklahoma and Arkansas. This study 

would optimize the reservoirs in Oklahoma and Arkansas that provide flows into 

the river, with a view toward improving the number of days per year that the navigation system would accommodate tows. Phase II of this study will also examine 

the feasibility of increasing the depth of the navigation channel to 12′. This will 

allow the shippers to move one-third more cargo per barge drafting 111⁄2′ at near 

the current rate for 81⁄2′ draft barges. This study could have significant impact on 

the economic development opportunities in the States of Oklahoma, Arkansas and 

the surrounding States. Due to the critical need for this study, we request funding 

of $1.235 million, which is greater than shown in the budget, to complete feasibility 

studies in fiscal year 2005. 

The Power Plant at Webbers Falls Lock and Dam on the Arkansas River has suffered from greatly reduced reliability due to turbine design problems. Because this 

is a run-of-the-river facility with no storage, energy spilled due to off-line units is 

energy that is lost forever. A feasibility study recommending major rehabilitation 

of this unit has been approved by the office of the Chief of Engineers. 

Similar problems have been experienced at Ozark-Jeta Taylor Lock and Dam on 

the Arkansas River in Arkansas. Congress approved a new start and funding to 

begin the major rehabilitation of the Ozark powerhouse in fiscal year 2003. The administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget request includes $5 million in Construction 

General funding to continue this major rehabilitation. 

The turbines at the Ozark project are identical to the slant-shaft turbines employed at Webbers Falls. The major rehabilitation plans for both projects call for 

bidders to submit plans for new turbine designs, with the two best bidders selected 

to proceed to model testing of their designs before choosing the best and winning 

bid. By combining the design selection for both projects into a single bid selection 

process the Corps estimated that millions of dollars could be saved. To achieve these 

savings, Congress would have to approve a new construction start and initial funding for the major rehabilitation of the Webbers Falls powerhouse. We respectfully 

urge the committee to approve the new start and provide $4 million in initial Construction, General funding for the appropriations bill. Please know that every dollar 

appropriated to this project, plus interest, will be repaid to the U.S. Treasury 

through the rates charged for the sale of this hydroelectricity. 

Miami, Oklahoma and Vicinity Feasibility Study.—We request funding of 

$750,000 to move into the feasibility stage for the vicinity in Ottawa County including and surrounding Miami, Oklahoma in the Grand (Neosho) Basin. Water resource planning-related concerns include chronic flooding, ecosystem impairment, 

poor water quality, subsidence, chat piles, mine shafts, health effects, and Native 

American issues. The State of Oklahoma’s desire is to address the watershed issues 

in a holistic fashion and restore the watershed to acceptable levels. Study alternatives could include structural and non-structural flood damage measures, creation 

of riverine corridors for habitat and flood storage, development of wetlands to im-
315 

prove aquatic habitat and other measures to enhance the quality and availability 

of habitat and reduce flood damages. 

Oologah Lake Watershed Feasibility Study.—We request funding of $326,000 which is $129,000 more than the President’s budget request for ongoing feasibility 

studies at Oologah Lake and in the upstream watershed. The lake is an important 

water supply source for the City of Tulsa and protection of the lake and maintaining 

and enhancing the quality of the water is important for the economic development 

of the City. Recent concerns have been expressed by the City of Tulsa and others 

regarding potential water quality issues that impact water users, as well as important aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Concerns are related to sediment loading and 

turbidity, oilfield-related contaminants and nutrient loading. 

Illinois River Watershed Reconnaissance Study.—We request funding in the amount of $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance study of the water resource problems of the Illinois River Basin. The Illinois River watershed is experiencing continued water resource development needs and is the focus of ongoing Corps and other 

agency investigations. However, additional flows are sought downstream of the Lake 

Tenkiller Dam and there are increasing watershed influences upstream of Lake 

Tenkiller which impact on the quality of water available for fish and wildlife, municipal and industrial water supply users, and recreation users of the Lake Tenkiller 

and Illinois River waters. 

Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study.—We request funding in the amount of $225,000 to conduct a feasibility study of the water resource problems in the 

Grand (Neosho) Basin in Oklahoma and Kansas. There is a need for a basin-wide 

water resource planning effort in the Grand-Neosho River basin, apart from the 

issues associated with Grand Lake, Oklahoma. The reconnaissance study indicated 

that there is a Federal interest in this project and the feasibility will focus on the 

evaluation of institutional measures which could assist communities, landowners, 

and other interests in northeastern Oklahoma and southeastern Kansas in the development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in the basin. The reconnaissance study was a Congressional add new start, but no funding was put into 

the fiscal year 2005 President’s budget request to continue into the feasibility stage. 

Grand Lake Feasibility Study.—A need exists to evaluate water resource problems 

in the Grand-Neosho River basin in Kansas and Oklahoma to evaluate solutions to 

upstream flooding problems associated with the adequacy of existing real estate 

easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake, Oklahoma. A study 

authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 was completed in September of 1998 and determined that if the project were constructed based on current 

criteria, additional easements would be required. Section 449 of WRDA 2000 directed the Secretary to evaluate backwater effects specifically due to flood control 

operations on land around Grand Lake. That study indicated that Federal actions 

have been a significant cause of the backwater effects and according to WRDA 2000, 

the feasibility study should be 100 percent federally funded. A Feasibility study is 

necessary to determine the most cost-effective solution to the real estate inadequacies. Changes in the operations of the project or other upstream changes could have 

a significant impact on flood control, hydropower and navigation operations in the 

Grand (Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River Basin system, as well. We 

urge you to provide $450,000 to fund feasibility studies for this important project 

in fiscal year 2004 and to direct the Corps of Engineers to execute the study at full 

Federal expense. This project has been a Congressional add for the past 2 years, 

but there are no funds in the fiscal year 2005 President’s budget request to continue 

this project. 

Tenkiller Dam Safety Project.—We are pleased that the President’s budget includes funds to advance work for Flood Control and other water resource needs in 

Oklahoma. Of special interest to our committee is funding for the Tenkiller Ferry 

Lakes Dam Safety Assurance Project in Oklahoma. This project is slated to be complete in fiscal year 2006 and continued funding is necessary for safety purposes and 

economic efficiencies. We would like to see Tenkiller funded at the $4.4 million level, 

which is the Corps’ capability for fiscal year 2005. 

Canton Dam Safety.—We request that funding in the amount of $5.0 million be 

provided to continue the Canton Lake Dam Safety Project. The stability of the existing spillway requires restrictions on the flood control pool. The flood pool can only 

be held to a 17-year flood event. Installation of steel anchors is required to stabilize 

the existing spillway so that the project can be operated as originally designed. 

Funds were provided by Congress in the fiscal year 2004 Appropriations Bill to work 

on this important project, but the administration has not included any funds in the 

fiscal year 2005 President’s budget. 

Section 205.—Although the Small Flood Control Projects Program addresses flood 

problems which generally impact smaller communities and rural areas and would 
316 

appear to benefit only those communities, the impact of those projects on economic 

development crosses county, regional and sometimes State boundaries. The communities served by the program frequently do not have the funds or engineering expertise necessary to provide adequate flood damage reduction measures for their citizens. Continued flooding can have a devastating impact on community development 

and regional economic stability. The program is extremely beneficial and has been 

recognized nationwide as a vital part of community development, so much so in fact 

that there is currently a backlog of requests from communities who have requested 

assistance under this program. There is limited funding available for these projects 

and we urge this program be increased to an annual limit of $65 million. 

We also request your continued support of the Flood Plain Management Services 

Program (Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act) which authorizes the Corps of 

Engineers to use its technical expertise to provide guidance in flood plain management matters to all private, local, State and Federal entities. The objective of the 

program is to support comprehensive flood plain management planning. The program is one of the most beneficial programs available for reducing flood losses and 

provides assistance to officials from cities, counties, States and Indian Tribes to ensure that new facilities are not built in areas prone to floods. Assistance includes 

flood warning, flood proofing, and other flood damage reduction measures, and critical flood plain information is provided on a cost-reimbursable basis to home owners, 

mortgage companies, realtors and others for use in flood plain awareness and flood 

insurance requirements. 

We also request your support of the Planning Assistance to States Program (Section 22 of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act) which authorizes the Corps 

of Engineers to use its technical expertise in water and related land resource management to help States and Indian Tribes solve their water resource problems. The 

program is used by many States to support their State Water Plans. As natural resources diminish, the need to manage those resources becomes more urgent. We 

urge your continued support of this program as it supports States and Native American Tribes in developing resource management plans which will benefit citizens for 

years to come. The program is very valuable and effective, matching Federal and 

non-Federal funds to provide cost-effective engineering expertise and support to assist communities, States and tribes in the development of plans for the management, optimization and preservation of basin, watershed and ecosystem resources. 

The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 increased the annual program limit 

from $6 million to $10 million and we urge this program be fully funded to the programmatic limit of $10 million. 

We strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to raise the Corps of Engineers’ 

budget to $5 billion to help get delayed construction projects back on schedule and 

to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog which is out of control. This will help 

the Corps of Engineers meet the obligations of the Federal Government to people 

of this great country. 

Concerning another related matter, we have deep concerns about the attempt to 

re-authorize the Endangered Species Act without significant beneficial reforms. If 

a bill is passed through without reforms, it will be devastating to industry and the 

country as a whole. We strongly urge you to take a hard look at any bill concerning 

this re-authorization and insure that it contains reasonable and meaningful reforms. 

We urge the re-authorization of the act with reforms at the earliest possible time. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our view on these subjects. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY

Mr. Chairman, I am Donald G. Waldon, Administrator of the TennesseeTombigbee Waterway Development Authority. I am honored to submit the 

authority’s recommendations to you and your committee concerning fiscal year 2005 

funding needs for the operation and maintenance of the Tenn-Tom Waterway and 

the Tennessee River system as well as construction of new locks at Kentucky and 

Chickamauga Dams. This is the 44th consecutive year the waterway compact has 

provided its recommendations to the U.S. Congress. 

The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority is a Federal interstate compact ratified in 1958 by the Congress to promote the development of the 

Tenn-Tom and its economic and commerce potential. It is comprised of the States 

of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee. 

We, like most other water resources development interests, are most concerned 

if not alarmed about the Office of Management and Budget’s continued indifference 
317 

to ports and waterways as a national budget priority. The proposed budget for fiscal 

year 2005 for these and other programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is no 

exception. While the proposed budget adequately funds construction of some new 

locks it woefully under funds others, such as Kentucky and Chickamauga Locks on 

the Tennessee River. However, the proposed budget’s most serious deficiency is its 

inability to adequately fund the operation and maintenance of completed projects. 

More Federal investments in the Nation’s infrastructure, including its ports and waterways, will help stimulate our economy and create more job opportunities. Yet the 

administration’s budget if approved will result in further deterioration of locks and 

other waterway structures, many that were built over 50 years ago, resulting in 

more closures and disruption of commercial shipments and less economic growth. 

Given the importance of these projects for helping the Nation to achieve full economic recovery, we recommend that the Congress increase the Corps’ total funding 

next year to $5.5 billion or about $600 million more than that available this year. 

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal Year 2003 

Approp. 

Fiscal Year 2004 

Approp. 

Fiscal Year 2005 

Bud. Req. Recomm. 

Operation & Maintenance ............................................................. 24.0 22.5 22 .254 25.6 

Wildlife Mitigation Payments To Alabama and Mississippi ........ 2.0 1.5 2 .0 2.0 

We greatly appreciate the support your committee and the Congress have given 

to the Tenn-Tom in the past. The waterway saves shippers some $90 million in 

transportation costs each year. It has helped attract over $5 billion in new private 

investments since its completion, creating over 50,000 new jobs in the waterway region. Its attractive recreational facilities draw nearly 3 million visitors annually. 

Your continued strong support is critically important in fiscal year 2005 if the waterway is to continue to generate economic benefits at this level. 

The proposed budget will not provide sufficient funds for the Corps to adequately 

maintain the navigation channel. Three locks are scheduled for closure and repairs 

this fall that will cost over $1.5 million. With no increase in funding provided, this 

extraordinary expense will preclude other important maintenance activities such as 

dredging and resource management. 

We are pleased that $2 million has been budgeted to reimburse the States of Alabama and Mississippi to manage nearly 126,000 acres of wildlife habitat that is part 

of the Tenn-Tom Wildlife Mitigation Project. These funds are sufficient for the management of these lands. However, no funds are available for the Corps to manage 

some 46,000 acres of other Federal lands that are an important part of the mitigation project. 

The $25.6 million recommended for the operation and maintenance of the TennTom will ensure the waterway is adequately maintained during 2005 and generates 

its expected benefits. While there are other needs, the recommended increase of 

$3,246,000 is important to keep the waterway channel open to commercial navigation, the Corps’ top priority program as shown below: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Amount 

Provide adequate capacity of upland disposal areas to accept dredged materials ............................................. 1 .0

Additional dredging needed to keep channel open to commerce ........................................................................... 1 .3 

Determine measures to limit shoaling in Aberdeen Lake, the waterway’s most costly silting problem ............... 0 .5 

Initiate corrective measures to eliminate a serious safety problem at Bevill Lock and Dam .............................. 0 .3 

Eradicate noxious aquatic weeds in lakes and channels (the public’s No. 1 complaint about the waterway .... 0 .146 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 .246 

The Corps of Engineers could efficiently use an additional $10 million to begin 

addressing some of the $12 million of urgently needed but indefinitely deferred repairs to the waterway’s facilities that have accumulated due to of severe budget constraints since fiscal year 1997. 
318 

Tennessee River, TN, AL, MS, and KY 

The administration’s budget does not provide sufficient funds to adequately maintain the commercial navigation features of the Tennessee River system. Funds are 

not available to make scheduled repairs at most all of the nine locks. Maintenance 

dredging needed at public ports at Florence and Decatur, AL will be deferred as well 

as replacement of a mobile crane needed at Nickajack Lock, TN. 

We recommend that $21,449,000 or an increase of $6,239,000 be appropriated to 

fund the above activities. This recommended increase includes $350,000 and 

$200,000 to dredge the public ports at Florence and Decatur, AL, respectively. The 

Tennessee River is one of the busiest waterways in the Nation. 

Kentucky Lock, KY 

Completion of a new lock to replace the nearly 60-year-old, outmoded lock at Kentucky Dam will eliminate one of the most costly bottlenecks on the entire waterway 

system. A commercial tow now waits an average of 4 hours to transit the lock. 

These delays continue to worsen as commerce grows each year. We are very disappointed the proposed budget effectively mothballs construction of this most important waterway improvement. The proposed budget of $25,000,000 not only precludes 

award of any new contracts it is $10,000,000 short of that needed to reimburse contractors for work now underway. Such a budget decision is unconscionable. 

We recommend that $55,000,000 be appropriated to keep construction of this high 

priority project on a more reasonable and efficient schedule. This level of funding 

will maintain a schedule in fiscal year 2005 that will enable the lock to be completed in fiscal year 2013 compared to 2023 or 10 years later based on a schedule 

anticipated by the administration budget. This is unacceptable, especially when the 

commercial users are paying for one-half of the new lock’s cost. 

Chickamauga Lock, TN 

We greatly appreciate the Congress authorizing construction of a new lock to replace the old and deteriorating chamber at Chickamauga Dam in last year’s bill. 

The $5,400,000 appropriated this year will permit the Corps of Engineers to initiate 

construction and continue the detailed design needed for the new 110′ × 600′ lock. 

Regrettably, the proposed budget does not provide any funds for construction in 

2005, effectively delaying start of construction until at least 2006. Unless work begins soon, the new lock will not be available when the old structure is taken out 

of operation during the next decade because of safety concerns. This closure would 

land lock 175 miles of the Tennessee River, crippling industries, including defenserelated, and other shippers, located in east Tennessee. 

We respectfully urge the committee to provide $17,000,000 to continue construction of this much needed lock replacement. It is also recommended that $1,480,000 

be provided to allow the Corps to continue repairs to the existing lock to ensure its 

continued operation until the new lock is completed. 

Thank you again for allowing the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development 

Authority to submit these recommendations to you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

Mr. Chairman, the City of Kansas City, Missouri, welcomes this opportunity to 

provide written testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development 

regarding appropriations for fiscal year 2005 and requests that this written testimony be included in the formal hearing record. 

The City of Kansas City, Missouri, in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, 

presently have six major flood damage reduction projects underway. All of these 

projects are essential to the sustainment and revitalization of prominent and longstanding commercial, business and industrial communities in this region, and when 

complete will provide substantially increased levels of flood protection. Some of 

these projects are located on urban streams subject to severe flash flooding, which 

run along major roadways, resulting in an extremely hazardous threat to public 

safety. 

Blue River Channel, Kansas City, Missouri—$8,000,000; Continue Construction 

The Blue River Channel project, currently under construction, represents our 

most pressing need and for fiscal year 2005 we are requesting that this project be 

appropriated $8,000,000. This will allow the Corps to complete work that is already 

under construction, and to make some progress on the next phase of the Blue River 

project, which includes a grade control structure. That structure is necessary to drop 

the flow line of the existing channel bed to that of the newly deepened channel 
319 

downstream, which prevents the flow in the stream from eroding the channel bed 

upstream. 

The Blue River Channel project when complete will significantly reduce the flood 

threat to inhabitants of the Blue Valley. Additionally, the river winds through a 

long-standing business district that, after much severe flooding, has now been partially abandoned. The channel improvement will bring many of these sites out of 

the floodplain and will reduce flooding depths by 6 to 8 feet. This will serve as a 

means to help reclaim Brownfield sites in the valley for redevelopment and help to 

rebuild a once thriving Blue Valley community. 

Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas and Missouri—$2,500,000; Continue Construction 

Another very important project in the Kansas City region is the Turkey Creek 

Basin, Kansas and Missouri. As mentioned above this area suffered a devastating 

flood in 1998, which is typical every 3 to 5 years. Providing flood protection for this 

highly traveled business corridor has proven to be very complex and that problem 

had been studied for nearly 35 years. Finally in 2003 the project received reauthorization at a total cost of $74,000,000, with a defined cost share of $46,000,000 Federal and $28,000,000 local. Major features of the Federal project include channel 

widening, a levee, hillside interceptors, and modifications to the Turkey Creek tunnel. 

Funding is requested in the amount of $2,500,000 to continue construction of a 

flood damage reduction project that will serve to protect the community along 

Southwest Blvd. in the Kansas City metropolitan area of both Kansas and Missouri. 

In the alternative, if an amount less than that requested can be appropriated, language is requested such that ‘‘The non-Federal Interest shall receive credit toward 

the non-Federal share of project costs for construction work performed by the nonFederal interest before execution of the project cooperation agreement if the Secretary finds that the work performed by the non-Federal interest is integral to the 

project.’’ 

This language will allow for the Unified Government of Kansas City, Kansas and 

Wyandotte County, and the City of Kansas City, Missouri to proceed with the Turkey Creek Tunnel modifications identified in the Final Report of the Chief of Engineers. These modifications are necessary to insure that the increased flow carried 

to the tunnel by the widened channel upstream can be safely passed through the 

tunnel to the Kansas River. This channel widening was designed by the Corps of 

Engineers and included in the Chief’s report, and is currently under construction 

by the Kansas Department of Transportation. 

Blue River Basin, Kansas City, Missouri—$4,000,000; Continue Construction 

The Blue River Basin, Kansas City, Missouri project, commonly known as the 

Dodson Industrial District Levee, is also located along the Blue River. Construction 

is currently underway on the floodwall portion and associated work, which is scheduled to be complete in 2005. Funding is required to pay for this work already under 

contract. The project requires modification of two major 96-inch diameter sewer 

structures in order for the levee-floodwall to function properly. The work on these 

elements needs to proceed in such a manner to assure that these facilities are protected during construction, are able to continue to function properly, and are not unnecessarily exposed to damage during an extended construction schedule. 

The City has been working aggressively to honor our commitments to this project, 

and supports it moving forward in the most expeditious manner possible in order 

that this flood protection, which is essential to our having safe emergency access 

to a large portion of the City south of the Missouri River during flooding situations, 

can be maintained via access from the newly completed midtown expressway known 

as Bruce R. Watkins Drive. The City has programmed $5 million over 3 years to 

meet our local sponsor cost share. The project consists of a $17 million levee that 

will protect $240 million in property investment from the 500-year flood. 

Kansas Citys, Kansas and Missouri—$650,000; Continue Feasibility Study 

Study area encompasses two major rivers and seven levee units, and has four 

local sponsors. The levees are located along the Missouri and Kansas Rivers through 

the heart of the Kansas City metropolitan area, and protect its most densely developed business regions from floods. The 1993 flood came within inches of topping the 

Central Industrial District Levee, evidencing a need to evaluate how the seven levee 

units comprising the flood protection system for the Kansas City area functions as 

a whole, and to determine inadequacies and inconsistencies in the levels of protection. The units are Argentine, Armourdale, and Fairfax-Jersey Creek, all in Kansas; 

Central Industrial District, in Kansas and Missouri; and North Kansas City, Birmingham and East Bottoms, all in Missouri. Construction of these levees began in 

the 1940’s and was completed in 1980. The Feasibility Study began in September 
320 

2000, with an estimated cost of $2,782,323 cost shared 50 percent Federal—50 percent local funds. Funding is requested to continue the Feasibility Study to develop 

and study possible project alternatives, perform environmental studies, and select 

the plan recommended for construction. The 1970 Flood Control Act, Section 216, 

provides a continuing authority to reexamine completed Federal projects. 

Brush Creek Basin, Kansas and Missouri—$200,000; Continue Reconnaissance 

Study 

Because this project provides the mechanism by which the region can work cooperatively using a watershed based approach to achieve the allied purposes of flood 

damage reduction, ecosystem restoration and other purposes, it is important that 

adequate funding be provided to collect the relevant data, coordinate among the 

many stakeholders, and establish cost sharing relationships needed to move forward. The City of Kansas City, Missouri and Johnson County, Kansas have committed significant local resources toward the completion of the flood mitigation and 

stream restoration work along Brush Creek, and are committed to continuing to 

support this effort and working together with the Mid-America Regional Council, 

Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Brush Creek Community 

Partners, and other stakeholders to achieve the goals established and agreed upon 

as part of the Brush Creek Basin Wide Study. Brush Creek is known as the ‘‘Cultural Corridor’’ in Kansas City and serves as a highly traveled business, residential 

and recreational corridor. This study effort aligns with the goals established by the 

residents, corporations, cities and other stakeholders along the creek. 

Swope Park Industrial Area, Kansas City, Missouri—$200,000; Continue Design 

Development of the 53-acre Industrial Park was substantially completed prior to 

enactment of the Federal Flood Insurance Act, and the entire area is now located 

within the 100-year floodplain as currently mapped by FEMA, and is largely within 

the floodway. The Swope Park Industrial Area has limited access, one-way in and 

out, with an active railroad track crossing near the entrance to the Park, in any 

given year there is a 1 in 5 chance that flooding will interrupt roadway access to 

the Park, and an approximately 1 in 7 chance that buildings will be flooded. Especially hazard flood conditions, and a threat to public safety, exist as people and businesses must decide whether to evacuate the Park during the initial stages of flooding, or risk being stuck with no surface means of egress if the water continues to 

rise. 

Main Street Sewer Outfall/Riverfront Heritage Trail/Missouri River Bank Stabilization—$7,000,000; Continue Construction 

We are also seeking funding for these projects to provide a safe and viable Kansas 

City Riverfront. This Missouri Riverfront project is comprised of five components 

being accomplished through a coordinated effort by public, private and non-profit organizations including Kansas City River Trails, Inc., the Port Authority of Kansas 

City, United States Corps of Engineers and the City of Kansas City, Missouri. Funding to complete this essential link between development both East and West of the 

project site is being sought from a variety of public and private sources to create 

a revitalized riverfront. 

The bank of the Missouri River collapsed in May of 2003 causing significant damage to the Main Street Sewer Outfall that drains a large portion of the downtown 

Kansas City basin. The City is in the process of constructing repairs for the sewer 

outfall and some slope stabilization. This East/West trail connector is a vital segment of the Kansas City Riverfront Heritage Trail system within the Riverfront 

West area, and when constructed it will complete a bi-State bicycle, pedestrian and 

green space trail system stretching from the Richard L. Berkley Riverfront Park and 

Isle of Capri Casino at the east to the original settlement of the Town of Kansas 

and the Indian Cemetery in Kansas City, Kansas at the west. The Trail includes 

a series of interpretive artworks, kiosks and signs commemorating Lewis and 

Clark’s Corps of Discovery journey and Kansas City’s relationship to its rivers. The 

Habitat Restoration will be constructed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers in corporation with the Port Authority of Kansas City Missouri. Project estimates and funding 

availabilities are shown in the table below. 

Project Component Estimate Funding 

Available Funding Sought 

Main Street Sewer Outfall ......................................................................... $3,500,000 $220,000 $3,280,000 

Slope Stabilization ..................................................................................... 2,400,000 380,000 2,020,000 

East-West Trail Connection ....................................................................... 1,750,000 30,000 1,720,000 

Interpretive Center ..................................................................................... 1,600,000 200,000 1,400,000 
321 

Project Component Estimate Funding 

Available Funding Sought 

Habitat Restoration .................................................................................... 2,500,000 500,000 2,000,000 

Total .............................................................................................. 11,750,000 1,330,000 10,420,000 

The City of Kansas City, Missouri appreciates the past assistance we have received with local water resource projects. We are prepared to provide our share of 

funding in the future, and respectfully request that Federal funding adequate to 

keep these very important projects moving toward the soonest possible completion 

be appropriated in the upcoming year. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ASSOCIATION

[In millions of dollars] 

President’s 

Request 

UMRBA 

Recommendation 

Construction General: 

Upper Miss. River System Environmental Mgt. Program .............................................. 28.000 33.250 

Major Rehabilitation of Locks and Dams 19 and 24 ................................................... 13.600 13.600 

Major Rehabilitation of Locks and Dams 3, 11, and 27 .............................................. ........................ 21.700 

Continuing Authorities (Section 1135) .......................................................................... 13.500 25.000 

Continuing Authorities (Section 206) ............................................................................ 10.000 25.000 

Operation and Maintenance: 

O&M of the Upper Mississippi Navigation System ....................................................... 167.733 231.759 

General Investigations: 

Upper Mississippi and Illinois Waterway Navigation and Ecosystem Improvements 

PED ............................................................................................................................ ........................ 18.000 

Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan ............................................................... .994 1.400 

Research and Development ........................................................................................... 20.800 20.800 

Stream Gaging (U.S. Geological Survey) ....................................................................... .600 .600 

The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the organization created in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin 

to serve as a forum for coordinating river-related State programs and policies and 

for collaborating with Federal agencies on regional issues. As such, the UMRBA 

works closely with the Corps of Engineers on a variety of programs for which the 

Corps has responsibility. Of particular interest to the basin States are the following: 

CONSTRUCTION GENERAL

Environmental Management Program 

For the past 17 years, the Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program (EMP) has been the premier program for restoring the river’s 

habitat and monitoring the river’s ecological health. As such, the EMP is key to 

achieving Congress’ vision of the Upper Mississippi as a ‘‘nationally significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation system.’’ Congress reaffirmed its support for this program in the 1999 Water Resources Development Act 

by reauthorizing the EMP as a continuing authority and increasing the annual authorized appropriation to $33.52 million. The UMRBA is pleased that the administration has requested $28 million for the EMP in fiscal year 2005. The fact that the 

administration has identified the EMP as one of eight Corps projects ‘‘that are the 

highest priorities in the Nation,’’ is tribute to the EMP’s success. Yet annual appropriations for the EMP have fallen short of the authorized funding levels for the past 

8 years and the program is still suffering from the dramatic 40 percent cut it suffered in fiscal year 2003. Thus, the UMRBA strongly urges Congress to appropriate 

full funding of $33.52 million for the EMP in fiscal year 2005. 

EMP habitat restoration projects include activities such as building and stabilizing islands, controlling water levels and side channel flows, constructing dikes, 

and dredging backwaters and side channels. At the administration’s funding level 

of $28 million, approximately $17.7 million would be allocated to the planning, design, and construction of such habitat projects. In particular, this level of investment will support planning and design for 20 projects and construction work on 18 

projects, bringing construction to completion on 5 of these projects. Approximately 

$8.7 million would be devoted to the EMP Long Term Resource Monitoring program 

(LTRMP) under an EMP budget of $28 million. This funding is critical to the future 
322 

viability of the EMP’s monitoring component, which has suffered from funding 

shortfalls in recent years. Data collection related to water quality, sediment, fish, 

invertebrates, and vegetation has been reduced or suspended; bathymetric surveys 

have been eliminated; laboratory analysis has been cut back; data analyses and 

science planning has been curtailed; and land cover mapping has been postponed. 

Planning is currently underway to restructure and redesign the program to enhance 

its ability to meet increasing demands for information with decreasing resources. 

But it is essential that funding be increased in fiscal year 2005 to revive many of 

the essential functions that have been eliminated or deferred. 

Meeting the ecological restoration and monitoring needs on the Upper Mississippi 

River with renewed commitment and enhanced investment is critical. Within the 

next few months, the Corps is expected to release the draft feasibility report from 

its Navigation Study on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, 

including a recommended plan for improving both the navigation infrastructure and 

ecosystem. Yet, without a strong EMP program as one of the tools to meet river environmental needs, it is unlikely that the plan can be successfully implemented. The 

UMRBA thus strongly urges that the EMP be fully funded at $33.52 million in fiscal 

year 2005. 

Major Rehabilitation of Locks and Dams 

Given that most of the locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi River System 

are over 60 years old, they are in serious need of repair and rehabilitation. For the 

past 18 years, the Corps has been undertaking major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout the navigation system in an effort to extend their useful life. This 

work is critical to ensuring the system’s reliability and safety. 

The UMRBA supports the Corps’ fiscal year 2005 budget request for major rehabilitation work at Lock and Dam 19 ($4.8 million) and Lock and Dam 24 ($8.8 million). Lock and Dam 19, at Keokuk, Iowa, is in particular need of rehabilitation 

given the deterioration of its gates, resulting in dangerous conditions. Lock and 

Dam 24, located near Clarksville, Missouri, is nearing completion of the first phase 

of its $87 million rehabilitation. Lock wall concrete repairs are underway and expected to be completed in fiscal year 2005. In addition, fiscal year 2005 funding will 

support continued dam tainter gate rehabilitation. 

The UMRBA also supports funding for major rehabilitation of Lock and Dam 3 

($5 million), Lock and Dam 11 ($10.9 million), and Locks 27 ($5.8 million), none of 

which are currently funded in the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget request. 

In the case of Lock and Dam 11, the lack of funding is particularly problematic because work is already underway. Continued funding is needed in fiscal year 2005 

to proceed with bulkhead construction and installation and lock repair. With regard 

to Lock and Dam 3, funds are needed in fiscal year 2005 to complete the reevaluation report and begin plans and specifications for correcting safety problems at this 

facility. Lock and Dam 3, near Red Wing, Minnesota is located on a bend in the 

river, which causes an outdraft current that tends to sweep down-bound tows toward the gated dam. A related problem is maintaining the structural integrity of 

a set of three earthen embankments connecting the gated dam to high ground on 

the Wisconsin side. Rehabilitation of Locks 27 is also critical, given its location at 

a critical juncture in the inland waterway system, through which traffic on the Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri Rivers passes. The rehabilitation plan calls for rehabilitation of various structural, electrical, and mechanical components of this structure, which is over 50 years old. 

Continuing Authorities (Section 1135 and 206) 

The Corps of Engineers’ Section 1135 and Section 206 continuing authorities provide an important tool for addressing ecosystem restoration needs, particularly in 

riverine environments. The three Corps Districts in the Upper Mississippi River 

Basin have undertaken many such projects over the past few years. While some 

projects are on the Mississippi River, others are located on tributaries, wetlands, 

and watersheds throughout the basin. There are currently more projects than can 

be supported with the limited funding proposed in fiscal year 2005. While the Section 1135 and Section 206 programs are each authorized to be funded at $25 million 

annually, the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget requests only $13.5 million for Section 1135 and $10.0 million for Section 206. Given that this relatively small amount 

is intended to support projects nationwide, it is not surprising that many projects 

in the 5 States of the Upper Mississippi River Basin remain unfunded. For example, 

in the Rock Island District alone, there are 5 new and 15 on-going Section 206 

projects and 2 on-going Section 1135 projects that could utilize funding in fiscal year 

2005. The total costs of the Section 206 projects in this one district far exceed the 

funding for Section 206 nationwide. Thus, the UMRBA supports funding for both 
323 

the Section 1135 and Section 206 programs at their fully authorized amount of $25 

million. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the Upper Mississippi River Navigation System 

The Corps of Engineers is responsible for operating and maintaining the Upper 

Mississippi River System for navigation. This includes channel maintenance dredging, placement and repair of channel training structures, water level regulation, and 

the routine operation of 29 locks and dams on the Mississippi River and 7 locks and 

dams on the Illinois River. The fiscal year 2005 budget totals approximately $169 

million for O&M of this river system, which includes $111.410 million for the Mississippi River between Minneapolis and the Missouri River, $21.236 million for the 

Mississippi River between the Missouri River and Ohio River, and $35.087 million 

for the Illinois Waterway. 

These funds are critical to the Corps’ ability to maintain a safe and reliable commercial navigation system. In addition, these funds support a variety of activities 

that ensure the navigation system is maintained while protecting and enhancing the 

river’s environmental values. For example, O&M funds support innovative environmental engineering techniques in the open river reaches such as bendway weirs, 

chevrons, and notched dikes that maintain the navigation channel in an environmentally sensitive manner. In addition, water level management options for a number of pools in the impounded portion of the river are being evaluated under the 

O&M program. Pool level management, such as that being tested in Pool 8 and evaluated other upper river pools, is a promising new approach for enhancing aquatic 

plant growth and overwintering conditions for fish, without adversely affecting navigation. 

The UMRBA is pleased that the President’s fiscal year 2005 funding request for 

O&M of the Upper Mississippi River System is above fiscal year 2004 appropriations for some of the river reaches. Unfortunately, the request is well below what 

is needed. In particular, there is a growing backlog of maintenance needs as a result 

of historically flat line budgets. In addition, as a result of unusual funding constraints in the St. Paul District in fiscal year 2004, that District is deferring contractor payments and all new contract awards. 

Unmet needs include such items as major maintenance at Lock and Dam 5, land 

acquisition for dredged material disposal sites, replacement of dam gates and lift 

gates, repair of operating components, and lockwall resurfacing. 

[In millions of dollars] 

Upper Mississippi River System O&M Accounts Fiscal Year 2004 

Appropriations 

Fiscal Year 2005 

Request 

Fiscal Year 2005 

Full Capability 

Mississippi River Between MO River and Minneapolis: 

St. Paul District (MVP) ..................................................................... 36.056 51.030 61.340 

Rock Island District (MVR) ............................................................... 45.000 42.473 53.287 

St. Louis District (MVS) .................................................................... 18.000 17.907 25.916 

Mississippi River Between Ohio and MO Rivers ....................................... 18.099 21.236 31.793 

Illinois Waterway: 

Rock Island District (MVR) ............................................................... 25.726 33.273 57.274 

St. Louis District (MVS) .................................................................... 1.889 1.814 2.149 

The UMRBA supports increased funding for O&M of the Upper Mississippi and 

Illinois River System to meet routine on-going operations and maintenance needs, 

and to begin to address the growing unfunded maintenance backlog. Full capability 

funding in fiscal year 2004 for all three Upper Mississippi River districts totals 

$231.7 million. 

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Upper Mississippi River System Navigation and Ecosystem PED 

The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation Study, which 

began in 1993 is nearing completion. The draft feasibility report is scheduled for release April 30, 2004 and the final Chief’s Report is expected in November 2004. 

Since the study was restructured in 2001, it is designed to yield an integrated plan, 

incorporating both navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration. It has also 

been a truly collaborative process involving five Federal agencies, five States, and 

representatives from a broad spectrum of stakeholder groups. The recommendations 

resulting from this extraordinarily complex planning process promise to be the most 
324 

important investment for the future of the Upper Mississippi River that this region 

has had in decades. 

The President’s fiscal year 2005 budget request includes no funding for this critically important planning effort. While the feasibility study phase will be essentially 

complete by fiscal year 2005, there will be on-going planning and design needs. 

Thus, the UMRBA supports funding of $18 million, which we understand is the 

Corps’ capability, to advance the planning and initiate design. Such funding would 

enable significant progress to be made on both the navigation and ecosystem improvements, including planning and design work for switch boats, mooring cells, 

locks, system mitigation, and ecosystem restoration projects. 

Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan (Flood Damage Reduction) 

Section 459 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized the Corps 

to develop what is termed the ‘‘Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan,’’ the 

primary focus of which is systemic flood damage reduction and flood protection. 

Since planning began in December 2001, funding shortfalls have been significant 

and the study has been suspended a number of times. In addition, only $944,000 

has been requested in fiscal year 2005. It is thus doubtful that the study will be 

completed within the 3-year time frame Congress directed when the study was first 

authorized in WRDA 1999, and later reaffirmed in WRDA 2000. 

Although the assessment of alternative plans is underway, substantial work remains to be done, including completing that alternatives evaluation and conducting 

public meetings. Of particular interest to the States, is development and evaluation 

of an ‘‘Emergency Action Scenario’’ that will help the Corps and State agencies understand the implications of decisions they may be faced with making when fighting 

a flood such as the one in 1993. Such ‘‘what if’’ analysis, in combination with the 

evaluation of structural and nonstructural systemic flood damage reduction options, 

is critical. Thus, the UMRBA supports funding of $1.4 million for the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan in fiscal year 2005. 

Research and Development 

The President’s fiscal year 2005 budget request for Research and Development includes funding to support the Navigation Economic Technologies (NETS) research 

program. NETS is working to develop a standardized and defensible suite of economic tools to evaluate navigation improvements. The goal is to develop simulation 

models and data gathering techniques that are reasonably transparent and 

computationally accurate, yield nationally consistent results, and are acceptable to 

outside peer review. The need for such research has become increasingly obvious 

over the past few years, as the Corps has struggled to address the economic complexities and uncertainties associated with navigation improvements on the Upper 

Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Significant advances in economic modeling have 

been made as part of that feasibility study. Yet additional work is needed to help 

inform future decisions. Thus, the UMRBA strongly supports funding for the NETS 

program, which is programmed for $2.5 million in fiscal year 2005 under the Corps’ 

Research and Development budget. 

Stream Gaging 

The Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the USGS, operates approximately 

150 stream gages in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. In fiscal year 2004, the 

Corps’ share of the cost of these gages is $1.946 million. Most of these stream gages 

are funded through the Corps’ O&M account for the specific projects to which the 

gages are related. However, there are a number of gages that are not associated 

with a particular project. Thus, UMRBA supports the $600,000 requested under 

General Investigations to support the Corps’ share of non-project USGS stream 

gages, many of which are located in the five States of the Upper Mississippi River 

Basin. In fiscal year 2004, approximately $108,000 was provided by these ‘‘General 

Coverage Funds’’ for gages in the St. Paul and Rock Island Districts. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE VENTURA PORT DISTRICT

The Ventura Port District respectfully requests that the Congress: 

—Support the administration’s request for $2,910,000 to be included in the fiscal 

year 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers maintenance dredging of the Ventura Harbor Federal 

channel and sand traps. 

—Include $300,000 in the fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill to complete a cost shared Feasibility Study to determine the ad-
325 

visability of modifying the existing Federal navigation project at Ventura Harbor to include a sand bypass system. 

BACKGROUND

Ventura Harbor, homeport to 1,500 vessels, is located along the Southern California coastline in the City of San Buenaventura, approximately 60 miles northwest 

of the City of Los Angeles. The harbor opened in 1963. Annual dredging of the harbor entrance area is usually necessary in order to assure a navigationally adequate 

channel. In 1968, the 90th Congress made the harbor a Federal project and committed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide for the maintenance of the entrance structures and the dredging of the entrance channel and sand traps. 

The harbor presently generates more than $40 million in gross receipts annually. 

That, of course, translates into thousands of both direct and indirect jobs. A significant portion of those jobs are associated with the commercial fishing industry (the 

harbor is consistently amongst the top ten commercial fishing ports in the United 

States), and with vessels serving the offshore oil industry. Additionally, the headquarters for the Channel Islands National Park is located within the harbor, and 

the commercial vessels transporting the nearly 100,000 visitors per year to and from 

the Park islands offshore, operate out of the harbor. All of the operations of the harbor, particularly those related to commercial fishing, the support boats for the oil 

industry, and the visitor transport vessels for the Channel Islands National Park 

are highly dependent upon a navigationally adequate entrance to the harbor. 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE NEEDS

Maintenance Dredging 

It is estimated that $2,910,000 will be required to perform routine maintenance 

dredging of the harbor’s entrance channel and sand traps during fiscal year 2005. 

This dredging work is absolutely essential to the continued operation of the harbor. 

STUDY NEEDS

It is estimated that $300,000 will be required during fiscal year 2005 to complete 

a cost shared Feasibility Study to determine the advisability of modifying the existing Federal navigation project at Ventura Harbor to include a sand bypass system. 

Given the continuing need for maintenance dredging, it is appropriate to determine 

if a sand bypass system or other measures can accomplish the maintenance of the 

harbor in a manner that is more efficient and cost effective than the current contract dredging approach. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PORT OF GARIBALDI

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is William Schrieber. 

I am an elected Commissioner of the Port of Garibaldi, Oregon, located on Tillamook 

Bay on the Oregon Coast. We are thankful for the support provided by the committee for fiscal year 2002, 2003 and 2004, and we also appreciate the opportunity 

to present our views on fiscal year 2005 appropriations issues. 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

The Port of Garibaldi requests a $2,600,000 appropriation for operations and 

maintenance (O&M) of Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon. These funds will allow the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) Portland District continue the protection, 

restoration and repair of the Tillamook Bay North and South Jetties. Specifically, 

the funds will allow the Corps to build a revetment near the North jetty root, and 

perform additional restoration and repair work on the South jetty. 

The Committee provided an additional $200,000 for a Major Maintenance Report 

in fiscal year 2002, $300,000 for Plans and Specifications in fiscal year 2003, and 

$300,000 to begin construction of the revetment in fiscal year 2004. The final 

amount provided by Congress for fiscal year 2004 was $400,000. These appropriations were made above the administration’s budget requests for the project. The 

Major Maintenance Report was completed in December 2003. The total cost to build 

the revetment and 100 ft. caps at the North and South Jetty heads will be approximately $16,700,000. These have been identified by the Portland District of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers as among the minimum and necessary repairs to achieve 

a stable project. To undertake all necessary repairs would cost approximately 

$41,300,000. The administration did not request funding for this project for fiscal 

year 2005. 
326 

REPORT ON THE TILLAMOOK BAY JETTY SYSTEM

There are serious problems with both jetties. The Corps’ ongoing engineering 

analysis demonstrates that erosion on the north side of the North Jetty continues 

at a highly accelerated rate. Frequently, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) pulls its 

crew members out of the tower located near the root of the North Jetty because of 

the threat of a jetty breach at that site during periods of high seas. Should the 

breach occur, shellfish beds, a county park and a State highway would sustain severe damage. The USCG has also determined that deterioration of the South Jetty 

has created a dangerous threat to navigation safety. 

A functional Tillamook Bay Jetty System is key to maintaining navigation safety, 

protecting both public and private property and the environment, and preserving 

the economic vitality of the Oregon Coast. 

In December 2003, the Corps completed a Major Maintenance Report for the 

Tillamook North and South Jetties. The following paragraphs are included in the 

executive summary of the report. 

‘‘The north and south jetties at the entrance to Tillamook Bay have experienced 

damage to both jetty heads, trunks, and north jetty root. A recent apparent increase 

in the Pacific Ocean wave climate has exposed both jetties to more extreme storm 

waves, especially the south jetty which is more exposed to southwesterly storm 

events. In addition to the increases concern regarding jetty stability, there is concern that further recession of the jetty heads will contribute to already hazardous 

navigation conditions over the ebb tital shoal or bar. 

‘‘Erosion of the shoreline along the north jetty is a major concern in terms of a 

potential breach at the jetty root. The jetty root has a smaller cross-section and the 

proximity of the deep channel (40 ft. in depth) to this section of jetty is of increasing 

concern. The increasingly severe shore erosion at the north jetty root appears to be 

related to the north jetty head recession. 

‘‘The north jetty has lost 384 ft. of jetty from the seaward end of its 5,700 ft. authorized length. The south jetty has lost 666 ft. from the seaward end of its 8,025 

ft. authorized length. By 2006, at historical jetty head recession rates, the north 

jetty will be 480 ft. shorter than the authorized length. The south jetty will be 890 

ft. shorter than the authorized length. The south jetty has never been repaired since 

its construction in 1969 to 1979 (25 to 35 years). The north jetty damage reach includes 1,050 ft. that has not been repaired since construction in 1918 (86 years).’’ 

Background.—Since settlement in the 1800’s, Tillamook County’s primary industries have been dairy, water and timber oriented. Tillamook Bay and the five rivers 

which feed it have historically furnished an abundance of shellfish, salmon and 

other species of fresh-water and ocean food fish. Over the past century the area has 

become renowned as one of the West’s premier sport fishing locations. 

Tillamook County’s economy has always depended on prime conditions in 

Tillamook Bay, its estuary and watershed for cultivation and use of these natural 

resources. However, human activities including forestry, agriculture and urban development have adversely impacted the entire Bay area by increasing erosion rates 

and landslide potential in the forest slopes and significantly reducing wetland and 

riparian habitat. All five rivers entering Tillamook Bay now exceed temperature 

and/or bacteria standards established by the Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality. The installation of a north jetty on Tillamook Bay begun in 1912 caused 

increased erosion of the Bay’s westerly land border, Bayocean Spit, on the ocean 

side. The Spit breached in 1950. This allowed the Bay to fill with ocean sands on 

its southern and western perimeters and caused a major reduction in shellfish habitat, sport-fishing area, and an increase in the cross-section of the bar. A south jetty 

begun in 1969 helped stabilize the Spit and created the navigation channel presently in use. 

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

The following was also included in the Corps December 2003 Major Maintenance 

Report. 

‘‘Entrance and Port Usage.—The Tillamook entrance is one of the most heavily 

used on the Oregon Coast and recent surveys indicate than the Port of Garibaldi 

is the third busiest recreational port in Oregon, behind the Port of Brookings and 

the Port of Umpqua. Total visitation to the Port of Garibaldi was 64,350 (Party 

Days) in 2002. Visitors in the area spent $6,747,000 on trip related expenditures 

to the port. Sixty-nine percent of this spending was captured by local economy yielding $4,666,000 in direct sales to tourism related firms. These sales generated 

$1,847,000 in direct personal income and supported 118 direct jobs. With multiplier 
327 

effects, visitor spending resulted in $6,446,000 total sales, $2,543,000 in total personal income, and supported 143 jobs. 

‘‘Port Fleet Considerations.—Total number of boats associated with the Port of 

Garibaldi was 619 in 2002. Boat owners in this area spent $1,127,000 on boat related annual and fixed expenditures in the region. Thirty-nine percent of this spending was captured by local economy yielding $434,000 in direct sales to related industries. These sales generated $168,000 in direct personal income and supported 08 

direct jobs. With multiplier effects, visitor spending resulted in $589,000 total sales, 

$223,000 in total personal income, and supported 11 jobs. The Port of Garibaldi is 

also an active commercial fishing port. Garibaldi’s total landing volume and value 

in the year 2000 was 1.7 million pounds and $2.0 million. The share of landing volume for groundfish was 16 percent. There were a total of 1,548 fishing trips made 

by 92 different vessels in the year 2000. There were nine different processors, buyers, restaurants, etc. issuing more than $10,000 in fish tickets. 

‘‘Marine Facilities.—The Port of Garibaldi has over 300 slips available, with 60 

slips available for vessels over 40 feet in length. The port also has 300 feet of dock 

available for transient vessels. The Coast Guard Tillamook Bay Station reports 

search and rescue cases annually. From 1995 to 2001, the station reported an average of 215 cases each year, with a high of 282 cases in 1999 and, a low of 152 cases 

in 2000.’’ 

CONCLUSION

On behalf of the Port of Garibaldi and Tillamook County, I thank the committee 

for giving me this opportunity to provide testimony on the Tillamook Bay Jetty System. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LOUISIANA GOVERNOR’S TASK FORCE ON MARITIME

INDUSTRY

THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND CONNECTING WATERWAYS AND THE J. BENNETT

JOHNSTON WATERWAY

Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA.—Recommend the Corps 

be funded $537,000 (Construction General) to perform required work on the saltwater intrusion Phase 1 mitigation plan and to prepare a report on deepening the 

river to its authorized depth of 55-foot depth. 

Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf—Maintenance Dredging.—The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget is $59,125,000 under O&M General. Recommend 

that the Corps be funded $74,400,000 to construct foreshore rock dike, repair South 

Pass jetties, and to repair Southwest Pass pile dike and tie-in. 

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), LA—Maintenance Dredging.—The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget is $13,004,000 under O&M General. Recommend 

that the Corps be funded $38,400,000 for maintenance dredging and bank stabilization. 

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA.—The President’s Fiscal Year 

2005 Budget is $10,000,000 in Construction General funds. Recommend that the 

Corps be funded $24,000,000 to continue construction, design and mitigation for the 

IHNC Lock replacement. 

Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA.—The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget 

is $424,000 under O&M General. Recommend that the Corps be funded $3,700,000 

to perform critical maintenance dredging and to repair jetties. 

Bayou Sorrel Lock, LA.—The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget is $550,000 

under General Investigation Studies to advance pre-engineering design for the replacement of Bayou Sorrel Lock on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Morgan City-to-Port Allen alternate route. 

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX.—The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget is $17,476,000 under O&M General. Recommend that the Corps be funded 

$27,300,000 to perform critical maintenance at the navigation locks. 

MRGO Reevaluation Study, LA.—The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget is 

$225,000 (General Investigation) to initiate an ecosystem restoration study of the 

MRGO. 

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA.—The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget is $4,000,000 (Construction General) and 

$10,600,000 (O&M General). Recommend that the Corps be funded $20,000,000 

(Construction General) and $18,000,000 (O&M, General) to initiate new work and 

complete work already underway. 
328 

As Chairman of the Louisiana Governors Task Force on Maritime Industry, I 

hereby submit testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development on behalf of the ports on the lower Mississippi River and the J. Bennett 

Johnston Waterway and the maritime interests related thereto of the State of Louisiana relative to congressional appropriations for fiscal year 2005. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that in 2002 a total of 421.1 million 

tons of foreign and domestic waterborne commerce moved through the consolidated 

deepwater ports of Louisiana situated on the lower Mississippi River between Baton 

Rouge and the Gulf of Mexico. Deepening of this 232-mile stretch of the River to 

45 feet has been a major factor in tonnage growth at these ports. Due in large part 

to the efforts of Congress and the New Orleans District of the Corps, Louisiana’s 

ports and the domestic markets they serve can compete more productively and effectively in the global marketplace. Ninety-one percent of America’s foreign merchandise trade by volume (two-thirds by value) moves in ships, and 20.5 percent of the 

Nation’s foreign waterborne commerce passes through Louisiana’s ports. Given the 

role foreign trade plays in sustaining our Nation’s growth, maintaining the levels 

of productivity and competitiveness of Louisiana’s ports is essential to our Nation’s 

continued economic well-being. 

In terms of transportation services and global access, Louisiana ports enjoy a distinct competitive advantage. Hundreds of barge lines accommodate America’s waterborne commerce on the lower Mississippi River. The high level of barge traffic on 

the river is indicated by the passage of more than 293,000 barges through the Port 

of New Orleans annually. In 2002, 1,967 ocean-going vessels operated by more than 

100 steamship lines serving U.S. trade with more than 150 countries called at the 

Port of New Orleans. The Port’s trading partners include: Latin America (40.5 percent); Asia (28.7 percent); Europe (20 percent); Africa (9.4 percent) and North America (1.4 percent). During the same year, 5,448 vessels called at Louisiana’s lower 

Mississippi River deepwater ports. 

The foreign markets of Louisiana’s lower Mississippi River ports are worldwide; 

however, their primary domestic market is mid-America. This heartland region currently produces 60 percent of the Nation’s agricultural products, one half of all of 

its manufactured goods and 90 percent of its machinery and transportation equipment. 

The considerable transportation assets of Louisiana’s lower Mississippi River 

ports enable mid-America’s farms and industries to play a vital role in the international commerce of this Nation. In 2002, the region’s ports and port facilities handled 227.5 million tons of foreign waterborne commerce. Valued at $39.2 billion, this 

cargo accounted for 18.1 percent of the Nation’s international waterborne trade and 

27 percent of all U.S. exports. Bulk cargo, primarily consisting of tremendous grain 

and animal feed exports and petroleum imports, made up 88.3 percent of this volume. Approximately 50.2 million tons of grain from 17 States, representing 62.4 percent of all U.S. grain exports, accessed the world market via the 10 grain elevators 

and midstream transfer capabilities on the lower Mississippi River. This same port 

complex received 91.2 million short tons of petroleum and petroleum products, 15.9 

percent of U.S. waterborne imports of petroleum products. 

In 2002, public and private facilities located within the jurisdiction of the Board 

of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, the fifth largest port in the United 

States, handled a total of 85 million tons of international and domestic cargo. International general cargo totaled 9.6 million tons. Although statistically dwarfed by 

bulk cargo volumes, the movement of general cargo is of special significance to the 

local economy because it produces greater benefits. On a per ton basis, general cargo 

generates spending within the community more than three times higher than bulk 

cargo. Major general cargo commodities handled at the Port include: iron and steel 

products; coffee; forest products; copper; aluminum products; and natural rubber. 

Fostering the continued growth of lower Mississippi River ports is necessary to 

maintain the competitiveness of our Nation’s exports in the global marketplace and, 

consequently, the health of the Nation’s economy. Assuring deep-water access to 

ports has been a priority of our trading partners around the world. Moreover, an 

evolving maritime industry seeking greater economies of scale continues to support 

construction of larger vessels with increased draft requirements. Because it facilitated the provision of deepwater port access, passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, played a most significant role in assuring the competitiveness 

of ports on the lower Mississippi river and throughout the United States. 

By December 1994, the Corps completed dredging of the 45-foot channel from the 

Gulf of Mexico to Baton Rouge, LA (Mile 233 AHP). Mitigation features associated 

with the first phase of the channel-deepening project in the vicinity of Southwest 

Pass of the river, accomplished in 1988, are nearing completion. We urge the continued funding for this work in fiscal year 2005 to complete construction of improve-
329 

ments to the Belle Chasse water treatment plant. This will complete the approximate $15 million in payments to the State of Louisiana for construction of a pipeline 

and pumping stations to deliver potable fresh water to communities affected by saltwater intrusion. We further urge that the Corps be provided funding to proceed with 

design studies for Phase III, which will allow deepening of the river to the 55-foot 

authorized depth. 

Along with the Port of New Orleans, the Port of South Louisiana, the Nation’s 

largest port with 216.4 million tons of foreign and domestic cargo in 2002, and the 

Port of Baton Rouge, the Nation’s ninth largest port with 60.6 million tons of foreign 

and domestic cargo in 2002, and other lower Mississippi River ports are dependent 

upon timely and adequate dredging of Southwest Pass to provide deep draft access 

to the Gulf of Mexico. The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget is $59,125,000 under 

O&M General. We, however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded 

$74,400,000 to repair and construct foreshore dikes, lateral dikes and jetties. 

Maintenance of adequate depths and channel widths in the Mississippi River Gulf 

Outlet Channel (MRGO) is also of great concern. This channel provides deep draft 

access to the Port of New Orleans container and cold storage facilities and generates 

significant economic impact for the region. In 2002, 374 general cargo vessels calling 

on the Port’s MRGO terminals accounted for 31.5 percent of the general cargo tonnage handled over public facilities at the Port and 70 percent of Louisiana’s containerized cargo. 

Because of the MRGO’s demonstrated vulnerability to coastal storm activity, annual channel maintenance dredging and bank stabilization are essential to assure 

unimpeded vessel operations. The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget is 

$13,004,000 under O&M General. We, however, strongly recommend that the Corps 

be funded $38,400,000 for maintenance dredging and bank stabilization. 

We recognize the need for the Corps to evaluate the feasibility of continuing the 

maintenance of a deep draft channel in the MRGO because of increased maintenance costs and environmental impacts. We strongly recommend that the Corps 

complete the MRGO Reevaluation Study. It is important to note that although the 

Port of New Orleans plans to relocate much of its container terminal capacity to the 

Mississippi River, a determination to discontinue maintenance of the MRGO’s deep 

draft channel must be preceded by completion of the IHNC Lock replacement project 

to assure continued deep draft access to the many businesses serviced by the 

MRGO. 

The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock is a critical link in the U.S. Inland Waterway System as well as the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), and provides a connection between the Port of New Orleans Mississippi River and IHNC 

terminals. In 1998, the Corps approved a plan for replacement of this obsolete facility. The Corps estimates that the lock replacement project will have a cost-benefit 

ratio of 2.1 to 1 and will provide $110 million annually in transportation cost savings. To minimize adverse impacts to adjacent neighborhoods, the project includes 

a $37 million Community Impact Mitigation Program. The President’s Fiscal Year 

2005 Budget of $10,000,000 for the IHNC Lock Replacement will pay for engineering and design work, construction, and the mitigation program, all on a delayed 

basis. We, therefore, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded $24,000,000 to 

advance engineering and design, levee contracts, and mitigation measures. 

Operation and maintenance of the Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA are essential to providing safe offshore support access to energy-related industries. In 

2002, these channels accommodated cargo movements exceeding 2.6 million tons. In 

addition to routine traffic, shallow draft vessels use Baptiste Colette Bayou as an 

alternate route between the MRGO, GIWW and the Mississippi River. The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget is $424,000 under O&M General. We, however, 

strongly recommend that the Corps be funded $3,700,000 to perform critical maintenance dredging. 

More than 72.4 million tons of cargo transverse the GIWW in the New Orleans 

District annually. The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget is $17,476,000 under 

O&M General. We, however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded 

$27,300,000 to perform critical maintenance at the navigation locks. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget for the Bayou Sorrel Lock, LA project 

is $500,000 in GI funds. To assure the efficient flow of commerce on the GIWW, we 

urge that the Corps be funded $500,000 to advance the completion of the pre-engineering design for replacement of the Bayou Sorrel Lock, Morgan City-to-Port Allen 

alternate route. We further recommend that the Corps be funded $1,000,000 in GI 

funds to advance the completion of the feasibility phase of the study to replace 

Calcasieu Lock on the GIWW. 

One additional project warrants consideration. The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA Project provides 236 miles of navigation 
330 

improvements, 225 miles of channel stabilization works and various recreational facilities. Project completion will stimulate economic growth along the Red River 

Basin and increase cargo flows through the deep draft ports on the lower Mississippi River. The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget is $4,000,000 (Construction 

General) and $10,600,000 (O&M General). We, however, strongly recommend that 

the Corps be funded $20,000,000 (Construction General) and $18,100,000 (O&M, 

General) to complete work already underway. 

The need and impetus to reduce the Federal budget is certainly acknowledged; 

however, reduced funding on any of the above projects will result in decreased maintenance levels that will escalate deterioration and, ultimately, prevent them from 

functioning at their full-authorized purpose. Reduction in the serviceability of these 

projects will cause severe economic impacts not only to this region, but also to the 

Nation as a whole that will far outweigh savings from reduced maintenance expenditures. Therefore, we reiterate our strong recommendation that the above projects 

be funded to their full capability. 

Supporting statements from Mr. Gary P. LaGrange, Executive Director of the Port 

of New Orleans; Mr. Joseph Accardo, Jr., Executive Director of the Port of South 

Louisiana; Mr. Roger Richard, Executive Director of the Greater Baton Rouge Port 

Commission; Mr. Channing Hayden, President of the Steamship Association of Louisiana; Capt. A. J. Gibbs, President of the Crescent River Port Pilots Association and 

Capt. Michael R. Lorino, Jr., President, Associated Bar Pilots are attached. Please 

make these statements along with my statement part of the record. Supplemental 

graphics relating to my statement have been furnished separately for staff background use. Thank you for the opportunity to comment to the subcommittee on 

these vital projects. 

PRESIDENT’S BUDGET REQUEST & RECOMMENDED FUNDING LEVELS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project President’s 

Budget Request 

Recommended 

Funding Levels 

Mississippi River Ship Channel Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA (Construction General) ............... ........................ 537 

Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Maintenance Dredging & Stabilization (O&M 

General) .............................................................................................................................. 59,125 74,400 

Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR–GO), LA (O&M General) ................................................... 13,004 38,400 

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA (Construction General) .......................................... 10,000 24,000 

Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA (O&M General) ........................................................ 424 3,700 

Bayou Sorrel Lock, LA (GI Funds) ........................................................................................... 550 550 

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway LA & TX (O&M General) ............................................................. 17,476 27,300 

MRGO Reevaluation Study, LA (General Investigation) .......................................................... 225 225 

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway (Construction General) ........................................................... 4,000 20,000 

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway (O&M General) ....................................................................... 10,600 18,100 

TOTAL ......................................................................................................................... 115,404 207,212 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

On December 22, 2003, a magnitude 6.5 earthquake jolted the central California 

coast. The epicenter was about 40 miles northeast of the Port San Luis Harbor federally-owned breakwater. This earthquake caused significant damage to the structure, which prior to that date, had been in good condition. Based on its preliminary 

survey, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) estimated that repairs will cost 

$4 million. USACE owns and is responsible for maintaining this breakwater. President Bush declared our region a disaster area (DR 1505) on January 13, 2004; however, FEMA does not provide financial assistance to other Federal agencies. 

HISTORY

Construction of a breakwater at Port San Luis was authorized by Congress in 

1888 and USACE began construction in 1893. The Federal breakwater was completed in 1913. It was destroyed by severe storms in 1923, and redesigned and rebuilt to the current specifications in 1927. 

USACE has repaired damages to the breakwater three times: 

—In 1935 after storms from earlier years. 

—In 1984 after severe 1982 El Nin ̃ o storms that also sunk 27 vessels and destroyed 2 piers. 
331 

—In 1992 after 1991 El Nin ̃ o storms. (Port San Luis Harbor District was the local 

sponsor and contributed in-kind services for maintenance and repair.) 

NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

A small local government, Port San Luis Harbor District has limited funds. We 

have made the breakwater repair project our highest priority because of its significant regional, State, and national importance for the following reasons. 

—Port San Luis Harbor is the nearest safe harbor of refuge to Point Conception, 

the ‘‘Cape Horn of the Pacific.’’ 

—Port San Luis Harbor is a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Port of 

Entry station. A Port of Entry is a designated place where a CBP officer is authorized to accept entries of merchandise, collect duties, and enforce the various 

provisions of the customs and navigation laws (19 CFR 101.1). 

—Port San Luis Harbor is the closest port to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power 

Plant. The land entrance to the power plant is at Port San Luis; our Security 

personnel are on the frontline monitoring threats to homeland security. The 

harbor is used to receive and transport heavy equipment for the nuclear power 

plant. Two 120-ton rotors are scheduled for delivery through Port San Luis in 

2006 and 2008. Calm water is essential to offload this equipment. There is also 

the matter of transferring spent nuclear fuel from the power plant to a Federal 

depository sometime in the future. As currently proposed by the Department of 

Energy (DOE), this high level nuclear waste will either be barged out of Port 

San Luis or shipped by road. Either way, without the breakwater, access to the 

harbor by road or ship will be severely restricted. 

—Port San Luis is home to the California Polytechnic State University’s Center 

for Coastal Marine Science (CCMS) Pier located on the former Unocal Oil Pier. 

This Pier Structure is valued at $23 million. Agencies currently providing funding to the CCMS are: California Department of Health Services, National Air 

Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research; Naval Surface Warfare 

Center, The National Oceanographic Partnership Program, California Regional 

Water Quality Control Board, National Estuary Program/EPA, and Unocal Corporation. 

—In 2000 the California legislature designated Port San Luis Harbor one of several ports along the California coast as a harbor of safe refuge. This legislation 

recognizes the critical role our harbor plays in affording a safety zone for commercial and industrial vessels transiting the California coast. U.S. Coast Guard 

vessels, scientific research vessels, oil-industry related vessels and other large 

vessels stop at the Port, especially during storms, to find calm water protected 

by the Federal breakwater. 

—Port San Luis is one of the primary facilities on the central California coast 

used by fiber optic cable ships to install and repair transpacific fiber optic cables. Several cable landings are in waters near the port and are serviced by 

large cable-laying ships. This international communication support facility (harbor) is critical to the national security and global commerce. A safe harbor to 

resupply and moor cable-laying ships and associated watercraft is critical. 

—The Port is home to 240 commercial and recreational fishing vessels that contribute to the economy and job markets in central California. The supporting 

landside businesses are dependent on the local fleet to generate jobs and revenue producing goods and services—including ships chandleries, vessel haul-out 

and repair facilities, fueling stations, seafood buying stations, and ancillary 

services. 

For these reasons, we request a congressional ‘‘add’’ of $4 million to the fiscal year 

2005 Budget to repair the earthquake damage to the Federal breakwater. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COOSA-ALABAMA RIVER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, 

INC. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, I request the President’s 

fiscal year 2005 Budget be adjusted to reflect appropriations to U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers civil works projects on the Alabama River as follows: 

Amount 

Alabama-Coosa .............................................................................................................. $4,549,000 (add of $4,000,000). 

Millers Ferry L&D ............................................................................................................ 4,863,000 (add of $320,000). 
332 

Amount 

Robert F. Henry L&D ....................................................................................................... 4,890,000 (add of $300,000). 

I make these requests as President of an Association formed in 1890 to promote 

commercial navigation on the Coosa and Alabama Rivers. Our members are the cities, counties, businesses, and individuals from Rome, Georgia to Mobile, Alabama. 

We value our inland waterways and are very distressed that the President’s proposed cuts on our projects are being done with no thought as to consequences to 

the citizens of this river basin. 

Alabama-Coosa.—The President’s Budget proposal for fiscal year 2005 eliminates 

funding for dredging the Alabama River navigation channel as well as for maintaining the lock at Claiborne Dam. Not funding these projects will close the Alabama 

River navigation channel, sever the only waterway link between the capital city of 

Montgomery and the Port of Mobile, and isolate three-fourths of the river basin 

from the Gulf of Mexico. 

Severing the channel will have major negative economic effects in central Alabama, an area bustling with expansion of new industries and subsidiaries. Hyundai 

Motor Company located its first American-based automobile manufacturing plant, a 

$1 billion investment, in the Montgomery area because of the available infrastructure, including the waterway. Hyundai has plans this calendar year and in 2005 to 

move several pieces of outsized equipment, weighing up to 125,000 pounds each and 

part of a $20 million stamping press, to its plant via the Alabama River, the only 

transportation artery capable of safely moving equipment of that size. The channel 

is essential to Hyundai operations. 

The Gulf Logistics and Projects Company of Houston, Texas, which will be a 

major transporter of raw materials to Hyundai, indicates that closing the navigation 

channel will cause ‘‘painful economic distress if the barge delivery system is denied 

to foreign manufactures (sic) trying to relocate their factories into the United States, 

near Montgomery, Alabama . . . Without the Alabama River, quantity raw materials movements may become too expensive and production be curtailed.’’ This is a 

strong statement from a Korean firm planning to establish an office in Mobile just 

to support Hyundai, and I believe is a compelling argument to keep the navigation 

channel fully operational. 

Another major industry that will be hard hit is Alabama River Pulp Company of Perdue Hill, Alabama, a $1.4 billion investment and one of the largest paper manufacturing plants in the world. Alabama River Pulp receives fuel oil via barge. If the 

channel closes, that fuel oil will have to be trucked in at an additional annual cost 

of $1.5 million while putting 2500 additional trucks of fuel oil on Alabama’s highways. Why would we want to do that? 

Closing Claiborne Lock has other consequences for ARP, which is located only 

about three miles downstream of Claiborne Dam and is heavily reliant on predictable and controlled flows and river levels. Not funding the lock operation means the 

personnel operating that lock and who also control the dam flow control gates would 

be cut, imperiling the flow control procedures on which ARP relies to provide cooling 

water to its plant. ARP strongly objects to any cuts that jeopardize that flow management. 

Closing the channel is a direct threat to some sand and gravel companies. Two 

companies that currently move approximately 100,000 tons on the Alabama annually have the resources to move over 300,000 tons, but are stymied because reduced 

dredging the past 2 years has allowed the river to silt in, causing severe navigation 

safety problems. Couch Ready Mix USA, which has a $5 million investment on the 

river near Montgomery, has stated in writing that, if the channel were fully maintained, it alone has an annual capacity of over 300,000 tons to move on the river 

to the Gulf of Mexico. 

One of the major benefits of barge transportation is its contribution to traffic and 

pollution safety. A May 2001 Latin American Trade and Transportation Study, 

sponsored by the Southeastern Transportation Alliance, predicts that imports into 

the Gulf of Mexico from Latin America will triple by 2020. It is reasonable to assume that the Port of Mobile will get its fair share of that increased traffic, much 

of which will be containers. Those commodities will have to move out of Mobile by 

rail, road, or waterway. Rail is limited in its capacity to absorb these increases. 

Truck congestion on the highway system leading out of Mobile will be intolerable, 

as should be the additional pollution. (Per ton-mile, barges emit only 10 percent of 

emissions produced by trucks and 25 percent of that produced by rail.) It makes 

sense, from economic, environmental, and safety views, to move some of that cargo, 

including containers, onto the waterways, including the Alabama River, an option 

not available if the waterway is closed. 
333 

The proposal to close Claiborne Lock alone has dire consequences beyond the effect on commercial navigation. The Alabama River is the only waterway connecting 

the capital city of Montgomery to the Gulf of Mexico. Severing the channel will stop 

ever-increasing recreational traffic from Montgomery to the Gulf. Eighty percent of 

the vessels locking through Claiborne are recreational craft. There is a strong move 

within the basin to develop a system of marinas to support recreational vessels from 

bass boats to 80-foot cruisers. Wilcox County, one of the least developed and highest 

unemployment (16.4 percent) counties in the State, is planning to construct a fullservice marina and lodging facility on the Alabama to attract and serve recreational 

craft of all sizes, a facility that will provide jobs Closing the navigation channel will 

kill that project as well as well as projected revenue for this depressed area. 

Millers Ferry Lock and Dam and Robert F. Henry Lock and Dam.—The President’s Budget also eliminates funding to maintain several of the Corps’ recreational 

areas along the Alabama River. Over 3 million people visited these sites last year 

and spent over $60 million within 30 miles of the facilities, 66 percent of which was 

a direct input into the local economy. With proposed cuts in maintenance of 

$320,000 at Millers Ferry and $300,000 at Robert F. Henry, the Mobile District will 

be forced to scale back maintenance at all sites, close three of the six campgrounds 

6 months out of the year, reassign park rangers, and drop contracted maintenance. 

Without maintenance, these facilities will deteriorate. To‘‘save’’$620,000, the administration is willing to sacrifice a strong economic multiplier in an economicallydepressed area of the country. This kind of ‘‘saving’’ doesn’t make economic sense. 

Attached is a list of businesses, individuals, and local and State government agencies expressing concern about these proposed cuts in the Alabama River civil works 

projects. To a person, these citizens view the proposed cuts as ‘‘devastating for industrial development in the State of Alabama.’’ Any ‘‘savings’’ from the proposed 

cuts will be a Pyrrhic victory, dwarfed by staggering losses to the State of Alabama. 

In summary, the President’s Budget proposal for fiscal year 2005 will be a major 

economic blow to Central Alabama. For the appearance of ‘‘savings’’, the administration is willing to eliminate an important transportation asset for the State of Alabama and put in jeopardy businesses sorely needed in an economically depressed 

area with unemployment up to 15 percent. I request funding be placed into the fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations Act to allow the Corps of Engineers 

to maintain the authorized navigation channel on the Alabama River and to keep 

the recreation areas open year around for the benefit of our citizens. 

LETTERS SUPPORTING CARIA STATEMENT—MARCH, 2004 

The Honorable Otha Lee Biggs ......... Monroe County Commission ........................................... Monroeville, AL. 

The Honorable Jim Byard .................. Mayor, City of Prattville ................................................. Prattville, AL. 

Mr. F. Slaton Crawford ...................... Dir, Wilcox County C of C .............................................. Camden, AL. 

Mr. Elton N. Dean ............................. Montgomery County Commission ................................... Montgomery, AL. 

Mr. Ken Fairly .................................... Alabama River Pulp Company ....................................... Monroeville, AL. 

The Honorable Anne Farish ............... Mayor, City of Monroeville .............................................. Monroeville, AL. 

Mr. Trey Glenn ................................... Alabama Office of Water Resources .............................. Montgomery, AL.

The Honorable Sue Glidewell ............ Mayor, City of Rainbow City ........................................... Rainbow City, AL. 

Mr. Lynn A. Gowan ............................ Montgomery County Commission ................................... Montgomery, AL. 

Mr. Robert F. Henry, Jr. ..................... Robert F. Henry Tile Co. ................................................. Montgomery, AL. 

Mr. Slade Hooks, Jr. .......................... Waterways Towing & Offshore Svcs ............................... Mobile, AL. 

The Honorable John W. Jones, Jr. ...... Dallas County Probate Judge ......................................... Selma, AL. 

Mr. Wm. F. Joseph, Jr. ....................... Montgomery County Commission ................................... Montgomery, AL. 

Captain Jeong Dae Kim .................... Gulf Logistics & Projects ............................................... Houston, TX. 

Mr. James Lyons ................................ Alabama State Docks ..................................................... Mobile, AL. 

Ms. Ellen McNair ............................... Montgomery Area C of C ................................................ Montgomery, AL. 

Mr. Donald L. Mims .......................... Montgomery County Commission ................................... Montgomery, AL. 

The Honorable James Perkins ........... Mayor, City of Selma ...................................................... Selma, AL. 

Mr. Phillip A. Sanguinetti ................. The Anniston Star ........................................................... Anniston, AL. 

Mr. Steven D. Shaw .......................... Couch Ready-Mix USA .................................................... Dothan, AL. 

Ms. Sandy Smith ............................... Monroeville Area C of C ................................................. Monroeville, AL. 

Mr. J. Craig Stepan ........................... Warrior & Gulf Navigation .............................................. Mobile, AL. 

Mrs. Anne Henry Tidmore .................. ......................................................................................... Montgomery, AL. 

Mr. Wayne Vardaman ........................ Selma & Dallas County Cntr. for Co. ............................ Selma, AL. 

Mr. Jiles Williams, Jr. ........................ Montgomery County Commission ................................... Montgomery, AL. 

Mr. Sam H. Wingard ......................... Montgomery County Commission ................................... Montgomery, AL. 
334 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF MISSISSIPPI LEVEE COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this statement is prepared by 

James E. Wanamaker, Chief Engineer for the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners, Greenville, Mississippi, and submitted on behalf of the Board and the citizens of the Mississippi Levee District. The Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners is comprised of seven elected commissioners representing the counties of Bolivar, Issaquena, Sharkey, Washington, and parts of Humphreys and Warren counties in the Lower Yazoo Basin in Mississippi. The Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners is charged with the responsibility of providing protection to the Mississippi Delta from flooding of the Mississippi River and maintaining major drainage outlets for removing the flood waters from the area. These responsibilities are 

carried out by providing the local sponsor requirements for the Congressionally authorized projects in the Mississippi Levee District. 

It is apparent that the administration loses sight of the fact that the Mississippi 

River & Tributaries Project provides protection to the Lower Mississippi Valley from 

flood waters generated across 41 percent of the Continental United States. These 

flood waters flow from 31 States and 2 provinces of Canada and must pass through 

the Lower Mississippi Valley on its way to the Gulf of Mexico. We will remind you 

that the Mississippi River & Tributaries Project is one of, if not the most cost effective project ever undertaken by the United States. The foresight used by the Congress and their authorization of the many features of this project is exemplary. 

The many projects that are part of the Mississippi River & Tributaries Project not 

only provides protection from flooding in the area, but the award of construction 

contracts throughout the Valley provides assistance to the overall economy to this 

area that is also encompassed by the Delta Regional Authority. The employment of 

the local workforce and purchases from local venders by the contractors help stabilize the economy in one of the most impoverished areas of our country. The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association will be submitting a general statement in 

support of an appropriation of $450 million for fiscal year 2005 for the Mississippi 

River & Tributaries Project. This is the minimum amount that we consider necessary to allow for an orderly completion for the remaining work in the Valley and 

to provide for the operation and maintenance as required to prevent further deterioration of the completed flood control and navigation work. 

Thanks to the additional funding over and above the administration’s budget that 

has been provided by the Congress over the last several years, work on the Mainline 

Mississippi River Levee Enlargement Project is continuing. This funding has resulted in having 7.6 miles of work completed and returned to the Levee Board for 

maintenance, and 24.4 miles are currently under contract. Right of way is being acquired on the next 3.4 miles with the contract being scheduled for award in September of this year. This will result in over half of the deficient 69 miles in our District being completed or under contract. We are requesting $54.8 million for construction on the Mainline Mississippi River Levees in the Mississippi Valley Division which will allow the Vicksburg and Memphis districts to keep existing contracts on schedule and award contracts to avoid any unnecessary delays in completing this vital project. We are all well aware that the Valley some day will have 

to endure a Project Flood, we just don’t know when. We must be prepared. 

Three projects in Mississippi are on the list included in the administration’s budget targeted for cancellation by the Office of Management and Budget. These are all 

projects authorized and funded so wisely by the Congress. The administration’s proposal includes language to return unobligated funds to the Treasury. This action is 

especially difficult to understand during a time when our Nation needs an economic 

boost. All of these projects are encompassed in the footprint of the Delta Regional 

Authority, an area recognized by the Congress as requiring special economic assistance to keep pace with the rest of our great Nation. We can not lose sight of the 

fact that all of these projects are required to return more than a dollar in benefits 

for each dollar spent. No project authorized and funded by the Congress should be 

indiscriminately terminated without the benefit of having the opportunity to complete with the study process and subsequent construction after complying with the 

Corps Policy and Guidelines. 

One of the projects on this list will provide benefits to parts of six counties in the 

south part of the Mississippi Delta who continue to patiently wait for the completion 

of the Yazoo Backwater Project. This work authorized by the Congress to provide 

protection from higher stages on the Mississippi River resulting from changes made 

to the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, must safely pass flood water from 

41 percent of the continental United States. Also, the same change in the flow line 

of the Mississippi River that is requiring the Enlargement of the Mainline Mississippi River Levee will also increase stages in the South Delta. The Corps and 
335 

EPA have made an extraordinary effort to resolve differences in wetland impacts 

resulting from the construction of the Corps recommended plan for this project. This 

plan has received the support of all six county Boards of Supervisors in the project 

area. We are requesting this project be funded by the Congress in the amount of 

$12 million. These funds will allow the Corps to begin acquisition of the reforestation easements and initiate the award of the pump supply contract. 

Another project on the administration’s hit list is the Big Sunflower River Maintenance Project. The first item of work has been completed and right-of-way has been 

acquired for the next item of work. Our request for $2.139 million will allow rightof-way acquisition to continue and for the award of the first dredging contract. The 

residents in South Washington County continue to suffer damages from flooding 

while they continue to wait for this maintenance project to reach their area. 

The third project in Mississippi targeted by the administration for cancellation is 

the Delta Headwaters Project, formerly the Demonstration Erosion Control Project. 

Work carried out as part of this project has proven effective in reducing sediments 

to downstream channels. To discontinue this project will only increase sediment in 

downstream channels, reducing the level of protection to the citizens of the Delta 

and increasing required maintenance. We are requesting $25 million to continue 

this project. 

The Upper Yazoo Project is critical to the Delta. The Corps of Engineers operates 

4 major flood control reservoirs on the bluff hills overlooking the Mississippi Delta. 

These reservoirs hold back heavy spring rains and must have adequate channel capacity to pass this excess runoff during the summer and fall months. Without completion of the Upper Yazoo Project, the Corps is forced to hold flood water from the 

previous spring, thereby reducing the ability to provide protection from the current 

year’s flood water. The administration’s budget of $3.85 million will require the 

Vicksburg District to suspend construction of three ongoing contracts. We urge the 

Congress to provide additional funds to increase the budget amount to $20 million 

allowing construction to continue and the award of additional channel items that 

will extend construction upstream to Glendora, Mississippi. 

Maintenance of completed works can not be over looked. The four flood control 

reservoirs over looking the Delta have been in place for 50 years and have functioned as designed. Required maintenance must be performed to avoid any possibility of failure during a flood event. The recent dam failure in south Mississippi 

less than 2 weeks ago can only magnify the need to adequately maintain our infrastructure. We are asking for $12.9 million for Arkabutla Lake, $19.322 million for 

Sardis Lake, $13.679 million for Enid Lake, and $10.101 million for Grenada Lake. 

Additional funding will be used to replace rip rap at all 4 reservoirs, repair the spillways at Arkabutla and Sardis, and upgrade other infrastructure around all the 

lakes. 

We are requesting $14.915 million for Maintenance of the Mainline Mississippi 

River Levees which will provide for repair of levee slides, slope repair, and repair 

of the gravel maintenance roadway which is so vital to access during high water. 

Other Mississippi projects that require additional funding to keep on schedule include: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project Amount 

Big Sunflower River (Upper Steele Bayou) ...................................................................................................................... 5,000 

Yazoo Basin Reformulation Unit ...................................................................................................................................... 450 

Yazoo Basin Main Stem ................................................................................................................................................... 25 

Yazoo Backwater (Greentree Reservoirs) ......................................................................................................................... 300 

I have reviewed a great deal of information regarding the needs of providing flood 

protection to our area. Another major feature of the Mississippi River & Tributaries 

Project relates to navigation interest along the Mississippi River. Several of our 

ports have been informed that the President’s budget does not include funding for 

Critical Harbor Dredging necessary to keep these harbors opened for navigation. 

Our port commissioners have been notified that lack of dredging will cause these 

ports to be shut down and be a hazard to navigation. This will impact the movement 

of over 4.5 million tons of cargo being shipped on our waterways annually from 

these ports. This equates to an additional 180,000 truck loads of products on our 

highways. It is imperative that funding be made available for Critical Harbor 

Dredging to allow continued operation of these facilities, which are key features to 

the economic growth of the region. 

As members of the Congress representing the citizens of our Nation who live with 

the Mississippi River everyday, you clearly understand both the benefits provided 
336 

by this resource, and the destructive force that must be controlled during a flood. 

On behalf of the Mississippi Levee Board, I can not express enough, our appreciation for your efforts in providing adequate funding over the last several years that 

has allowed construction to continue on our much needed projects. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BLUE VALLEY ASSOCIATION

The Blue Valley Association has 164 members representing thousands of employees in the Blue Valley industrial area. These high paying jobs have been put at risk 

from past flooding in the valley. Since 1920 the association has been dedicated to 

improving our industrial area and maintaining jobs. Continued funding of the Blue 

River Project is essential to this goal. 

The project, which began in 1983, is located along the Blue River from its mouth 

at the Missouri River continuing approximately 12 miles upstream to 63rd Street, 

running through an industrial area of Kansas City, which is a long-standing business district employing 12,000 people, and containing many residential neighborhoods. 

The progress made to date has provided significant benefits to those businesses 

downstream. But much work remains. Delays in funding will increase the risk of 

flooding as rapid development of the watershed in the State of Kansas increases the 

run off. Increased flooding has forced many businesses to abandon the valley and 

relocate to new ‘‘Greenfields’’. The project’s completion date has already been delayed from 1998 to 2008. 

This is an economically sound project with a benefit to cost ratio of 3 to 1. Therefore, we urge you to provide the $8,000,000 in funding needed to continue this 

project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MO-ARK ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, the Mo-Ark Association welcomes this opportunity to provide written testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development regarding 

appropriations for fiscal year 2005 and requests that this written testimony be included in the formal hearing record. 

The Mo-Ark Association is a long-standing organization that promotes beneficial 

use of water and land related resources in the Missouri and portions of the Arkansas River Basins, primarily within the States of Kansas and Missouri. We have advocated for flood damage reduction projects in our region since severe flooding ravaged the Midwest in 1951. 

The Mo-Ark Association requests the following General Investigation and Construction General Funding for Corps of Engineers’ Water Resource projects underway in our region. Our fiscal year 2005 Federal appropriations request for these 

projects is presented in the following table, together with the activity to be performed with those funds by the Corps of Engineers. The projects with the highest 

priority are shown in cap type. 

Project Fiscal Year 

2005 Request Activity 

BLUE RIVER CHANNEL ............................................................................... $8,000,000 CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION. 

TURKEY CREEK BASIN ............................................................................... 2,500,000 CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION. 

Brush Creek Basin .................................................................................... 200,000 Complete Study Effort. 

BLUE RIVER BASIN .................................................................................... 4,000,000 CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION. 

SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA ................................................................ 600,000 COMPLETE DESIGN. 

Kansas Citys (7 Levees) ............................................................................ 650,000 Continue Feasibility Study. 

Upper Turkey Creek ................................................................................... 500,000 Continue Feasibility. 

St. Joseph Levee ........................................................................................ 250,000 Complete Feasibility. 

Topeka Levee ............................................................................................. 100,000 Complete Feasibility. 

Jefferson City Levee L–142 ....................................................................... 6,200,000 Begin Construction. 

RIVERSIDE LEVEE L–385 ........................................................................... 12,000,000 COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION. 

Missouri River Mitigation .......................................................................... 20,000,000 Design & Construction. 

Missouri River Bank Stabilization & Navigation Support ......................... 5,000,000 Rehabilitation & Construction. 

MISSOURI RIVER CHANNEL DEGRADATION STUDY .................................... 500,000 BEGIN STUDY. 

Mo-Ark also requests that the several key programs which provide Federal assistance for water related projects continue to be made available to local communities 

and that they are supported with annual appropriations. Among these: Small Flood 

Control Authority, Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act as amended; Flood 
337 

Plain Management Services, Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act; Planning 

Assistance to States, Public Law 93–251; and Emergency Bank Stabilization, Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act as amended. Communities in our region have 

made use of these programs in the past and will continue to seek out beneficial uses 

for them in the future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE KANSAS CITY INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL

The Kansas City Industrial Council (KCIC) supports the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local sponsor, Kansas City, Missouri, in the completion of the Feasibility 

Report on the Swope Park Industrial Area. We encourage the approval of this report 

as urgently as possible. 

The safety of many lives is directly affected by the Blue River as experienced in 

the May 15, 1990, flooding in the Swope Park Industrial Park. The Feasibility Report accurately defines this unique area by having only one way to enter and exit, 

land being surrounded by river and railroad tracks. This report also accurately depicts that the business owners and managers of Swope Park Industrial Park have 

continued to maintain property and employment while keeping flood protection the 

number one priority for employee safety. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DECO COMPANIES, INC. 

DECO Companies, Inc. has 90 employees currently in the Blue River Valley. Our 

affiliate companies have ownership of over a million square feet of industrial space 

leased to small ‘‘Started Businesses’’. To keep these businesses, valuable property 

and employees safe from floods continued funding of the Blue River project is essential. 

The project, which began in 1983, is located along the Blue River from its mouth 

at the Missouri River continuing approximately 12 miles upstream to 63rd Street, 

running through an industrial area of Kansas City, which is a long-standing business district employing 12,000 people, and containing many residential neighborhoods. 

The progress made to date has provided significant benefits to those businesses 

downstream. But much work remains. Delays in funding will increase the risk of 

flooding as rapid development of the watershed in the State of Kansas increases the 

run off. Increased flooding has forced many businesses to abandon the valley and 

relocate to new ‘‘Greenfields’’. The project’s completion date has already been delayed from 1998 to 2008. 

This is an economically sound project with a benefit to cost ratio of 3 to 1. Therefore, we urge you to provide the $8,000,000 in funding needed to continue this 

project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VANCE BROTHERS INC. 

On behalf of the 200 employees of Vance Brothers Inc., I am requesting that you 

provide the funding necessary to continue the Blue River Channel Project. 

In 1993 and again in 1995 the water was so high that we had to initiate our 

Emergency Flood Plan. Besides costing thousands of dollars, it put employees out 

of work for several days. 

Because of the residential and commercial development of the upper Blue River 

basin in the State of Kansas, along with their paved parking lots and new storm 

sewer systems, we had up to 8 feet of water in our plant in 1990. 

Increased flooding has forced many businesses to abandon the valley. Delays in 

funding will increase the risk of flooding as rapid development of the watershed in 

the State of Kansas increases the run off. The project’s completion date has already 

been delayed from 1998 to 2008. 

This project will benefit the workers in our area creating good paying jobs. 

This is an economically sound project with a benefit to cost ratio of 3 to 1. Therefore, we urge you to provide the $8,000,000 in funding needed to continue this 

project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAREHOUSE ONE, INC. 

On behalf of the 55 associates of Warehouse One, Inc., and the thousands of other 

Kansas City workers and residents in the Blue Valley, I am requesting that you pro-
338 

vide the $8,000,000 in funding necessary to continue the Blue River Channel 

Project. 

The Blue River flows through the historical and industrial heart of Kansas City 

with its lower stretch in the Enterprise Zone. Increased flooding from upstream development has forced many businesses to abandon the valley at a cost of thousands 

of jobs and lowered property values. The Army Corps of Engineers’ revised completion date has now been extended from 1998 to 2008. This delay will only cause more 

companies and residents to leave our neighborhoods. 

In areas where the project has been completed, redevelopment is significant. Hundreds of millions of dollars of public and private money have been invested to reclaim abandoned properties providing jobs, homes, and tax dollars. 

The Blue River Channel Project, with a benefit to cost ratio of 3 to 1 has already proven to be economically sound. I urge you to provide the $8,000,000 in funding 

to continue the project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BI-STATE TURKEY CREEK ASSOCIATION

We received a NEW START APPROPRIATION in the Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriations Bill and construction is underway. 

We MUST have funds to continue this project which affects hundreds of privately 

held company and thousands of employees. 

Major Interstate Highways 35 and 635 flood along with U.S. Highways 69 and 

169. The Main Lines of the Burlington-Northern and Santa-Fe railroads flood. 

We request that $2,500,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2005 for continued construction. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LIVERS BRONZE CO. 

Livers Bronze Co. moved into Swope Industrial in 1999. We purchased two buildings that house our lifetime investments and the futures for many families. Coming 

into this we needed FEMA flood insurance but also knew there was a project under 

way to give us flood protection which at some point would eliminate this costly insurance. We have an active association and go to regular meetings with the U.S. 

Corps of Engineers and our sponsor, Kansas City, MO. At this time we have completed both Reconnaissance and Feasibility studies. 

The Blue River has a history of flooding in Kansas City. Downstream of 63rd 

Street the work has nearly been finished; the Bannister project at 95th Street has 

completed and the Dodson project at 85th Street has just started. This leaves the 

Swope project at 75th Street in between, not started and could possibly put us at 

higher risk during high water events. The Swope project is truly the last piece of 

the Blue River puzzle with regard to the flood protection of industrial sites along 

the Blue in Kansas City. 

We request that the $600,000 be appropriated to complete the design phase of the 

Blue River, Swope Industrial project. The ongoing expenses and threats of future 

floods in our park are detrimental to the different industries in our park. Without 

your help, our businesses and the lives of our employees and associates will always 

have the threats of flooding in our future. Please help us complete this last segment 

of the Blue River project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SALVAJOR COMPANY

The Swope Park Industrial Association member companies have collectively 

worked for flood protection for many years, even prior to our flooding in 1990. We 

have met many times with our sponsor, Kansas City, MO, and the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, and have completed both Reconnaissance and Feasibility studies. 

Our location is separate of the Blue River Channel project that is from the mouth 

of the Blue River upstream to 63rd Street. As you know there are two other projects 

on the Blue River, the completed Bannister project at 95th Street and the newly 

under construction, Dodson project at 85th Street. Our location on 75th Street is between Bannister/Dodson and Blue River Channel projects. This location, between 

two active projects, puts us at higher risk than any other industrial area on the 

Blue River during high water events. Our project, when constructed, will complete 

the protection of industrial sites on the Blue River—the last piece of the puzzle. 

Even though we continue to work for the protection of our employees and the 

preservation of our business, we are now mostly concerned about continued funding 

of our project. We are a small project, and the only industrial area on the Blue River 
339 

with the risk of not realizing construction since our project is still in design phase, 

a phase that is in most risk of not being funded for the upcoming year. 

Without funding, Swope Park Industrial area companies will definitely lose investments in property and jobs that were created here long before we were designated flood plains. We realize we are only one of many projects that need funding, 

but our project is unique in our location, our size, and we are the key to completion 

of a great program that has already shown positive results in retaining business 

and reducing blight in the completed areas. We request that the $600,000 be appropriated to complete the design phase of the Blue River; Swope Park Industrial 

project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CLAY AND BAILEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY

On behalf of the 60 employees of Clay & Bailey Manufacturing Company, I am requesting that you provide the $8,000,000 in funding necessary to continue the 

Blue River Channel Project. 

Our company, like many others in the valley, were ‘‘high & dry’’ in the record 

floods of 1961 and 1977. However, because of the residential and commercial development of the upper Blue River basin in the State of Kansas, along with their paved 

parking lots and new storm sewer systems, we had 5 feet of water in our plant in 

1990. The $1.5 million in damages almost closed us down. 

The rainfall in 1990 was considerably less than in 1977, yet the extent of the 

flooding throughout the lower valley was much more severe. In 1993 and again in 

1995 the water was so high that we had to initiate our Emergency Flood Plan. This 

involves shutting down, raising motors and moving material. Besides costing thousands of dollars, it put employees out of work for several days. 

The Blue River flows through the industrial heart of Kansas City with most of 

the lower stretch in the Enterprise Zone. Increased flooding over the years has 

forced many industries to abandon the valley. The Army Corps of Engineers’ new 

estimated completion date has been extended from 1998 to 2008. The delay will 

cause more companies to move out of the valley either because they see the risk 

as unacceptable or they are washed away by a flood that should have been prevented. Likewise redevelopment of abandoned properties continues to be delayed. 

Meanwhile, remediation and redevelopment in the areas where the project is complete has been tremendous. Hundreds of millions of dollars of private money has already been expended to recover the abandoned industrial properties providing jobs 

and tax dollars. 

This is an economically sound project with a benefit to cost ratio of 3 to 1. Again we urge you to provide the $8,000,000 in funding to continue the project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE YAZOO- MISSISSIPPI DELTA

This statement, made on behalf of the citizens represented by the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee Board (YMD), is not only in support of the funding requests 

contained herein, but also for the general funding testimony offered for Fiscal 2005 

by the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association. I would ask that this statement 

be made part of the record. 

The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association is requesting of Congress fund- ing in the amount of $450 million for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project 

(MR&T), an amount based on the association’s professional assessment of the capabilities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi Valley Division. 

While we recognize that this is a time when the Federal budget is being inordinately strained by both a slowly recovering economy, the continued hostilities in 

Iraq and the ongoing war against terrorism, we also recognize both the Nation’s 

economy and the lives and livelihoods of its citizen’s rests upon the continued provision of adequate flood control for its heartland. 

In the aftermath of the devastating and historic Great Flood of 1927, the Flood 

Control Act of 1928 established as national priority, the development of a comprehensive flood control plan to reduce the likelihood of such a horrific events ever 

happening again in the Lower Mississippi Valley. As we look back, the MR&T has 

returned $284180 billion in benefits for the $11.90 billion invested—truly an American public works success story. 

However, much work remains uncompleted, and if the MR&T success story is to 

continue, Congress must give it a higher priority than has the administration in its 

budget. For the totality of the MR&T, the president proposes only $270 million, an 

amount which we find critically austere. 
340 

The YMD Levee Board urges the Congress to provide funding at a level which 

will allow the MR&T to continue at a pace commensurate with the national priority 

to protect people and property from the ravages of flooding. We urge Congress to 

provide funding in the amount of $450 million so that this national promise can be 

kept. 

A line item chart reflecting existing and needed funding levels for MR&T projects 

in the Lower Mississippi Valley follows, with special emphasis herein given to those 

projects most critical to our levee district: 

Mississippi River Levees.—Life as we know it simply could not continue in the 

Lower Mississippi Valley without its levee system. The need to keep our levee system strong and secure must be given a top priority. The administration’s budget 

earmarks only $7.665 million to maintaining our levees and we ask Congress to allocate $14.915 million for this critical need. 

Upper Yazoo Projects (UYP).—The top priority for the YMD Levee Board, the 

Upper Yazoo Projects, was conceived in 1936. The overall project includes a system 

of flood control reservoirs which discharge into a system of channels and levees intended to safely convey headwater from the hills into the Mississippi River. Perhaps 

the least contentious major flood control project in the country, the UYP is progressing smoothly, with virtually no public opposition. However, the proposed budget funds this project at only $3.850 million and we urge Congress to fully fund at 

the capability of the Corps of Engineers—$20 million—so that it might progress and 

the following be accomplished: 

—Complete Channel Item 5B; 

—Complete Item 7A and 7B structures; 

—Purchase project and mitigation lands; 

—Continue Channel Items 6A and 6B and; 

—Initiate bridge relocation. 

Delta Headwaters Project.—Formerly known as the Demonstration Erosion Control Project, this is a proven concept which works, and should continue, yet is unfunded and would be phased out. We urge Congress not to allow this. Vast amounts 

of sediments which would be controlled by this project would in its absence end up 

within the Coldwater/Tallahatchie/Yazoo river system. We urge Congress to appropriate $25 million for this badly needed effort. 

Yazoo Headwater Flood Control Reservoirs.—Four major flood control reservoirs 

exist in Mississippi to control the release of headwater into the Yazoo River system—Sardis, Arkabutla, Enid and Grenada. These have prevented significant flood 

damages by allowing excess waters to be released at controlled rates. All four are 

aging and require both routine maintenance and upgrading and we ask that the 

Congress do so at the following levels: 

—Arkabutla—$12.9 million; 

—Sardis—$19.322 million; 

—Enid—$13.679 million; 

—Grenada—$10.101 million. 

Big Sunflower River.—We ask that Congress fund at the level of $5 million so 

that Item 66 A/B at Swan Lake Levee might be completed and that, the purchase 

of mitigation lands mitigation and reforestation might continue. 

Big Sunflower River Maintenance Project.—We request Congress fund at the level 

of $2.139 million so that Items 2 and 4 might be initiated and design might continue. 

Yazoo Backwater Pumps.—Of critical concern to South Delta residents and our 

sister levee board, the Mississippi Levee Board; this project would alleviate backwater flooding. We support that effort and join in requesting funding at a level of 

$12 million so that planning and acquisition may continue and a pump supply contract might be initiated. 

Yazoo Backwater.—We ask Congress to appropriate $300,000 to continue pump 

operations at Greentree reservoirs and to appropriate $926,000 to rehabilitate bulkheads and provide environmental mitigation. 

Main Stem.—We seek $3.966 million to rehabilitate and replace drainage structures and we request $25,000 to monitor Sheley Bridge bank stabilization. 

Coldwater Basin.—We ask $750,000 so that a feasibility study might continue. 

Quiver River.—We seek $100,000 to continue a reconnaissance phase of this effort. 

Reformulation Unit.—We request $450,000 to complete reform of the backwater 

unit and continue work in the tributaries phase of this project. 

Finally, in an overall statement on proposed Peer Review Policy within the Corps 

of Engineers, we would prefer that any such reviews be mandated by Congress to 

take place only during the study phase of projects and not when actual work has 

begun. 
341 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREEN BROOK FLOOD CONTROL COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Vernon A. Noble, 

and I am the Chairman of the Green Brook Flood Control Commission. I submit 

this testimony in support of the Raritan River Basin—Green Brook Sub-Basin 

project, which we request be budgeted in fiscal year 2005 for $10,000,000 in Construction General funds. 

As you know from our previous testimony, a tremendous flood took place in September of 1999. Extremely heavy rainfall occurred, concentrated in the upper part 

of Raritan River Basin. As a result, the Borough of Bound Brook, New Jersey, located at the confluence of the Green Brook with the Raritan River, suffered catastrophic flooding. Water levels in the Raritan River and the lower Green Brook 

reached record levels. 

There were tremendous monetary damages, and extensive and tragic human suffering. 

The flooding of September 1999 is not the first bad flood to have struck this area. 

Records show that major floods have occurred here as far back as 1903. 

Disastrous flooding took place in the Green Brook Basin in the late summer of 

1971. That flood caused $304,000,000 in damages (April 1996 price level) and disrupted the lives of thousands of persons. 

In the late summer of 1973, another very severe storm struck the area, and again, 

thousands of persons were displaced from their homes. $482,000,000 damages was 

done (April 1996 price level) and six persons lost their lives. 

The first actual construction of the Project began in late fiscal year 2001, in which 

an old bridge over the Green Brook, connecting the Boroughs of Bound Brook and 

Middlesex, was replaced with a new and higher bridge. That work is now complete. 

The second construction contract, known as Segment T, began in 2002, and is now 

nearing completion. This work will complete the protection for the eastern portion 

of Bound Brook Borough. 

The next following segment of the Project is planned for construction to begin this 

year. This next construction, known as Segment U, will begin the protection for the 

western portion of Bound Brook Borough. 

When Congress authorized the Project for construction, it did so only for the lower 

and Stony Brook portions. This was the result of the objections raised in 1997 by 

the Municipality of Berkeley Heights, located in the highest elevation portion of the 

Green Brook Basin. 

In 1998 a Task Force was formed to seek a new consensus for protection of the 

upper portion of the Basin. 

Following the recommendations of the Task Force, in calendar year 2003, Resolutions of Support for protection of the upper portion of the Basin were adopted, along 

the lines of the recommendations of the Task Force. These new Resolutions of Support for the protection of the upper portion of the Basin, principally the Municipalities of Plainfield and Scotch Plains, were adopted by those Municipalities, and by 

the two affected Counties of Union and Somerset. 

A final design for a new plan to protect these upper basin Municipalities remains 

to be done. This work will involve a new effort by the Corps of Engineers, and of 

course will require that the Corps of Engineers enlist technical support for surveying, environmental investigations, and design studies, by the placing of appropriate contracts with qualified outside consulting engineering firms. 

This work will require many months, and contracts for actual construction of 

these protective measures for the upper portion of the region are not likely to be 

ready until several more years. It is understood that when these studies have been 

completed, it will be necessary for Congress to specifically authorize the final design 

of the recommended plan. That likely cannot happen until fiscal year 2006, or later. 

Meantime, it is essential that this preparatory work continue. And it is thus essential that the Corps of Engineers be authorized and allowed to place contracts for 

environmental and engineering studies in order to develop an acceptable plan for 

the protection of the upper portion of the Green Brook Basin. 

It is understood that specific action by the Congress is required at this time to 

authorize the Corps of Engineers to continue this work in fiscal year 2005 and beyond. It is also understood that before final design for protection of the upper portion of the Green Brook Basin can proceed, it will be necessary that a Project Cooperation Agreement be entered into between the Corps of Engineers and the State 

of New Jersey. Presumably, this Project Cooperation Agreement will be similar to 

the Agreement now in force between the Corps of Engineers and the State of New 

Jersey, which was made for the lower and Stony Brook portions of the Green Brook 

Basin. 
342 

Page one of the Syllabus contained in the approved Final General Re-evaluation 

Report of May 1997 contains the following: 

‘‘Accordingly, this final document is considered a decision document for construction of the lower and Stony Brook portions of the Basin, with continued planning 

and engineering of the separable upper portion of the Basin. The decision to construct the upper portion features will be deferred until such time that evaluations 

of additional information and views are completed and local interests have the opportunity to review findings.’’ 

To carry this work forward, it is essential that the Corps of Engineers be authorized, within the funds appropriated to them in fiscal year 2005, to place contracts 

for engineering and environmental studies pertaining to the protection of the upper 

portion of the Basin. 

It is to be noted that the Estimated Damages caused by the Flood of 1973, in the 

upper portion Municipalities only, reported in the final GRR of May 1997, page 33, 

showed that Estimated Damages in Plainfield, Scotch Plains and Watchung (the 

upper portion of the Basin) amounted to an estimated $357 million. 

We urge the members of Congress to direct the Corps of Engineers, within the 

funds made available to them for fiscal year 2005, to continue the necessary investigations and studies, and to authorize the Corps of Engineers to place contracts for 

such investigations as may be necessary, so that the preparatory work for the ultimate protection of the people and property within the upper portion of the Basin 

can be carried forward. 

The Green Brook Flood Control Commission is made up of appointed representatives from Middlesex, Somerset and Union Counties in New Jersey, and from the 

13 Municipalities within the Basin. This represents a combined population of about 

one-quarter of a million people. 

The Members of the Commission are all volunteers, and for 33 years have served, 

without pay, to advance the cause of flood protection for the Basin. Throughout this 

time, the Corps of Engineers, New York District, has kept us informed of the 

progress of their work, and a representative from the Corps has been a regular part 

of our monthly meetings. 

We believe that it is clearly essential that the Green Brook Flood Control Project 

be carried forward, and pursued vigorously, to achieve protection at the earliest possible date. This Project is needed to prevent loss of life and property, as well as the 

trauma caused every time there is a heavy rain. 

New Jersey has programmed budget money for its share of the Project in fiscal 

year 2005. 

We urgently request an appropriation for the Project in fiscal year 2005 of 

$10,000,000. 

With your continued support, the Green Brook Flood Control Commission is determined to see this Project through to completion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, for your vitally important past support for the Green Brook Flood Control Project; and we thank you 

for the opportunity to submit this Testimony. 
343 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MOSS LANDING HARBOR DISTRICT

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the chairman and 

members of the Board of Harbor Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity for 

me, Russell Jeffries, as President of the Board of Harbor Commissioners of Moss 

Landing Harbor District in California to submit prepared remarks to you for the 

record in support of the fiscal year 2005 energy and water regular appropriations 

measure. 

The commission recognizes and expresses its gratitude to our two senators, the 

Honorable Dianne Feinstein, a valuable member of this committee, and the Honorable Barbara Boxer for their continued assistance and support on our behalf. 

We express our profound appreciation to the subcommittee and full committee for 

its inclusion of $600,000 in fiscal year 2004 appropriated funds for the preparation 

of a screening level Ecological Risk Assessment under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Waterways Experiment Station supervision. The assessment was recently critiqued 

by a preeminent peer group of experts scholars representing a broad cross section 

of professional disciplines. 

This sets the stage—with the committee’s support—for the preparation of a firstever Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) for the Harbor District in order 

to plan for orderly maintenance dredging of the Federal channel and local berths 

next year and over the next 20 or more years. This effort is supported by a working 

group organized under national dredging team local planning guidance, including 

representatives of the Federal, State and local agencies, and other stakeholder and 

public interest groups with an interest in dredging activities. 

To put our needs in proper perspective, our geographical location and marine ecosystem is unique in that the Harbor District is located at the confluence of the 

Pajaro and Salinas rivers in between two national treasures—the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve—precluding most potential upland disposal sites for contaminated dredged 

material. The SF–12 aquatic disposal site is grandfathered for sanctuary purposes. 

It is located 50 yards offshore at the apex of the Monterey Bay Submarine Canyon 

which plunges to a depth of 8,000 feet in less than 1 mile. Every year. Periodic deposition, erosion, and flushing cycles transport thousands of tons of sedimentary material down the canyon like a chute—so much so that our dredged material is a miniscule amount measured against the total annual flushing event. 
344 

Periodic El Nin ̃ o events deposit trace elements of DDT in our harbor sediments 

traced to Salinas Valley Agriculture—America’s Salad Bowl—as a natural sink. 

With no realistic long term alternative—including upland disposal—to continued 

use of our current disposal site, our very livelihood as the largest fishing port on 

the central coast and largest concentration of marine scientific research south of Seattle, is at stake. 

Of amounts previously appropriated, approximately $2.4 million has been expended for maintenance dredging to date and $600,000 has been expended to begin 

the ERA process. Most of that was transferred to the Corps of Engineers Waterways 

Experiment Station (WES) to prepare a preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment 

(ERA). Previously appropriated operations and maintenance funds have already 

been expended to reimburse the San Francisco district for program management 

costs, conduct of the required economic analysis (including a finding of a very favorable current project benefit cost ratio of 1.7 to 1), DMMP plan formulation and 

project scoping including alternative upland disposal site analysis), and technical 

support to WES. 

The most significant findings of the screening comparative ERA were that in most 

cases the environmental impacts associated with periodic maintenance dredging and 

disposal at the SF–12 site were less than the no action alternative as periodic 

dredging removes the accumulation of contaminated material in the first few centimeters thereby reducing its bioavailability to benthic organisms at the base of the 

food web thereby precluding its absorption in the lipid tissue of higher trophic level 

organisms. 

With the committee’s support 2 years we completed a periodic dredging cycle of 

the Federal channel work and the Inner Harbor using a combination of beach replenishment and ocean disposal at the SF–12 historic disposal site for the first time 

in a decade. We anticipate that next year we will finally returned to a normal 3- 

year maintenance cycle of the Federal channel while local berth dredging of our allimportant commercial fishing and oceanographic vessel berths continues on an annual basis. 

During the next year we will be analyzing exiting data from a variety of sources 

including USGS, Moss Landing Marine Laboratory, and the Naval Post Graduate 

School among others filling in identified data gaps in the screening ERA to drive 

the WES model, as necessary completing complementary local site-specific scientific 

studies, and integrating all those results into the DMMP process. 

To this end we request the subcommittee’s approval of $600,000 in appropriations 

from the Operations and Maintenance General account in fiscal year 2004 in order 

to complete the ecological risk assessment and dredged material management plan 

so that the process is completed and plan implemented prior to the next periodic 

maintenance event scheduled to occur in fiscal year 2006. 

With the assistance of the local scientific community, we are fortunate to have as 

much as 3 years of scientific data in the form of benthic community biomass and 

tissue sampling, and first-ever near-shore state-of-the-art bathymetric survey of the 

disposal site and Monterey Bay Canyon. These efforts should prove invaluable in 

measuring before and after direct impacts of dredged material disposal at the disposal site. 

With the assistance of the San Francisco district, we were able to take advantage 

of last year’s dredging episode to do before and after measurement of both sedimentary transport at the disposal site and to measure any direct impacts on benthic 

communities—the source of any bioaccumulation of contaminated sediments in trace 

amounts. 

Despite the drastic differences between the use of the WES ERA model adapted 

from aquatic Mississippi River application and our unique submarine canyon ecosystem and volume of material, a tracer study using European technology was synchronized with the last disposal event that demonstrated the rapid dispersion of 

dredged material at the SF–12 site. We are confident that on the basis of our preliminary review—and that of the peer group—of the screening level ERA supported 

by local site specific analysis of data already collected and focused studies to augment the WES risk assessment model, the end result will be a document that will 

ultimately prove persuasive and compelling to the greater scientific community, 

Federal and State regulatory agencies, and an informed and involved public in our 

community. 

We now know that there is a considerable body of unpublished relevant data concerning the Monterey Bay Canyon and the impact, fate and effect of sedimentary 

material transport in the hands of the local scientific community that must be collected, catalogued, analyzed, and used both as input data and for comparison with 

the WES model so that each can operate as an invaluable countercheck on the out-
345 

put results of the other in predicting and directly measuring the impacts of dredged 

material disposal at our ocean disposal site. 

Based upon our experience thus far, the funds expended completing the DMMP/ 

ERA process in developing a persuasive case to the various constituencies and decision document supporting continued aquatic disposal for all but a very small fraction of total dredged material in exceptional circumstances over a 20 year span of 

the study will save significant amounts of scarce Federal and local dollars in the 

future. 

That said, we sincerely hope our experience in this effort will: 

(1) produce both a useful and practical multidisciplinary decision document for 

those agencies exercising regulatory or oversight jurisdiction over dredging in both 

our and other settings; and 

(2) serve as a model for collaborative effort in dredged material disposal consensus 

decision-making in unique situations such as for other Corps districts and local 

sponsors seeking to balance required maintenance dredging to support navigation 

with the corresponding need to protect environmentally sensitive areas, in this instance the unique Monterey Submarine Canyon located at the heart of the Monterey 

Bay Marine Sanctuary. 

I am prepared to supplement my prepared remarks for the record in response to 

any questions that the chair, subcommittee members, or staff may wish to have me 

answer. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. This concludes my prepared remarks. 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PORT COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY; NEW JERSEY MARITIME RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF NEW JERSEY; EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STATE OF NEW YORK; AND NEW YORK CITY ECONOMIC DEVEL- OPMENT CORPORATION

On behalf of the Port of New York and New Jersey, we thank you for your continued support of the Nation’s navigation system. We appreciate the consistent level 

of funding that the committee has provided this bi-State gateway that we are preparing for tomorrow’s commerce in partnership with the Federal Government. We 

were very pleased that Chairman David Hobson and Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen 

were able to visit the port earlier this year. We would welcome all members of the 

subcommittee to get a first-hand look at the harbor and its role in the U.S. transportation system. 

We are gratified that in the fiscal year 2005 budget the administration maintains 

the deepening of the Port’s main system of channels as a priority. As such, we 

strongly endorse the President’s request for $103,000,000 for the NY & NJ Harbor 

Deepening Project. As pleased as we are with that, we also share the concerns of 

many in the national water resources sector that the overall civil works program 

is shrinking. That is happening even as demand for navigation and other water resource projects remains high. Our transportation and economic systems will remain 

strong as long as the Nation’s infrastructure is up to the task and natural resources 

are in good condition. The long-term capacity of the Corps of Engineers to help nonFederal governments tackle infrastructure needs depends on strong funding. 

Business in the Port of NY/NJ continues to increase at a strong pace, lending credence to the government’s view that investing in port channels is good for the Nation. In 2003, our region’s marine terminals handled a record 4 million TEUs, an 

increase of roughly 300,000 TEUs over 2002. More steamship lines are starting allwater service to the East Coast to reduce costs and their reliance on ports of only 

one U.S. coast. This continuing trend promises greater cargo throughput in the 

years ahead. The Port and industry are preparing for the influx with a $1.46 billion 

redevelopment program that includes underwater, terminal, and access improvements. That public/private investment illustrates the partnership between the Federal and non-Federal investors in the Nation’s economic future. The bi-State Port 

supports almost 40,000 terminal-based jobs and over 189,000 off-terminal positions, 

but the benefits are not limited to our region. Nationwide, almost 186,000 additional 

jobs are supported by the Port. The Port directly serves the Northeast and Midwest 

as well as most States in the continental United States. The channel projects will 

improve transportation efficiency that will benefit those markets and our national 

defense. 

Crucial to the Port redevelopment program is the support of Governor James 

McGreevey and Governor George Pataki. They made strong commitments to investing Port Authority and other resources to make the Port and regional freight transportation more efficient, and the Port’s natural resources healthier. We are proud 
346 

of the support that businesses, labor, local government and others, listed at the top 

of this statement, have given to this most productive port on the Atlantic Ocean. 

Below are our comments on the fiscal year 2005 budget request. We enthusiastically support the administration’s request with respect to the Harbor Deepening 

Project and respectfully request that the subcommittee appropriate funds at higher 

levels for select projects as noted and discussed below. Projects in bold lettering are 

requests beyond the fiscal year 2005 budget levels. 

Budget Port Request 

Construction: New York & New Jersey Harbor ........................................................................ $103,000,000 $103,000,000 

Surveys (Studies): 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary, NY & NJ ................................................................................. 450,000 2,500,000 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary, Lower Passaic River, NJ ........................................................ 50,000 1,500,000 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary, Gowanus Canal, NY .............................................................. 150,000 1,500,000 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary, Meadowlands, NJ ................................................................... 100,000 850,000 

TOTAL ......................................................................................................................... 750,000 6,350,000 

Operation and Maintenance: 

Buttermilk Channel, NY ................................................................................................. 1,030,000 1,030,000 

East River, NY ................................................................................................................ 370,000 370,000 

East Rockaway Inlet, NY ................................................................................................ 2,100,000 2,100,000 

Flushing Bay & Creek, NY ............................................................................................. ........................ 11,000,000 

Hudson River Channel ................................................................................................... ........................ 4,500,000 

Jamaica Bay, NY ............................................................................................................ 2,200,000 2,200,000 

New York Harbor, NY & NJ Drift Removal ..................................................................... 5,414,000 5,914,000 

New York Harbor, NY ..................................................................................................... 4,235,000 4,235,000 

New York & New Jersey Channels ................................................................................. 5,700,000 7,000,000 

Newark Bay, Hackensack & Passaic Rivers, NJ ............................................................ 120,000 3,000,000 

Project Condition Surveys, NJ ........................................................................................ 1,670,000 1,670,000 

Project Condition Surveys, NY ....................................................................................... 1,075,000 1,075,000 

Raritan River, NJ ............................................................................................................ ........................ 2,500,000 

Westchester Creek, NY ................................................................................................... ........................ 100,000 

TOTAL ......................................................................................................................... 23,914,000 46,744,000 

CONSTRUCTION

New York and New Jersey Harbor 

This project was authorized by Section 101(a)(2) of WRDA 2000 (Public Law 106– 

541). It includes deepening the Ambrose Channel from deep water to the VerrazanoNarrows Bridge to 53 feet mlw, and deepening the Anchorage Channel and those 

channels that lead to the principal general cargo and breakbulk marine terminal 

areas to 50 feet mlw. The Corps of Engineers and the intended project sponsor are 

engaged in pre-construction engineering and design work to bring this project into 

construction seamlessly as the Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay deepening to 45 feet 

is concluded in late 2004. To facilitate project transition, the intended project sponsor is completing a construction contract to deepen to 50-feet portions of the Kill 

Van Kull and Newark Bay channels as a complement to the Corps’ 45-foot project. 

These efforts and the overall commitment of the Port to the projects are strong testimony to our desire to advance this project with the Federal Government. We urge 

adoption of the budget request. 

SURVEYS (STUDIES)

Hudson-Raritan Estuary Studies 

These studies were authorized by House Committee Resolution dated April 15, 

1999, Docket Number 2596. Increases are requested for the studies in order to 

achieve the completion schedules of 2005 for the New York & New Jersey and 

Lower Passaic studies and 2004 for the Gowanus study. 

—New York & New Jersey.—The study purpose is to identify projects to restore 

estuarine, wetland and adjacent upland buffer habitat throughout the port region to the extent practicable and in keeping with existing port and regional 

management plans. The Corps and the Port Authority signed the Feasibility 

Cost Sharing Agreement on July 12, 2001, and immediately began the study. 

Natural resource areas, degraded as a result of historic damage, need to be re-
347 

turned to their full potential. The continued loss of wetlands, not only through 

development but due to inexplicable causes, will require further analysis, monitoring and restoration. One project that can move on a fast track is Liberty 

State Park, where the State of New Jersey has all of its required project funds 

on hand, ready to provide to the Corps for construction. Given the past funding 

levels, the Corps is unable to proceed both with the Liberty State Park and the 

comprehensive regional study. We respectfully request that the budget be augmented to $2,500,000 to allow the Corps to keep its commitments to place the 

environment on an equal footing with navigation improvements. 

—Lower Passaic.—Local communities throughout the Passaic River Basin requested a program of improvements to remediate and restore the river. The 

river and adjacent shorelines have been degraded by historic industrial/commercial activity and associated impacts of urban development. The Corps initiated 

the Reconnaissance Phase in January 2000 that recommended a separate study 

for the tidal influence of the Lower Passaic River. In June 2003, the Corps, in 

partnership with EPA and the NJDOT/Office of Maritime Resources, completed 

a comprehensive Project Management Plan (PMP) that integrates the work of 

all three agencies into a single study to determine the best approach. In the 

same month, the Corps signed the Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement (FCSA) 

with the Office of Maritime Resources and began the feasibility study. This 

project also has been designated as a pilot project under the joint Corps-EPA 

Urban Rivers Restoration Initiative. Despite the outstanding coordination between the three agencies, Federal funding is a concern. We are pleased that the 

non-Federal matching funding will be available as the project requires. EPA expects sufficient funding from PRPs to begin field investigations by Fall 2004. 

As such, lack of Federal funding will jeopardize the Corps’ ability to participate 

in the joint fieldwork envisioned in the PMP. For that reason, we request that 

the budget be augmented to $1,500,000 for this study. 

—Gowanus.—The feasibility study will assess the environmental problems and 

potential solutions in the Gowanus Canal and Bay. Restoration measures will 

assess hot spot clean-up of off-channel contaminated sediments, contaminant reduction measures, creation of wetlands, water quality improvements, and alteration of hydrology/hydraulics to improve water movement and quality. This has 

been designated as a pilot project under the joint Corps-EPA Urban Rivers Restoration Initiative. A FCSA was executed with the NYC Department of Environmental Protection in March 2002. The City has committed its full share to the 

project, and awaits the Federal match. In order to continue the study restoration of this highly contaminated, visible urban body of water (including benefits 

to human health), we request that the budget be augmented to $1,500,000. 

—Hackensack.—This study will look at the feasibility of restoring wetlands in the 

Hackensack Meadowlands area and will assess toxic waste remediation potential. The area’s existing wildlife habitat preserves are threatened by dwindling 

open marshes. The local sponsor is the NJ Meadowlands Commission, which 

has committed funding, and looks toward the Federal share. We respectfully request that the budget be augmented to $850,000 for this study aimed at protecting marshes, tidal creeks and open spaces. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Operation and maintenance projects are critical to the commerce, navigation and 

security of the Port as well as the Nation’s security. If channels are not maintained 

to official depths and as needed by today’s commerce, the efficiency of the Federal 

system of channels is lost and the risk of groundings increases. The Corps deepened 

the Newark Bay channel that leads to the Port Newark/Elizabeth terminal complex 

from 35 feet to 40 feet in 1995 as part of Phase 1 of the Kill Van Kull-Newark Bay 

45-foot deepening project. In fiscal year 2002, Congress appropriated funds that enabled only partial maintenance of that channel, leaving significant areas at shallow 

and potentially unsafe depths. Unfortunately, the proposed budget would provide insufficient funding to adequately maintain Federal channels in the Port. The Port is 

one the Nation’s busiest petroleum ports and the Arthur Kill and Raritan River 

channels are critical to that trade. Maintenance of the two channels is needed to 

support the industry, which serves not only the greater New York metropolitan area 

but much of the American northeast. Of course, maintenance also protects and perpetuates the Federal infrastructure investment. 

With the above concerns in mind, we think it is important to be on the record 

as to how this part of the fiscal year 2005 budget is insufficient to meet the practical 

needs of commerce. We respectfully request that the budget be augmented by 

$22,830,000 to $46,744,000 for Port channel operation and maintenance work. This 
348 

also would enable the Corps to address serious shoaling problems in industrial and 

commercial portions of Flushing Creek, the Arthur Kill, the Hudson River Channel 

and the Raritan River, and to maintain on-going activities and upgrade the operational facilities at the Corps’ Caven Point facility relative to the important, ongoing 

New York Harbor Drift Removal efforts. 

CONCLUSION

The Port of New York & New Jersey continues to be a major gateway for a substantial part of the country. Cargo volume has grown, even while the economy 

struggles, and has been a source of increased jobs and commercial investment. The 

civil works program in the Port, coupled with public and private sector investments, 

has served well the Nation’s economic and security interests for the better part of 

two centuries. The same is true in ports across the United States. We are proud 

of that history and commit to continuing this productive partnership with the Federal Government so that our region will serve the Nation for centuries to come. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION

My name is M.V. Williams, I serve as President of the West Tennessee Tributaries Association and submit this statement on behalf of the Mississippi Valley 

Flood Control Association. It is my privilege to serve as Chairman of the Executive 

Committee for the Association. 

The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association was first organized in 1922 and 

played a very large role in gaining authorization for the first major Federal water 

resources bill, the Flood Control Act of 1928 that established the Mississippi River 

and Tributaries Project. This statement is in support of additional funding for that 

project. 

Today our Nation is faced with a war on terror and we are also mindful of the 

fact that we must rectify an economic condition that needs immediate attention. 

Even faced with those facts, we feel that we are justified in urging additional appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project because the assets and 

resources of this great Nation must not be neglected during these times. We know 

of no other appropriation which contributes as much to national wealth and resources as does flood control and navigation for the major rivers of this country. 

Millions of acres which were overflow lands decades ago are now highly productive and contributing to our national wealth. These lands by reason of their geographic location are the most fertile of the Nation. They produce an abundance of 

food and fiber for the general welfare and prosperity of the country. This is only 

possible because of the coordinated work performed by the United States Corps of 

Engineers and the local people. 

The inland waterways of the Nation provide the cheapest and in some cases the 

only method to move bulk commodities that are absolutely essential to the general 

welfare and prosperity of the country. Moneys appropriated by Congress for flood 

control and navigation has and will augment our natural resources and improve our 

economic well-being. The appropriations made by Congress for the Mississippi River 

and Tributaries Project are investments in this Nation’s future. 

Since the productivity of the millions of acres of low lying lands adjacent to the 

main stem of the Mississippi River are totally dependent upon the integrity of the 

flood control works, any major slow down in the completion of this work will represent economic strangulation to this productive portion of our Nation. 

If no funds are added to the President’s budget request, the Corps of Engineers 

will be forced to curtail operations of locks and some harbors may be closed from 

lack of maintenance dredging. This will mean the loss of jobs and possible closure 

of plants that have millions of dollars invested in their facilities. Recreational areas 

will be forced to close, disrupting the lives of millions of citizens from all walks of 

life. 

In addition to the problems with the inadequate funding in the President’s budget 

request, we also have a tremendous problem with the fact that the Office of Management and Budget is attempting to dictate policy matters by the use of the budget 

submission. The greatest damage from this policy change would be to take the Congress out of its historical role of legislating policy for the flood control and navigation programs that have played a large part in making the United States the greatest industrial and commercial nation on the globe—with its resources, its wealth 

and productive capability that has saved the world in war and sustained it through 

years of troubled peace. 

The executive department is again attempting to supplant this historical Congressional role and assume these policy making functions. In past attempts, the Con-
349 

gress in its wisdom has soundly rejected these attempts. We would urge this Congress to do the same. 

In closing let me reemphasize that Federal works projects with proven merit such 

as the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project represent a sound Federal investment which has and will return to the tax payers of this country generous dividends. Such Federal investments contribute to the economic well being of the Nation by reducing unemployment; adding to the stability and economic growth of agriculture and industry; and providing a flood free environment for the welfare of the 

people of the Mississippi River Valley. 

For these and other reasons, we are firmly convinced that the amount of appropriations required in fiscal year 2005 for the Mississippi River and Tributaries 

Project is $450,000,000. An attached sheet to this statement reflects our request in 

more detail. 

Speaking for the entire Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association, I wish to 

thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present this statement and special 

thanks for the actions that this group has taken in the past to assist us with our 

problems and concerns with water resources. 

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION—FISCAL YEAR 2005 CIVIL WORKS REQUESTED 

BUDGET—MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES PROJECT—MAINTENANCE 

Project President’s 

Budget MVFCA Request 

Wappapello Lake, MO .............................................................................................................. $4,046,000 $6,352,000 

Mississippi River Levees ......................................................................................................... 7,665,000 14,915,000 

Dredging .................................................................................................................................. 20,515,000 20,515,000 

Revetment and Dikes .............................................................................................................. 48,760,000 48,760,000 

Memphis Harbor, TN ............................................................................................................... 1,205,000 2,010,000 

Helena Harbor, TN ................................................................................................................... 385,000 510,000 

Greenville Harbor, MS ............................................................................................................. 29,000 412,000 

Vicksburg Harbor, MS ............................................................................................................. 32,000 345,000 

St. Francis River & Tribs, AR ................................................................................................. 6,080,000 8,805,000 

White River Backwater, AR ..................................................................................................... 1,316,000 2,260,000 

North Bank, Arkansas River, AR ............................................................................................. 146,000 146,000 

South Bank, Arkansas River, AR ............................................................................................ 122,000 122,000 

Boeuf & Tensas Rivers, LA ..................................................................................................... 2,160,000 2,160,000 

Red River Backwater, LA ........................................................................................................ 3,083,000 7,390,000 

Yazoo Basin, Sardis Lake, MS ................................................................................................ 7,046,000 19,322,000 

Yazoo Basin, Arkabutla Lake, MS ........................................................................................... 5,710,000 12,900,000 

Yazoo Basin, Enid Lake, MS ................................................................................................... 4,954,000 13,679,000 

Yazoo Basin, Grenada Lake, MS ............................................................................................. 5,553,000 10,101,000 

Yazoo Basin, Greenwood, MS .................................................................................................. 585,000 2,035,000 

Yazoo Basin, Yazoo City, MS .................................................................................................. 729,000 729,000 

Yazoo Basin, Main Stem, MS .................................................................................................. 1,013,000 3,966,000 

Yazoo Basin, Tributaries, MS .................................................................................................. 923,000 923,000 

Yazoo Basin, Whittington Aux Channel, MS ........................................................................... 400,000 400,000 

Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower, MS ............................................................................................ 139,000 2,139,000 

Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater, MS ........................................................................................ 440,000 926,000 

Lower Red River, South Bank, LA ........................................................................................... 105,000 105,000 

Bonnet Carre, LA ..................................................................................................................... 2,310,000 3,100,000 

Old River, LA ........................................................................................................................... 7,350,000 29,900,000 

Atchafalaya Basin, LA ............................................................................................................. 13,000,000 25,000,000 

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, LA ............................................................................................. 2,775,000 4,200,000 

Baton Rouge Harbor Devil’s Swamp, LA ................................................................................ 14,000 300,000 

Miss Delta Region, LA ............................................................................................................. 588,000 588,000 

Bayou Cocodrie & Tribs, LA .................................................................................................... 65,000 65,000 

Inspection of Completed Works .............................................................................................. 1,500,000 1,700,000 

Mapping .................................................................................................................................. 1,112,000 1,325,000 

Total MR&T Maintenance .......................................................................................... 151,855,000 248,105,000 
350 

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION—FISCAL YEAR 2005 CIVIL WORKS REQUESTED 

BUDGET—MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS 

Project and State President’s 

Budget MVFCA Request 

Surveys, Continuation of Planning and Engineering & Advance Engineering & Design: 

Memphis Harbor, TN ...................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Germantown, TN ............................................................................................................. $27,000 $27,000 

Millington, TN ................................................................................................................. 100,000 100,000 

Fletcher Creek, TN .......................................................................................................... 93,000 93,000 

Memphis Metro Storm Water Management, TN ............................................................. ........................ 100,000 

Bayou Meto, AR .............................................................................................................. ........................ 2,447,000 

Germantown, TN ............................................................................................................. ........................ 200,000 

Southeast Arkansas ....................................................................................................... ........................ 600,000 

Coldwater Basin Below Arkabutla Lake, MS ................................................................. 203,000 750,000 

Quiver River, MS ............................................................................................................ ........................ 100,000 

Spring Bayou, LA ............................................................................................................ 500,000 600,000 

Point Coupee to St. Mary Parish, LA ............................................................................. ........................ 100,000 

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, LA* ..................................................................... 100,000 100,000 

Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico ............................................................................. 435,000 435,000 

Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico .............................................................................. 1,500,000 10,000,000 

Donaldsonville, LA to the Gulf of Mexico ...................................................................... 800,000 1,200,000

Tensas River, LA ............................................................................................................ ........................ 500,000 

Donaldsonville Port Development, LA ............................................................................ ........................ 100,000 

Collection & Study of Basic Data ................................................................................. 700,000 700,000 

Subtotal, Surveys, Continuation of Planning & Engineering & Advance Engineering & Design ......................................................................................................... 4,458,000 18,152,000 

Construction: 

St. John’s Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO ................................................................. 8,300,000 8,300,000 

Eight Mile Creek, AR ...................................................................................................... 1,357,000 3,293,000 

Helena & Vicinity, AR ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Grand Prairie Region, AR ............................................................................................... ........................ 20,000,000 

Bayou Meto, AR .............................................................................................................. ........................ 18,000,000 

West Tennessee Tributaries, TN ..................................................................................... ........................ 700,000 

Nonconnah Creek, TN ..................................................................................................... 2,153,000 2,753,000 

Wolf River, Memphis, TN ............................................................................................... ........................ 2,400,000 

August to Clarendon Levee, Lower White River, AR ...................................................... ........................ 2,000,000 

St. Francis Basin, MO & AR .......................................................................................... 3,000,000 9,500,000 

Yazoo Basin, MS ............................................................................................................ 5,850,000 62,775,000 

Atchafalaya Basin, LA .................................................................................................... 22,495,000 32,500,000 

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, LA .................................................................................... 7,200,000 10,000,000 

MS Delta Region, LA ...................................................................................................... 1,800,000 4,700,000 

Horn Lake Creek, MS ..................................................................................................... ........................ 203,000 

MS & LA Estaurine Area, MS & LA ............................................................................... ........................ 50,000 

Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA ................................................. 36,882,000 44,082,000 

Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA ............................................... 38,960,000 54,800,000 

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................... 127,997,000 276,056,000 

Subtotal, Maintenance ............................................................................................... 151,855,000 248,105,000 

Subtotal, Mississippi River & Tributaries ................................................................. 284,310,000 542,313,000 

Less Reduction for Savings & Slippage ................................................................... ¥14,310,000 92,313,000 

Grand Total, Mississippi River & Tributaries ........................................................... 270,000,000 450,000,000 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY AND

THE CITY OF MESA, ARIZONA

Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Reid, and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for allowing us to testify on behalf of the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) and the City of Mesa in support of a fiscal 

year 2005 appropriation of $1.5 million for the Va Shly’ay Akimel, Arizona, project 

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This project, intended to restore a degraded 
351 

stretch of the Salt River in central Arizona, is critically important to the tribe, the 

City, and the region. Mr. Chairman, because of this subcommittee’s efforts, $800,000 was appropriated 

for the feasibility phase of the Va Shly’ay Akimel project in fiscal year 2004. We 

are extremely grateful for the subcommittee’s ongoing support of the project. We respectfully request your continued support for this project in fiscal year 2005 with 

an appropriation of $1.5 million, which will initiate the pre-construction engineering 

and design portion (PED) of the project. 

Like many projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Va Shly’ay is drastically 

underfunded in the President’s budget. Although the budget does include $349,000 

for the project in fiscal year 2004, the Corps has a capability of $1.5 to initiate PED 

in the coming year. We hope that the subcommittee will provide this level of funding 

in order to contain costs and maintain an optimal project schedule. 

SRPMIC and the City of Mesa fully recognize the importance of restoring the Salt 

River’s environmental integrity. As a consequence, the tribe and City—the non-Federal sponsors of the project—remain committed to discharging the requisite costsharing obligations associated with the project. We would also note that, as far as 

we know, this project is the only one in the Nation featuring a joint cost-share 

agreement between an Indian tribe and a local community. This makes it a unique 

project of the Corps of Engineers. We have every reason to believe that this example 

of municipal-tribal cooperation could serve as a model for future joint projects of 

tribal communities and local governments. 

In conclusion, it is critically important that this project remain on an optimal 

schedule. The Corps has expressed a maximum capability of $1.5 million to initiate 

PED on this project in fiscal year 2005. On behalf of the SRPMIC and the City of 

Mesa, we ask that you fully fund the Va Shly’ay Akimel project at $1.5 million in 

fiscal year 2005. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement regarding the 

fiscal year 2005 budget for the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Tribe asks 

that Congress provide $27,000,000 in the Corps’ construction budget for critical 

projects in the South Florida Ecosystem, as authorized in section 528 of the Water 

Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996, and amended by section 208 of WRDA 

1999. The critical projects program is tasked with completing ten projects, one of 

which is complete, and the remaining nine either completing planning and design 

or construction. The Seminole Tribe has partnered with the Corps to design, build, 

and operate the critical project on the Big Cypress Reservation, located in the western basins of the Everglades, directly north of the Big Cypress National Preserve. 

On January 7, 2000, the Tribe and the Corps signed a Project Coordination Agreement for the Big Cypress Reservation’s critical project. The Tribe’s critical project 

includes a complex water conservation plan and a canal that transverses the Reservation. In signing this Agreement, the Tribe, as the local sponsor, committed to 

funding half of the cost of this approximately $50 million project. The project is divided into two phases; construction of the first phase is complete and planning and 

design on the second phase will be complete in a few months, allowing construction 

to begin in fiscal year 2005. 

The Seminole Tribe’s project addresses the environmental degradation wrought by 

decades of Federal flood control construction and polluted urban and other agricultural runoff. The interrupted sheet flow and hydroperiod have stressed native species and encouraged the spread of exotic species. Nutrient-laden runoff has supported the rapid spread of cattails, which choke out the periphyton algae mat and 

sawgrass necessary for the success of the wet/dry cycle that supports the wildlife 

of the Everglades. This is designed to mitigate the degradation the ecosystem has 

suffered through decades of flood control projects and urban and agricultural use 

and ultimately to restore the Nation’s largest wetlands to a healthy state. 

The Seminole Tribe’s critical project provides for the design and construction of 

flood control, storage, and treatment facilities on the western half of the Big Cypress 

reservation with other conveyance facilities on the eastern side. The project elements include canal and pump conveyance systems, including major canal bypass 

structures, irrigation storage cells, and water quality polishing areas. This project 

will enable the Tribe to meet targets for low phosphorus concentrations, as well as 

to convey and store irrigation water and improve flood control. It will also provide 

an important public benefit: a new system to convey excess water from the western 

basins to the Big Cypress National Preserve, where water is vitally needed for rehydration and restoration of natural systems within the Preserve. 
352 

Improving the water quality of the basins feeding into the Big Cypress National 

Preserve and the Everglades National Park is vital to restoring the Everglades for 

future generations. Congress has acknowledged this need through the passage of the 

last three Water Resource Development Acts. This committee has consistently 

shown its support through appropriating requested amounts over the last seven fiscal years. By continuing to grant this appropriation request for critical project funding, the Federal Government will take another substantive step towards improving 

the quality of the surface water that flows over the Big Cypress Reservation and 

on into the delicate Everglades ecosystem. Such responsible action with regard to 

the Big Cypress Reservation, which is Federal land held in trust for the Tribe, will 

send a clear message that the Federal Government is committed to Everglades restoration and the Tribe’s stewardship of its land. 

Completion of the critical project requires a substantial commitment from the 

Tribe, including the dedication of over 2,400 acres of land for water management 

improvements and meeting a 50/50 cost share. The Tribe has completed the first 

phase of construction with the main conveyance canal. As the Tribe moves forward 

with its contribution to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, increasing 

Federal financial assistance will be needed as well. 

The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the Federal Government to also participate in that 

effort. This effort benefits not just the Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians who depend on a reliable supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and 

all Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida. The Tribe will provide additional information upon request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

On behalf of our citizens and fishermen, Volusia County, Florida requests that the 

Energy & Water Subcommittee appropriate: —$3,500,000 in fiscal year 2005 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) 

Construction account to fund an 1,000 foot seaward extension of the South Jetty 

of the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. The South Jetty seaward extension, along with the 

North Jetty landward extension funded in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2002 and 

completed in June 2003, is essential for safe inlet navigation and protection of 

the Federal investment in the Inlet channel. 

—$3,000,000 in fiscal year 2005 to the Corps’ Operations and Maintenance account to fund the removal of 300,000 cubic yards of sand from the North Cut 

of the Ponce DeLeon Inlet to provide for safe navigation until the South Jetty 

construction is complete. 

—$500,000 in fiscal year 2005 to the Corps’ General Investigations account to 

fund the feasibility study for the Volusia County Shore Protection project for the 

shore protection of 49.5 miles of Volusia County beaches. 

A more detailed case history and description of the situation and projects follow 

below. 

PONCE DELEON INLET

Ponce DeLeon Inlet is located on the east coast of Florida, about 10 miles south 

of the City of Daytona Beach in Volusia County. The Inlet is a natural harbor connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the Halifax River and Indian Rivers and the Atlantic Intra-coastal Waterway (AICW). Ponce DeLeon Inlet provides the sole ocean access to all of Volusia County and is the only stabilized inlet on the east coast of 

Florida between St. Augustine and Cape Canaveral, a distance of 112 miles. Fishing 

parties and shrimp and commercial fisherman bound for New Smyrna Beach or 

Daytona Beach use the Inlet, as well as others entering for anchorage. Nearby fisheries enhanced by the County’s artificial reef program attract both commercial and 

sport fisherman. Head boat operators also provide trips to view marine life and 

space shuttle launches from Cape Canaveral. In addition, U.S. Coast Guard Lifeboat 

Station Ponce is located immediately inside Ponce de Leon Inlet and provides navigation safety and security for boaters, fisherman, divers and sailors from the entire 

east central Florida region. 

Unfortunately, the Inlet is highly unstable and, despite numerous navigation 

projects, continues to threaten safe passage for the charter boat operators and commercial fisherman who rely on the access it provides for their livelihood. Recreational boaters and Coast Guard operators are also at risk passing through this 

unstable inlet. The shoaling of the channels in the Inlet so restricts dependable 

navigation that the Coast Guard no longer marks the north channel in order to dis-
353 

courage its use. The Coast Guard continues to move the south and entrance channel 

markers and provides warnings that local knowledge and extreme caution must be 

used in navigating the inlet. More seriously, the Coast Guard search and rescue 

data for fiscal years 1981–1995 show that 20 deaths have resulted from vessels capsizing in the Inlet, the direct result of the Inlet’s instability. One hundred forty 

seven vessels capsized and 496 vessels ran aground in the Inlet during the same 

period. 

The Federal interest in navigation through the Ponce DeLeon Inlet dates back to 

1884 and continues to the present. The existing navigation project was authorized 

by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965. The construction authorized by that Act, 

including ocean jetties on the north and south sides of the Inlet, was completed in 

July 1972. It became evident soon after completion of the authorized project that 

the project did not bring stability to the Inlet. A strong northeaster in February 

1973 created a breach between the western end of the North Jetty and the sand 

spit the Jetty was connected to inside the Inlet. The breach allowed schoaling to 

occur that was serious enough to close boat yards and require almost $2 million 

worth of repairs, including extending the western end of the North Jetty. 

Under the existing maintenance agreement entered into upon completion of the 

construction, the Corps periodically performs maintenance on the Inlet. Maintenance projects have included several dredging efforts, adding stone sections to the 

south side of the North Jetty, extending the westward end of the North Jetty for 

the second time, and closing the North Jetty weir. Prior to the North Jetty project 

discussed below, the Corps’ last maintenance was dredging, completed on the entrance channel in January 1990. 

In fiscal year 1998, the Corps received a $3,500,000 appropriation for emergency 

maintenance on the North Jetty. Migration of the entrance channel undermined the 

North Jetty, seriously threatening its structural integrity. The fiscal year 1998 

funds were used to construct a granite rock scour apron for the 500 to 600 feet of 

where the Jetty was undermined. 

In fiscal year 1999, the Corps received $4,034,000 from the Operations and Maintenance account to extend the North Jetty of the Inlet landward by 800 feet. This 

maintenance project was completed in July 2002 to prevent the erosion that will 

cause outflanking of the North Jetty. Continued outflanking of the west end of the 

North Jetty could create a new inlet for the Halifax and Indian Rivers resulting in 

major changes to the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. The resultant shoaling of both the north 

and south channels, as well as changes to the entrance channel, would make passage through the inlet extremely dangerous and unpredictable. 

In fiscal year 2000, the Corps received $7,696,000 in their Operations and Maintenance account for use in the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. This appropriation provided funding to continue the North Jetty project, funding for surveys designed to determine 

the scope of a new maintenance contract for the Ponce De Leon Inlet, and funding 

for a dredging project to address a minor maintenance issue under the existing 

maintenance contract. 

In fiscal year 2001, the Corps received $46,000 in their Operations and Maintenance account for standard maintenance of the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. 

In fiscal year 2002, Congress appropriated $2.032 million to the Corps’ Operations 

and Maintenance account for completion of the North Jetty construction. The Corps 

completed construction of this project in July 2002. 

In fiscal year 2003, Congress provided $1 million in the Corps’ Construction account for commencement of the South Jetty oceanward extension, as authorized by 

WRDA 1999. 

In fiscal year 2004, Congress provided $500,000 in the Corps’ Construction account for construction of the South Jetty oceanward extension, as authorized by 

WRDA 1999. 

For fiscal year 2005, Volusia County requests that the Corps receive $3.5 million 

for the balance of the Federal share of construction funds for the South Jetty 

oceanward extension. The project manager expects the South Jetty to be constructed 

in one fiscal year. The Corps anticipates that the construction of the Jetty extensions will help stabilize the Inlet and reduce future maintenance costs. In addition 

to creating a safer navigation environment, completion of the South Jetty, to complement the North Jetty, will save future Federal maintenance costs. 

The Ponce DeLeon Inlet presents a serious engineering challenge, the success of 

which is measured in terms of human life and vessel damage. The existing project 

has failed to stabilize the Inlet. Extending the North Jetty was the first step toward 

correcting the failure and meeting the challenge. Full funding of the 1,000 foot 

oceanward extension of the South Jetty is the next critical step toward providing 

safe passage for the commercial and recreational boaters in Volusia County. 
354 

State agencies, including the Florida Inland Navigation District and the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection agree and therefore have committed to assisting the County in meeting the local cost share. In addition, providing these 

funds at this time is likely to prevent the need for a much more substantial maintenance project in the near future. 

In addition to the construction funding for the jetty projects to protect the Ponce DeLeon Inlet, the County also requests $3,000,000 be appropriated in the Corps’ Operations and Maintenance account, for the Corps to remove 300,000 cubic yards of 

sand from the North Cut of the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. As discussed above, the North 

Jetty construction was completed in July 2002 and the South Jetty construction will 

begin this year. Maintenance dredging is needed until both jetties are constructed. 

Until both the North and South Jetty projects are operational, sand continues to 

shoal in the navigation channels of the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. The shoaling creates 

unsafe navigation conditions, thereby impeding commercial and recreational traffic. 

Removing 300,000 cubic feet of sand from the North Cut of the Inlet will greatly 

improve safe navigation. Finally, this effort is supported locally, as evidenced by the 

County’s grant of $395,000 to the Corps for emergency dredging of the North Cut 

in fiscal year 2003. 

VOLUSIA COUNTY BEACH PROTECTION PROJECT

In August 1991, the Corps of Engineers completed a favorable reconnaissance report for the shore protection study to address the critical erosion along the County’s 

49.5 miles of ocean shoreline, as authorized by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in September 1988. The County declined to act as the non-Federal sponsor for the feasibility study at that time. The Corps modified the 1991 reconnaissance study in 1994. As a result of heavy damage to the County’s shoreline 

sustained during the 1999 hurricane season, the County recognized the critical need 

to address the growing impact of the storm-induced erosion. The Corps will need 

to modify the earlier studies. A new reconnaissance study for the Volusia County 

Shore Protection project (formerly known as the Daytona Beach Shores project) was 

authorized by a resolution adopted by the House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee on February 16, 2000. In fiscal year 2003, Congress provided the Corps 

with $100,000 to complete the reconnaissance study. The Corps has completed the 

draft reconnaissance study, which is currently undergoing final review and is expected to be completed during fiscal year 2004. The draft reconnaissance study recommends further action. A feasibility study is the next step. 

The feasibility study will include, among other things, plan formulation, surveys, 

geotechnical analysis, beach modeling, and environmental analysis for Volusia 

County’s 49.5 mile shoreline. The Corps estimates the cost of the feasibility study 

to be $3 million and expects to complete the study in 3 to 4 years. The cost share 

for the feasibility study is 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal. In fiscal 

year 2005, the Corps will spend $1 million for the Volusia County Shore Protection 

Project, of which the Federal share is $500,000. 

While previous studies to address beach erosion were not acceptable to the County 

as the local sponsor, the County seeks the Corps’ assistance now to address continuing erosion damage initiated during the 1999 hurricane season. The County recognizes its dire need in having its beaches renewed, preserved, and protected. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION

The National Mining Association’s (NMA) membership includes companies engaged in the production of coal, metallic ores, nonmetallic minerals, and in manufacturing mining machinery and equipment. The transportation of coal and minerals 

to domestic and international markets utilizes our Nation’s inland waterways system, Great Lakes, coastal shipping lanes, and harbors and shipping channels at 

deep draft inland and coastal ports. 

NMA believes that a strong transportation network comprised of our highways, 

rails, inland waterways and ports is critical to the economic growth, security and 

competitiveness of the United States. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics of 2002, approximately 2.34 billion tons of 

commerce moved in the U.S. marine system (inland waterways, Great Lakes, coastal and deep-draft ports). Of that total, approximately 1.02 billion tons were domestic 

movements with coal comprising approximately 227 million tons or 22 percent of all 

commodities. Of the 227 million tons of coal, 175 million tons were carried on the 

inland and intracoastal waterways, 19.4 million tons on the Great Lakes and the 

remainder moved in coastwise and intraport shipments. On the Ohio River system 
355 

and its tributaries, coal movements totaled 159 million tons or 56 percent of all the 

traffic. Coal moved to power plants along the system and to power plants in 8 States 

outside of the Ohio basin. In addition, 48.7 million tons of coal was exported in 

2002. 

Iron ore, phosphate rock, and other minerals also utilize the inland waterways 

system. In 2002, 73.1 million tons of iron ore moved on the system. Of the total, 

52.4 million tons moved domestically with 46.8 million tons moved on the Great 

Lakes and 5.6 million tons on the inland system. More than 6.2 million tons of phosphate rock moved on the waterways system with 3.5 million tons by coastwise movements. 

NMA is very concerned that the proposed fiscal year 2005 budget for the Corps 

of Engineers does not provide sufficient funding to keep critical navigation projects 

on schedule, allow for the start of new projects, and address the maintenance backlog for existing navigation projects. The 25,000 miles of waterways and harbor channels are a major component of the transportation infrastructure system in the 

United States. The Nation’s waterways system is an efficient and timely method to 

move commerce throughout the United States. It currently moves 2.4 billion tons 

of cargo annually. 

Each year, barges on the waterways handle cargo equal to 40 million trucks or 

10 million railcars. Without the waterways system, the Nation’s already overcrowded and in some cases gridlocked highways, would not be able to be used. In 

addition, there would be a significant increase in air and noise pollution from the 

additional trucks on the roads. A river barge with a 1,500-ton capacity can transport 

up to 58 large trucks or 15 large jumbo rail hopper cars worth of cargo. Barge transport also saves shippers on average $11 per ton, compared to shipping the same 

amount of cargo by truck or rail. 

In addition, the waterways system is critical to our Nation’s national defense. 

Manufacturing and industrial facilities providing the military with needed weapons 

and materials are located near the Nation’s water system. Many of our Nation’s 

large commercial ports also serve as the home to the U.S. Navy’s fleets. 

NMA is concerned that the full amount appropriated by Congress to a specific 

project is not always what is actually available to a project for a specified fiscal 

year. For example, in fiscal year 2004, the Kentucky Lock was appropriated $29.9 

million but the project actually received $23.1 million for fiscal year 2004. Because 

of the reduced funding levels, projects are taking longer and the benefits are being 

lost to shippers and to the U.S. economy. NMA requests that projects receive the 

full amount appropriated in a given fiscal year. 

NMA continues to be very concerned with the surplus in the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund (IWTF). One-half of the lock and dam construction and major rehabilitation funds come from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), which receives 20 

cents from a 24.3 cents per gallon tax on the fuel used for inland waterways barge 

operations. The General Treasury receives the remaining 4.3 cents. Commercial 

users are the only beneficiaries of the inland waterways system who pay a fuel tax, 

while beneficiaries who receive flood control, water supply, recreational and other 

benefits do not contribute to the construction or maintenance of the system providing these benefits. For the last 12 years, the Federal Government has not allocated sufficient funds to these projects to keep up with revenues flowing into the 

IWTF. The result as of September 30, 2001 is a Fund surplus of approximately $392 

million according to The Bureau of Public Debt, U.S. Department of the Treasury. 

A constraint on the funding for construction and rehabilitation projects has not been 

the revenue collected from the fuel tax but the limited level of funding appropriated 

from the IWTF. It is time to seriously address the backlog and to appropriate funds 

to finish the projects underway. 

NMA reviewed the proposed fiscal year 2005 request for the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and the Civil Works Program and has the following general recommendations. 

—A minimum of $5.5 billion should be appropriated in fiscal year 2005 for the 

Civil Works Program. This level balances the need to address the significant 

project backlog and the capability of the Corps with our Nation’s needs for jobs, 

economic growth, homeland security and national defense. 

—A level of $150 million should be appropriated from the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund to be matched by an equal expenditure from the general fund for 

the construction and major rehabilitation of locks and dams on the inland waterways system. By maintaining this level of appropriations for the next 10 

years, the surplus in the Trust Fund can be reduced to more appropriate levels 

and timely completion of these required navigation projects will accelerate the 

national economic benefits from the projects and minimize cost increases. 
356 

—The fiscal year 2005 appropriations for the Corps’ General Investigations account should be increased to $200 million. The proposed fiscal year 2005 level 

of $90.5 million will not permit the Corps to undertake any new studies. These 

studies are critical to ascertaining and developing future projects. It takes time 

to complete these projects and while there are issues related to new construction starts, projects should be in the pipeline and ready should funds be available. 

—The fiscal year 2005 proposed funding in the amount of $1.926 billion for the 

Corps’ Operations and Maintenance functions should be increased. At the beginning of fiscal year 2004, it was estimated that critical maintenance backlog was 

$1.01 billion. This is a $127 million or 12.7 increase from the previous year. It 

is anticipated the backlog will grow to $1.1 billion under the administration’s 

fiscal year 2005 request. This increase is of great concern given that the backlog 

was approximately $200 million in fiscal year 1998. Currently, more than half 

of the locks and dams on the system are 50 years older or more. With the funding constraints for new construction and rehabilitation projects, it is imperative 

that existing locks and dams be maintained. Delaying necessary maintenance 

impacts the ability to move commerce efficiently, exasperates further deterioration and accelerates the need for major rehabilitation and possibly at higher 

costs than necessary. 

The problems of an aging system were exemplified at Greenup Locks and Dam 

when significant problems were encountered during ongoing repairs to the gates on 

the main chamber. What began on September 8, 2004 as a scheduled 3-week outage 

lasted 54 days and cost the navigation industry an estimated $14 million in lost revenue due to significant delays. For Dayton Power and Light, the delays cost $7 million to find alternative rail transportation for its coal. 

NMA’S FISCAL YEAR 2005 PROJECT APPROPRIATIONS LEVELS NEEDING ADDITIONAL

FUNDS

Construction and Rehabilitation Projects 

Olmsted Locks & Dam—Fiscal Year 2005 Request: $75 million, Efficient 

Funding Level: $110 million 

According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics 

for 2001, more tonnage passes through this point than any other place in the inland 

waterways system with 96.7 million tons valued at $20 billion in 2001. Coal comprises 25 percent of the tonnage, moving to more than 50 power plants on the Ohio 

River System and 17 power plants in eight States on the Upper or Lower Mississippi River. The total project cost is $1.40 billion with a balance of $800 million. 

The project is 6 years behind schedule with lost benefits of $2.7 billion. If the project 

continues to be funded at constrained levels and not at efficient funding levels, the 

project could be delayed another 8 years with a total of loss of $7.2 billion in navigation benefits. 

McAlpine Locks—Fiscal Year 2005 Request: $58 million, Efficient Funding 

Level: $120 million 

According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics 

for 2001, more than 55 million tons of commodities valued at nearly $11.7 billion 

were shipped through the locks. With 20 million tons, coal was the leading commodity comprising 37 percent of all shipments. Thirteen million tons went to 30 

power plants in 8 States. The total project cost is $350 million with a balance of 

$241 million. The project is 5 years behind schedule with lost benefits of $228 million. If the project continues to be funded at constrained levels, it could be delayed 

another 5 years (2012) resulting in an additional loss of $163 million in navigation 

benefits. 

Locks & Dams 2, 3 and 4—Fiscal Year 2005 Request: $31 million, Efficient 

Funding Level: $60 million 

According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics 

for 2001, almost 22.2 million tons of commodities valued at $1.7 billion where 

shipped through any or all of the locks. Coal comprised 86 percent of the tonnage 

with 19.2 million tons of coal moving through the locks. More than 7.2 million tons 

went to 23 power plants in 7 States. The value of the coal was almost $1.6 billion. 

The total cost is $750 million with a balance of $500 million. The project is 9 years 

behind schedule resulting in $870 million in lost navigation benefits. If the project 

continues to be funded at constrained levels, the project could be further delayed 

to 2020 and a total of $1.2 billion in lost navigation benefits. 
357 

Marmet Locks & Dams—Fiscal Year 2005 Request: $50 million, Efficient 

Funding Level: $75 million 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistic for 2001 indicate 17.1 million tons of commodities valued at $802 million were shipped through 

the locks. Coal shipments comprised 95 percent of all shipments with 16.1 million 

tons moving through Marmet. The project cost is $333 with a 2010 completion date 

(originally 2007). There is a balance of $219 million. Marmet has already experienced a 2-year completion delay and continued constrained funding levels, the 

project could be delayed another 5 years at loss of $201 million in navigation benefits. 

Kentucky Lock—Fiscal Year 2005 Request: $25 million, Efficient Funding 

Level: $55 million 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics for 2001 indicate 35 million tons of commodities valued at $6.2 billion moved through the lock. 

Coal was the number one commodity with 12.6 million tons or 36 percent of all shipments. The value was almost $500 million. The coal moved to 9 power plants in the 

south including several owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Total project cost 

is $642 million. The project is already 5 years behind schedule. If the project continues to be funded at constrained levels then the project could be delayed until 

2025 with $780 million in lost navigation benefits. 

Preconstruction Engineering and Design 

J.T. Myers Locks & Dam—Fiscal Year 2005 Request: $700,000, Efficient Funding 

Level: $2 million. 

Surveys 

Emsworth, Dashields & Montgomery Lock and Dams Fiscal Year 2005 Request: 

$3.1, Efficient Funding Level: $1.5 million. 

CONCLUSION

NMA is very concerned that the Nation’s inland waterways system is not receiving sufficient funds in the fiscal year 2005 budget to keep critical navigation projects 

on schedule and to address the very large maintenance backlog for existing navigation projects. As a country, we cannot afford to neglect the continued improvement 

and maintenance of our Federal navigation system. Failure to continue our investment and commitment to all aspects of our marine system will have serious longterm consequences for our Nation’s economic health, safety and security. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE PONTCHARTRAIN

LEVEE DISTRICT

FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, HURRICANE PROTECTION AND WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS 

Project Recommended 

General Investigations: 

Amite River & Tributaries Bayou Manchac, LA .......................................................................................... $800,000 

West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain & Vicinity, LA, St. John the Baptist Parish ............................................ 400,000 

General Construction: 

Lake Pontchartrain & Vicinity, LA (Hurricane Protection) .......................................................................... 22,000,000 

COMMENTS ON PROJECTS

Lake Pontchartrain & Vicinity, LA 

Around Lake Pontchartrain there are several segments under construction with 

this major title. All segments are nearing completion except St. Charles Parish Hurricane Protection of which the local sponsor is the Pontchartrain Levee District. The 

St. Charles project has 10 miles of levee, 5 major floodgate structures and a construction cost of $100 million. If Congress provides maximum funding capability for 

2004 and 2005, then the first lift levees would be complete and much of the second 

lift and all structures can be completed. A closed system would be complete, except 

for some second lift levees, by the 2005 hurricane season. Of the recommended appropriations requested above for Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, about $6,000,000 

could be scheduled for the St. Charles Parish segment. Any reduction in the recommended budget would certainly reduce the amount that would be assigned to St. 
358 

Charles Parish and result in a disappointing slow down. Non-Federal funds for participation are in place now. 

West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain & Vicinity, LA, St. John the Baptist Parish 

This segment is currently under study with the Pontchartrain Levee District acting as local sponsor. Preliminary indications are the hurricane protection project 

will have 18 miles of levee and 3 drainage pump stations. The Feasibility Study 

should be completed in fiscal year 2004. Protection will be provided from the west 

levee of the Bonnet Carre Floodway westward to the LaPlace area, and will include 

protection of portions of I–10, I–55 and U.S. 51, designated hurricane evacuations 

routes for this area and the New Orleans Metropolitan area. This intersection has 

been previously flooded from storm tides. 

Amite River & Tributaries, Bayou Manchac, LA 

This investigation is being made as a result of a number of homes being flooded 

from rains produced by tropical storm Allison in late May and early June 2001 

along the Bayou Manchac Watershed. A few homes remained flooded for as much 

as a month or more because of very slow receding waters. A highly sensitive area 

of Spanish Lake and surrounding swamp also remained flooded for an extensive period which caused extensive ecosystem damages. The affected area covers portions 

of Ascension, Iberville and East Baton Rouge parishes and all have joined with the 

Pontchartrain Levee District to provide non-Federal funding with the Levee District 

acting as local sponsor. 

COMMENTS

The Pontchartrain Levee District has full realization of the necessity of keeping 

these subcommittees advised of current and future needs for Federal monetary support on vital items of the MR&T Flood Control Project. Beginning in 1995 the subcommittees refused to give audience to our pleadings. This year no oral testimony 

will be heard. Again, this is a great travesty of justice. Such actions seriously erode 

the partnership that has been built between Congress, the Corps of Engineers and 

local sponsors. We trust this pattern will revert back to the practice of hearing our 

delegation. 

CONCLUSION

The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District, compliments the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development for its keen understanding of real 

needs for the MR&T Flood Control Project along with hurricane protection and efficient, alert actions taken to appropriate funds for the many complex requirements. 

We endorse recommendations presented by the Association of Levee Boards of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, Mississippi Valley Flood 

Control Association and Red River Valley Association. The Board of Commissioners 

desires our statement be made a part of the record. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE PONTCHARTRAIN

LEVEE DISTRICT

MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES PROJECT 

Project Recommended 

Mississippi River & Tributaries: Flood Control Project ........................................................................................ $435,000,000 

COMMENTS ON PROJECTS

Mississippi River & Tributaries Flood Control Project 

History.—The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project (MR&T) was authorized 

following the Record Flood of 1927 that inundated some 26,000 square miles of the 

fertile and productive land in the Alluvial Valley of the Mississippi River, left 

700,000 people homeless, stopped all East/West Commerce and adversely affected 

both the Economy and Environment of the entire Nation. 

The MR&T Project has prevented over $180 billion in flood damages for an investment of less that $70 billion and in addition the Nation derives about $900 million 

in Navigation Benefits each year due to the MR&T. 
359 

The Project is not complete and we cannot pass another event as great as the 

1927 Flood safety to the Gulf, this is an Historical Event—not the much greater 

Project Flood. 

Levees.—The Mississippi River and Tributaries Flood Control Project has been 

under construction as an authorized project for about 76 years, and yet there are 

a number of segments not yet complete. Although most levees are complete to grade 

and section in south Louisiana and extensive reach from the Old River Control 

Structure in lower Concordia Parish upstream to the Lake Providence area is still 

below grade. Should these levees be overtopped during a major flood, those people 

in south Louisiana know full well those flood waters are going to head southward. 

Other items not yet complete are slope protection and crown surfacing. It is recommended that a minimum of $50,645,000 be appropriated for Mississippi River 

Levees. 

Channel.—The second item of indispensable importance to the Pontchartrain 

Levee District and the State of Louisiana is Channel Improvements. Main line levees must be protected from caving banks throughout this lower river reach where 

extremely narrow battures are the last line of defense against levee crevasses and 

failures. If caving banks are not controlled the only answer is ‘‘setback’’. Simply 

stated there is no room remaining for levee setbacks in the Pontchartrain Levee District. Revetment construction must be annually funded to prevent levee failures, 

land losses and relocations. This item also benefits the 55-foot depth navigation 

channel. The Pontchartrain Levee District recommends at least $44,017,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2004 for Mississippi River Channel Improvements. 

Total Appropriation Request for MR&T.—The $435 million we are requesting for 

fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the MR&T Project is the minimum amount we 

consider necessary to continue with vital on-going construction work and to do the 

barest amount of maintenance work that is required to prevent further deterioration 

of the Federal investment already made to our Flood Control and Navigation Work 

and to continue to work of restoring and protecting our natural environmental including providing for adequate water supply. The total appropriation we are requesting is attached. 

Opposition.—We strongly oppose the administration’s recommendation in its fiscal 

year 2004 budget submission to use funds from the INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST 

FUND to pay for a part of the Operations and Maintenance Cost of the Inland Waterways. The Trust Fund was established in 1978 to make available monies for Construction and Rehabilitation for navigation on the Inland and Coastal Waterways, 

not for Operations and Maintenance. If Congress allows this recommendation the 

Trust Fund would be drained in a short period of time and the 50 percent share 

to pay for Construction for Navigation would not be available unless the tax on fuel 

used by tow-boats was raised, some day doubled, which would make it extremely 

difficult for barge operators to continue their operations and making it more expensive for farmers to get their products to market and for the public to realize savings 

in transportation cost for bulk commodities such as fuel, oil, gasoline and other 

items shipped by barge. 

We are also strongly opposed to any action that would transfer all or any part 

of the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers Civil Works mission to other agencies or department of the Federal Government. It has been reported that the administration 

would desire to transfer the Corps NAVIGATION program to the Department of 

Transportation, FLOOD CONTROL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION to 

the Department of the Interior, and the REGULATORY PROGRAMS to EPA. The 

U.S., Army, Corps of Engineers has rendered extremely valuable services to this Nation since 1802 (over 200 years). The Corps has created an Inland Waterways System that is the envy of the rest of the world. This commercial transportation system 

is critical to the Nation’s economy and environmental well-being and part of this 

system is used to deploy military equipment in support of the war on terrorism. The 

Corps has also been in the forefront to provide Flood Control and Environmental 

Restoration Projects, they have also supported our troops in every armed conflict 

this Nation has engaged in. It would be a serious mistake of Nation-wide impact 

to spread the functions of the Corps into several parts and across the Federal bureaucracy. This Nation would lose a wonderful asset that we have enjoyed for many, 

many years. 

We are strongly opposed to any proposal to ‘‘out-source’’ or contract-out any of the 

present positions in the Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works function. The Secretary of 

the Army has proposed that 90 percent of all Corps of Engineers’ positions be contracted out, this would eliminate approximately 32,000 current employees and make 

it almost impossible to continue with our work. 
360 

Comments 

The Pontchartrain Levee District has full realization of the necessity of keeping 

these subcommittees advised of current and future needs for Federal monetary support on vital items of the MR&T Flood Control Project. Beginning in 1995 the subcommittees refused to give audience to the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association. This year no oral testimony will be heard. Again, this is a great travesty of 

justice. Such actions seriously erode the partnership that has been built between 

Congress, the Corps of Engineers and local sponsors. 

We trust that this pattern will revert back to the 63 year practice of hearing our 

delegation. 

Conclusion 

The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District, compliments the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development for its keen understanding of real 

needs for the MR&T Flood Control Project along with Hurricane Protection and efficient, alert actions taken to appropriate funds for the many complex requirements. 

We endorse recommendations presented by the Association of Levee Boards of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, Mississippi Valley Flood 

Control Association and Red River Valley Association. The Board of Commissioners 

desires our statement be made a part of the record. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Wayne Dowd, and pleased 

to represent the Red River Valley Association as its President. Our organization was 

founded in 1925 with the express purpose of uniting the Citizens of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to develop the land and water resources of the Red 

River Basin. 

The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association during its 79th 

Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February 19, 2004, and represent the 

combined concerns of the citizens of the Red River Basin area as they pertain to 

the goals of the Association. 

The President’s budget included $4.215 billion for civil works programs, which is 

$700 million (14.3 percent) less than what the Corps expended in fiscal year 2004 

($4.905 million). Again, the Corps took the biggest reduction than any of the other 

major Federal agencies. This does not come close to the real needs of our Nation. 

A more realistic funding level to meet the requirements for continuing the existing 

needs of the civil works programs is $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2005. The traditional 

programs, inland waterways and flood protection remain at the low, unacceptable 

level as in past years. These projects are the backbone to our Nation’s infrastructure 

for waterways, flood control and water supply. We remind you that civil works 

projects are a true ‘‘jobs program’’ in that 100 percent of project construction is contracted to the private sector, as is much of the architect and engineer work. Not 

only do these funds provide jobs, but provide economic development opportunities 

for our communities to grow and prosper. 

We are very concerned with the way in which the administration has determined 

what they term ‘‘low use waterways’’. Included in the fiscal year 2005 Civil Works 

Budget, published February 2004, is a table indicating ‘‘net benefits/current costs’’ 

and ‘‘remaining benefits/remaining costs’’. The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA 

is shown at the bottom of the table with an unfavorable ratio. Nowhere in the document do they explain the criteria used for these ratios. This is the criterion used 

to justify the priorities to fund waterway projects and we do not agree with it. 

If they are using ‘‘ton-miles’’, as we suspect, this is just a small factor of determining the success of a waterway. Ton-miles is simply the tons moved the length 

of the waterway. It does not give credit to the waterway for the miles moved to the 

final destination, for outbound cargo, or origin, for inbound cargo. Just using tonnage moved on a waterway neglects the main benefit that justified the project, 

transportation cost savings. Currently there is no analysis to consider ‘‘water compelled rates’’ (competition with rail). We know that there are industries not using 

our waterway because the rail rates dropped, to match the waterborne rates, the 

same year our waterway became operational. If our waterway were discontinued the 

rail rates would increase. Many industries have experienced great transportation 

savings without using the waterway. 

The main problem is that there is no post-project evaluation for navigation 

projects. We support the development of such an evaluation and volunteer our waterway and our efforts to develop one. We request that both Houses of Congress direct that this be accomplished. The Corps of Engineers should take the lead to de-
361 

velop a true evaluation that considers all benefits of a waterway. We also believe 

any evaluation adopted must have input from and be validated by the administration, Congress and industry. 

The current criteria used to prioritize funding for projects, both Construction General and Operations and Maintenance, is incomplete and inaccurate. Too much 

money has been expended to use an evaluation that is unfair and disregards the 

true benefits realized from these waterway projects. 

We do not support any efforts to increase the benefit to cost ratio for projects 

above 1.0 and we do not support increasing the local sponsor’s cost sharing requirements. This is not ‘‘Corps reform,’’ it is an initiative to eliminate the civil works program. We do support true reform that would make civil works projects less expensive and faster to complete. Corps reform should make the Corps of Engineers more 

efficient, less expensive and faster in the execution of civil works studies and completion of projects, not eliminate the program. 

I would now like to comment on our specific requests for the future economic well 

being of the citizens residing in the four-State Red River Basin regions. 

Navigation.—The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the expectations 

of the benefits projected. We are extremely proud of our public ports, municipalities 

and State agencies that have created this success. The four public ports had a 20 

percent increase in tonnage from calendar year 2002 to calendar year 2003. New 

opportunities were announced in calendar year 2003 at each of the ports, which will 

further increase annual tonnage. You are reminded that the Waterway is not complete, 6 percent remains to be constructed, $118 million. We appreciate Congress’s 

appropriation level in fiscal year 2004 of $10.4 million, however, the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget drastically cuts that to $4 million, which is unacceptable. 

There is a capability for $20 million of work, but we realistically must have a minimum of $10–15 million to keep the project moving toward completion. 

The RRVA formed a Navigation Committee for industry, the Corps of Engineers 

and Coast Guard to partner in making our Waterway a success. In calendar year 

2003 we succeeded in getting electronic charts completed and they are now in use. 

Permanent channel markers have also been completed. Both of these initiatives will 

provide additional aids to navigation necessary to insure safe and efficient navigation, especially during high water events, when commercial operations have ceased 

in past years. 

Now that the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is reliable year round we must address efficiency. Presently a 9-foot draft is authorized for the J. Bennett Johnston 

Waterway. Our Waterway feeds into the Mississippi River, Atchafalaya River and 

Gulf Inter-coastal Canal, which are all authorized at a 12-foot draft. A 12-foot draft 

would allow an additional one-third cargo capacity, per barge, which will greatly increase the efficiency of our Waterway and reduce transportation rates. This one action would have the greatest, positive impact to reduce rates to a competitive level 

that would bring more industries to use waterborne transportation. We request that 

the Corps conduct a reconnaissance study, to evaluate this proposal, at a cost of 

$100,000. 

The feasibility study to continue navigation from Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana into the State of Arkansas will be completed in calendar year 2004. We appreciate that Congress appropriated adequate funding to complete this study. There 

is great optimism that the study will recommend a favorable project. This region 

of SW Arkansas and NE Texas continues to suffer major unemployment and this 

navigation project, although not the total solution, will help revitalize the economy. 

We request funding $400,000 to initiate planning, engineering and design, PED. 

Bank Stabilization.—One of the most important, continuing programs, on the Red 

River is bank stabilization in Arkansas and North Louisiana. We must stop the loss 

of valuable farmland that erodes down the river and interferes with the navigation 

channel. In addition to the loss of farmland is the threat to public utilities such as 

roads, electric power lines and bridges; as well as increased dredging cost in the 

navigable waterway. These bank stabilization projects are compatible with subsequent navigation and we urge that they be continued in those locations designated 

by the Corps of Engineers to be the areas of highest priority. We appreciated the 

Congressional funding in fiscal year 2004 and request you fund this project at a 

level of $10 million in fiscal year 2005. 

Flood Control.—You will recall that in 1990 major areas of northeast Texas, 

Southwest Arkansas and the entire length of the Red River in Louisiana were ravaged by the worst flooding to hit the region since 1945 and 1957. More than 700,000 

acres were flooded with total damages estimated at $20.4 million. However, it could 

have been much worse. The Corps of Engineers estimates that without the flood 

control measure authorized by Congress over the past several decades an additional 
362 

1.3 million acres would have been flooded with an estimated $330 million in additional flood damage to agriculture and urban developments. 

We continue to consider flood control a major objective and request you continue 

funding the levee rehabilitation projects ongoing in Arkansas. Five of eleven levee 

sections have been completed and brought to Federal standards. Appropriations of 

$4 million will construct two more levee sections in Lafayette County, AR. 

The levees in Louisiana have been incorporated into the Federal system; however, 

they do not meet current safety standards. These levees do not have a gravel surface roadway, threatening their integrity during times of flooding. It is essential for 

personnel to traverse the levees during a flood to inspect them for problems. Without the gravel surface the vehicles used cause rutting which can create conditions 

for the levees to fail. A gravel surface will insure inspection personnel can check 

the levees during the saturated conditions of a flood. Funding has been appropriated 

and approximately 50 miles of levees in the Natchitoches Levee District will be completed this year. We request $2 million to continue this important project in other 

parishes. 

Clean Water.—Nearly 3,500 tons of natural salts, primarily sodium chloride, enter 

the upper reaches of the Red River each day, rendering downstream waters unusable for most purposes. The Truscott Brine Lake project, which is located on the 

South Fork of the Wichita River in King and Knox Counties, Texas became operational in 1987. An independent panel of experts found that the project not only continues to perform beyond design expectations in providing cleaner water, but also 

has an exceptionally favorable cost benefit ratio. In fiscal year 1995 $16 million dollars was appropriated by the administration, to accelerate engineering design, real 

estate acquisition and initiate construction of the Crowell Brine Dam, Area VII and 

Area IX. 

Due to a conflict over environmental issues, raised by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, completion of the SFEIS was delayed pending further study to determine 

the extent of possible impacts to fish and wildlife, their habitats and biological communities along the Red River and Lake Texoma. In an effort to resolve these issues 

and insure that no harmful impact to the environment or ecosystems would result, 

a comprehensive environmental and ecological monitoring program was implemented. It evaluates the actual impacts of reducing chloride concentrations within 

the Red River watershed. This base line data is crucial to understanding the ecosystem of the Red River basin west of Lake Texoma and funding for this must continue. 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), in October 1998, agreed to 

support a re-evaluation of the Wichita River Basin tributary of the project. The reevaluation report will be completed in fiscal year 2004. Completion of this project 

will reclaim Lake Kemp as a usable water source for the City of Wichita Falls and 

the region. This project will provide improved water quality throughout the four 

States of the Red River providing the opportunity to use surface water and reduce 

dependency on ground water. We request appropriations of $2,500,000 to continue 

this important environmental monitoring and to complete plans and specifications 

of the Wichita River control features. 

Water Supply.—Northwest Texas has been overrun with non-native species of 

brush and mesquite. It now dominates millions of acres of rangelands and has negatively impacted water runoff. Studies have indicated that brush management could 

increase runoff by as much as 30 percent to 40 percent. This would be of great value 

in opportunities for more surface water use and less dependency on ground water. 

Other benefits include an ecological diversity of plant and animal species, range fire 

control and cattle production. A $100,000 reconnaissance study would determine if 

there is a Federal interest and what magnitude these benefits would be. 

Lake Kemp, just west of Wichita Falls, TX, is a water supply for the needs of this 

region. Due to siltation the available storage of water has been impacted. A 

$750,000 reallocation study is requested to determine water distribution needs and 

raising the conservation pool. $375,000 is requested in fiscal year 2005 to initiate 

this 2-year study. 

Operation & Maintenance.—We appreciate the support of your subcommittee to 

support navigation to Shreveport/Bossier City, which is now providing a catalyst to 

our industrial base, creating jobs and providing economic growth. We request that 

O&M funding levels remain at the expressed Corps capability to maintain a safe, 

reliable and efficient transportation system. 

Our major project for O&M is the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway. From this 

project four public ports and three private terminals have been established. The tonnage at the public ports increased by 20 percent from calendar year 2002 to calendar year 2003. Even though we continue to show growth the administration continues to reduce our O&M budget and not include maintenance dredging. Without 
363 

dredging the Waterway would effectively close down terminating our ports and terminal. The President’s budget included $10,600,000; however, a minimum of 

$14,000,000 is required to address our annual dredging needs and operational costs 

for the five locks and dams. 

Full O&M capability levels are not only important for our Waterway project but 

for all our Corps projects and flood control lakes. The backlog of critical maintenance only becomes worse and more expensive with time. We urge you to appropriate funding to address this serious issue at the expressed full Corps capability. 

The ‘‘Summary of Fiscal Year 2004 Requests’’, following this testimony, lists our 

major O&M projects and the level needed to address this issue. 

We are sincerely grateful to you for the past support you have provided our various projects. We hope that we can count on you again to fund our needs and complete the projects started that will help us diversify our economy and create the jobs 

so badly needed by our citizens. We have included a summary of our requests for 

easy reference. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and project details of the 

Red River Valley Association on behalf of the industries, organizations, municipalities and citizens we represent throughout the four-State Red River Valley Region. 

We believe that any Federal monies spent on civil work projects are truly investments in our future and will return several times the original investment in benefits 

that will accrue back to the Federal Government. 

Grant Disclosure.—The Red River Valley Association has not received any Federal 

grant, sub grant or contract during the current fiscal year or either of the 2 previous 

fiscal years. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CRESCENT CITY HARBOR DISTRICT

The Crescent City Harbor District is requesting $3 million in funding in the fiscal 

year 2005 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. These funds are 

needed for maintenance dredging of our harbor and for completing our Dredging 

Materials Management Plan. 

Dredging funds are critical for the future of our harbor. Crescent City has long 

been a key port for the landing of Pink shrimp, Dungeness crab, and groundfish. 

In 2001, commercial landings exceeded $6 million. In 2002, even with reduced fishing opportunities, our fleets landed over five and $500,000 worth of seafood. The 

most recent Dungeness crab season, from December 2003 until the present, very 

likely set a record for production and value. Although some groundfish and Salmon 

species are at relatively low levels, many others are abundant. We look forward to 

harvesting the sustainable yield of our natural resources once the weaker stocks are 

rebuilt. But we must dredge the harbor now to take advantage of these future opportunities. 

Over the years our community has made a substantial investment in the harbor. 

Our major dock is called ‘‘Citizens Dock’’ because it was built entirely by local volunteers in 1950. Since then, we have built a modern boat basin, fish processing plants, 

and a superb vessel repair facility. Our harbor is the safest, most convenient harbor 

in Northern California for both recreational and commercial fishermen. But the economic viability of these facilities depends on dredging the harbor. 

Currently we are in the midst of developing a master plan that will help identify 

and then implement new opportunities to diversify the economic base of our harbor. 

Both the City of Crescent City and the County of Del Norte are actively supporting 

our master plan efforts. We hope to identify several opportunities that will expand 

and revitalize our struggling local economy. But the success of our planning process 

depends on dredging the harbor. 

All our efforts, investments, and plans will come to nothing if we cannot dredge 

our harbor. We look forward to working together to ensure that dredging funds are 

in place in next year’s appropriations cycle so that our harbor can remain a key part 

of the economy of Del Norte County and Northern California. 

LETTER FROM THE ARIZONA POWER AUTHORITY

Phoenix, Arizona, March 23, 2004. 

Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, 

126 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20510. 

Re: Increased security costs at Reclamation, Corps of Engineers and Western Area 

Power Administration facilities 
364 

DEAR CHAIRMAN DOMENICI AND RANKING MEMBER REID: Enclosed please find a 

copy of a resolution passed by the Arizona Power Authority Commission at its 

March meeting urging that increased costs for security at Hoover Dam and similar 

Federal projects be made non-reimbursable. Would you please enter this letter and 

the attached resolution in the record of your proceedings. 

Sincerely, 

JOSEPH W. MULHOLLAND, 

Executive Director. 

ARIZONA POWER AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 04–2

SECURITY COSTS AT HOOVER DAM AND OTHER FEDERAL POWER FACILITIES

Hoover Dam, one of the most famous structures in the world, is one of a number 

of Federal dams that were developed to provide benefits to millions of citizens in 

the Western United States, including flood control, irrigation, municipal and industrial water supplies, hydropower generation, recreation and environmental benefits. 

Ensuring the safety and security of Hoover Dam and other similar Federal 

projects is of vital importance to all of the citizens of the United States. 

The Arizona Power Authority and other State agencies and consumer-owned electric utilities already shoulder the majority of the reimbursable cost of these facilities, including subsidizing irrigation features, environmental programs, and repayment of the Federal debt associated with construction, operation, maintenance and 

replacements. 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 

That the Commissioners of the Arizona Power Authority call upon the Federal 

Government to ensure that all costs associated with the safety and security of Hoover Dam and similar Federal facilities in the aftermath of the events of September 

11, 2001, be treated as nonreimbursable and that payment of such costs be funded 

through Federal appropriations as a national obligation. 

UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED by the Arizona Power Authority Commission this 

sixteenth day of March 2004. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association Fiscal Year 2005 Civil Works 

Budget, Mississippi River and Tributaries Appropriations—Requesting Appropriations of $9,500,000 for Construction and $8,805,000 for Maintenance and Operation 

in the St. Francis Basin Project and a total of $450,000,000 for the Mississippi River 

and Tributaries Project. 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

My name is Rob Rash, and my home is in Marion, Arkansas, located on the West 

side of the Mississippi River and in the St. Francis Basin. I am the Chief Engineer 

of the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas. Our District is the local cooperation 

organization for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and the St. Francis 

Basin Project in Northeast Arkansas. Our District is responsible for the operation 

and maintenance of 160 miles of Mississippi River Levee and 75 miles of St. Francis 

River Tributary Levee in Northeast Arkansas. 

The St. Francis Basin is comprised of an area of approximately 7,550 square miles 

in Southeast Missouri and Northeast Arkansas. The basin extends from the foot of 

Commerce Hills near Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the mouth of the St. Francis 

River, 7 miles above Helena, Arkansas, a total distance of 235 miles. It is bordered 

on the east by the Mississippi River and on the West by the uplands of Bloomfield 

and Crowley’s Ridge, having a maximum width of 53 miles. The Mississippi River 

and Tributaries Project and the St. Francis Basin Project provide critical flood protection to over 2,500 square miles in Northeast Arkansas alone. This basin’s flood 

control system is the very lifeblood of our livelihood and prosperity. Our resources 

and infrastructure are allowing the St. Francis Basin and the Lower Mississippi 

Valley to develop into a major commercial and industrial area for this great Nation. 

The basin is quickly becoming a major steel and energy production area. The agriculture industry in Northeast Arkansas and the Lower Mississippi Valley continues 

to play an integral role in providing food and clothing for this Nation. This has all 

been made possible because Congress has long recognized that flood control in the 

Lower Mississippi Valley is a matter of national interest and security and has authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement a flood control system in 
365 

the Lower Mississippi Valley that is the envy of the civilized world. With the support of Congress over the years, we have continued to develop our flood control system in the Lower Mississippi Valley through the Mississippi River and Tributaries 

Project and for that we are extremely grateful. 

Although, at the current level of project completion, there are areas in the Lower 

Mississippi Valley that are subject to major flooding on the Mississippi River. The 

level of funding that has been included in the President’s Budget for the overall 

Mississippi River and Tributaries Project is not sufficient to adequately fund and 

maintain this project. The level of funding will require the citizens of the Lower 

Mississippi Valley to live needlessly in the threat of major flood devastation for the 

next 30 years. Timely project completion is of paramount importance to the citizens 

of the Lower Mississippi. Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou improvements are just one 

of many construction projects necessary for flood relief in the St. Francis Basin. Ten 

and Fifteen Mile Bayou improvements were reauthorized by Congress through the 

Flood Control Act of 1928, as amended. Section 104 of the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2001 modified the St. Francis Basin to expand the project boundaries 

to include Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayous and shall not be considered separable elements. Total project length of 38 miles includes Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou, Ditch 

No. 15 and the 10 Mile Diversion Ditch that provide flood control for West Memphis 

and Vicinity. Without additional funds, construction would be delayed and West 

Memphis and Vicinity will continue to experience record flooding as seen December 

17, 2001. West Memphis and Vicinity would experience immediate flood relief when 

the first item of construction is completed. 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

We are strongly opposed to any action that would transfer any part or the entire 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works mission to any other agency or department of the Federal Government. This agency has completed and overseen the Civil 

Works mission since its inception and has done quite well. Very few of our other 

governmental bodies can report and show a return of the taxpayer’s investment as 

the Corps of Engineers can and has been doing for many years. It has been reported 

this administration desires to transfer the Corps Civil Works program to the Department of Transportation, the Flood Control and Environmental Restoration to 

the Department of Interior and the Regulatory Program to the Environmental Protection Agency. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has rendered extremely valuable 

services for this Nation for many years. The Corps has created an inland waterways 

system that is the envy of the rest of the world. Our Nation’s commercial transportation system is critical to the Nation’s economy and the environmental well being 

and part of this system is used to transport military equipment in support of the 

war on terrorism. The Corps has also been in the forefront to provide flood control 

and environmental restoration projects and have supported our troops at every 

armed conflict this Nation has engaged in. In our opinion, it will be a serious mistake and have a negative Nation-wide impact to spread the functions of the Corps 

into several parts across a Federal bureaucracy. This Nation would lose a wonderful 

asset and one we have enjoyed for over 200 years. 

PROPOSED FUNDING

We support the amount of $450,000,000 requested by the Mississippi Valley Flood 

Control Association for use in the overall Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. 

This is the minimum amount that the Executive Committee of the Association feels 

is necessary to maintain a reasonable time line for completion of the overall Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. Also, the amounts that have been included 

in the President’s Budget for the St. Francis Basin Project; construction, operation 

and maintenance have not been sufficient to fund critical projects. These declined 

amounts have resulted in a significant backlog of work within the St. Francis Basin. 

Therefore, our District is requesting additional capabilities of $9,500,000 for the St. 

Francis Basin Project construction funds and $8,805,000 for the St. Francis Basin 

operation and maintenance funds. The amounts requested for the St. Francis Basin 

Project are a part of the total amounts requested for the Mississippi River and Tributary Appropriations of the Civil Works Budget. 

SUMMATION

As your subcommittee reviews the Civil Works Budget of Fiscal Year 2005 Appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, please consider the significance of this project to the Mississippi Valley and the Nation’s economy and infrastructure. As always, I feel the subcommittee will give due regard to the needs 

of the Mississippi River Valley as it considers appropriations for the Mississippi 
366 

River and Tributaries Project. I would like to sincerely thank the subcommittee for 

its past and continued support of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA

I am writing on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to request funding 

for three critical projects in the fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. These three projects are: —$7 million for the Virginia Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection 

Project under the Construction account of the Army Corps of Engineers. —$5.5 million for the City’s Beach Renourishment for Sandbridge Beach under 

the Construction account of the Army Corps of Engineers. —$1.25 million for the maintenance of Rudee Inlet under the Operation and 

Maintenance account of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

VIRGINIA BEACH EROSION CONTROL AND HURRICANE PROTECTION PROJECT

Funding for this project was originally authorized under the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, and a Public Cooperation Agreement was reached and signed 

between the City and the Army Corps of Engineers in August 1993. The Water Resources Development Act of 1992 authorized $112 million for Virginia Beach Erosion 

Control and Hurricane Protection project for the City. 

To date, the Federal Government has invested over $80 million for this project, 

matched by over $40 million in City funds. The results of the investment are a magnificent beach and seawall system, providing flood damage protection for the City’s 

tourism industry infrastructure, which is important for the economic vitality of the 

City. The resulting beach is a showpiece for the region. 

The project has proven it works, most recently after Hurricane Isabel. The 100- 

year hurricane event protection level in this project did indeed protect the whole 

commercial beach area with no sustainable damage. If this project had not been in 

place there would have been huge losses. 

The Federal Government has a long-term (50-year) commitment with the City to 

maintain this project. However, in the President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget no funding was included. The Federal and City government have spent too much money to 

build this project to let it all go to waste by not renourishing the beach with sand 

for protection. It is important to maintain this project, both to protect the investments already made and to minimize damages from future storm events. 

BEACH RENOURISHMENT FOR SANDBRIDGE BEACH

The Sandbridge Beach Replenishment project was created after decades of flood 

damage from storm events. Once the beach was replenished, flooding due to storms 

significantly decreased. The most recent example of the project’s benefit is the reduced damage from Hurricane Isabel. Our request of $5,500,000 is needed to honor 

the previous Federal commitments for the programmed maintenance of these 

projects. 

The Sandbridge project was first approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and 

the North Atlantic Division of the Corps and subsequently authorized by Congress 

as a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992. The initial Public Cooperation Agreement was executed on February 3, 1998. 

When the beach was first replenished in 1998, the City funded 100 percent of the 

total cost ($8.1 million). In 2002, the City covered 35 percent of the cost while the 

Federal Government covered the remaining 65 percent (total of $12 million). To 

date, the total amount of money invested (including City funds and funds from the 

Federal Government) is almost $20 million. 

As with the Hurricane Protection Project, the President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget 

did not include funding for the Sandbridge Beach project. It is imperative that the 

City be able to maintain this project in order to protect the large number of family 

homes and rental properties in the area and minimize overall damages from future 

storm events. Today, only due to past efforts, Sandbridge is a vital and vibrant public beach. 

RUDEE INLET

Rudee Inlet, which was authorized under the Water Resources and Development 

Act of 1992, is a vital commercial and recreational resource to the City. But its special significance from a Federal standpoint is that it is used by the U.S. Navy Special Operations for training and equipment testing. The Army Corps of Engineers 

has been maintaining Rudee Inlet since 1991. 
367 

Over the years there has been funding included in the President’s budget for 

Rudee Inlet, however there was no funding included in the President’s fiscal year 

2005 budget. It is important to ensure that the inlet receives proper funding because 

failure to continue the maintenance on Rudee Inlet would negatively impact the 

City and the U.S. Navy special operations. 

It is vital to the City of Virginia Beach that the Federal Government maintain 

funding for these projects. All businesses located in the City, including hotels and 

restaurants, along with recreational activities, military operations, and tourism 

would be negatively impacted without the proper maintenance of these projects. 

I appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY

Background.—Congressional passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1976, originally authorized the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, and Santa Clara 

Valley Water District (District) was one of the project sponsors. In 1990, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) concluded that levee failure potential was low because the existing non-Federal, non-engineered levees, which were routinely maintained by Leslie Salt Company (subsequently Cargill Salt) to protect their industrial 

interests, had historically withstood overtopping without failure. As a result, the 

project was suspended until adequate economic benefits could be demonstrated. 

Since the project’s suspension in 1990, many changes have occurred in the South 

Bay. The State and Federal acquisition of approximately 15,000 acres of South Bay 

salt ponds was completed in early March 2003. The proposed restoration of these 

ponds to tidal marsh will significantly alter the hydrologic regime and levee maintenance activities, which were assumed to be constant in the Corps’ 1990 study. In 

addition to the proposed restoration project, considerable development has occurred 

in the project area. Many major corporations are now located within Silicon Valley’s 

Golden Triangle, lying within and adjacent to the tidal flood zone. Damages from 

a 1 percent high tide are anticipated to far exceed the $34.5 million estimated in 

1981, disrupting business operations, infrastructure, and residences. Also, historical 

land subsidence of up to 6 feet near Alviso, as well as the structural uncertainty 

of existing salt pond levees, increases the potential for tidal flooding in Santa Clara 

County. 

In July 2002, Congress authorized a review of the Final 1992 Letter Report for 

the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. The final fiscal year 2004 appropriation for 

the Corps included funding for a new start Reconnaissance Study. 

Project Synopsis.—At present, large areas of Santa Clara, Alameda and San 

Mateo Counties would be impacted by flooding during a 1 percent high tide. The 

proposed restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt ponds will result in the 

largest restored wetland on the West Coast of the United States, and also significantly alter the hydrologic regime adjacent to South Bay urban areas. The success 

of the proposed restoration is therefore dependent upon adequate tidal flood protection, and so this project provides an opportunity for multi-objective watershed planning in partnership with the California Coastal Conservancy, the lead agency on the 

restoration project. Project objectives include: restoration and enhancement of a diverse array of habitats, especially several special status species; tidal flood protection; and provision of wildlife-oriented public access. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—$100,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 2004 to conduct a Reconnaissance Study. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Request.—It is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $500,000 for the South San Francisco Bay 

Shoreline Study to initiate a Feasibility Study to evaluate integrated flood protection and environmental restoration. 

THOMPSON CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT

Background.—Thompson Creek, a tributary of Coyote Creek, flows through the 

City of San Jose, California. Historically, the creek was a naturally-meandering 

stream and a component of the Coyote Creek watershed. The watershed had extensive riparian and oak woodland habitat along numerous tributary stream corridors 

and upland savanna. Currently, these habitat types are restricted to thin sparse 

pockets in the Thompson Creek restoration project area. 

Significant urban development over the last 20 years has modified the runoff 

characteristics of the stream resulting in significant degradation of the riparian 

habitat and stream channel. The existing habitats along Thompson Creek, riparian 
368 

forest stands, are threatened by a bank destabilization and lowering of the water 

table. Recent large storm events (1995, 1997, and 1998) and the subsequent wet 

years in conjunction with rapid development in the upper watershed have resulted 

in a succession of high runoff events leading to rapid erosion. 

The upstream project limits start at Aborn Road and the downstream project limit 

is Quimby Road where Thompson creek has been modified as a flood Protection 

project. The project distance is approximately 1 mile. 

Status.—In February 2000, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) initiated discussions with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a study under the 

Corps’ Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program. Based on the project 

merits, the Corps began preparation of a Preliminary Restoration Plan (PRP) and 

subsequent Project Management Plan (PMP). Approval of the PRP will lead to the 

development of a Detailed Project Report (DPR). The DPR will provide the information necessary to develop plans and specifications for the construction of the restoration project. 

PROJECT TIMELINE 

Date 

Request Federal assistance under Sec. 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program ................................... Feb. 2002 

Initiate Study ...................................................................................................................................................... Jan. 2003 

Public Scoping Meeting and Local Involvement ................................................................................................ Sept. 2004 

Final Detailed Project Report to South Pacific Division of Corps ..................................................................... May 2006 

Initiate Plans and Specifications ....................................................................................................................... July 2006 

Project Cooperation Agreement signed .............................................................................................................. Dec. 2006 

Certification of Real Estate ............................................................................................................................... Mar. 2007 

Advertise Construction Contract ........................................................................................................................ May 2007 

Complete Plans and Specifications ................................................................................................................... July 2007 

Award Construction Contract ............................................................................................................................. July 2007 

Construction Start .............................................................................................................................................. Sept. 2007 

Complete Physical Construction ......................................................................................................................... Dec. 2008 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—$100,000 earmark was received in the fiscal year 

2004 Section 206 appropriation to complete the PRP. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Recommendation.—It is requested that the congressional committee support an earmark of $300,000 within the Section 206 Aquatic 

Ecosystem Restoration Program. 

PAJARO RIVER WATERSHED STUDY

Background.—Pajaro River flows into the Pacific Ocean at Monterey Bay, about 

75 miles south of San Francisco. The drainage area encompasses 1,300 square miles 

in Santa Clara, San Benito, Monterey, and Santa Cruz counties. Potential flood 

damage reduction solutions will require cooperation between four counties and four 

water/flood management districts. There is critical habitat for endangered wildlife 

and fisheries throughout the basin. Six separate flood events have occurred on the 

Pajaro River in the past half century. Severe property damage in Monterey and 

Santa Cruz counties resulted from floods in 1995, 1997, and 1998. Recent flood 

events have resulted in litigation claims for damages approaching $50 million. $20 

million in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) flood fight funds have been expended in recent years. 

Status.—Two separate Corps activities are taking place in the watershed. The 

first activity is a Corps reconnaissance study authorized by a House Resolution in 

May 1996 to address the need for flood protection and water quality improvements, 

ecosystem restoration, and other related issues. The second activity is a General Revaluation Report initiated in response to claims by Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties that the 13 mile levee project constructed in 1949 through agricultural areas 

and the city of Watsonville is deficient. The reconnaissance study on the entire watershed was completed by the San Francisco District of the Corps in fiscal year 

2002. The decision to continue onto a cost-shared feasibility study is currently delayed pending the Corps resolution of the flooding problems on the lower Pajaro 

River (Murphy’s Crossing to the Ocean) and defining feasibility study goals that 

meet the interests of all Authority members. 

Local Flood Prevention Authority.—Legislation passed by the State of California 

(Assembly Bill 807) in 1999 titled ‘‘The Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention 

Authority Act’’ mandated that a Flood Prevention Authority be formed by June 30, 

2000. The purpose of the Flood Prevention Authority is ‘‘to provide the leadership 
369 

necessary to... ensure the human, economic, and environmental resources of the 

watershed are preserved, protected, and enhanced in terms of watershed management and flood protection.’’ The Flood Prevention Authority was formed in July 

2000 and consists of representatives from the Counties of Monterey, San Benito, 

Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz, Zone 7 Flood Control District, Monterey County 

Water Resources Agency, San Benito County Water District, and the Santa Clara 

Valley Water District. The Flood Prevention Authority Board sent a letter of intent 

to cost share a feasibility study of the Pajaro River Watershed to the Corps in September 2001. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—$100,000 was authorized in fiscal year 2004 for the 

Pajaro Watershed Feasibility Study. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Recommendation.—It is requested that the congres- sional committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 in fiscal year 2005 

for the Pajaro River Watershed Study. 

UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT

Background.—The Guadalupe River is one of two major waterways flowing 

through a highly urbanized area of Santa Clara County, California, the heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has flooded the central district and southern 

areas of San Jose. According to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1998 feasibility study, severe flooding would result from a 100-year flooding event and potentially cause $280 million in damages. 

The probability of a large flood occurring before implementation of flood prevention measures is high. The upper Guadalupe River overflowed in March 1982, January 1983, February 1986, January 1995, March 1995, and February 1998, causing 

damage to several residences and businesses in the Alma Avenue and Willow Street 

areas. The 1995 floods in January and March, as well as in February 1998, closed 

Highway 87 and the parallel light-rail line, a major commute artery. 

Project Synopsis.—In 1971, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) requested the Corps to reactivate an earlier study of Guadalupe River. From 1971 to 

1980, the Corps established the economic feasibility and Federal interest in the 

Guadalupe River only between Interstate 880 and Interstate 280. Following the 

1982 and 1983 floods, the District requested that the Corps reopen its study of the 

upper Guadalupe River upstream of Interstate 280. The Corps completed a reconnaissance study in November 1989, which established an economically justifiable solution for flood protection in this reach. The report recommended proceeding to the 

feasibility study phase, which began in 1990. In January 1997, the Corps determined that the National Economic Development (NED) Plan would be a 2 percent 

or 50-year level of flood protection rather than the 1 percent or 100-year level. The 

District strongly emphasized overriding the NED Plan determination, providing 

compelling reasons for using the higher 1 percent or 100-year level of protection. In 

1998, the Acting Secretary of the Army did not concur to change the basis of cost 

sharing from the 50-year NED Plan to the locally preferred 100-year plan, resulting 

in a project that will provide less flood protection, and therefore, be unable to reduce 

flood insurance requirements and reimbursements, as well as eliminate recreational 

benefits and increase environmental impacts. Based on Congressional delegation requests, the Assistant Secretary of the Army directed the Corps to revise the Chief’s 

Report to reflect more significant Federal responsibility. The Corps feasibility study 

determined the cost of the locally preferred 100-year plan is $153 million and the 

Corps NED 50-year plan is $98 million. The District has requested that the costs 

of providing 50-year and 100-year flood protection be analyzed again during the 

preconstruction engineering design phase. In a memorandum for the Assistant Secretary of the Army, dated October 12, 2000, Major General Hans A. Van Winkle, 

Deputy Commander for Civil Works, made a similar recommendation. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—$150,000 was authorized in fiscal year 2004 for the 

Upper Guadalupe River Project to continue preconstruction engineering and design. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Recommendation.—It is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $3.5 million in fiscal year 2005 

for the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project. 

LLAGAS CREEK PROJECT

Background.—The Llagas Creek Watershed is located in southern Santa Clara 

County, California, serving the communities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Martin. 

Historically, Llagas Creek has flooded in 1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1982, 

1986, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002. The 1997, 1998, and 2002 floods damaged many 

homes, businesses, and a recreational vehicle park located in areas of Morgan Hill 

and San Martin. These are areas where flood protection is proposed. Overall, the 
370 

proposed project will protect the floodplain from a 1 percent flood affecting more 

than 1,100 residential buildings, 500 commercial buildings, and 1,300 acres of agricultural land. 

Project Synopsis.—Under authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566), the Natural Resources Conservation Service completed an economic feasibility study in 1982 for constructing flood damage reduction 

facilities on Llagas Creek. The Natural Resources Conservation Service completed 

construction of the last segment of the channel for Lower Llagas Creek in 1994, providing protection to the project area in Gilroy. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) is currently updating the 1982 environmental assessment work and the engineering design for the project areas in Morgan Hill and San Martin. The engineering design is being updated to protect and improve creek water quality and to preserve and enhance the creek’s habitat, fish, and wildlife while satisfying current environmental and regulatory requirement. Significant issues include the presence of 

additional endangered species including the red-legged frog and steelhead, listing of 

the area as probable critical habitat for steelhead, and more extensive riparian habitat than were considered in 1982. Project economics are currently being updated as 

directed by Corps Headquarters to determine continued project economic viability. 

Until 1996, the Llagas Creek Project was funded through the traditional Public 

Law 566 Federal project funding agreement with the Natural Resources Conservation Service paying for channel improvements and the District paying local costs including utility relocation, bridge construction, and right of way acquisition. Due to 

the steady decrease in annual appropriations for the Public Law 566 construction 

program since 1990, the Llagas Creek Project has not received adequate funding 

from U.S. Department of Agriculture to complete the Public Law 566 project. To 

remedy this situation, the District worked with congressional representatives to 

transfer the construction authority from the Department of Agriculture to the Corps 

under the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (Section 501). Since the transfer of responsibility to the Corps, the District has been working the Corps to complete the project. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—$250,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 2004 for the 

Llagas Creek Flood Protection Project for planning and design. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Recommendation.—Based upon the high risk of flood 

damage from Llagas Creek, it is requested that the congressional committee support 

an appropriation add-on of $1.35 million in fiscal year 2005 for planning, design, 

and environmental updates for the Llagas Creek Project. 

COYOTE CREEK WATERSHED STUDY

Background.—Coyote Creek drains Santa Clara County’s largest watershed, an 

area of more than 320 square miles encompassing most of the eastern foothills, the 

City of Milpitas, and portions of the Cities of San Jose and Morgan Hill. It flows 

northward from Anderson Reservoir through more than 40 miles of rural and heavily urbanized areas and empties into south San Francisco Bay. 

Prior to construction of Coyote and Anderson Reservoirs, flooding occurred in 

1903, 1906, 1909, 1911, 1917, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1930 and 1931. Since 1950, 

the operation of the reservoirs has reduced the magnitude of flooding, although 

flooding is still a threat and did cause damages in 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997. 

Significant areas of older homes in downtown San Jose and some major transportation corridors remain susceptible to extensive flooding. The Federally-supported 

lower Coyote Creek Project (San Francisco Bay to Montague Expressway), which 

was completed in 1996, protected homes and businesses from storms which generated record runoff in the northern parts of San Jose and Milpitas. 

The proposed Reconnaissance Study would evaluate the reaches upstream of the 

completed Federal flood protection works on lower Coyote Creek. 

Objective of Study.—The objectives of the Reconnaissance Study are to investigate 

flood damages within the Coyote Creek Watershed; to identify potential alternatives 

for alleviating those damages which also minimize impacts on fishery and wildlife 

resources, provide opportunities for ecosystem restoration, provide for recreational 

opportunities; and to determine whether there is a Federal interest to proceed into 

the Feasibility Study Phase. 

Study Authorization.—In May 2002, the House of Representatives Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure passed a resolution directing the Corps to 

‘‘. . . review the report of the Chief of Engineers on Coyote and Berryessa 

Creeks... and other pertinent reports, to determine whether modifications of the 

recommendations contained therein are advisable in the interest of flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and protection, water conservation and supply, 

recreation, and other allied purposes . . .’’. 
371 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—No Federal funding was received in fiscal year 2004. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Recommendation.—It is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 to initiate a multipurpose Reconnaissance Study within the Coyote Creek Watershed. 

UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT

Background.—The Upper Penitencia Creek Watershed is located in northeast 

Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San Francisco Bay. 

In the last two decades, the creek has flooded in 1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 

1998. The January 1995 flood damaged a commercial nursery, a condominium complex, and a business park. The February 1998 flood also damaged many homes, 

businesses, and surface streets. 

The proposed project on Upper Penitencia Creek, from the Coyote Creek confluence to Dorel Drive, will protect portions of the cities of San Jose and Milpitas. 

The floodplain is completely urbanized; undeveloped land is limited to a few scattered agricultural parcels and a corridor along Upper Penitencia Creek. Based on 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) 1995 reconnaissance report, 4,300 buildings in the cities of San Jose and Milpitas are located in the flood prone area, 1,900 

of which will have water entering the first floor. The estimated damages from a 1 

percent or 100-year flood exceed $121 million. 

Study Synopsis.—Under authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83–566), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly 

the Soil Conservation Service) completed an economic feasibility study (watershed 

plan) for constructing flood damage reduction facilities on Upper Penitencia Creek. 

Following the 1990 U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Bill, the Natural Resources Conservation Service watershed plan stalled due to the very high ratio of 

potential urban development flood damage compared to agricultural damage in the 

project area. 

In January 1993 the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) requested the 

Corps proceed with a reconnaissance study in the 1994 fiscal year while the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service plan was on hold. Funds were appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1995 and the Corps started the reconnaissance study in October 

1994. The reconnaissance report was completed in July 1995, with the recommendation to proceed with the feasibility study phase. The feasibility study, initiated in 

February 1998, is currently scheduled for completion in 2005. 

Advance Construction.—To accelerate project implementation, the District submitted a Section 104 application to the Corps for advance approval to construct a 

portion of the project. Approval of the Section 104 application was awarded in December 2000. The advance construction is for a 2,600-foot-long section of bypass 

channel between Coyote Creek and King Road. However, due to funding constraints 

at the District and concerns raised by regulatory agencies, the design was stopped 

and turned over to the Corps to complete. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—$460,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 2004 for the 

Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project for project investigation. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Recommendation.—Based upon the high risk of flood 

damage from Upper Penitencia Creek and the need to proceed with the feasibility 

study, it is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation 

add-on of $535,000 million, in addition to the $46,000 in the administration’s fiscal 

year 2005 budget, for a total of $600,000 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project. 

COYOTE/BERRYESSA CREEK PROJECT

BERRYESSA CREEK PROJECT ELEMENT

Background.—The Berryessa Creek Watershed is located in northeast Santa 

Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San Francisco Bay. A major 

tributary of Coyote Creek, Berryessa Creek drains 22 square miles in the City of 

Milpitas and a portion of San Jose. 

On average, Berryessa Creek floods once every 4 years. The most recent flood in 

1998 resulted in significant damage to homes and automobiles. The proposed project 

on Berryessa Creek, from Calaveras Boulevard to upstream of Old Piedmont Road, 

will protect portions of the Cities of San Jose and Milpitas. The flood plain is largely 

urbanized with a mix of residential and commercial development. Based on the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1993 draft General Design Memorandum, a 1 percent or 100-year flood could potentially result in damages of $52 million with depths 

of up to 3 feet. 
372 

Study Synopsis.—In January 1981, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) applied for Federal assistance for flood protection projects under Section 205 

of the 1948 Flood Control Act. The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized construction on the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project as part of a 

combined Coyote/Berryessa Creek Project to protect portions of the Cities of Milpitas 

and San Jose. 

The Coyote Creek element of the project was completed in 1996. The Berryessa 

Creek Project element proposed in the Corps’ 1987 feasibility report consisted primarily of a trapezoidal concrete lining. This was not acceptable to the local community. The Corps and the District are currently preparing a General Reevaluation Report which involves reformulating a project which is more acceptable to the local 

community and more environmentally sensitive. Project features will include setback levees and floodwalls to preserve sensitive areas (minimizing the use of concrete), appropriate aquatic and riparian habitat restoration and fish passage, and 

sediment control structures to limit turbidity and protect water quality. The project 

will also accommodate the City of Milpitas’ adopted trail master plan. Estimated 

total costs of the General Reevaluation Report work are $3.8 million, and should be 

completed in the summer of 2005. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—$250,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 2004 for the 

Coyote/Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project to continue the General Reevaluation Report and environmental documents update. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Recommendation.—Based on the continuing threat of 

significant flood damage from Berryessa Creek and the need to continue with the 

General Reevaluation Report, it is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $750,000 for the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection 

Project element of the Coyote/Berryessa Creek Project. 

SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK WATERSHED PROJECT

Background.—The San Francisquito Creek watershed comprises 45 square miles 

and 70 miles of creek system. The creek mainstem flows through five cities and two 

counties, from Searsville Lake, belonging to Stanford University, to the San Francisco Bay at the boundary of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Here it forms the boundary between Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, California and separates the cities of Palo Alto from East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The upper watershed tributaries are within the boundaries of Portola Valley and Woodside townships. The 

creek flows through residential and commercial properties, a biological preserve, 

and Stanford University campus. It interfaces with regional and State transportation systems by flowing under two freeways and the regional commuter rail system. The local communities have formed a Joint Powers Authority in 1999 to cooperatively manage flood and restoration efforts. San Francisquito Creek is one of the 

last natural continuous riparian corridors on the San Francisco Peninsula and home 

to one of the last remaining viable steelhead trout runs. It is a highly valued resource by all communities. The riparian habitat and urban setting offer unique opportunities for a multi-objective project addressing flood protection, habitat, water 

quality, and recreation. 

Flooding History.—The creeks mainstem has a flooding frequency of approximately once in 11 years. It is estimated that over $155 million in damages could 

occur in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties from a 1 percent flood, affecting 4,850 

home and businesses. Significant areas of Palo Alto flooded in December 1955, inundating about 1,200 acres of commercial and residential property and about 70 acres 

of agricultural land. April 1958 storms caused a levee failure downstream of Highway 101, flooding Palo Alto Airport, the city landfill, and the golf course up to 4 

feet deep. Overflow in 1982 caused extensive damage to private and public property. 

The flood of record occurred on February 3, 1998, when overflow from numerous locations caused severe, record consequences with more than $28 million in damages. 

More than 1,100 homes were flooded in Palo Alto, 500 people were evacuated in 

East Palo Alto, and the major commute and transportation artery, Highway 101, 

was closed. 

Status.—Active citizenry are anxious to avoid a repeat of February 1998 flood. 

Numerous watershed based studies have been conducted by the Corps, the Santa 

Clara Valley Water District, Stanford University, and the San Mateo County Flood 

Control District. Grassroots, consensus-based organization, called the San 

Francisquito Watershed Council, has united stakeholders including local and State 

agencies, citizens, flood victims, developers, and environmental activists for over 10 

years. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority was formed in 1999 to 

coordinate creek activities with five member agencies and two associate members. 
373 

The Authority Board has agreed to be the local sponsor for a Corps project and received congressional authorization for a Corps reconnaissance study in May 2002. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—$100,000 was appropriated to San Francisquito Creek 

in fiscal year 2004 to conduct a Watershed Reconnaissance Study. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Recommendation.—It is requested the congressional 

committee support an appropriation add-on of $200,000 in fiscal year 2005 budget 

to initiate a Feasibility Study for the San Francisquito Creek Watershed. 

GUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT

Background.—The Guadalupe River is a major waterway flowing through a highly 

developed area of San Jose, in Santa Clara County, California. A major flood would 

damage homes and businesses in the heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river 

has flooded downtown San Jose and the community of Alviso. According to the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 2000 Final General Reevaluation & Environmental Report for Proposed Project Modifications, estimated damages from a 1 percent flood in the urban center of San Jose are over $576 million. The Guadalupe 

River overflowed in February 1986, January 1995, and March 1995, damaging 

homes and businesses in the St. John and Pleasant Street areas of downtown San 

Jose. In March 1995, heavy rains resulted in breakouts along the river that flooded 

approximately 300 homes and business. 

Project Synopsis.—In 1971, the local community requested that the Corps reactivate its earlier study. Since 1972, substantial technical and financial assistance 

have been provided by the local community through the Santa Clara Valley Water 

District in an effort to accelerate the project’s completion. To date, more than $85.8 

million in local funds have been spent on planning, design, land purchases, and construction in the Corps’ project reach. 

The Guadalupe River Project received authorization for construction under the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986; the General Design Memorandum was 

completed in 1992, the local cooperative agreement was executed in March 1992, the 

General Design Memorandum was revised in 1993, construction of the first phase 

of the project was completed in August 1994, construction of the second phase was 

completed in August 1996. Project construction was temporarily halted due to environmental concerns. 

To achieve a successful, long-term resolution to the issues of flood protection, environmental mitigation, avoidance of environmental effects, and project monitoring 

and maintenance costs, a multi-agency ‘‘Guadalupe Flood Control Project Collaborative’’ was created in 1997. A key outcome of the collaborative process was the 

signing of the Dispute Resolution Memorandum in 1998, which modified the project 

to resolve major mitigation issues and allowed the project to proceed. Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act of 2002 was signed into law on November 

12, 2001. This authorized the Modified Guadalupe River Project at a total cost of 

$226,800,000. Construction of the last phase of flood protection is scheduled for completion by December 2004 and is dependent on timely Federal funding and continuing successful mitigation issue resolution. The overall construction of the project 

including the river park and the recreation elements is scheduled for completion in 

2006. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—$14 million was authorized in fiscal year 2004 to continue Guadalupe River Project construction. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Recommendation.—It is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $6 million, in addition to the 

$6 million in the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget, for a total of $12 million 

to continue construction of the final phase of the Guadalupe River Flood Protection 

Project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER

CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Project Request 

Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project: Construction General ............................................................................... $5,000,000 

San Jacinto & Santa Margarita River Watersheds Special Area Management Plan (SAMP): General Investigations ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Santa Ana River—Mainstem: Construction General ........................................................................................... 58,060,000 
374 

MURRIETA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

Murrieta Creek poses a severe flood threat to the cities of Murrieta and Temecula. 

Over $12 million in damages was experienced in the two cities as a result of 

Murrieta Creek flooding in 1993. The 1997 Energy and Water Appropriations Act 

dedicated $100,000 to conducting a Reconnaissance Study of watershed management in the Santa Margarita Watershed ‘‘including flood control, environmental restoration, stormwater retention, water conservation and supply, and related purposes’’. The study effort was initiated in April 1997 and completed the following December. The Reconnaissance Study identified a Federal interest in flood control on 

the Murrieta sub-basin, and recommended moving forward with a detailed feasibility study for a flood control project on Murrieta Creek. 

Efforts on the Feasibility Study began in April 1998 and were completed in September 2000. The Feasibility Study Report recommends the implementation of Alternative 6, the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) for flood control, environmental restoration and recreation. The LPP is endorsed by the Cities of Temecula and 

Murrieta and by the community as a whole. 

H.R. 5483, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2000 included specific 

language authorizing the Corps to construct ‘‘the locally preferred plan for flood control, environmental restoration and recreation described as Alternative 6, based on 

the Murrieta Creek Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement dated 

September 2000.’’ 

After finalizing the necessary cost sharing agreement in February 2001, the Corps 

initiated the detailed engineering design necessary to develop construction plans 

and specifications for a Murrieta Creek Project utilizing a fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $750,000. The project received an additional appropriation of $1,000,000 

for engineering design efforts in fiscal year 2002. Those funds were utilized to develop design-level topographic mapping for the entire 7-mile long project, to complete all necessary geotechnical work, and to begin the preparation of construction 

drawings for the initial phases of construction. 

The Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project is being designed and will be constructed in four distinct phases. Phases 1 and 2 include channel improvements 

through the city of Temecula. Phase 3 involves the construction of a 240-acre detention basin, including the 160-acre restoration site and over 50 acres of recreational 

facilities. Phase 4 of the project will include channel improvements through the city 

of Murrieta. Equestrian, bicycle and hiking trails as well as a continuous habitat 

corridor for wildlife are components of this and every phase of the project. 

The Omnibus Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003 provided $1 million for a 

new construction start for this critical public safety project. Construction activities 

on Phase 1 of the project commenced in the Fall of 2003 and the Groundbreaking 

Ceremony was held on November 12, 2003. The appropriations for fiscal year 2004 

allowed the Corps to continue construction on Phase 1 and initiate its engineering 

design work for Phase 2 of the project. Phase 2 traverses the area of Temecula hardest hit with damages from the severe flooding of 1993. The Corps anticipates having 

a Phase 2 construction contract ready to award in the summer of 2005. The District, 

therefore, respectfully requests the committee’s support of a $5 million appropriation in fiscal year 2005 so that the Corps may complete construction on Phase 1, 

complete the design work for Phase 2 and initiate construction on Phase 2 of the 

long awaited Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project. 

SAN JACINTO & SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHEDS SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT

PLAN

The County of Riverside recognizes the interdependence between the region’s future transportation, habitat, open space and land-use/housing needs. In 1999, work 

was initiated on Riverside County’s Integrated Project (RCIP) to determine how best 

to balance these factors. The plan will create regional conservation and development 

reserves that will protect entire communities of native plants and animals while 

streamlining the process for compatible economic development in other areas. The 

major elements of the plan include water resource identification, multi-species planning, land use and transportation. 

In order to achieve a balance between aquatic resource protection and economic 

development, the Corps is developing a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for 

both the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita Watersheds. This comprehensive planning effort will be used to assist Federal, State and local agencies with their decision making and permitting authority to protect, restore and enhance aquatic resources while accommodating various types of development activities. The Santa 
375 

Margarita and San Jacinto watersheds include such resources as woodlands, wetlands, freshwater marshes, vernal pools, streams, lakes and rivers. 

The final product of the SAMP will be the establishment of an abbreviated or expedited regulatory permitting process by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act. The Corps’ effort includes facilitating meetings between all potential watershed partners, and the integration of the joint study effort with the planning and 

multiple species habitat conservation efforts of the balance of the RCIP project. 

The $500,000 Federal appropriation received for fiscal year 2001 allowed the 

Corps to initiate work on this 3-year, $5.5 million SAMP effort. The $2 million appropriation received in fiscal year 2002 allowed the Corps to make significant 

progress on a ‘‘landscape level aquatic resource delineation’’, and to initiate a functional assessment to determine the value of waters and wetlands. The $1 million 

appropriation received for fiscal year 2003 allowed the Corps to complete their wetlands delineation effort. The $200,000 appropriations received for fiscal year 2004 

allowed for some of the management of the preparation of the NEPA document to 

continue. 

Further funding is now needed to continue the SAMP effort. We, therefore, respectfully request that the committee support a combined $1,000,000 appropriation 

of Federal funding for fiscal year 2005 for the Corps to continue its work on the 

Special Area Management Plan for the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita River Watersheds. 

SANTA ANA RIVER—MAINSTEM

The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662) authorized 

the Santa Ana River—All River project that includes improvements and various 

mitigation features as set forth in the Chief of Engineers’ Report to the Secretary 

of the Army. The Boards of Supervisors of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino 

Counties continue to support this critical project as stated in past resolutions to 

Congress. 

The three local sponsors and the Corps signed the Local Cooperation Agreement 

(LCA) in December 1989. The first of five construction contracts started on the 

Seven Oaks Dam feature in the spring of 1990 and the dam was officially completed 

on November 15, 1999. A dedication ceremony was held on January 7, 2000. Significant construction has been completed on the lower Santa Ana River Channel and 

on the San Timoteo Creek Channel. Construction activities on Oak Street Drain and 

the Mill Creek Levee have been completed. Seven Oaks Dam was turned over to 

the Local Sponsors for operation and maintenance on October 1, 2002. 

For fiscal year 2005, an appropriation of $4.46 million is necessary to initiate construction activities on several features within ‘‘Reach 9’’ of the Santa Ana River immediately downstream of Prado Dam. This segment of the Santa Ana River project 

is the last to receive flood protection improvements. The streambed existing today 

in a relatively natural state would receive only localized levee and slope revetment 

treatment to protect existing development along its southerly bank. 

The removal of accumulated sediment within an already completed section of the 

Santa Ana River Channel near its outlet to the Pacific Ocean will necessitate a fiscal year 2005 appropriation of $4.3 million. This dredging work is necessary before 

project turnover to the Local Sponsors for operation and maintenance. 

Construction activities on the last remaining phase of San Timoteo Creek Channel, a Mainstem feature located within San Bernardino County, would be completed 

given a final $5 million appropriation. 

An appropriation of $7.0 million is being requested to fund the required mitigation for the operation and maintenance of the Seven Oaks Dam project. 

The Prado Dam feature of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project is in need of 

several major upgrades in order that it mitigate the potential impacts of a 100-year 

storm. All of the engineering work necessary to redesign the dam is now complete. 

In fiscal year 2003, the Corps was able to award a construction contract to begin 

modifications to the dam embankment and outlet works. An fiscal year 2005 appropriation of $37.3 million would allow the Corps to continue with the construction 

of improvements to Prado Dam’s outlet works and embankment, and would fund all 

necessary environmental mitigation measures. 

We, therefore, respectfully request that the committee support an overall 

$58,060,000 appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year 2005 for the Santa Ana 

River Mainstem project including Prado Dam. 
376 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE

Project.—Standing Rock MRI and Irrigation Systems, Garrison Diversion Unit 

(Public Law 99–294). 

Agency.—Corps of Engineers, Missouri Basin Pick Sloan, OMR. 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe requests $6,500,000 in the Corps of Engineers’ 

budget for fiscal year 2005 for the Missouri Basin Pick Sloan Project from the operation, maintenance and replacement (OMR) account to reconstruct three intakes 

made inoperable by siltation caused by the operation of water levels in Lake Oahe 

in the months August through December 2003 as set out below: 

Cannonball Irrigation Intake ................................................................................................................................ $2,000,000 

Fort Yates Irrigation Intake .................................................................................................................................. 1,500,000 

Fort Yates Municipal and Industrial Intake ........................................................................................................ 3,000,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 6,500,000 

BACKGROUND

The construction and operation of Garrison and Oahe dams, principle components 

of the Missouri River Pick Sloan Program, by the Corps of Engineers has caused 

considerable damage to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of the Standing Rock Indian 

Reservation, North and South Dakota. The following activities have caused the siltation of three major intakes owned and operated by the Tribe for irrigation and 

domestic water use and threatens proposed downstream intakes: 

—The construction of Garrison Dam, upstream from Lake Oahe, has caused the 

erosion of the bed and banks of the free flowing Missouri River between Garrison Dam and Bismarck; 

—The construction of Oahe Dam and the filling of Lake Oahe has caused the deposition of sediment eroded from the bed and banks of the Missouri River between Garrison Dam and Bismarck at the upper end of Lake Oahe. This deposition has been estimated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation at 14,600 acre feet 

annually (equivalent to 560,000 acre of deposition over the past 40 years); 

—Lowering the Lake Oahe water levels to historic minimums in fall 2003 caused 

the transport of sediments deposited in the upper end of Lake Oahe to more 

downstream locations in Lake Oahe within the Standing Rock Indian Reservation and inundated the Cannonball irrigation intake and the Fort Yates municipal, rural and industrial water intake, the principle source of domestic water 

supply for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, The Fort Yates irrigation intake was 

likewise stranded in fall 2003; 

—The Cannonball irrigation intake was inundated with 11 feet of sediment between August and December 2003, and the Fort Yates municipal, rural and industrial water intake was rendered unusable by the deposition of sediment creating a water supply emergency for 10,000 members of the Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe. 

The Corps of Engineers was fully knowledgeable with respect to the erosion of the 

bed and bank of the Missouri River between Garrison Dam and Bismarck and the 

subsequent deposition of sediments on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in the 

upper end of Lake Oahe as evidenced by the following documents, among others: 

—Alfred S. Harrison and Warren J. Mellema, May 1984, Aggradation and Degradation Aspects of the Missouri River Mainstem Dams, MRD Sediment Series, 

Number 34, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District. 

—Corps of Engineers, December 1983, Deposition at the Heads of Reservoirs, 

MRD Sediment Series, Number 31, Omaha District. 

—Sedimentation and Channel Stabilization Section, November 1999, Sedimentation Impacts in the Cheyenne River Arm—Lake Oahe, Phase II, Projected to 

2058, MRR Sediment Memorandum, 20, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha 

District. 

—U.S. Geological Survey, 1995, Transport and Sources of Sediment in the Missouri River between Garrison Dam and the Headwaters of Lake Oahe, North 

Dakota, May 1988 through April 1991 Water-Resources Investigations Report 

95–4087. 

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, pursuant to the Treaties of 1851 and 1868 possesses prior and superior rights to the use of water in the Missouri River, its tributaries and its aquifers for present and future purposes and has exercised those 

water rights for the present development of irrigation and domestic water supply 
377 

by the construction of intakes on the Missouri River where the natural channel of 

the river crosses the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, which intakes are submerged at the upper end of Lake Oahe. 

DEPLETION OF TRIBES’ FUNDS APPROPRIATED PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 99–294, AS

AMENDED

The Standing Rock MRI project funds (Public Law 99–294) have been depleted to 

make interim, emergency corrections to restore the drinking water supply for the 

Tribal membership and other residents served in Fort Yates, Cannonball, Porcupine 

and intermediate rural areas. 

Questions also arise with respect to the viability of the new irrigation intake in 

the Kenel area where the next phase of the Public Law 99–294 irrigation project 

is to be implemented. It is not known how long an intake as far south as Kenel 

will be viable because the rate of progress of sediment movement from the upper 

to middle segments of Lake Oahe is not known. Kenel has been under consideration 

as a possible site for long-term MRI intake, but this option must be reevaluated 

after better information is in hand to determine if the migration of sediment will 

reach Kenel in the near term. 

The cost of a long-term solution is not yet known. Far more information is needed 

on the phenomenon of sediment movement in Lake Oahe before a permanent location and elevation for a new intake can be established. Sound cost estimates can 

be prepared thereafter. 

The Cannonball Irrigation Unit was to begin operation in spring 2004. It appears 

the Tribe will not be able to meet those expectations because 11 feet of silt now resides atop that intake. Funds for corrective measures at this site in fiscal year 2004 

will further deplete the irrigation authority of Public Law 99–294 intended for development of additional parts of the 2,380 authorized acres. 

STANDING ROCK SEDIMENT ANALYSIS IN LAKE OAHE

When Garrison Dam closed in 1955, a streamflow of 10,000 cubic feet per second 

(cfs) produced a water level elevation in the Missouri River downstream from the 

dam of approximately 1,676 feet above mean sea level. In 1990 a streamflow of 

10,000 cfs produced a water level elevation in the Missouri River of approximately 

1,668 feet, a decline in water level elevation of 8 feet. The reason for the decline 

in water level elevation for the same flow rate of 10,000 cfs was the excavation of 

the bed of the River below the dam. (See Figure 1 from the Corps of Engineers). 

With entrapment of all incoming sediment in the reservoir upstream from the dam, 

releases from the dam are free of sediment and have the capability to capture material from the bed and banks of the downstream river channel. Over a long period 

of time (1955 to 2003) this predictable activity has lowered the bed of the Missouri 

River and eroded the banks. 
378 

When Oahe Dam closed and began filling in 1962, material excavated from the 

Missouri River below Garrison Dam was deposited by the slowing velocity of the 

River as it entered the upper end of the Oahe pool. Over a 30-year period an unknown volume and tonnage of sediment was excavated upstream and deposited 

downstream from Bismarck. (See Figure 2 from USGS with independent modifications to show zones of excavation and deposition upstream and downstream from 

Bismarck, respectively.) The following statement confirms that Bismarck is near the 

transition between upstream excavation or ‘‘degradation’’ and downstream deposition or ‘‘aggradation’’ of the channel. 

‘‘. . . there have been no marked changes in stage at this station [Bismarck] except for discharges of 30,000 cfs or greater, which have exhibited a slight upward 

trend . . . a study completed by the Corps [of Engineers] in 1985 ‘Oahe-Bismarck 

Area Studies’ indicated that aggradation has reduced the size of the channel in the 

study area, resulting in higher stages for the same discharge. The study concluded 

that for discharges of 50,000 to over 100,000 cfs, the stages have increased by 1 to 

2 feet in the study area. It was also estimated that future aggradation will further 

increase stages for those discharges by an additional 0.8 to 1.4 feet.’’ (U.S. Geological Survey, 1995, Transport and Sources of Sediment in the Missouri River Between 

Garrison Dam and the Headwaters of Lake Oahe, North Dakota, May 1988 through 

April 1991, Water-Resources Investigations Report 95–4087). 

During the drought of the last few years, including 2003, water levels in Lake 

Oahe fell from average elevations of 1,605 feet to historic minimums. Only in year 

1990 had water levels reached as low (1,582 feet) as in 2003. In 2002, water levels 

in the October through December time frame reached averages of 1,584 feet. In November 2003, water levels reached as low as 1,576 feet, the lowest on record. 
379 

Sufficient information is not in hand (but should be available) to determine the 

elevation of the bed of the Missouri River before sediment began to accumulate in 

the upper end of Lake Oahe. When the intake for the Cannonball Irrigation Project 

was constructed in the late 1990’s, the intake was placed underwater in the former 

channel of the Missouri River (the lowest point at that River-mile). The top of the 

intake screen was at 1,573 feet. Similarly, the intake for the Standing Rock MRI 

Project was reportedly constructed in the former channel of the River at a known 

elevation not available at the time of this writing. 

Sediment moved downstream in fall 2003 as the reservoir levels in Lake Oahe 

were lowered and the Missouri River was required to flow across areas normally inundated and filled with sediment over the past 40 years. In this zone at the upper 

end of the lowered Lake Oahe, the Missouri River eroded artificially deposited sediments and moved them further downstream in the Reservoir. This caused the failure of the intake for the Tribe’s MRI Project and deposited as much as 11 feet of 

sediment in the former Missouri River channel at the Cannonball intake site. Sediment has reached elevation 1,584 feet or 11 feet above the bottom of 1,573 feet 

measured at the irrigation intake in August 2003. 

Elements of the phenomenon reported here have been studied by agencies of the 

United States, including the U.S. Geological Survey and the Corps of Engineers. It 

is believed that the Corps of Engineers knew or should have known that the low-
380 

ering of water levels in Lake Oahe would cause the redistribution of sediments from 

the upper end of the Reservoir, where they knew sediments were deposited, to further downstream locations. At a minimum, the Tribe should have been notified in 

advance of the risk to its intakes as the Corps began its operations in the critical 

October to December period. Reasonable management of reservoir levels may have 

avoided the exigent conditions that existed for the Tribe in December and the considerable expense to redesign, reconstruct and relocate both MRI and irrigation intakes due to the releases from Garrison and management of water levels in Lake 

Oahe. When the emergency occurred, the Corps of Engineers increased releases 

from Garrison Dam from approximately 13,000 cfs (River stage at 4.2 feet) to 18,000 

cfs (River stage at 6.2 feet), the most marked change in releases during the October 

to December 2003 time frame. (See Figure 3 from USGS). 

Long-term solutions for the Tribe require collection of information not in the 

Tribe’s hands and revision of the procedures for Garrison releases and management 

of Lake Oahe during drought conditions. Specifically, a sediment survey in the 

upper reaches of Lake Oahe is needed to document the current position of sediment 

deposits. Analysis is needed to determine where those deposits will move in the future and how the Tribe can locate and build dependable intakes. This problem affects at least two existing irrigation intakes (Cannonball and Fort Yates) and the 

MRI intake. The future irrigation intake at Kenel is also subject to an unknown 

level of risk. New operating procedures are needed that raised the minimum operating water levels. A diking system may be needed to contain upstream sediment. 

The Corps of Engineers is the responsible Federal agency that constructed and 

operated the Federal facilities causing the degradation of the bed of the Missouri 

River, the aggradation of the upper end of Lake Oahe, and the redistribution of 

sediments in the upper end of Lake Oahe to the destruction of the Tribe’s intakes 

in fall 2003. Legislation is be needed to authorize the appropriation of funds to reconstruct new intakes of the Tribe in a manner to insure their dependability. Appropriate investigations will be needed of the baseline sediment conditions and the 

probable future redistribution in advance of permanent reconstruction. Mitigation 

measures and changes in the Master Manual are needed, including diking and new 

minimum operating water levels. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY

During World War II the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) designed and constructed a new harbor entrance at Morro Bay with two rock breakwaters. Since the 
381 

initial construction, over 60 years ago, the Federal Government has maintained the 

harbor entrance, breakwaters and navigational channels. In fiscal year 1995 the 

ACOE completed the Morro Bay Harbor entrance improvement project to improve 

safety for commercial fishing and coastal navigation. The City of Morro Bay contributed almost $1,000,000 in local cost share to the 

ACOE Entrance Improvement Project. Since 1995 the Federal Government has 

funded maintenance dredging of Morro Bay Harbor every year. The most cost-effective manner to conduct this dredging has been using the ACOE dredge Yaquina 

every year in the Entrance Area due to rapid shoaling in that area, and scheduling 

a larger project to maintain the Morro and Navy Navigation channels every 3 to 

4 years as those channels accumulate sediment at a slower rate. 

Below is a summary of dredging history for the federally designated navigation 

channels in Morro Bay. 

Date Area Dredged Cubic Yardage 

1997 Outer Entrance .................................................................................................................................... 63,009.00 

1998 Entrance, Main, Navy, Morro & Sand Trap ........................................................................................ 579,692.00 

1998 Entrance, Main .................................................................................................................................... 115,388.00 

1999 Entrance & Transitional Channel ....................................................................................................... 134,234.00 

2000 Entrance & Transitional Channel ....................................................................................................... 236,883.00 

2001 Entrance & Transitional Channel ....................................................................................................... 180,467.00 

2002 Entrance, Navy, Morro & Sand Trap ................................................................................................... 868,483.10 

2003 Entrance & Transitional Channel ....................................................................................................... 170,817.00 

Morro Bay Harbor is the only all-weather harbor of refuge between Santa Barbara 

and Monterey on the West Coast. Our Harbor directly supports almost 250 homeported fishing vessels and marine dependent businesses. We provide critical maritime facilities for both recreational and commercial interests. Businesses that depend on the harbor generate $50,000,000 annually and employ over 700 people. The 

United States Coast Guard (USCG) maintains a 32 person National Security Base 

and Search and Rescue Station at Morro Bay Harbor to provide the Coast Guard 

services for the entire Central California Coast, including port safety coverage for 

the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

In 2000 the California legislature designated Morro Bay and several other small 

ports along the California coast as ‘‘Harbors of Safe Refuge’’. This legislation recognizes the critical role many small harbors play in affording a safety zone for commercial and recreational vessels transiting the California coast. 

Exposure to the open ocean and strong winter currents carrying sediment into the 

harbor create the need for a routine maintenance schedule to insure that the harbor 

entrance and federally designated navigation channels remain safe and navigable. 

The Morro Bay National Estuary Program recognizes the need to maintain the navigational channels in the harbor both for the viability of the commercial fishing industry and to maintain adequate tidal exchange for the health of the Morro Bay Estuary. It is imperative that the federally constructed navigation channels, entrance 

area and protective jetties be maintained to insure safe commerce and navigation 

on a 300-mile stretch of the California Coast and to maintain a safe port for the 

Coast Guard to operate from. Without continued Federal maintenance, all of the 

past local and Federal investment will be lost. 

Last year the budget included $1.4 million for dredging of the navigational channels including the Entrance Channel, the Navy Channel and the Morro Channel. 

This year the proposed budget eliminates all funding for the Morro Bay navigation 

channel maintenance dredging. 

The Army Corps of Engineers has the capability to execute $4.11 million in maintenance dredging operations for fiscal year 2005. The entrance area has shoaled significantly since the last dredge cycle and will require dredging next year to sustain 

safe navigation in our area. We respectfully request that your distinguished subcommittee include $4.11 million in dredging funds for Morro Bay Harbor to keep 

our harbor open and safe in all conditions and to provide a safe base of operations 

for the United States Coast Guard. 

In addition to being homeport to over 250 commercial fishing vessels, Morro Bay 

Harbor is part of the federally designated National Estuary Program. The Morro 

Bay Estuary was the subject of an ACOE reconnaissance study (funded by Congress 

in 1998) of potential projects to restore sensitive habitat through improving tidal circulation and decreasing sedimentation. The County of San Luis Obispo and the Bay 

Foundation are acting as local sponsors for the Feasibility Phase. We support the 

funding of $250,000 to continue work on the feasibility study for the Morro Bay 

Habitat Restoration project in fiscal year 2005. 
382 

Thank you for your actions and support, and for the opportunity to present these 

requests to your subcommittee on behalf of the citizens of the City of Morro Bay. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PORT OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

The Port of Sacramento requests a fiscal year 2005 appropriation of $8.5 million 

for the continued deepening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel. 

After a hiatus in construction, the Port has been actively working with the San 

Francisco District Corps of Engineers to reinvigorate this important project. The fiscal year 2005 appropriation will complete a Limited Re-Evaluation Report and provide funding to continue the deepening of the Ship Channel from 30′ to 35′. This 

5 additional feet will greatly expand the accessability of the Port of Sacramento to 

the world fleet which will allow better service to existing customers and will improve the of diversify cargoes and customers, both which increase the revenues at 

the Port. 

This project is vital to the economic future of the Port of Sacramento, which has 

provided international waterborne cargo services in the Greater Sacramento region 

for 40 years. In the future, California will also ‘‘re-discover’’ that its ports, and particularly its inland Ports, are an environmentally friendly alternative to the burgeoning highway traffic. ‘‘Short sea shipping’’ is concept in waterborne transportation that is increasing in application in Europe as a means to reduce highway congestion. 

We would greatly appreciate your support of our appropriation request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Project Request 

Middle Potomac River Study ................................................................................................................................ $200,000 

Patuxent River Watershed Study .......................................................................................................................... 200,000 

WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION

The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (Commission or WSSC), established in 1918, is a public, bi-county agency providing water and wastewater services to Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in the Washington Capital region. 

WSSC is governed by six Commissioners with equal representation from each county and has developed its systems to the point where it is a national leader in the 

water and sewerage industry. The Commission is the among the ten largest water 

and wastewater utilities in the country, serving approximately 1.6 million people in 

a 1,000 square mile service area. In addition, the Commission provides services to 

26 key Federal installations and facilities in the Washington area, including such 

important military facilities as Andrews Air Force Base; the National Imagery and 

Mapping Agency; the National Naval Medical Center; the Naval Surface Warfare 

Center; the U.S. Army Research Center. Numerous other State and local securityrelated installations and offices also receive service from the Commission. 

Water treatment and distribution facilities operated by the Commission include 

three water supply reservoirs; two water filtration plants; 14 water pumping stations; 5,100 miles of water mains; and 54 treated-water storage facilities. Water production at Commission facilities is 166 million gallons per day. In terms of wastewater facilities, the Commission operates six wastewater treatment plants; 41 

wastewater pumping stations; and approximately 4,900 miles of sewer mains. 

MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER STUDY

The Commission is committed to ensuring that the residents of the Montgomery 

and Prince George’s Counties continue to have a clean, safe supply of drinking 

water. Consistent with that commitment is the need to improve that quality of the 

environment in the regions river basins and increase the ability to store water to 

meet increasing demand, particularly in times of drought. 

The Corps of Engineers’ Baltimore District (District) has recently completed a reconnaissance study of the water resources needs of the Middle Potomac River Watershed. The District found that there is a Federal interest in pursuing further 

study opportunities within the Middle Potomac study area and recommended that 

the study continue into the feasibility phase to begin the planning process for the 
383 

restoration of the Middle Potomac Watershed. One of the objectives identified for 

the feasibility phase was further study of the status of the region’s water resources 

as they relate to water supply needs. One of the specific recommendations for further study is an effort to identify stresses on the Middle Potomac Watershed ecosystem at varying levels of water flows and the development of sustainable watershed management plans and planning tools. The Corps specifically mentioned 

WSSC as a potential non-Federal sponsor for this study. The Commission believes 

that such an effort, including an analysis of opportunities for additional water supply storage in the basin, is critical to the long-term health of the region. The Corps 

has estimated that the total cost of this feasibility study is $3 million and the Commission supports an initial request of $200,000 in fiscal year 2005 to begin conducting this study. 

PATUXENT RIVER WATERSHED STUDY

The Commission owns and operates the Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Reservoirs 

on the Patuxent River. Together these reservoirs hold 14 billion gallons of drinking 

water serving 700,000 people in Montgomery, Howard, and Prince Georges Counties 

in Maryland. Maintaining and improving the quality of the water in these reservoirs 

is a major objective of the Commission. The current buffer zones around these two 

reservoirs are relatively narrow. Expanding and restoring the habitat of these buffer 

zones would help ensure the long-term quality of the water in the reservoirs and 

also provide environmental benefits to the entire Patuxent River Basin. Improving 

the quality of the water in the Patuxent River would also prove beneficial to efforts 

to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

In July of 1995, the Corps of Engineers completed the ‘‘Patuxent River Water Resources Reconnaissance Study’’, which was authorized by House Committee on Public Works and Transportation Resolution dated September 28, 1994. The purpose of 

the study was to develop a watershed plan for managing the water and related land 

resources of the Patuxent River watershed. The watershed plan that was developed 

addresses multi-purpose environmental solutions for the improvement of riparian, 

wetland, and aquatic habitat, improvements to water quality, recreation development and flood damage reduction measures. Among the actions recommended for 

implementation were riparian buffer projects and streambank protection and restoration projects. Such activities would reduce sedimentation and the runoff of pollutants. 

The Commission believes that more detailed study of the areas around the 

Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Reservoirs would be consistent with the watershed 

plan developed as part of the Patuxent River Water Resources Reconnaissance 

Study and could lead to environmental restoration activities that would prove beneficial to the entire region, including Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, the Commission 

supports a request of $200,000 to conduct a feasibility study. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF

GREATER CHICAGO

On behalf of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 

(District), I want to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to present our priorities for fiscal year 2005 and, at the same time, express our appreciation for your 

support of the District’s projects in the years past. The District is the local sponsor 

for three Corps of Engineers priority projects of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan: 

the O’Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. We are requesting the subcommittee’s full support for McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, as the O’Hare Reservoir has 

been completed. Specifically, we request the subcommittee to include a total of 

$43,300,000 in construction funding for the McCook and Thornton Reservoir projects 

in the bill. The following text outlines these projects and the need for the requested 

funding. 

THE CHICAGOLAND UNDERFLOW PLAN

The Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP) consists of three reservoirs: the O’Hare, 

McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. These reservoirs are a part of the Tunnel and 

Reservoir Plan (TARP). The O’Hare Reservoir Project was fully authorized for construction in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662) and 

completed by the Corps in fiscal year 1999. This reservoir is connected to the existing O’Hare segment of the TARP. Adopted in 1972, TARP was the result of a multiagency effort, which included officials of the State of Illinois, County of Cook, City 

of Chicago, and the District. 
384 

TARP was designed to address the overwhelming water pollution and flooding 

problems of the Chicagoland combined sewer areas. These problems stem from the 

fact that the capacity of the area’s waterways has been overburdened over the years 

and has become woefully inadequate in both hydraulic and assimilative capacities. 

These waterways are no longer able to carry away the combined sewer overflow 

(CSO) discharges nor are they able to assimilate the pollution associated with these 

discharges. Severe basement flooding and polluted waterways are the inevitable result. More critically, larger storms generate back flows to Lake Michigan and pollute 

water supply for the six-county area. We point with pride to the fact that TARP was 

found to be the most cost-effective and socially and environmentally acceptable way 

for reducing these flooding and water pollution problems. Experience to date has reinforced such findings with respect to economics and efficiency. 

The TARP plan calls for the construction of the new ‘‘underground rivers’’ beneath 

the area’s waterways. The ‘‘underground rivers’’ are tunnels up to 35 feet in diameter and 350 feet below the surface. To provide an outlet for these tunnels, reservoirs 

will be constructed at the end of the tunnel systems. Approximately 101.5 miles of 

tunnels, constructed at a total cost of $2.2 billion, are operational. The final 7.9 

miles of tunnels, costing $168 million, are under construction. The tunnels capture 

the majority of the pollution load by capturing all of the small storms and the first 

flush of the large storms. The completed O’Hare CUP Reservoir provides 350 million 

gallons of storage. This Reservoir has a service area of 11.2 square miles and provides flood relief to 21,535 homes in Arlington Heights, Des Plaines and Mount 

Prospect. In its first 6 years of operation, O’Hare CUP Reservoir has taken water 

in 18 storm events, and yielded $62.8 million in flood damage reduction benefits, 

which exceeds its $44.5 million construction costs. The Thornton and McCook Reservoirs are currently under construction, but until they are completed significant 

areas will remain unprotected. Without these outlets, the local drainage has nowhere to go when large storms hit the area. 

Since its inception, TARP has not only abated flooding and pollution in the 

Chicagoland area, but has helped to preserve the integrity of Lake Michigan. In the 

years prior to TARP, a major storm in the area would cause local sewers and interceptors to surcharge resulting in CSO spills into the Chicagoland waterways and 

during major storms into Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for the region. Since these waterways have a limited capacity, major storms have caused 

them to reach dangerously high levels resulting in massive sewer backups into basements and causing multi-million dollar damage to property. 

Since implementation of TARP, 741 billion gallons of CSOs have been captured 

by TARP, that otherwise would have reached waterways. Area waterways are once 

again abundant with many species of aquatic life and the riverfront has been reclaimed as a natural resource for recreation and development. Closure of Lake 

Michigan beaches due to pollution has become a rarity. The elimination of CSOs will 

reduce the quantity of discretionary dilution water needed to keep the area waterways fresh. This water can be used instead for increasing the drinking water allocation for communities in Cook, Lake, Will and DuPage counties that are now on a 

waiting list to receive such water. Specifically, since 1977, these counties received 

an additional 162 million gallons of Lake Michigan water per day, partially as a result of the reduction in the District’s discretionary diversion since 1980. Additional 

allotments of Lake Michigan water will be made to these communities, as more 

water becomes available from reduced discretionary diversion. 

With new allocations of lake water, more than 20 communities that previously did 

not get lake water are in the process of building, or have already built, water mains 

to accommodate their new source of drinking water. The new source of drinking 

water will be a substitute for the poorer quality well water previously used by these 

communities. Partly due to TARP, it is estimated by IDOT that between 1981 and 

2020, 283 million gallons per day of Lake Michigan water would be added to domestic consumption. This translates into approximately 2 million additional people that 

would be able to enjoy Lake Michigan water. This new source of water supply will 

not only benefit its immediate receivers but will also result in an economic stimulus 

to the entire Chicagoland area by providing a reliable source of good quality water 

supply. 

THE MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS

The McCook and Thornton Reservoirs of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP) 

were fully authorized for construction in the Water Resources Development Act of 

1988 (Public Law 100–676). These CUP reservoirs, as previously discussed, are a 

part of TARP, a flood protection plan that is designed to reduce basement flooding 
385 

due to combined sewer back-ups and inadequate hydraulic capacity of the urban waterways. 

These reservoirs will provide a storage capacity of 18 billion gallons and will provide annual benefits of $115 million. The total potential annual benefits of these 

projects are approximately twice as much as their total annual cost. The District, 

as the local sponsor, has acquired the land necessary for these projects, and will 

meet its cost sharing obligations under Public Law 99–662. 

These projects are a very sound investment with a high rate of return. They will 

enhance the quality of life, safety and the peace of mind of the residents of this region. The State of Illinois has endorsed these projects and has urged their implementation. In professional circles, these projects are hailed for their farsightedness, 

innovation, and benefits. 

Based on two successive Presidentially-declared flood disasters in our area in 

1986 and again in 1987, and dramatic flooding in the last several years, we believe 

the probability of this type of flood emergency occurring before implementation of 

the critical flood prevention measure is quite high. As the public agency for the 

greater Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, and as our past 

sponsorship for flood control projects, we have an obligation to protect the health 

and safety of our citizens. We are asking your support in helping us achieve this 

necessary and important goal of construction completion. 

We appreciate that the subcommittee has included critical levels of funds for 

these important projects. We were delighted to see the $19,500,000 in construction 

funds for the McCook and Thornton Reservoirs included in the Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. In addition, an additional 

$1,000,000 was included in the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated Appropriations bill. 

However, it is important that we receive a total of $43,300,000 in construction funds 

in fiscal year 2005 to maintain the schedule of these critical projects. This funding 

is critical to continue the construction of the McCook Reservoir on schedule, in particular, to complete construction of the grout curtain, distribution tunnels, and 

pumps and motors and to accelerate the design of the Thornton Reservoir. The community has waited long enough for protection and we need these funds now to move 

the project in construction. We respectfully request your consideration of our request. 

SUMMARY

Our most significant recent flooding occurred on February 20, 1997, when almost 

4 inches of rain fell on the greater Chicagoland area. Due to the frozen ground, almost all of the rainfall entered our combined sewers, causing sewerage back-ups 

throughout the area. When the existing TARP tunnels filled with approximately 1.2 

billion gallons of sewage and runoff, the only remaining outlets for the sewers were 

our waterways. Between 9:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., the Chicago and Calumet Rivers 

rose 6 feet. For the first time since 1981 we had to open the locks at all three of 

the waterway control points; these include Wilmette, downtown Chicago, and Calumet. Approximately 4.2 billion gallons of combined sewage and stormwater had to 

be released directly into Lake Michigan. 

Given our large regional jurisdiction and the severity of flooding in our area, the 

Corps was compelled to develop a plan that would complete TARP and be large 

enough to accommodate the area we serve. With a combined sewer area of 375 

square miles, consisting of the city of Chicago and 51 contiguous suburbs, there are 

1,443,000 structures within our jurisdiction, which are subject to flooding. The annual damages sustained exceed $150 million. If TARP, including the CUP Reservoirs were in place, these damages could be eliminated. We must consider the 

safety and peace of mind of the 2 million people who are affected as well as the 

disaster relief funds that will be saved when these projects are in place. As the public agency in the greater Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, 

and as the regional sponsor for flood control, we have an obligation to protect the 

health and safety of our citizens. We are asking your support in helping us achieve 

this necessary and important goal. It is absolutely critical that the Corps’ work, 

which has been proceeding for a number of years, now proceeds on schedule through 

construction. 

Therefore, we urgently request that a total of $43,300,000 in construction funds 

be made available in the Fiscal Year 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act to continue construction of the McCook and Thornton Reservoir 

Projects. 

Again, we thank the subcommittee for its support of this important project over 

the years, and we thank you in advance for your consideration of our request this 

year. 
386 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER

CONSERVATION DISTRICT

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

Project Funding request 

Napa River Flood Control: Construction .............................................................................................................. $20,000,000 

Napa Valley Watershed Management: Feasibility Study ..................................................................................... 200,000 

NAPA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

Background 

The project is located in the city and county of Napa, California. The population 

in the city of Napa, approximately, 67,000 in 1994, is expected to exceed 77,000 this 

year. Excluding public facilities, the present value of damageable property within 

the project flood plain is well over $500 million. The Napa River Basin, comprising 

426 square miles, ranging from tidal marshes to mountainous terrain, is subject to 

severe winter storms and frequent flooding. In the lower reaches of the river, flood 

conditions are aggravated by high tides and local runoff. Floods in the Napa area 

have occurred in 1955, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1986 (flood of record), 1995, and 1997. In 

1998, the river rose just above flood stage on three occasions, but subsided before 

major property damage occurred. In December of 2002, flooding occurred from the 

Napa Creek at the transition to the Napa River, resulting in damage to numerous 

residents and several businesses. 

Since 1962, 27 major floods have struck the Valley region, exacting a heavy toll 

in loss of life and property. The flood on 1986, for example, killed three people and 

caused more than $100 million in damage. Damages throughout Napa County totaled about $85 million from the January and March 1995 floods. The floods resulted in 27 businesses and 843 residences damaged countrywide. Almost all of the 

damages from the 1986, 1995, and 1997 floods were within the project area. Congress has authorized a flood control project since 1944, but due to expense, lack of 

public consensus on the design and concern about environment impacts, a project 

had never been realized. In mid-1995, Federal and State resource agencies reviewed 

the plan and gave notice to the Corps that this plan had significant regulatory hurdles to face. 

Approved Plan—Project Overview 

In an effort to identify a meaningful and successful plan, a new approach emerged 

that looked at flood control from a broader, more comprehensive perspective. Citizens for Napa River Flood Management was formed, bringing together a diverse 

group of local engineers, architects, aquatic ecologists, business and agricultural 

leasers, environmentalists, government officials, homeowners and renters and numerous community organizations. 

Through a series of public meetings and intensive debate over every aspect of 

Napa’s flooding problems, the Citizens for Napa River Flood Management crafted 

a flood management plan offering a range of benefits for the entire Napa region. 

The Corps of Engineers served as a partner and a resource for the group, helping 

to evaluate their approach to flood management. The final plan produced by the 

Citizens for Napa River Flood Management was successfully evaluated through the 

research, experience and state-of-the-art simulation tools developed by the Corps 

and numerous international experts in the field of hydrology and other related disciplines. The success of this collaboration serves as a model for the Nation. 

Acknowledging the river’s natural state, the project utilizes a set of living river 

strategies that minimize the disruption and alteration of the river habitat, and 

maximizes the opportunities for environmental restoration and enhancement 

throughout the watershed. 

The Corps has developed the revised plan, which provides 100-year protection, 

with the assistance of the community and its consultants into the Supplemental 

General Design Memorandum (SGDM) and its accompanying draft Environmental 

Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/EIR). Construction of the 

project began 3 years ago. The coalition plan now memorialized in the Corps final 

documents includes the following engineered components: lowering of old dikes, 

marsh plain and flood plain terraces, oxbow dry bypass, Napa Creek flood plain terrace, upstream and downstream dry culverts along Napa Creek, new dikes, levees 

and flood walls, bank stabilization, pump stations and detention facilities, and 

bridge replacements. The benefits of the plan include reducing or elimination of loss 

of life, property damage, cleanup costs, community disruption due to unemployment 
387 

and lost business revenue, and the need for flood insurance. In fact, the project has 

created an economic renaissance in Napa with new investment, schools and housing 

coming into a livable community on a living river. As a key feature, the plan will 

improve water quality, create urban wetlands and enhance wildlife habitats. 

The plan will protect over 7,000 people and over 3,000 residential/commercial 

units from the 100-year flood event on the Napa River and its main tributary, the 

Napa Creek, and the project has a positive benefit-to-cost ratio under the Corps calculation. One billion dollars in damages will be saved over the useful life of the 

project. The Napa County Flood Control District is meeting its local cost-sharing responsibilities for the project. A countywide sales tax, along with a number of other 

funding options, was approved 4 years ago by a two-thirds majority of the county’s 

voters for the local share. Napa is California’s highest repetitive loss community. 

This plan is demonstrative of the disaster resistant community initiative, as well, 

as the sustainable development initiatives of FEMA and EPA. 

Project Synopsis 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding 

The Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act included $10,000,000 to continue construction of the project. In addition, the Fiscal 

Year 2004 Consolidated Appropriations bill included $2,750,000 for the project. The 

funding was sought for demolition of buildings and fixtures on 24 parcels that have 

been acquired by the non-Federal sponsor, relocation of the Napa Valley Wine Train 

rail line for an approximate 3-mile distance, as well as relocation of the facilities 

serving this public utility, removal of 190,000 cubic yards of soil which was contaminated by petroleum products, construction of marsh and flood plain terraces for an 

approximate 1.5-mile distance. Included in this amount is the reimbursement to the 

non-Federal sponsor for expenditures in excess of 45 percent of the total project 

costs to date. The local sponsor has expended $110 million, as compared to Federal 

sponsor expenditures to date of approximately $35 million. 

Necessary Fiscal Year 2005 Funding 

Funding for the Napa River Project during 2005 in the amount of $20,000,000 is 

needed to continue construction of the project. These funds will be used to accomplish the following tasks: 

—Complete HTRW remediation along the east side of the river for additional 2 

miles involving removal of an additional 200,000 cubic yards of contaminated 

soil; 

—Initiate and complete the Contract 1B excavation work in Kennedy Park; 

—Initiate Contract 2East excavation work on the east side of river from Imola to 

the Bypass; 

—Construct two railroad bridges, one over the bypass and one over the Napa 

River and relocate approximately 3,100 feet of railroad track replacement; 

—Continue engineering and design on future contracts; 

—Accomplish Construction Management on contract underway; 

—Initiate reimbursement of local sponsor with funds not required for the above. 

Included in this amount is the reimbursement to the non-Federal sponsor for expenditures in excess of 74 percent of the total project costs to date. By the end of 

June, 2003 the non-Federal sponsor will have expended $110 million. By the end 

of June, 2004 the non-Federal sponsor will have spent $130,000,000. 

NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Background 

The Napa Valley watershed faces many challenges and stresses to its environmental health and flood management abilities. From a healthy river point of view, 

the Napa River has been on a recovery path since its low point in the 1960’s, when 

the last of the native salmon were taken from the system by severe water pollution 

and habitat destruction. Steelhead trout have survived as a remnant population of 

200 that is presently in need of higher quality and more extensive spawning areas 

for recovery to a significant population. Beginning populations of fall run Chinook 

salmon have taken up residence in the watershed in those few areas available for 

spawning. While the chemical and wastewater pollution of earlier years has been 

effectively dealt with, excess sediment is still a critical stress on the salmon population, as it is to the spawning and rearing areas of the river in the estuarine zone 

upstream of San Pablo Bay, populated by delta smelt, splittail, green sturgeon and 

striped bass. 

The U.S. EPA and Region II Water Quality Control Board have prioritized the 

River as an impaired water body because of the sediment production. The excess 
388 

sediment generated in the watershed suffocates spawning areas, reduces the 

stream’s flood-carrying ability, fills deep pools, increases turbidity in the stream and 

estuary, carries with it nutrients that bring significant algae blooms during the 

summer and fall, and changes the morphological balance of the streams and river 

toward more unstable conditions. 

In order to address issues such as encroachment of the river and loss of wetlands 

and to develop local tools for improving natural resource management, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District (Corps) and the Napa County 

Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD) is currently developing 

a Napa Valley Watershed Management Plan (WMP) which identifies problems and 

opportunities for implementing environmentally and economically beneficial restoration in the Napa Valley watershed providing ecosystem benefits, such as flood reduction, erosion control, sedimentation management, and pollution abatement. The 

plan, which the District is requesting funds for, would include the identification, review, refinement, and prioritization of restoration and flood protection opportunities 

with an emphasis on restoration of the watershed’s ecosystem (e.g.: important plant 

communities, healthy fish and wildlife populations, rare and endangered habitats 

and species and wildlife and riparian habitats). 

The goal is to complete the WMP by providing technical, planning, and design assistance to the non-Federal interests for carrying out watershed management, restoration and development on the Napa River and its tributaries from Soscol Ridge, 

located approximately 5 miles south of the city of Napa, to Mt. St. Helena, the 

northern-most reach of the Napa River watershed, California. A management program incorporating flood protection and environmental restoration would be developed as a result of the watershed plan. 

To address the above mentioned and other local, regional, and national watershed 

concerns, the Napa County Board of Supervisors appointed a Napa County Watershed Task Force (WTF) to identify community based and supported solutions. The 

WTF submitted their recommendation for further action to the Napa County Board 

of Supervisors. 

The Corps and the NCFCWCD developed the Napa Valley Watershed Project 

Management Plan with input from the Napa County Planning Department (NCPD), 

Napa County Up-Valley Cities, Napa County Watershed Task Force (WTF), Napa 

County Resource Conservation District (RCD), Regional Water Quality Control 

Board (RWQCB), the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), and other regional 

and local stakeholders. 

In an effort to identify problems and opportunities for implementing beneficial 

restoration in the Napa Valley Watershed, the Napa County Flood Control District 

is requesting the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study be continued by the 

Corps of Engineers. The authority for this study is the Northern California Streams 

Study Authority stemming from the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962, Public Law 

87–874. Specifically, the Napa County Flood Control District is working closely with 

the Corps in the feasibility report to examine the watershed management needs, including flood control, environmental restoration, erosion control, storm water retention, storm water runoff management, water conservation and supply, wetlands restoration, sediment management and pollution abatement in the Napa Valley, including the communities of Napa, Yountville, St. Helena, Calistoga and the unincorporated areas of Napa County. 

Project Synopsis 

Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Funding 

The fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act included 

$200,000 to continue the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study. Funds are 

being used for data evaluation and outreach and to create a data monitoring framework for the watershed. This framework, known as the Watershed Information Center (WIC), will serve as a coordinating body and data-monitoring framework for the 

watershed. The WIC will serve as a library for existing biological and physical data 

on the watershed. It can serve as a forum for the multiple agencies, academic researcher and non-profit organizations engaged in monitoring in the watershed. 

Necessary Fiscal Year 2005 Funding 

Funding for the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study during fiscal year 

2005 in the amount of $200,000 is needed to continue work on the Napa Valley Watershed Resource Analysis & Report. The purpose of this work is to provide a foundation assessment for resource allocation that improves the habitat and water quality in the Napa River watershed. This program was begun in fiscal year 2004. Prior 

year activities have included aerial photography/mapping of the watershed. This 

work has been successfully completed and is in use by Napa County, its residents, 
389 

resource groups and interested parties. It provides a Geographical Information System (GIS) base for the management of watershed information. Also previous watershed funding has developed an internet based information system, the Watershed 

Information Center (WIC). This web based communication allows the resources of 

watershed studies to be available to all interested persons. The system has been developed and is currently being put online for general use. These first activities of 

the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study are cornerstones of future watershed planning and enhancement. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA

Project Request 

St. Helena NAPA River Restoration Project: (Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program) ................ $800,000 

York Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project: (Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program) ... 800,000 

CITY OF ST. HELENA

The City of St. Helena is located in the center of the wine growing Napa Valley, 

65 miles north of San Francisco. The area was settled in 1834 as part of General 

Vallejo’s land grant. The City of St. Helena was incorporated as a City on March 

24, 1876 and reincorporated on May 14, 1889. 

The City from its inception has served as a rural agricultural center. Over the 

years, with the growth and development of the wine industry, the City has become 

an important business and banking center for the wine industry. The City also receives many tourists as a result of the wine industry. While, the main goal of the 

City is to maintain a small-town atmosphere and to provide quality services to its 

citizens, this is becoming increasingly difficult. Regulatory, administrative and resource requirements placed on the City through the listing of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act on the Napa River, as well as significant Clean Water Act requirements require the City with a small population 

base to face significant financial costs. 

The City of St. Helena is a General Law City and operates under the CouncilCity Manager form of government. The City Council is the governing body and has 

the power to make and enforce all laws and set policy related to municipal affairs. 

The official population of the City of St. Helena as of January 1, 2002 is 6,041. St. 

Helena is a full service City and encompasses an area of 4 square miles. Because 

of its size and its rural nature, St. Helena has serious infrastructure, as well as, 

flood protection and environmental needs that far exceed its financial capabilities. 

The Napa River flows along the north boundary of the City of St. Helena in northern Napa County. The overall Napa River Watershed historically supported a dense 

riparian forest and significant wetland habitat. Over the last 200 years, approximately 6,500 acres of valley floor wetlands have been filled in and 45,700 acres of 

overall watershed have been converted to urban and agricultural uses. This degradation of natural habitats has had a significant effect on water quality, vegetation 

and wildlife, and aquatic resources within the Napa River Watershed. 

Surface water quality of the Napa River is dependent upon the time of year, runoff from York and Sulphur Creeks, and urban area discharges. During the winter 

months when streamflow is high, pollutants are diluted; however, sedimentation 

and turbidity is high as well. During the summer months when streamflow is low, 

pollutants are concentrated and oxygen levels are low, thereby decreasing water 

quality. Agricultural runoff adds pesticides, fertilizer residue, and sometimes sediment. Discharges from urban areas can include contaminated stormwater runoff 

and treated city wastewater. The Napa River has been placed on the Clean Water 

Act 303(d) List and TMDL Priority Schedule due to unacceptable levels of bacteria, 

sedimentation, and nutrients. It is against this backdrop that the City of St. Helena 

faces its biggest challenges. 

ST. HELENA NAPA RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT

The Napa River and its riparian corridor are considered Critical Habitat for 

Steelhead and Salmon Recovery. The Steelhead is one of 6 federally listed threatened and endangered species within the Napa River and its adjoining corridor which 

requires attention. Current conditions are such that natural habitats and geomorphic processes of the Napa River are highly confined with sediment transport 

and geomorphic work occurring in a limited area of the streambed and channel 

banks. Napa River’s habitat for the steelhead is limited in its ability to provide 

prime spawning habitat. Limitations include: (1) urbanization removing significant 
390 

amounts of shading and cover vegetation within and adjacent to the river; and (2) 

a detrimental lack of pool habitat. Encroachment and channelization of Napa River 

have degraded riparian habitat for rearing, resident, and migratory fish and wildlife. The lack of riparian cover, increasing water temperature and sedimentation in 

the river, has resulted in poor water quality. These changes have reduced the 

project area’s ability to support the re-establishment of listed species. 

In an effort to address these Federal environmental issues, the St. Helena Napa 

River Restoration Project, a Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project, was 

identified in the Napa Valley Watershed Management Feasibility Study in April of 

2001 as a specific opportunity for restoration. The project would restore approximately 3 miles (20 acres) of riparian habitat and improve the migratory capacity 

of federally listed threatened and endangered species, providing greater access to 

rearing, resident and migratory habitats in the 80-square-mile watershed above the 

project area. 

The project will interface with and complement the City of St. Helena’s multiple 

objective flood project, the St. Helena Flood Protection and Flood Corridor Restoration Project, which will provide flood damage reduction through restoration and reestablishment of the natural floodplain along the project reach, setting back levees 

and the re-creation and restoration of a natural floodway providing high value riparian forest. 

This Section 206 project is necessary to ensure and improve the viability of Federal and State listed species by providing rearing, resident and migratory habitat 

in the project’s 3-mile stream corridor. The project will also work to improve area 

habitat to benefit the migration of steelhead to high value fisheries habitat in upper 

watershed channel reaches. In an effort to build on recent geomorphic and riparian 

studies on the Napa River, the Corps will use these efforts from Swanson Hydrology 

and Geomorphology and Stillwater Science to secure baseline information for this 

project. 

The City of St. Helena respectfully requests the committee’s support for $800,000 

for completing the Detailed Project Report and initiating plans and specifications for 

the St. Helena Napa River Restoration Project under the Corps’ Section 206 Aquatic 

Ecosystem Restoration Program. 

YORK CREEK DAM REMOVAL AND RESTORATION PROJECT

York Creek originates from the Coast Range on the western side of the Napa Valley Watershed at an elevation of approximately 1,800 feet and flows through a narrow canyon before joining the Napa River northeast of St. Helena. York Creek Dam 

on York Creek has been identified as a significant obstacle to passage for federally 

listed Steelhead in the Central California Coast. In fact, it has been determined that 

York Creek Dam is a complete barrier to upstream fish migration. In addition, since 

the City of St. Helena has owned York Creek Dam, there have been a number of 

silt discharges from the dam into York Creek that have caused fish kills. 

Under the Corps of Engineers’ Section 206 Authority, a study is underway to remove the dam structure and to restore the creek in an effort to improve fish passage 

and ecological stream function for this Napa River tributary. Alternatives to be investigated and pursued include complete removal of York Creek Dam, appurtenances and accumulated sediment, re-grading and restoring the creek through the 

reservoir area. Rather than merely removing the dam and accumulated sediments, 

alternatives under consideration would use a portion of the material to re-grade the 

reservoir area to simulate the configuration of the undisturbed creek channel upstream. Material could also be used to fill in and bury the spillway and to fill in 

the scour hole immediately downstream of the spillway. Use of material on site will 

greatly reduce hauling and disposal costs, as well as recreating a more natural 

creek channel through the project area. 

The revegetation plan for the site following removal of the earthen dam will restore a self-sustaining native plant community that is sufficiently established to exclude nonnative invasive plants. Revegetation will replace vegetation that is removed due to construction and stabilize sediments in the stream channel riparian 

corridor and upper bank slopes. The species composition of the revegetated site will 

be designed to match that of (relatively) undisturbed sites both above and below the 

project site. In terms of expected outcomes for the project, the removal of York 

Creek Dam will open an additional 2 miles of steelhead habitat upstream of the 

dam, and the channel restoration will reestablish natural channel geomorphic processes and restore riparian vegetation. 

The City of St. Helena respectfully requests the committee’s support for $800,000 

in appropriations under the Corps of Engineers’ Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program, so that the efforts to allow the continuation of the Detailed 
391 

Project Report can stay on schedule for the York Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT

Project Request 

CALAVERAS COUNTY WATERSHEDS STUDY .......................................................................................................... $1,500,000 

CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT

Calaveras County (County) is located in the central Sierra Nevada foothills about 

25 miles east of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). Ground elevations within the County increase from 200 feet above mean sea level near the northwest part 

of the County to 8,170 feet near Alpine County. It is a predominately rural county 

with a relatively sparse but rapidly developing population and limited agricultural 

and industrial development. Calaveras County is located within the watersheds of 

the Mokelumne, Calaveras, and Stanislaus Rivers. All three rivers flow west, 

through San Joaquin County into the Delta. Most of the County is underlain by the 

igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Sierra Nevada. Alluvial deposits of the Central Valley, which overlie the westward plunging Sierra Nevada, are present along 

an 80 square-mile area located along the western edge of the county and are part 

of the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin (ESJCGB). This on-going 

Calaveras County Watersheds Study under the authority of the Corps of Engineers’ 

Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Basin Study is focused on the western 

part of Calaveras County. 

In the fall of 1946, the Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) was organized 

under the laws of the State of California as a public agency for the purpose of developing and administering the water resources in Calaveras County. Therefore, 

CCWD is governed by the California Constitution and the California Government 

and Water Codes. CCWD is not a part of, or under the control of, the County of 

Calaveras. CCWD was formed to preserve and develop water resources and to provide water and wastewater service to the citizens of Calaveras County. 

Under State law, CCWD, through its Board of Directors, has general powers over 

the use of water within its boundaries. These powers include, but are not limited 

to: the right of eminent domain, authority to acquire, control, distribute, store, 

spread, sink, treat, purify, reclaim, process and salvage any water for beneficial use, 

to provide sewer service, to sell treated or untreated water, to acquire or construct 

hydroelectric facilities and sell the power and energy produced to public agencies or 

public utilities engaged in the distribution of power, to contract with the United 

States, other political subdivisions, public utilities, or other persons, and subject to 

the California State Constitution, levy taxes and improvements. 

CALAVERAS COUNTY WATERSHEDS STUDY—UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE

SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY

Project Need 

The Calaveras County Watersheds Study CCWD is being pursued through the 

Corps of Engineers’ program under the authority of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Basin Study and includes a review of project needs and opportunities within the Mokelumne River, Calaveras River and Stanislaus River Watersheds. 

CCWD is responsible for developing and administering the water resources of 

Calaveras County. Historically, a significant portion of the water needs of Calaveras 

County have been met mostly with surface water from the Mokelumne, Calaveras 

or Stanislaus Rivers. One of the overriding themes of the watershed study is to 

identify and maximize the use of District surface water resources on the 

Mokelumne, Calaveras and Stanislaus Rivers in conjunction with the groundwater 

supply to improve supply reliability. 

Historically, groundwater has been used only to meet demands of scattered single 

family homes. This study area, which is part of the Eastern San Joaquin County 

Groundwater Basin (ESJCGB), has been identified by the State of California as 

being in a state of overdraft. The California Department of Water Resources water 

level data for wells near the Calaveras-San Joaquin County line, have recorded 

water level declines ranging from 0.6 to 1.5 feet per year over the last 40 years. 

Without programs to mitigate the groundwater overdraft, groundwater levels will 

continue to decline in the groundwater basin. 
392 

In an effort to gain better understanding of the condition of the water sources, 

and issues and opportunities including flooding and the use of return flows, water 

supply and conjunctive use, as well as, the surrounding environment, the comprehensive watershed approach is being pursued. 

While this is a watershed study, the approach is to focus in on the CCWD’s stated 

priority areas to develop project resolutions. The first three critical project areas to 

be studied include the following: Cosgrove Creek, Wallace Lake Estates and the 

Burson area. 

Cosgrove Creek 

Cosgrove Creek is an intermittent stream within the Calaveras River watershed. 

The creek enters the lower Calaveras River downstream from the spillway of New 

Hogan Lake. During average precipitation years, stream flow is present from late 

fall through early to mid-summer. 

Cosgrove is approximately 9.8 miles long and has a drainage area of 21 square 

miles. The upper two-thirds of the Cosgrove Creek watershed is used for grazing 

and the lower third has been subject to urban development. A portion of this lower 

reach, which passes through the adjacent communities of Valley Springs, La 

Contenta and Rancho Calaveras, has experienced many incidents of flooding and resulting damage to residential properties. 

The objective of this effort is to produce a feasibility study on project alternatives 

for diverting Cosgrove Creek during peak flow periods to provide for flood protection 

while putting the diverted water to beneficial use. The solution will be a unique 

multiple purpose project in that it would both divert flood flows and put the yield 

to beneficial use for higher community needs such as creating wetlands and environmental restoration, and developing complementary recreational uses, such as ball 

fields and hiking or equestrian trails. 

Wallace Lake Estates 

Wallace Lake is located near the western edge of Calaveras County, just north 

of Highway 26. The lake is part of the Wallace Lake Estates subdivision. 

Wallace Lake is also situated between East Bay Municipal Utility District’s 

(EBMUD’s) Camanche Reservoir and Mokelumne aqueduct. Qualitative observations 

have noted that, after filling, lake volume appears to diminish far more rapidly than 

would be expected. The Wallace Lake Community Services District would like to 

maintain the lake at full capacity all year. It is reported that pumping well water 

into the lake does not maintain desired levels. This has led to speculation regarding 

the possibility that, if the lake is percolating into the local groundwater table, this 

could be an attribute that could intentionally be put to use to facilitate groundwater 

recharge and development of a conjunctive use project. 

The primary focus of this study is to assess both the local hydrogeological conditions with respect to using the lake for groundwater recharge and the means of 

transporting Mokelumne River water to the lake. 

The objective of this investigation is to produce an assessment and feasibility 

study as a basis for developing project alternatives for bringing Mokelumne water 

to Wallace Lake and the viability of utilizing the lake for the purpose of demonstrating a groundwater infiltration gallery, as well as environmental restoration. 

Burson Area 

Most of the area within Calaveras County north of Highway 12 and south of the 

Mokelumne River, including the Burson area, is currently wholly dependent upon 

groundwater and has experienced critical water shortages for the last 20 years. 

Issues include low volume or no water at all in some wells and degradation of water 

quality involving taste, smell and chemical contamination. The problems have continued to worsen. 

One possible alternative project solution is conjunctive use of Mokelumne River 

water to recharge the groundwater basin with high quality surface water. (It appears unlikely that use of Wallace Lake for recharge purposes will assist this particular area of need.) 

A second alternative is to investigate the possible presence of and potential use 

for high yielding zones, including an ancient underground river within the defined 

aquifer area, that could be tapped without detrimentally impacting existing users. 

These project alternatives would include an environmental restoration component. 

The objective of this investigation is to produce an assessment and feasibility study 

as a basis for developing a drinking water system for the Burson area of Calaveras 

County. 

CCWD is working closely with the Sacramento Corps District in the development 

of a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement in order for the Calaveras County Watersheds Study to advance and for these projects to proceed. In an effort for the feasi-
393 

bility study to move towards project formulation, CCWD is seeking $1.5 million for 

the Calaveras County Watersheds Study, as a separately identified effort under the 

authority of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Basin Study, in the 

Fiscal Year 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

We express full support of the inclusion in the fiscal year 2005 budget for the full 

capability of the USACE for $831,000. 

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2001, a tugboat and several barges struck the Queen Isabella 

Causeway on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at the mouth of the Brownsville Ship 

Channel east of Port Isabel. The accident took the lives of eight people. 

A January 1997 Reconnaissance Report of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway-Corpus 

Christi Bay to Port Isabel, Texas (Section 216), was conducted by the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers. The study was initiated to determine the Federal interest 

in rerouting the GIWW. The information available at the time indicated a less than 

favorable benefit to cost ratio for the proposed realignment. Since the September 15 

incident, the Corps, Cameron County officials, and a number of local entities and 

residents of the County have reopened discussion of the rerouting of the GIWW. The 

Corps of Engineers agrees that new facts regarding the safety of the current alignment warrants a revisiting of the issue to determine the viability of rerouting the 

channel in a direct line from the point where the waterway crosses underneath the 

causeway to the point where it reaches the Brazos Santiago Pass and the Brownsville Ship Channel. The route in question is the exact one traveled by the tugboat 

and barges that struck the bridge on September 15, killing eight people. The tugboat captain failed to negotiate the sharp turn after it passed through the Long Island Swing Bridge. This particular turn is one of the most dangerous on the entire 

waterway. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The reconnaissance study would allow the Corps to reopen the examination of the 

rerouting of the GIWW on the basis of safety. The measure would seek to eliminate 

safety hazards to Port Isabel and Long Island residents created by barges that move 

large quantities of fuel and other potentially dangerous explosive chemicals through 

the existing route under the Queen Isabella Causeway. The overall goal of the study 

would be to enhance safety and transportation efficiency on this busy Texas waterway by removing the treacherous turn tug and barge operators are forced to make 

as they navigate the passage through the Long Island Swing Bridge. In addition to 

the hazardous curve, the winding and congested course taken by the waterway 

through the City of Port Isabel adds needless distance and time to the transportation of goods to and from Cameron County ports. These costs are borne not only 

by commercial operators using the waterway, but also by consumers and businesses 

all across Texas and the Nation. The rerouting would also seek to correct the adverse impact of waterway traffic on Cameron County residents. Apart from the obvious potential for damage to the Queen Isabella Causeway, adverse impacts are created by waterway traffic in the form of traffic delays associated with the Long Island Swing Bridge and the transportation of hazardous materials within several 

hundred feet of densely populated areas in Port Isabel and Long Island. Currently, 

a 1950’s era swing bridge that floats in the waterway channel connects Long Island 

and the City of Port Isabel. As waterborne traffic approaches the bridge, cables are 

used to swing it from the center of the channel and then swing it back into place. 

This costly and time-consuming process, which frequently backs up traffic into the 

downtown business district of Port Isabel, is estimated to drain hundreds of dollars 

a year from the economy of this economically distressed area. More serious problems 

are created when the heavily used cables or winch motors on the swing bridge fail, 

leaving the bridge stuck in an open or closed position. Equipment failures often 

cause delays for several days and leave Long Island residents cut-off from vehicle 

access or the ports of Port Isabel and Brownsville cut-off from in-bound and outbound barge traffic. During these times, supplies of vital commodities are halted all 

across the Rio Grande Valley as stocks dwindle and produce and finished goods 

begin to pile up. 
394 

IMPACT OF THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is an integral part of the inland transportation 

system of the United States. Stretching across more than 1,300 coastal miles of the 

Gulf of Mexico, this man-made, shallow-draft canal moves a large variety and great 

number of vessels and cargoes. The 426 miles of the waterway running through 

Texas makes it possible to supply both domestic and foreign markets with chemicals, petroleum and other essential goods. Barge traffic is essential to many of the 

port economies from Texas to Great Lakes ports, indeed, throughout the entire 

GIWW. Some ports feel their future strategic plans are closely linked to the efficient 

operation of the GIWW. This is true for ports that rely almost entirely on barge traffic as well as ports that function primarily as recreational facilities. Most of the 

cargo moved along Texas waterways is petroleum and petroleum products. The 

GIWW is well suited for the movement of such cargo, and, therefore, has allowed 

many of the smaller, shallow-draft facilities to engage in both interstate and international trade. Commercial fishing access via the GIWW has had a significant impact on these port economies as well. 

CONCLUSION

A 1995 Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs report entitled ‘‘The Texas 

Seaport and Inland Waterway System’’ warned of concern with the safe operation 

of barges on the GIWW citing, ‘‘a serious accident perhaps involving a collision between two barges carrying hazardous materials could force closure of the waterway’’. 

No one could foresee the terrible accident that occurred on September 15. The lives 

of eight people came to an end and the lives of their loved ones was irrevocably 

changed forever. This important waterway must be improved to prevent another 

tragedy. The $831,000 that must be added to the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill 

will allow the Corps of Engineers to continue to study a preferred plan to remedy 

this dangerous situation. The government has already invested $400,000 to move 

this project forward. Cameron County, the users of the GIWW, and the residents 

of the area respectfully requests the addition of this much-needed appropriation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BRAZOS RIVER HARBOR NAVIGATION DISTRICT

We express full support of the inclusion in the fiscal year 2005 budget for the full 

capability of the USACE of $700,000. 

President’s budget included $300,000. 

Additional funds needed for fiscal year 2005 $400,000. 

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

Port Freeport is an autonomous governmental entity authorized by an act of the 

Texas Legislature in 1925. It is a deep-draft port, located on Texas’ central Gulf 

Coast, approximately 60 miles southwest of Houston, and is an important Brazos 

River Navigation District component. The port elevation is 3 to 12 feet above sea 

level. Port Freeport is governed by a board of six commissioners elected by the voters of the Navigation District of Brazoria County, which currently encompasses 85 

percent of the county. Port Freeport land and operations currently include 186 acres 

of developed land and 7,723 acres of undeveloped land, 5 operating berths, a 45-inch 

deep Freeport Harbor Channel and a 70-foot deep sink hole. Future expansion includes building a 1,300-acre multi-modal facility, cruise terminal and container terminal. Port Freeport is conveniently accessible by rail, waterway and highway 

routes. There is direct access to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River Diversion Channel, and, State Highways 36 and 288. Located just 3 miles from deep 

water, Port Freeport is one of the most accessible ports on the Gulf Coast. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water appropriations signed into law included 

a $100,000 appropriation to allow the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) to conduct a reconnaissance study to determine the Federal interest in an 

improvement project for Freeport Harbor, Texas. The USACE, in cooperation with 

the Brazos River Harbor Navigation District as the local sponsor, has completed 

that study. The report indicates that ‘‘transportation savings in the form of National 

Economic Development Benefits (NED) appear to substantially exceed the cost of 

project implementation’’, thus confirming ‘‘a strong Federal interest in conducting 

the feasibility study of navigation improvements at Freeport Harbor’’. In fact, the 

Corps anticipates a benefit to cost ratio of the project to be at an impressive more 
395 

than 20 to 1 benefit to cost. The fiscal year 2003 budget fully funded the Corps capability of $500,000 to begin the feasibility study. The fiscal year 2004 budget included $250,000 with an additional $250,000 reprogrammed by the USACE to continue the feasibility study without delay. 

Port Freeport has the opportunity to solidify significant new business for Texas 

with this improvement project. In addition, the improvement to the environment by 

taking a huge number of trucks off of the road, transporting goods more economically and environmentally sensitive by waterborne commerce is infinitely important 

to the community, the State, and the Nation. Moreover, the enhanced safety of a 

wider channel cannot be overstated. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PORT FREEPORT

Port Freeport is sixteenth in foreign tonnage in the United States and twentyfourth in total tonnage. The port handled over 25 million tons of cargo in 2003 and 

an additional 75,000 T.E.U.’s of containerized cargo. It is responsible for augmenting 

the Nation’s economy by $7.06 billion annually and generating 30,000 jobs. Its chief 

import commodities are bananas, fresh fruit and aggregate while top export commodities are rice and chemicals. The port’s growth has been staggering in the past 

decade, becoming one of the fastest growing ports on the Gulf Coast. Port Freeport’s 

economic impact and its future growth is justification for its budding partnership 

with the Federal Government in this critical improvement project. 

DEFENSE SUPPORT OF OUR NATION

Port Freeport is a strategic port in times of National Defense of our Nation. It 

houses a critically important petroleum oil reserve—Bryan Mound. It also is the 

only port in Texas that is being considered by the United States Navy and General 

Dynamics as the site for the building of Amphibious Assault Vehicles. Its close proximity to State Highways 36 and 288 make it a convenient deployment port for Fort 

Hood. In these unusual times, it is important to note the importance of our ports 

in the defense of our Nation and to address the need to keep our Federal waterways 

open to deep-draft navigation. 

COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY SUPPORT

This proposed improvement project has wide community and industry support. 

The safer transit and volume increase capability is an appealing and exciting prospect for the users of Freeport Harbor and Stauffer Channel. The anticipated more 

than 20 to 1 benefit to cost ratio that was indicated from the Corps of Engineers 

reconnaissance study firmly solidified the Federal interest. 

WHAT WE NEED FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE IN FISCAL YEAR 2005

The administration’s budget included $300,000 for the continuation of the feasibility study, which will be conducted at a 50/50 Federal Government/local sponsor 

share. The Corps had indicated a capability for fiscal year 2005 of $700,000 to continue the feasibility study and keep this project on an optimal and most cost-efficient time frame for the Federal Government and the local sponsor. We respectfully 

request the additional $400,000 for fiscal year 2005. Most Corps projects indicate 

a 10 to 1 and below benefit to cost ratio. This project estimates nearly twice that 

benefit to cost ratio and deserves to be tagged a ‘‘priority project’’. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHAMBERS COUNTY-CEDAR BAYOU NAVIGATION

DISTRICT

We express full support of the inclusion of the full capability of the USACE for 

fiscal year 2005 to complete PED for the project to deepen and widen Cedar Bayou, 

Texas. 

President’s Budget Included $135,000. 

Additional Funds Needed in Fiscal Year 2005 $311,000. 

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

The Rivers and Harbor Act of 1890 originally authorized navigation improvements 

to Cedar Bayou. The project was reauthorized in 1930 to provide a 10 ft. deep and 

100 ft. wide channel from the Houston Ship Channel to a point on Cedar Bayou 11 

miles above the mouth of the bayou. In 1931, a portion of the channel was constructed from the Houston Ship Channel to a point about 0.8 miles above the mouth 

of Cedar Bayou, approximately 3.5 miles in length. A study of the project in 1971 
396 

determined that an extension of the channel to project Mile 3 would have a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. This portion of the channel was realigned from mile 0.1 

to mile 0.8 and extended from mile 0.8 to Mile 3 in 1975. In October 1985, the portion of the original navigation project from project Mile 3 to 11 was deauthorized 

due to the lack of a local sponsor. In 1989, the Corps of Engineers, Galveston District completed a Reconnaissance Report dated June 1989, which recommended a 12 

ft. by 125 ft. channel from the Houston Ship Channel Mile 3 to Cedar Bayou Mile 

11 at the State Highway 146 Bridge. The Texas Legislature created the Chambers 

County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District in 1997 as an entity to improve the navigability of Cedar Bayou. 

The district was created to accomplish the purpose of Section 59, Article XVI, of 

the Texas Constitution and has all the rights, powers, privileges and authority applicable to Districts created under Chapters 60, 62, and 63 of the Water Code—Public Entity. The Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District then became the 

local sponsor for the Cedar Bayou Channel. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REAUTHORIZATION

Cedar Bayou is a small coastal stream, which originates in Liberty County, Texas, 

and meanders through the urban area near the eastern portion of the City of Baytown, Texas, before entering Galveston Bay. The bayou forms the boundary between 

Harris County on the west and Chambers County on the east. The project was authorized in Section 349 of the Water Resources Development Act 2000, which authorized a navigation improvement of 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide from mile 2.5 

to mile 11 on Cedar Bayou. 

JUSTIFICATION AND INDUSTRY SUPPORT

First and foremost, the channel must be improved for safety. The channel is the 

home to a busy barge industry. The most cost-efficient and safe method of conveyance is barge transportation. Water transportation offers considerable cost savings 

compared to other freight modes (rail is nearly twice as costly and truck nearly four 

times higher). In addition, the movement of cargo by barge is environmentally 

friendly. Barges have enormous carrying capacity while consuming less energy, due 

to the fact that a large number of barges can move together in a single tow, controlled by only one power unit. The result takes a significant number of trucks off 

of Texas highways. The reduction of air emissions by the movement of cargo on 

barges is a significant factor as communities struggle with compliance with the 

Clean Air Act. 

Several navigation-dependent industries and commercial enterprises have been 

established along the commercially navigable portions of Cedar Bayou. Several industries have docks on at the mile markers that would be affected by this muchneeded improvement. These industries include: Reliant Energy, Bayer Corporation, 

Koppel Steel, CEMEX, US Filter Recovery Services and Dorsett Brothers Concrete, 

to name a few. 

PROJECT COSTS AND BENEFITS

Congress appropriated $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 for the Corps of Engineers to 

conduct the feasibility study to determine the Federal interest in this improvement 

project. The study indicated a benefit to cost ratio of the project of 2.8 to 1. The 

estimated total cost of the project is $16.8 million with a Federal share estimated 

at $11.9 million and the non-Federal sponsor share of approximately $4.9 million. 

Total annual benefits are estimated to be $4.8 million, with a net benefit of $3 million. Congress appropriated $400,000 each in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 

and $374,000 in fiscal year 2004 to support the feasibility study. This project is environmentally sound and economically justified. We would appreciate the subcommittee’s support of the required add of the $311,000 appropriation needed by the 

Corps of Engineers to complete the plans and specifications of the project so that 

it can move forward at an optimum construction schedule. The users of the channel 

deserve to have the benefits of a safer, most cost-effective Federal waterway. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity 

to present The Nature Conservancy’s recommendations for the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation’s fiscal 2005 appropriations. We understand and 

appreciate that the subcommittee’s ability to fund programs within its jurisdiction 
397 

is limited by the tight budget situation but appreciate your consideration of these 

important programs. 

The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization dedicated to 

the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy has more than 

1,000,000 individual members and 1,900 corporate associates. We have programs in 

all 50 States and in 27 foreign countries. We have protected more than 15 million 

acres in the United States and approximately 102 million acres with local partner 

organizations worldwide. The Conservancy owns and manages 1,400 preserves 

throughout the United States—the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in 

the world. Sound science and strong partnerships with public and private landowners to achieve tangible and lasting results characterize our conservation programs. 

The Conservancy urges the subcommittee to support the following appropriation 

levels in the fiscal 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriation bill: 

CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PRIORITIES

Section 1135: Project Modification for the Improvement of the Environment.—The 

Section 1135 Program authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to restore 

areas damaged by existing Corps projects. This program permits modification of existing dams and flood control projects to increase habitat for fish and wildlife without interrupting a project’s original purpose. The Conservancy is the non-Federal 

cost share partner on nine Section 1135 projects including Spunky Bottoms, a floodplain restoration/reconnection project on the Illinois River, for which we seek an earmark in the amount of $200,000 in fiscal 2005. This program is in extremely high 

demand and severely oversubscribed in fiscal 2004 with millions of dollars of requests beyond what was appropriated. This financial shortfall has stopped many 

projects. The Conservancy strongly encourages full funding of $25 million for the 

Section 1135 program in fiscal 2005, an increase over the President’s $13.5 million 

request. 

Section 206: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.—Section 206 is a newer Corps program that authorizes the Corps to restore aquatic habitat regardless of past activities. The Conservancy is the non-Federal cost-share partner on four Section 206 

projects. These projects restore important fish and wildlife habitats, including a $5 

million project at Mad Island in Texas, and a $1.4 million riparian habitat restoration project at Bootheel Creek in Florida. This program is in extremely high demand 

and severely oversubscribed in fiscal 2004 with millions of dollars of requests beyond what was appropriated. This financial shortfall has stopped many projects. The 

Conservancy strongly encourages full funding of $25 million for this valuable program in fiscal 2005, an increase over the President’s $10 million request. 

Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program.—The Environmental Management Program (EMP) is an important Corps program that constructs habitat restoration projects and conducts long-term resource monitoring of 

the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. The EMP operates as a unique FederalState partnership affecting five States (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin). The EMP was reauthorized in WRDA 1999 with an increased authorization 

in the amount of $33.2 million. The Conservancy supports full funding of $33.2 million for fiscal 2005, an increase over the President’s $28 million request. 

Estuary Habitat Restoration Program.—The Estuary Habitat Restoration Program 

was established with the intent to restore 1 million acres of estuary habitat by 2010. 

This multi-agency program will promote projects that result in healthy ecosystems 

that support wildlife, fish and shellfish, improve surface and groundwater quality, 

quantity, and flood control; and provide outdoor recreation. The Conservancy supports $10 million in fiscal 2005. This program was not included in the President’s 

budget. 

Florida Keys Water Quality Program.—The Florida Keys Water Quality Program 

is a unique restoration program designed to protect the Florida Keys’ fragile marine 

and coral ecosystem. This nationally significant marine ecosystem is being impacted 

by excessive nutrients due to storm and waste water pollution. This program is cost 

shared with State and local interests to repair and improve the storm and wastewater treatment facilities on the Florida Keys to reduce the harmful levels of nutrient pollution. The Nature Conservancy, and its partners the State of Florida, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Monroe County, City of Islamorada, City of Layton, 

City of Key Colony Beach, City of Marathon, and City of Key West, support $30 million for fiscal 2005. This program was not included in the President’s budget. 
398 

Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation.—Created in WRDA 1986, the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project is designed to reverse the negative 

environmental impacts of lower river channelization and bank stabilization through 

land acquisition from willing sellers. The Mitigation Project allows the Corps to restore chutes, side channels, and other off-channel floodplain habitat for river wildlife. The Conservancy supports the President’s $69 million request for fiscal 2005. 

GENERAL INVESTIGATION PRIORITIES

Middle Potomac River Watershed Study.—The preliminary Middle Potomac Watershed Section 905(b) analysis identified 14 feasibility studies to address flood control needs and environmental restoration opportunities within the Middle Potomac 

Watershed. The study team identified three study goals for the development of 

project management plans: (1) to conserve, restore, and revitalize the Potomac River 

basin; (2) to develop sustainable watershed management plans; and (3) to cooperate 

with and support public and private entities in developing watershed management 

plans. The Conservancy supports $1 million in fiscal 2005 to continue the development of these plans. This study was not included in the President’s budget. 

Savannah Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Study.—The Savannah Basin 

Comprehensive Water Resources Study will enable the Corps and other partners to 

gain a better understanding of the influence of hydrologic processes such as timing, 

duration, frequency, magnitude, and rate of change of river flows on the river’s ecology. The Nature Conservancy, under a cooperative agreement funded by the Corps 

and its cost share partners Georgia and South Carolina, developed a set of ecosystem flow recommendations for the Savannah River Basin. A test release of the 

new flow recommendation was conducted March 15–18, 2004. The Conservancy supports $436,000 in fiscal 2005, an increase over the President’s $250,000 request. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM PRIORITIES

Southern California Special Area Management Plan (SAMP).—For the past 4 

years, the Army Corps has been working with three Southern California counties 

to develop region-wide Special Area Management Plans that identify, delineate and 

plan for the conservation of wetlands within their jurisdictions. These SAMPs are 

a critical part of the regional effort to protect significant natural resources and to 

plan for continued economic growth in Southern California. They are emerging as 

an important planning tool that addresses streamlining of Federal wetlands regulations while promoting more effective wetlands conservation and providing long-term 

certainty for economic interests in the region. The Southern California SAMP process is being evaluated as a model for wetlands planning in other areas. The Conservancy supports a $2 million earmark within the Corps’ regulatory program for fiscal 

2005. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PRIORITIES

Recovery Implementation Program for Colorado Endangered Fish Species.—The 

Recovery Program is in its fourteenth year of working for the recovery of endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Recovery Program serves 

as a model of successful cooperation between three States (Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming), Federal agencies, water development interests, power users and the environmental community in the recovery of four endangered fish species. The Conservancy supports $4 million in fiscal 2005 for the Bureau of Reclamation’s portion of 

this multiagency program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy’s comments on 

the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. We recognize that you receive many worthy requests for funding each year and appreciate your consideration of these requests and the generous support you have shown for these and other conservation 

programs in the past. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to 

contact me. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal year 2004 

funding for the Department of the Interior with respect to the Federal/State Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Congress has designated the Depart-
399 

ment of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to be the lead agency for 

salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. This successful and cost effective program is carried out pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and 

the Clean Water Act. California’s Colorado River water users are presently suffering 

economic damages in the hundreds of million of dollars per year due to the river’s 

salinity. 

The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is the State agency 

charged with protecting California’s interests and rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River System. In this capacity, California along with the 

other six Basin States through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 

(Forum), the interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin States’ 

salinity control efforts, established numeric criteria in June 1975, for salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria were established to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin States, as well as, assist the United States in delivering 

water of adequate quality to Mexico in accordance with Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission. The goal of the Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Program is to offset the effects of water resource development in 

the Colorado River Basin after 1972 rather than to reduce the salinity of the River 

below levels that were caused by natural variations in river flows or human activities prior to 1972. To maintain these levels, the salinity control program must remove 1,800,000 tons of salt loading from the River by the year 2020. In the Forum’s 

last report entitled 2002 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado 

River System (2002 Review) released in October 2002, the Forum found that additional salinity control measures that remove salt from the River in the order of 

1,000,000 tons are needed to meet the implementation plan. The plan for water 

quality control of the River has been adopted by the States and approved by the 

Environmental Protection Agency. To date, Reclamation has been successful in implementing projects for preventing salt from entering the River system; however, 

many more potential projects for salt reduction have been identified that can be controlled with Reclamation’s Basin-wide Salinity Control Program. The Forum has 

presented testimony to Congress in which it has stated that the rate of implementation of the program beyond that which has been funded in the past is necessary. 

In 2000, Congress reviewed the salinity control program as authorized in 1995. 

Following hearings, and with the administration’s support, the Congress passed legislation that increased the ceiling authorization for this program by $100 million. 

Reclamation has received proposals to move the program ahead and the seven Basin 

States have agreed to up-front cost sharing on an annual basis, which adds 43 cents 

for every Federal dollar appropriated. 

In previous years, the President has supported, and Congress has funded the Bu- reau of Reclamation’s Basinwide Salinity Control Program at about $12 million. The 

Forum has indicated that the President’s request for funding for fiscal year 2005 

in the amount of $9,064,000 is inappropriately low. The Forum has requested a total 

of $17.5 million for fiscal year 2005 to implement the needed and authorized program. The Colorado River Board supports the Forum’s recommendation and believes 

that failure to appropriate these funds may result in significant economic damages 

in the United States and Mexico. Water quality commitments to downstream U.S. 

and Mexican users must be honored while the Basin States continue to develop 

their Compact apportioned waters from the Colorado River. For every 30 mg/l increase in salinity concentration in the River, there is $75 million in additional damages in the United States. 

Based upon past appropriations, implementation of salinity control measures has 

fallen behind the needed pace to prevent salinity concentration levels from exceeding the numeric criteria adopted by the Forum and approved by the EPA. The seven 

Colorado River Basin States have carefully evaluated the Federal funding needs of 

the program and have concluded that an adequate budget is needed for the plan 

of implementation to maintain the salinity standards for the River. With the newly 

authorized USDA EQIP program, more on-farm funds are available and adequate 

funds for Reclamation are needed to maximize Reclamation’s effectiveness. The 

Forum, at its meeting in San Diego, California, in October 2002, recommended a 

funding level of $17,500,000 for Reclamation’s Basinwide Salinity Control Program 

to continue implementation of needed projects and begin to reduce the ‘‘backlog’’ of 

projects. 

In addition, the Colorado River Board recognizes that the Federal Government 

has made significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the seven Colorado River Basin States with regard to the delivery of quality water to Mexico. In 

order for those commitments to be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2005 

and in future fiscal years, that Congress provide funds to the Bureau of Reclamation 

for the continued operation of completed projects. 
400 

The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital water resource 

to the 17 million residents of southern California. Preservation of its water quality 

through an effective salinity control program will avoid the additional economic 

damages to users in California. 

The Colorado River Board greatly appreciates your support of the Federal/State 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and again asks for your assistance 

and leadership in securing adequate funding for this program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF

UTAH

As the Governor of Utah’s representative on Colorado River Issues and the senior 

Utah member of the Colorado River Salinity Control Forum, I wish to convey Utah’s 

support for funding the Salinity Title II Program, authorized in 1995 (Public Law 

104–20) at the level of $17,500,000 for 2005 for the United States Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). In addition, Utah requests funds be provided the BOR for General 

Investigations and the Operation and Maintenance of salinity facilities at sufficient 

funding levels to meet the objectives of the Salinity Control Act as amended. 

This vital program has been a mainstay in improving water use efficiency in the 

Colorado River Basin of Utah. During the past 5 years of drought, the facilities 

funded by the BOR program have been a significant reason for agriculture in the 

Uinta and Price/San Raphael basins maintaining productivity and stimulating these 

rural economies. 

In addition, the Salinity Control Program helped to meet the salinity related 

water quality standards for the Colorado River and U.S. treaty obligation with Mexico. This important program helps meet national and international obligations and 

needs to be funded at the $17,500,000 level with additional funds for investigations 

and operation and maintenance. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE IRRIGATION & ELECTRICAL DISTRICTS’ ASSOCIATION OF

ARIZONA

We are pleased to present this written testimony on behalf of our 25 members 

and associate members which serve water and power from the Colorado River and 

other sources to rural and urban Arizona communities, farms and businesses. Our 

comments are directed to the budgets of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Western Area Power Administration (Western), whose budget requests 

we generally support with certain specific reservations, which we will note. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

We do not support the proposed Reclamation budget as to four specific items: Security Costs, Animas-La Plata, Yuma Desalter, and Central Arizona Project Tucson 

Reliability Division. 

Security Costs.—We oppose the shift of approximately $12 million for guards and 

surveillance to reimbursable status. Congress has approved this post-9/11 expense 

increase as non-reimbursable for the last 2 years. This change unfairly saddles local 

power and water users in some projects with the costs of this national obligation. 

If the Homeland Security budget can provide in excess of $3 billion (fiscal year 

2004) for the Nation’s airports, surely the West’s premier Reclamation dams deserve 

the same treatment. We endorse and support the testimony of the Colorado River 

Energy Distributors’ Association (CREDA) on this subject. 

Animas-La Plata.—This project requires some $10 million for electric transmission system construction. We join CREDA in requesting that this amount not be 

imposed on Colorado River Storage Project power contractors whose customers will 

derive no benefit from this facility. Forcing them to pay for this non-irrigation use 

facility will constitute a serious departure from over 100 years of Reclamation law. 

Yuma Desalter and Tucson Reliability Division.—We support the testimony of the 

Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) generally, and specifically 

on these subjects. Without the Desalter, Central Arizona’s 4.5 million people will 

continue to be penalized some 100,000 acre-feet per year of water supply due to the 

Central Arizona Project’s junior status as a Colorado River water user. Additionally, 

Reclamation needs to request Tucson Reliability Division funds only after consultation with CAWCD and not jeopardize its pending lawsuit settlement and the associated Gila River Indian Settlement. 
401 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Our comments on Western’s budget will track the order in which the subjects appear in Western’s budget justification document. 

Use of Receipts.—We oppose Use of Receipts authority for Western at this time. 

Western has offered no check and balance proposal to substitute for reduced Congressional oversight. Retail competition in the West is problematic, to say the least, 

and the bare notice and comment Western rate process has never generated effective cost control. Moreover, Western believes it has the authority to require advance 

funding in its contracts (Federal Register 5/5/03). If true, contract renewals and 

amendments will gradually shift Western totally off-budget. 

Security Costs.—Western’s $1.4 million in security costs should be non-reimbursable for the same reasons that Reclamation’s should be. As a dichotomy of a former 

uniform Reclamation program, Western’s role is tied to Reclamation’s. It is hard to 

believe that over 17,000 miles of Federal transmission system do not rise in importance to a national obligation, given the essential place this system occupies in 15 

Western States. 

Quartzsite Line Relocation.—We oppose this expenditure at this time. There is no 

electrical need for this action. Alternative routes are still being negotiated with the 

Bureau of Land Management and the necessary environmental clearance processes 

haven’t even started. The encroachments have existed for many years without incident. This project should be postponed until Western identifies an electrical need, 

a negotiated route, and a true cost estimate based on that route. 

Transmission Lines.—The Black Point Mesa—Blythe No. 1 request may be insufficient since the Fish and Wildlife Service is insisting that Western purchase land 

for the Desert Tortoise in southeastern California because Western wants to replace 

aging wood poles (a routine operation and maintenance function) in an area that 

is not critical habitat for this species. 

South of Phoenix.—We vigorously support work programmed for substations in 

this portion of Western’s Parker-Davis Project transmission system. The area in 

question is growing like Topsy and Western’s integrated facilities are aged and undersized. Congress has earmarked funds for this work for the last 3 years. 

Davis-Mead, Davis-Topock.—We would oppose the addition of any reimbursable 

construction funding for this line replacement using the 3M aluminum matrix composite conductor. Adding this cost would more than double Western’s rehabilitation 

and construction budget. We anticipate a request for this expenditure. If done as 

a non-reimbursable experiment, we would not object. We note, however, that replacing one line yields little extra capacity since reliability standards require the new 

line to carry no more power than the second adjacent line could absorb in a first 

line outage. 

Purchase Power and Wheeling.—Once again, Western proposes chopping funding 

for this vital activity even though Congress has repeatedly provided the funding. 

The scoring problem has been fixed. There is no sound policy reason for not funding 

this activity. The position that somehow small public power, Indian and other customers can magically find over $200 million to borrow and/or advance fund this critical firming program is absurd. Most of Western’s customers are small and resource 

limited. Western can’t be allowed to summarily abandon them to their fate. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Please feel free to get in 

touch with us if we can be of any further service, answer any questions, or supply 

additional detail on our comments. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GARRISON DIVERSION CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Dave Koland; I serve 

as the manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District. The mission of the 

District is to provide a reliable, high quality and affordable water supply to the 

areas of need in North Dakota. Over 77 percent of our State residents live within 

the boundaries of the District. I would like to comment on the impact the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Garrison Diversion Unit has on the 

effort to provide reliable, high quality and affordable water supplies to the citizens 

of North Dakota. 

The President’s fiscal year 2005 budget request was pitifully inadequate in meeting the commitments the Federal Government has made to North Dakota. In return 

for accepting a permanent flood on 500,000 acres of prime North Dakota river valley 

the Federal Government promised the State and tribes that they would be compensated as the dams were built. The dams were completed 50 years ago and still 

we wait for the promised compensation. At the rate of payment the President’s 
402 

budget proposes the Federal Government will not even be able to stay current with 

the indexing applied by law on their commitment to North Dakota. 

The MR&I program was started in 1986 after the Garrison Diversion Unit was 

reformulated from a million-acre irrigation project into a multipurpose project with 

emphasis on the development and delivery of municipal and rural water supplies. 

The State-wide MR&I program has focused on providing grant funds for water systems that provide water service to previously unserved areas of the State. The State 

has followed a policy of developing a network of regional water systems throughout 

the State. Every rural water system that has been built in North Dakota is still operating. They are providing safe, clean water to their members, reducing their debt, 

putting money in reserve, complying with every State and Federal regulation, and 

doing so with a stable, prudent rate structure. 

NORTH DAKOTA’S SUCCESS STORY

More importantly, people are living on farmsteads with a rural water connection, 

while farmsteads without decent water stand empty. For instance, Sheridan County 

lost 20.4 percent of its population between 1990 and 2000, yet the rural water system serving that county hardly lost a connection. Good water does make a difference 

as to where people choose to live. Rural communities offer the experiences and lifestyle many people seek to raise their family. 

The key to providing water to small communities and rural areas has been the 

Grant and Loan program of Rural Development and the MR&I program jointly operated by the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District and the State Water Commission. Without the assistance of these two grant programs, the exodus from the rural 

areas would have been a stampede. 

Rural water systems are being constructed using a unique blend of local expertise, 

State financing, rural development loans, MR&I grant funds to provide an affordable rate structure, and the expertise of the Bureau of Reclamation to deal with design and environmental issues. The projects are successful because they are driven 

by a local need to solve a water quantity or quality problem. The solution to the 

local problem is devised by the community being affected by the problem. The early, 

local buy-in helps propel the project through the tortuous pre-construction stages. 

The MR&I program has been so successful and so important to North Dakota that 

the North Dakota Legislature loaned the program $15 million to help deal with the 

severe lag time that has developed in the Federal appropriations process. 

The desperate need for clean, safe water is evidenced by the willingness of North 

Dakota’s rural residents to pay water rates well above the rates EPA considers affordable. The EPA Economic Guidance Workbook states that rates greater than 1.5 

percent of the median household income (MHI) are not only unaffordable, but also 

‘‘may be unreasonable’’. 

The average monthly cost on a rural water system for 6,000 gallons of water is 

currently $48.97. The water rates in rural North Dakota would soar to astronomical 

levels without the 75 percent grant dollars in the MR&I program. For instance, current rates would have to average a truly unaffordable $134.19/month or a whopping 

3.8 percent of the MHI. Rates would have ranged as high as $190.80/month or a 

prohibitive 5.3 percent of MHI without the assistance of the MR&I program. 

The people waiting for water in our rural communities are willing to pay far more 

than what many consider an affordable, or even reasonable, price for clean, safe 

water. 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

The Bureau of Reclamation plays a vital role by ensuring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), providing system design oversight 

and dealing with international issues. Such is the case with the Northwest Area 

Water Supply Project (NAWS). Canada and the province of Manitoba have filed a 

lawsuit protesting the very thorough Final Environmental Assessment and the subsequent Finding of No Significant Impact on the NAWS project. 

One reason for the success of the North Dakota program is the reliance on local 

control. Decision-making is accomplished at the lowest level possible. The decision 

on who the system can afford to provide service to and the rate structure is made 

by a local board of directors composed of members who will be served by the water 

system. Volunteer involvement and low administrative costs are hallmarks of the 

program. Engineering services are typically provided by local firms that have experience in designing and constructing systems in North Dakota. 

Across North Dakota, we have seen the impact of providing high quality water 

to rural areas and witnessed the dramatic change in small communities. Homes 
403 

once occupied by aging widows are soon rented or sold to young adults, while houses 

and farmsteads without rural water stand empty. 

Good drinking water is just a dream in many rural North Dakota communities. 

Turning on the tap each morning brings brown, smelly water instead of the clear, 

fresh water a majority of people in North Dakota enjoy. 

The opportunity to have an impact in rural North Dakota is now. If we do nothing, it is easy to predict what will occur in rural North Dakota. We only need to 

look at counties without good water. 

It is in the best interest of North Dakota and the 150∂ local communities not 

yet served by a regional system that we build every piece of rural infrastructure 

that is feasible. We must continue to build on what has proven so successful in the 

past. 

Providing a reliable source of good, clean water in rural areas has worked to stabilize the rural economy in North Dakota. The combination of leveraging Rural Development loan funds with MR&I grant dollars has provided a cost efficient, longterm solution to the rural communities in North Dakota. 

If we act now, we can make a difference in rural North Dakota. Providing for 

healthy, vibrant rural communities is good for North Dakota and good for our Nation. We know from past experience that providing good water for rural communities is one sure way of helping people change the future. 

Indeed the MR&I program in North Dakota would serve as an outstanding example of a successful program that could be implemented in other States. 

DISCUSSION OF OVERALL BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BUDGET

It is important to recognize that the fiscal year 2005 budget submission of $828.5 

million for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Water and Related Resources program is 

$57.5 million better than their request for fiscal year 2004. It is $171.5 million less 

than has been called for by the ‘‘Invest in the West’’ Coalition, a coalition of nine 

western water organizations that are involved in the full array of western water 

issues. 

The ‘‘Invest in the West’’ goal, one with which I agree, is to raise the Bureau’s 

Water and Related Resources Budget to $1 billion by the end of fiscal year 2005. 

This is simply a goal to restore the budget to previous levels. The erosion of the 

Bureau’s budget during the 1990’s has created problems across the west for virtually all of its constituents. 

BUDGET IMPACTS ON GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT

At this point, I would like to shift to the particulars of the budget as it impacts 

the Garrison Diversion program and some specific projects within the State of North 

Dakota. Let me begin by reviewing the various elements within the current budget 

request and then discuss the impacts that the current level of funding will have on 

the current program. 

Attachment 1 shows the funding history over the last 8 years for the Garrison 

Diversion Unit. The average is approximately $26.6 million. The President’s budget 

request for fiscal year 2005 is $22.1 million. A continuation of that trend is a formula for disaster. The President’s budget request does not even maintain the historic funding level and ignores the needs of the current programs and does not keep 

up with the price increases expected in the major programs as delays occur. Fortunately, Congress saw fit to provide that the unexpended authorization ceilings 

would be indexed annually to adjust for inflation in the construction industry. The 

proposed allocation to the indexed programs in the President’s budget is $6.9 million. If a modest 2 percent inflation factor is assumed, the increase will be $8 million for MR&I and $2 million for the Red River Valley phase. Simply put, with the 

current request, we will lose ground on the completion of these projects. 

This year, the District is asking the Congress to appropriate a total of $77.3 million for the Project. Attachment 2 is a breakdown of the elements in the District’s 

request. To discuss this in more detail, I must first explain that the Garrison budget 

consists of several different program items. For ease of discussion, I would like to 

simplify the breakdown into three major categories. The first I would call the base 

operations portion of the budget request. Attachment 3 contains a breakdown of the 

elements in that portion of the budget. This amount is nominally $22 million annually when you include underfinancing. However, as more Indian MR&I projects are 

completed, the operation and maintenance costs for these projects will increase and 

create a need that will need to be addressed. 

The second element of the budget is the MR&I portion. This consists of both Indian and non-Indian funding. The Dakota Water Resources Act contains an additional $200 million authorization for each of these programs. It is our intent that 
404 

each program reaches the conclusion of the funding authorization at the same time. 

We believe this is only fair. 

The MR&I program consists of a number of medium-sized projects that are independent of one another. They generally run in the $20 million category. Some are, 

of course, smaller and others somewhat larger, but one that is considerably larger 

is the Northwest Area Water Supply Project (NAWS). The first phase of that project 

is under construction. The optimum construction schedule for completion of the first 

phase has been determined to be 5 years. The total cost of the first phase is $66 

million. At a 65 percent cost share, the Federal funding needed to support that program is $43 million. On the average, the annual funding for that project alone is 

over $8 million. Four other projects have been approved for future funding and numerous projects on the reservations are ready to begin construction. These requests 

will all compete with one another. It will be a delicate challenge to balance these 

projects. Nevertheless, we believe that once a project is started, it needs to be pursued vigorously to completion. If it is not, we simply run the cost up and increase 

the risk of incompatibility among the working parts. 

An example of the former would be the certain impact of the increased cost of construction over time through inflation but also by protracting the engineering and administration costs and ‘‘interest-during-construction’’ costs. 

The third element of the budget is the Red River Valley Water Supply Project 

(RRV) construction phase. The Dakota Water Resources Act authorized $200 million 

for the construction of facilities to meet the water quality and quantity needs of the 

Red River Valley communities. It is my belief that the final plans and authorizations, if necessary, should be expected in approximately 5 years. This will create an 

immediate need for greater construction funding. 

This major project, once started, should be pursued vigorously to completion. The 

reasons are the same as for the NAWS project and relate to good engineering construction management. Although difficult to predict at this time, it is reasonable to 

plan that the RRV project features, once started, should be completed in approximately 7 years. This creates a need for an additional $25 million. Fortunately, it 

appears the RRV project start will probably follow the completion of the NAWS first 

phase. 

Using these two projects as examples frames the argument for a steadily increasing budget. First, to accelerate the MR&I program in early years to assure the timely completion of the NAWS project and then to ready the budget for a smaller MR&I 

allocation when the RRV project construction begins. 

Attachment 4 illustrates the level of funding for the two major items, MR&I and 

RRV. It is quickly apparent that if a straight-line appropriation is used for each, 

a funding spike will occur in the sixth year. That is when an additional $25 million 

will suddenly be needed for the RRV program. It is simply good management to 

blend these needs to avoid drastic hills and valleys in the budget requests. By accelerating the construction of NAWS and other projects which are ready for construction during the early years, some of the pressure will be off when the RRV project 

construction funding is needed. A smoother, more efficient construction program 

over time will be the result. 

Attachment 5 shows such a program. It begins with a $77.3 million budget this 

year and gradually builds over time to over $140 million when the RRV construction 

could be in full swing (fiscal year 2010). Mr. Chairman, this is why we believe it 

is important that the budget resolution recognize that a robust increase in the budget allocation is needed for the Bureau of Reclamation. We hope this testimony will 

serve as at least one example of why we fully support the efforts of the ‘‘Invest in 

the West’’ campaign to increase the overall allocation by $171.4 million in fiscal year 

2005 to a total of $1 billion. 

The Bureau of Reclamation, Rural Development, Garrison Diversion Conservancy 

District, State Water Commission and local rural water districts have formed a formidable alliance to deal with the lack of a high quality, reliable water source 

throughout much of North Dakota. This cost-effective partnership of local control, 

State-wide guidance and Federal support have combined to provide safe, clean, potable water to hundreds of communities and thousands of homes across North Dakota. 
405 

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2.—GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT (GDU) JUSTIFICATION FOR $77.3 MILLION

APPROPRIATION FISCAL YEAR 2005

North Dakota’s Municipal, Rural and Industrial (MR&I) water program funds 

construction projects State-wide under the joint administration of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District (GDCD) and the State Water Commission (SWC). 

Northwest Area Water Supply Project (NAWS) is under construction after 15 

years of study and diplomatic delay. Construction costs are estimated to be $81 million. 

Designs are based on a 5-year construction period; thus, over $16 million is needed for NAWS alone. Indian MR&I programs are also under construction. Tribal and 

State leaders have agreed to split the Indian and non-Indian MR&I allocation on 

a 50/50 basis. 

Williston Water Treatment Plant, Williams Rural Water and Tribal MR&I programs are under construction. 

[In millions of dollars] 

Amount 

Operation and Maintenance of Indian MR&I Systems plus Jamestown Dam ............................................................ 3.4 

Breakdown of $73.9 million Construction Request: 

Operation and Maintenance of existing GDU system ......................................................................................... 5.0 

Wildlife Mitigation & Natural Resources Trust ................................................................................................... 6.0 

Red River Valley Special Studies and EIS .......................................................................................................... 2.6 
406 

[In millions of dollars] 

Amount 

Indian and non-Indian MR&I .............................................................................................................................. 50.0 

Indian Irrigation .................................................................................................................................................. 2.7 

Recreation ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.6 

Under financing 10 percent ................................................................................................................................ 7.0 

Total for Construction ..................................................................................................................................... 73.9 

Grand Total ..................................................................................................................................................... 77.3 

ATTACHMENT 3.—ELEMENTS OF THE BASE OPERATIONS PORTION OF THE GARRISON

DIVERSION UNIT BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2005

[In millions of dollars] 

Amount 

Operation and Maintenance of Indian MR&I systems and Jamestown Dam ............................................................. 3.4 

Operation and Maintenance of Existing GDU facilities ............................................................................................... 5.0 

Wildlife Mitigation & Natural Resources Trust ............................................................................................................ 6.0 

Red River Valley Special Studies and EIS ................................................................................................................... 2.6 

Indian Irrigation ........................................................................................................................................................... 2.7 

Recreation .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.6 

Under financing at 10 percent .................................................................................................................................... 2.0 

Total ................................................................................................................................................................ 22.3 

ATTACHMENT 4
407 

ATTACHMENT 5

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PROVO RIVER WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, I am writing to request your support for 

an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation 

within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation 

Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this line-item amount. Of these funds, I respectfully 

request the designation of $4,008,000 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, 

consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish passage, floodplain restoration activities, 

screening of existing diversion canals, propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 
408 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DUCHESNE COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

I am writing to request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River 

Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this lineitem amount. Of these funds, I respectfully request the designation of $4,008,000 

for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the 

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and 

Wildlife Management and Development, consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish 

passage, floodplain restoration activities, screening of existing diversion canals, 

propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE JORDAN VALLEY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

I am writing to request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of 

$5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River 

Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this lineitem amount. Of these funds, I respectfully request the designation of $4,008,000 

for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the 

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and 

Wildlife Management and Development, consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish 

passage, floodplain restoration activities, screening of existing diversion canals, 

propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES

I am writing to request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of 

$5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River 

Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this lineitem amount. Of these funds, I respectfully request the designation of $4,008,000 

for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the 

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and 

Wildlife Management and Development, consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish 

passage, floodplain restoration activities, screening of existing diversion canals, 

propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 
409 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DOLORES WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

I am writing to request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of 

$5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River 

Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this lineitem amount. Of these funds, I respectfully request the designation of $4,008,000 

for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the 

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and 

Wildlife Management and Development, consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish 

passage, floodplain restoration activities, screening of existing diversion canals, 

propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM, INC. 

Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. respectfully submits this written testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for 

appropriations of $5.0 million for fiscal year 2005. This project was authorized 

under Public Law 106–136. 

Perkins County Rural Water System, (PCRWS) has the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget and the Bureau of Reclamation to proceed with construction in 2004. We have been appropriated $7.6 million in years 2002 and 2003. We 

were appropriated $1.0 million in 2004. The administration has approved us in the 

budget for $500,000 for fiscal year 2005. We would not be able to keep our construction on schedule if we are appropriated this amount of money. Cost share for the 

system is 75 percent Federal, 15 percent local and 10 percent State. The State of 

South Dakota has offered to loan PCRWS the local share for 40 years at 3 percent 

interest to keep costs down to the customer. 

Breakdown for the project for 2005 is as follows: 

2005 BUDGET 

Amount 

Income: 

Bureau of Reclamation ............................................................................................................................... $5,000,000 

State of South Dakota ................................................................................................................................ 1,250,000 

Misc ............................................................................................................................................................. 75,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 6,325,000 

Expense: 

Mainline to Bison ........................................................................................................................................ 1,300,000 

Mainline to Lemmon ................................................................................................................................... 1,200,000 

North Dakota State Water Comm ............................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Reservoir ...................................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Lemmon Rural Pipe ..................................................................................................................................... 280,000 

Bison & Prairie City Rural .......................................................................................................................... 1,500,000 
410 

2005 BUDGET—Continued 

Amount 

Administration, Engineering ........................................................................................................................ 545,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 6,325,000 

PCRWS will need $5.0 million for each of the next 3 years to complete our project 

on time. This consists of 550 miles of various size pipes ranging from 8 inches to 

1.5 inches, one pump station capable of moving 800 gallons per minute, a 1.0 million 

gallon tank and telemetry to operate the whole system from one localized location. 

The quality of water in Northwest South Dakota is the main concern for the 

health and well being of the people. Although the water typically meets primary 

standards established by the USEPA, most of the chemicals in the water are exceedingly high by the State of South Dakota standards. Water quality and quantity in 

Perkins County has been a plague for the county over many years. Droughts, both 

long and short term, are a fact of life for the people in this area. Being able to obtain quality water during these periods and having a backup system for other times 

would make life a lot easier for those in the rural area. Due to the isolation from 

major water supplies, this may be our only chance to obtain water at an affordable 

cost. 

On the behalf of the Board of Directors of PCRWS and the people of Perkins 

County, South Dakota, thank you for allowing us to enter this testimony in the subcommittee’s report. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, I am writing to request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation 

within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation 

Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this line-item amount. Of these funds, I respectfully 

request the designation of $4,008,000 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, 

consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish passage, floodplain restoration activities, 

screening of existing diversion canals, propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FOUR CORNERS POWER PLANT

Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, I am writing to request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation 

within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation 

Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this line-item amount. Of these funds, I respectfully 

request the designation of $4,008,000 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, 

consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish passage, floodplain restoration activities, 

screening of existing diversion canals, propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 
411 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO

I am writing to request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River 

Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this lineitem amount. Of these funds, I respectfully request the designation of $4,008,000 

for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the 

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and 

Wildlife Management and Development, consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish 

passage, floodplain restoration activities, screening of existing diversion canals, 

propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GRAND VALLEY WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

I am writing to request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of 

$5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River 

Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this lineitem amount. Of these funds, I respectfully request the designation of $4,008,000 

for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the 

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and 

Wildlife Management and Development, consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish 

passage, floodplain restoration activities, screening of existing diversion canals, 

propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL FORUM

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum’s Recommendation: 

—Title II Program Authorized in 1995 (Public Law 104–20)—$17,500,000. 

—General Investigation Funds—Adequate Funding. 

—Operation and Maintenance—Adequate Funding. 

This testimony is in support of funding for the Title II Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Program). Congress has designated the Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), to be the lead agency for salinity 

control in the Colorado River Basin. This role and the authorized program were refined and confirmed by the Congress when Public Law 104–20 was enacted. A total 

of $17,500,000 is requested for fiscal year 2005 to implement the needed and authorized program. Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant economic damage in the United States and Mexico. 

In previous years, the President has supported, and Congress has funded, a program at about $12 million. In recent years, the President’s requests have dropped 

and this year’s request, in the judgment of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Con-
412 

trol Forum (Forum), is inappropriately low. This year’s administration request is for 

$9,064,000. Water quality commitments to downstream U.S. and Mexican water 

users must be honored while the Basin States continue to develop their Compact 

apportioned waters of the Colorado River. Concentrations of salts in the river cause 

hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in the United States and result in poorer 

quality water being delivered by the United States to Mexico. For every 30 mg/l increase in salinity concentrations, there is $75 million in additional damages in the 

United States. The Forum, therefore, believes implementation of the Program needs 

to be accelerated to a level beyond that requested by the President. 

The Program, authorized by the Congress in 1995, has proven to be very successful and very cost effective. Proposals from the public and private sector to implement salinity control strategies have far exceeded the available funding and Reclamation has a backlog of proposals. Reclamation continues to select the best and 

most cost-effective proposals. Funds are available for the Colorado River Basin 

States’ cost sharing for the level of Federal funding requested by the Forum. Water 

quality improvements accomplished under Title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Act) also benefit the quality of water delivered to Mexico. Although the United States has always met the commitments of the International 

Boundary & Water Commission’s (Commission) Minute 242 to Mexico with respect 

to water quality, the United States Section of the Commission is currently addressing Mexico’s request for better water quality at the International Boundary. 

Some of the most cost effective salinity control opportunities occur when the 

USBR can improve irrigation delivery systems at the same time that the USDA’s 

program is working with landowners (irrigators) to improve the on-farm irrigation 

systems. Through the newly authorized USDA EQIP, adequate on-farm funds appear to be available and adequate USBR funds are needed to maximize the effectiveness of the effort. 

OVERVIEW

In 2000, Congress reviewed the Program as authorized in 1995. Following hearings, and with administration support, the Congress passed legislation that increased the ceiling authorized by this program by $100 million. Reclamation has received cost-effective proposals to move the Program ahead and the Basin States 

have funds available to cost-share up-front. 

The Program was authorized by Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Act 

responded to commitments that the United States made, through Minute 242, to 

Mexico concerning the quality of water being delivered to Mexico below Imperial 

Dam. Title II of the Act established a program to respond to salinity control needs 

of Colorado River water users in the United States and to comply with the mandates of the then newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of the 

Interior and Reclamation were given the lead Federal role by the Congress. This 

testimony is in support of adequate funding for the Title II program. 

After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the Basin States concluded that the Act needed to be amended. Congress revised the Act in 1984. That 

revision, while leaving implementation of the salinity control policy with the Secretary of the Interior, also gave new salinity control responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture and to the Bureau of Land Management. Congress has charged 

the administration with implementing the most cost-effective program practicable 

(measured in dollars per ton of salt removed). The Basin States are strongly supportive of that concept as the Basin States cost share 30 percent of Federal expenditures up-front for the Program, in addition to proceeding to implement their own 

salinity control efforts in the Colorado River Basin. 

The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the sevenState coordinating body for interfacing with Federal agencies and Congress to support the implementation of the Program necessary to control the salinity of the river 

system. In close cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

under requirements of the Clean Water Act, every 3 years the Forum prepares a 

formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, anticipated future salinity, and the program necessary to keep the salinities under control. 

In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system, the salinity levels measured at Imperial, and below Parker and Hoover Dams in 1972 have been 

identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary for controlling salinity and to 

reduce downstream damages has been captioned the ‘‘plan of implementation.’’ The 

2002 Review of water quality standards includes an updated plan of implementation. The level of appropriation requested in this testimony is in keeping with the 

agreed upon plan. If adequate funds are not appropriated, State and Federal agen-
413 

cies involved are in agreement that damage from the higher salt levels in the water 

will be more widespread in the United States, as well as in Mexico, and will be very 

significant. 

Although the Program thus far has been able to implement salinity control measures that comply with the approved plan, recent drought years have caused salinity 

levels to rise in the river. Predictions are that this will be the trend for the next 

several years. This places an added urgency for the acceleration of the implementation of the Program. 

JUSTIFICATION

The $17,500,000 requested by the Forum on behalf of the seven Colorado River 

Basin States is the level of funding necessary to proceed with Reclamation’s portion 

of the plan of implementation. In July of 1995, Congress amended the Act. The 

amended Act gives Reclamation new latitude and flexibility in seeking the most 

cost-effective salinity control opportunities, and it provides for utilization of proposals from project proponents, as well as more involvement from the private as 

well as the public sector. The result is that salt loading is being prevented at costs 

often less than half the cost under the previous Program. Congress recommitted its 

support to the revised program when it enacted Public Law 106–459. The Basin 

States’ cost sharing up-front adds 43 cents for every Federal dollar appropriated. 

The federally chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council, created by the Congress in the Act, has met and formally supports the requested level 

of funding. The Basin States urge the subcommittee to support the funding as set 

forth in this testimony. 

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT OF FUNDING

In addition to the funding identified above for the implementation of the most recently authorized program, the Forum urges the Congress to appropriate necessary 

funds needed to continue to maintain and operate salinity control facilities as they 

are completed and placed into long-term operation. Reclamation has completed the 

Paradox Valley unit which involves the collection of brines in the Paradox Valley 

of Colorado and the injection of those brines into a deep aquifer through an injection 

well. The continued operation of this project and other completed projects will be 

funded through Operation and Maintenance funds. 

In addition, the Forum supports necessary funding to allow for continued general 

investigation of the Program. It is important that Reclamation have planning staff 

in place, properly funded, so that the progress of the Program can be analyzed, coordination between various Federal and State agencies can be accomplished, and future projects and opportunities to control salinity can be properly planned to maintain the water quality standards for salinity so that the Basin States can continue 

to develop their Compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MNI WICONI PROJECT

FISCAL YEAR 2005 CONSTRUCTION BUDGET REQUEST

The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries (as listed below) respectfully request appropriations and can demonstrate capability for construction in fiscal year 2005 in the 

amount of $39,317,000 as follows: 

Amount 

Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System: 

Core Facilities (Pipelines and Pumping Stations) ...................................................................................... $8,128,000 

Distribution System on Pine Ridge ............................................................................................................. 10,224,000 

West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System ..................................................................................................... 11,020,000 

Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System ..................................................................................................................... 7,325,000 

Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water System ............................................................................................................... 2,620,000 

Total Mni Wiconi Project ......................................................................................................................... 39,317,000 

The project sponsors were provided by the 107th Congress (Public Law 107–367) 

with all the authority necessary to finish this project at the level of development 

originally intended on a schedule through fiscal year 2008. Completion of the project 

is now clearly achievable as shown in the table below: 
414 

Total Federal Required (October 2003 Dollars) ................................................................................................... $409,523,000 

Estimated Federal Spent Through Fiscal Year 2004 ........................................................................................... $278,110,000 

Percent Spent ....................................................................................................................................................... 67.9 

Amount Remaining ............................................................................................................................................... $131,413,000 

Years to Completion ............................................................................................................................................. 4 

Average Required for Fiscal Year 2008 Finish .................................................................................................... $32,853,000 

The administration’s budget for this project in fiscal year 2005 ($18.2 million for 

construction) is a disappointment for a second year in a row. The amount requested 

by the administration falls far short of the average amount needed to complete the 

project in fiscal year 2008. The needs and merits of this project are considerable as 

described in section 3. 

The project’s operation, maintenance and replacement request from the sponsors 

is in addition to the construction request and is presented in section 8. 

OSRWSS CORE PIPELINE TO REACH PINE RIDGE INDIAN RESERVATION IN FISCAL YEAR

2005

OGLALA SIOUX WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM CORE REQUEST 

Amount 

South Core: 

Stamford to Kadoka: 

Reservoir to Kadoka Pipeline ............................................................................................................. $1,036,000 

Pump Station, 2 Reservoirs ............................................................................................................... 2,111,000 

Kadoka to White River Pipeline .................................................................................................................. 2,587,000 

North Core: 

WTP toward Hayes Pipeline ......................................................................................................................... 2,394,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 8,128,000 

The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and parts of West River/Lyman-Jones remain 

without points of interconnection to the OSRWSS core. The requested funding level 

for the OSRWSS core of $8.128 million will complete the project from Stamford to 

the northeast corner of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation where, in combination 

with the western part of West River/Lyman-Jones, the remaining 50 percent of the 

design population resides. Funds will also be used by the Oglala Sioux Tribe to 

build the North Core westerly toward Hayes in the West River Lyman Jones service 

area with the intent to complete the OSRWSS North Core and all other core facilities in fiscal year 2007. Two additional years of funding will be required to complete 

the OSRWSS North Core system to serve the Reservation. 

The 2000 census confirms that the Oglala Sioux population on Pine Ridge is growing at a rate of 27 percent per decade or 11⁄2 times greater than projected from the 

1990 census. Delivery of Missouri River water to this area is urgently needed. 

All proposed OSRWSS construction activity will build pipelines that will provide 

Missouri River water immediately to beneficiaries. In many cases, construction of 

interconnecting pipelines by other sponsors is ongoing, and fiscal year 2005 funds 

are required to complete projects that will connect with the OSRWSS core and begin 

others. 

Funding for OSRWSS core and distribution facilities is necessary to bring economic development to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, designated as one of five 

national rural empowerment zones by the previous administration. The designation 

serves to underscore the level of need. Economic development is largely dependent 

on the timely completion of a water system, which depends on appropriations for 

this project. 

Finally, the subcommittee is respectfully requested to take notice of the fact that 

fiscal year 2005 will significantly advance construction of facilities that continues 

our progress toward the end of the project. The subcommittee’s past support has 

brought the project to the point that the end can be seen. Key to the conclusion of 

the project in fiscal year 2008 is the completion of the OSRWSS core to the Pine 

Ridge Indian Reservation. Toward this end, funds are included in the fiscal year 

2005 budget to build the connecting pipelines between the northeast corner of the 

Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and the central portion of the Reservation near Kyle. 

Rosebud is similarly engaged in the construction of major connecting pipelines that 
415 

will deliver water southerly to the central portions of the Rosebud Indian Reservation and to service areas for West River/Lyman-Jones. 

UNIQUE NEEDS OF THIS PROJECT

This project covers much of the area of western South Dakota that was formerly 

the Great Sioux Reservation established by the Treaty of 1868. Since the separation 

of the Reservation in 1889 into smaller more isolated reservations, including Pine 

Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule, tensions between the Indian population and the 

non-Indian settlers on former Great Sioux lands have been high with little easing 

by successive generations. The Mni Wiconi Project is perhaps the most significant 

opportunity in more than a century to bring the sharply diverse cultures of the two 

societies together for a common good. Much progress has been made due to the good 

faith and genuine efforts of both the Indian and non-Indian sponsors. The project 

is an historic basis for renewed hope and dignity among the Indian people. It is a 

basis for substantive improvement in relationships. 

Each year our testimony addresses the fact that the project beneficiaries, particularly the three Indian Reservations, have the lowest income levels in the Nation. 

The health risks to our people from drinking unsafe water are compounded by reductions in health programs. We respectfully submit that our project is unique and 

that no other project in the Nation has greater human needs. Poverty in our service 

areas is consistently deeper than elsewhere in the Nation. Health effects of water 

borne diseases are consistently more prevalent than elsewhere in the Nation, due 

in part to (1) lack of adequate water in the home and (2) poor water quality where 

water is available. Higher incidences of impetigo, gastroenteritis, shigellosis, scabies 

and hepatitis-A are well documented on the Indian reservations of the Mni Wiconi 

Project area. At the beginning of the third millennium one cannot find a region in 

our Nation in which social and economic conditions are as deplorable. These circumstances are summarized in Table 1. Mni Wiconi builds the dignity of many, not 

only through improvement of drinking water, but also through direct employment 

and increased earnings during planning, construction, operation and maintenance 

and from economic enterprises supplied with project water. We urge the subcommittee to address the need for creating jobs and improving the quality of life 

on the Pine Ridge and other Indian reservations of the project area. 

TABLE 1.—PROFILE OF SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS: 2000 

Indian Reservation/State 2000 Population 

Percent 

Change 

From 1990 

Income Percent 

Families 

Below 

Poverty 

Percent 

UnemployPer Capita ment Median Household 

Pine Ridge Indian Reservation ... 15,521 27.07 $6,143 $20,569 46.3 16.9 

Rosebud Indian Reservation ...... 10,469 7.97 $7,279 $19,046 45.9 20.1 

Lower Brule Indian 

Reservation ............................ 1,353 20.48 $7,020 $21,146 45.3 28.1 

Star of South Dakota ................. 754,844 8.45 $17,562 $35,282 9.3 3.0 

Nation ......................................... 281,421,906 13.15 $21,587 $41,994 9.2 3.7 

Employment and earnings among the Indian people of the project area are expected to positively impact the high costs of health-care borne by the United States 

and the Tribes. Our data suggest clear relationships between income levels and Federal costs for heart disease, cancer and diabetes. During the life of the Mni Wiconi 

Project, mortality rates among the Indian people in the project area for the three 

diseases mentioned will cost the United States and the Tribes more than $1 billion 

beyond the level incurred for these diseases among comparable populations in the 

non-Indian community within the project area. While this project alone will not 

raise income levels to a point where the excessive rates of heart disease, cancer and 

diabetes are significantly diminished, the employment and earnings stemming from 

the project will, nevertheless, reduce mortality rates and costs of these diseases. 

Please note that between 1990 and 2000 per capita income on Pine Ridge increased 

from $3,591 to $6,143, and median household income increased from $11,260 to 

$20,569, due in large part to this project, albeit not sufficient to bring a larger percentage of families out of poverty (Table 1). 

Financial support for the Indian membership has already been subjected to drastic cuts in funding programs through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This project is 

a source of strong hope that helps off-set the loss of employment and income in 

other programs and provide for an improvement in health and welfare. Tribal leaders have seen that Welfare Reform legislation and other budget cuts Nation-wide 
416 

have created a crisis for tribal government because tribal members have moved back 

to the reservations in order to survive. Economic conditions have resulted in accelerated population growth on the reservations. 

The Mni Wiconi Project Act declares that the United States will work with us 

under the circumstances: 

‘‘. . . the United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate and 

safe water supplies are available to meet the economic, environmental, water supply 

and public health needs of the Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule Indian 

Reservations . . .’’. 

Indian support for this project has not come easily because the historical experience of broken commitments to the Indian people by the Federal Government is difficult to overcome. The argument was that there is no reason to trust and that the 

Sioux Tribes are being used to build the non-Indian segments of the project and the 

Indian segments would linger to completion. These arguments have been overcome 

by better planning, an amended authorization and hard fought agreements among 

the parties. The subcommittee is respectfully requested to take the steps necessary 

the complete the critical elements of the project proposed for fiscal year 2004. 

The following sections describe the construction activity in each of the rural water 

systems. 

OGLALA SIOUX RURAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM—DISTRIBUTION

OGLALA SIOUX WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION REQUEST 

Amount 

West Boundary Supply ......................................................................................................................................... $506,000 

Manderson Loop ................................................................................................................................................... 1,454,000 

Rockyford to Redshirt ........................................................................................................................................... 179,000 

White River to HWY 73/44 Junction: 

Pump Station, Service Lines and Reservoirs .............................................................................................. 3,127,000 

HWY 73/44 Junction to Kyle ................................................................................................................................. 4,923,000 

Indefinite Quantities ............................................................................................................................................ 35,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 10,224,000 

With the conclusion of projects under construction in fiscal year 2002, the Oglala 

Sioux Tribe completed all facilities that can be supported from local groundwater. 

The Tribe, representing more than 40 percent of the project population will rely on 

the OSRWSS core to convey Missouri River water to and throughout the Reservation. Much pipeline has been constructed, primarily between Kyle, Wounded Knee 

and Red Shirt and between Pine Ridge Village and the communities of Oglala and 

Slim Buttes. Additional construction of the Manderson Loop is proposed in fiscal 

year 2005. 

Of particular importance to the Oglala Sioux Tribe is the continuation of the main 

transmission system from the northeast corner (Highway 73/44 junction) of the Reservation to Kyle in the central part of the Reservation. The transmission line is 

needed to interconnect the OSRWSS core system with the distribution system within the Reservation in order to deliver Missouri River water to the populous portions 

of the Reservation. This critical segment of the project can be continued in fiscal 

year 2005 to coincide with the westward construction of the OSRWSS core to the 

northeast corner of the Reservation (see section 2). It will require funds in fiscal 

year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 to complete. This component of the Oglala system 

has been deferred for several years due to inadequate funding. The component is 

urgently needed for the OSRWSS core system to be utilized on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. 

WEST RIVER/LYMAN-JONES RURAL WATER SYSTEM—DISTRIBUTION

WR/LJ RURAL WATER SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION REQUEST 

Amount 

Mellette East ........................................................................................................................................................ $533,000 

Moenville .............................................................................................................................................................. 9,566,000 

Quinn Town Distribution ...................................................................................................................................... 176,000 

Vivian Town .......................................................................................................................................................... 441,000 
417 

WR/LJ RURAL WATER SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION REQUEST—Continued 

Amount 

Indefinite Quantities ............................................................................................................................................ 304,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 11,020,000 

Continued drought conditions in the project area have created serious health and 

economic hardships for WR/LJ members waiting to receive Mni Wiconi water service. A survey of members attending the WR/LJ annual meeting on October 8, 2003 

in Midland revealed that, of those members not receiving project water, 67 percent 

were hauling water for domestic use and 45 percent were hauling water for livestock. Their current source of water, highly mineralized wells and dried up dams, 

present a serious health hazard and unaffordable increases in production costs due 

to the time and cost of hauling water. 

The requested appropriation is directed to serving members between Ft. Pierre 

and Philip. The highest priority is completion of the Moenville project. Houston 

Rose, prior to his death, pioneered initial efforts to bring quality water to this WR/ 

LJ service area closest to the Mni Wiconi water treatment plant. The economy of 

the area he represented is based on livestock operations that are dependent on quality water supplies. 

WR/LJ is now the water service provider in the towns of Quinn and Vivian, however, the existing distribution piping is over 50 years old and is a very high priority 

for replacement. Funding is also requested for the construction of pumping station 

and reservoirs required to deliver the full design capability of the pipelines under 

construction. As a testimony to public recognition of the advantages of quality water 

and the reliability of the system WR/LJ continues to add users within those areas 

previously constructed. These additions are being financed by member contributions 

as part of the statutory non-Federal matching requirement. 

The Mni Wiconi project, due to continued Congressional support, has progressed 

to where the project beneficiaries can look forward to its timely completion and receive the intended project benefits. We sincerely appreciate your support. 

ROSEBUD RURAL WATER SYSTEM (SICANGU MNI WICONI)

ROSEBUD SIOUX RURAL WATER SYSTEM REQUEST 

Amount 

Hidden Timber ...................................................................................................................................................... $1,317,000 

Rosebud Improvements ........................................................................................................................................ 737,000 

Rural Antelope ...................................................................................................................................................... 866,000 

Okreek ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,030,000 

Mission Northwest ................................................................................................................................................ 447,000 

Livestock Water .................................................................................................................................................... 1,271,000 

Service Connections ............................................................................................................................................. 657,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 7,325,000 

Fiscal year 2005 efforts build upon the successes of the past 2 years. The Rosebud 

Core pipeline will begin providing water from the OSRWSS at Murdo to Rosebud 

and WR/LJ water users in Mellette County. As a result, the limited supply of high 

quality ground water available from the Rosebud wellfield can be used as a source 

of supply for northeast Todd County. 

The Rosebud Sioux Tribes efforts in fiscal year 2005 focus on connecting additional homes to new and existing pipelines. The Antelope to Okreek Pipeline, completed in late 2003, provides a supply of high quality ground water to the rural Antelope, northwest Mission, Hidden Timber and Okreek project areas. In this portion 

of northern Todd County, the Oglala Aquifer is not present and ground water is of 

poor quality and limited quantity where available. Private and community wells 

have failed in the area and while the Antelope to Okreek Pipeline solved the problem for the community of Okreek, many rural residents are anxiously waiting for 

water. 

The problems are exacerbated in the Hidden Timber area. Where ground water 

occurs, nitrate concentrations are frequently in excess of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act primary standard. The high nitrate concentrations pose an acute threat to the 

unborn and young children. 
418 

The major features of the proposed fiscal year 2005 work plan focus on distribution and service lines for this area. Proposed projects for this area include Rural Antelope, Mission Northwest, Okreek and Hidden Timber. It is envisioned that both 

private contractors and the tribal construction program would be responsible for 

construction. 

The other major project proposed for fiscal year 2005 address improvements needed in the community of Rosebud. In fiscal year 2004, the Tribe will be connecting 

the lower older part of Rosebud to the rural water system. While this will improve 

the quality and reliability of supply, improvements are needed to ensure water 

reaches the users. In several areas, older cast iron pipe has corroded and needs to 

be replaced. In other areas, older asbestos concrete pipe is still in use and felt to 

be a health threat. The focus of the work in Rosebud in fiscal year 2005 is to provide 

a reliable source of high quality water to all service connections. 

The Tribe will also expand its service line program. The focus of this effort is new 

homes and homes that have been constructed since transmission or distribution 

lines have been installed. It is also proposed to start developing livestock watering 

facilities. The Tribe has not constructed any of these facilities to date with Mni 

Wiconi funding and the realty of prolonged drought is having an affect on historic 

livestock watering sources of supply. A reliable source of water for livestock is necessary to maintain one of the more viable components of the reservation economy. 

The total amount requested for the Sicangu Mni Wiconi in fiscal year 2005 is 

$7,325,000. 

LOWER BRULE RURAL WATER SYSTEM—DISTRIBUTION

The Lower Brule Rural Water System (LBRWS) has gained the support of the 

other sponsors to complete its share of the project with funds appropriated in fiscal 

year 2005 budget, based on an appropriation of funds for the project in the range 

generally received. This support is not only a benefit for LBRWS and its users but 

to the project as a whole. By funding LBRWS in this manner, a savings of approximately $1.5 million will be experienced by the project. 

With the funds received in fiscal year 2004, LBRWS will complete the design, cultural resource evaluation and the securing of easements for the remaining service 

areas and installing mainlines and service lines required to provide water to all of 

the homes on the Lower Brule Indian Reservation. The fiscal year 2004 funds will 

also allow LBRWS to begin installing water lines to pasture taps. Since the area 

has experienced 2 years of drought conditions, many of the dams are dry. The provision of water will allow some pastures to be utilized that would have otherwise been 

of no benefit to the ranchers. 

The fiscal year 2005 funds will allow the completion of the installation of pasture 

taps and a new 400,000 gallon elevated water tank in Lower Brule. The existing 

tank is in a location where the slides (soil movement) have occurred. As a result, 

the stability of the tank’s foundation is in question. 

OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT BUDGET

The sponsors have and will continue to work with Reclamation to ensure that 

their budgets are adequate to properly operate, maintain and replace (OMR) their 

respective portions of the overall system. The sponsors will also continue to manage 

OMR expenses in a manner ensuring that the limited funds can best be balanced 

between construction and OMR. In fiscal year 2003, the approved budget for OMR 

was $8.228 million, which was adequate. Funding was not adequate in fiscal year 

2004 at the $6.254 level and will not be adequate at the same leveling the administration’s proposed fiscal year 2005 budget of $6.254 million for OMR. 

The project has been making significant progress especially over the last 2 years 

with the initiation of operation of the OSRWSS Water Treatment Plant near Ft. 

Pierre and the installation of a significant quantity of pipeline. The result is the 

need for sufficient funds to properly operate and maintain the functioning system 

throughout the project. As a result, the OMR budget must continue to be adequate 

to keep pace with the portion of the system that is placed in operation. 

In addition to ongoing operation and maintenance activities, water conservation 

is an integral part of the OMR of the project. Water conservation not only provides 

immediate savings from reduced water use and production, it also extends the useful life and capacity of the system. Proposed funding is not adequate to perform 

water conservation functions. 
419 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA AND PAJARO

VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY

On behalf of the City of Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley Water Management 

Agency (PVWMA), we are submitting this testimony in support of Federal funding 

for the Watsonville Area Water Recycling Project. The project has been targeted to 

receive $2.0 million as part of the fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 Energy and 

Water appropriations bills through the Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI program. 

This year, we respectfully request your support for the inclusion of $6.3 million in 

the Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI program in the fiscal year 2005 Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations bill. 

The City of Watsonville and the PVWMA continue to make great progress on the 

project. We are working diligently with the Bureau of Reclamation to develop solutions to the seawater intrusion problem affecting the water supply of our agricultural and urban water users. We need not convince you of the vital nature of this 

project that will protect the Pajaro Valley’s fresh water supply from continued degradation. 

To address the water resource needs of our area, PVWMA is implementing the 

Revised Basin Management Plan Project (project). Capital costs of the project are 

estimated at $165 million, of which $80 million is eligible for Federal cost sharing 

under the Title XVI program (in 2006 dollars). The Watsonville Water Area Recycling Project components that have qualified for funding through the Title XVI program include: 

—Recycled Water Treatment Facility; 

—Distribution System; and 

—Salinity Control Pipeline. 

The next several years will be critical for the project and we anticipate that all 

construction will be completed by fiscal year 2007. Certification of the Watsonville 

Water Area Recycling Project Feasibility Study is pending a Record of Decision on 

the Basin Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement, which is expected 

by May 2004. 

The following table summarizes projected expenditures for design and construction of the Title XVI eligible project components. 

[In millions of dollars] 

Projected 

Expenditures 

Fiscal year 2004 .................................................................................................................................................. 9.8 

Fiscal year 2005 .................................................................................................................................................. 25.3 

Fiscal year 2006 .................................................................................................................................................. 31.3 

Fiscal year 2007 .................................................................................................................................................. 13.4 

We continue to be concerned by the administration’s lack of support for Title XVI 

projects including the Watsonville Area Water Recycling Project. The Bureau’s fiscal 

year 2005 budget recently submitted to Congress includes no funding for our project. 

In fact, the Bureau failed to budget for 12 of the 18 eligible projects while requesting over $1.5 million for itself to administer the program. We strongly believe that 

the Title XVI program in general and the Watsonville Area Water Recycling Project 

specifically offer effective solutions to the water supply crisis in our State. Indeed, 

without the Title XVI program, water recycling in our area might not be feasible 

and would force increased reliance on an already oversubscribed Central Valley 

Project. We question the wisdom of reducing the Bureau’s participation in Title XVI 

and ask that you work with your colleagues in support of the program as well as 

funding for the Watsonville Area Water Recycling Project. 

We are excited to report that the project is moving ahead on schedule. Approximately $18 million of project components have been constructed through fiscal year 

2003. The accelerated construction of these project components allows PVWMA to 

deliver water early and demonstrate continued progress. In fiscal year 2004, we initiated work on the final design of the distribution system, the recycled water facilities, blending facilities and water wells, and salinity control pipeline. The design for 

each component will be completed in early fiscal year 2005 and construction of the 

projects will commence immediately thereafter. 

Please feel free to contact PVWMA’s Washington Representative or us if you have 

any questions or require additional information. 
420 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM

BACKGROUND

The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is requesting $35 million through the 

Bureau of Reclamation in Federal funding for continuing construction activities in 

2005. These funds will be used for construction, acquisition of easements and property, engineering, and associated legal and professional costs. The project has completed required planning and environmental reviews, and major construction will 

begin this year. The $17 million secured in fiscal year 2004 will enable Lewis and 

Clark to install the first segments of the raw water pipeline, provide emergency 

water connections for communities in Iowa, and various other interconnections 

throughout the water system. The three member-states and the local project sponsors have also contributed much to this project, with roughly $11 million in local 

funds to be made available in fiscal year 2005. 

The President’s budget requests $17.5 million for Lewis and Clark, which reflects 

a commitment he made to the project last summer. While this request is a welcome 

starting point, $35 million is necessary to fully-fund the project this year to ensure 

construction activities will continue in 2005. Even though we are in the early stages 

of construction, it is important to keep the project on schedule in order to provide 

this much-needed water source to area communities as soon as possible. 

The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act became law in July 2000 (Public 

Law 106–246). When complete, the project will provide safe, reliable drinking water 

to approximately 200,000 people in South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. Lewis and 

Clark represents a unique regional approach by three States to address common 

problems with area water resources in a more effective and cost-efficient way than 

each State could do alone. Regional water problems include shallow wells and 

aquifers prone to contamination, compliance with new Federal drinking water 

standards, and increasing water demand due to population growth and economic expansion. 

The Lewis and Clark project will utilize an aquifer adjacent to the Missouri River 

near Vermillion, South Dakota, and will distribute water to member communities 

in an area of approximately 5,000 square miles, roughly the size of Connecticut. 

When complete, the drinking water will pass through a well system, a water treatment plant, and a non-looped distribution system. The system also will include 

water storage tanks that will provide approximately a 1-day supply. The project will 

require an estimated 10 to 12 years to complete. 

PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN 2004 AND 2005

Lewis and Clark developed a schedule for construction and related services to be 

performed during the next 2 years. The following work is anticipated in fiscal year 

2004 and fiscal year 2005, subject to the availability of funding. 

Projects Planned for Fiscal Year 2004 

Raw Water Pipeline—Segment 1.—This project has been awarded to Winter Brothers Underground for $1,850,000. Construction will begin in May and will be completed by the end of September. 

Raw Water Pipeline—Segments 2 and 3.—This project is currently in the final design phase. Permit applications and easements are currently being processed. It is 

anticipated this project would be awarded to a contractor in the early summer and 

construction start in late summer/early fall 2004. 

Site J Production Pump Test Well.—Lewis & Clark currently plans to drill another test production well south and west of Vermillion. The well will be a ∂/¥105′ 

deep vertical well and will be sized to be an actual production well for the project. 

The construction period will be from August 15 through November 15. 

Treated Water Pipeline—SD Segment 1.—The Treated Water Pipeline Segment 1 

will involve construction of a pipeline from west of Sioux Falls to Tea, South Dakota. The project will include construction of the main 48′′ treated water transmission pipeline for the Lewis & Clark System. Lewis & Clark plans to bid and 

award this project in September 2004. 

Treated Water Pipeline—IA Segment 1 (Iowa Emergency Connection).—The first 

phase of the Iowa Emergency Connection will involve a pipeline from the Sioux Center water treatment plant to Hull, Iowa. The project will include construction of the 

main treated water transmission pipeline for the Lewis & Clark System and service 

connection lines for Sioux Center and Hull. Lewis & Clark plans to bid and award 

this project in September 2004 or 2005, depending upon funding levels. 

Water Treatment Plant Pre-design.—This task includes a preliminary design and 

evaluation of the treatment plant. The goal is to complete the pre-design and pro-
421 

vide drawings, draft specifications and technical memoranda for a Value Engineering review in early 2005. 

Projects Planned for Fiscal Year 2005 

Fiscal year 2005 activities will include a continuation of the projects listed above 

for 2004, plus the following additional system components: 

Treated Water Pipeline—SD Segment 2.—The second phase of the treated water 

pipeline construction in South Dakota would include construction of the main 48′′ 

pipeline from Tea south to Lennox. Part or all of this segment may be included in 

the 2004 construction if delays are experienced elsewhere in the project. Lewis & 

Clark would bid and award this project in the summer of 2005. 

Treated Water Pipeline—SD Segment 3.—The third phase of the treated water 

pipeline construction in South Dakota would be a continuation of the main 48′′ pipeline south from Lennox to Highway 18. Lewis & Clark would bid and award this 

project in the summer of 2005. 

(Under Consideration) Treated Water Pipeline—SD Segment 4 (portion of Parker 

service line).—This phase would include a portion of the service line to Parker, 

South Dakota. Initial construction of this line would be constructed to the turnout 

for South Lincoln RWS. If pursued, Lewis & Clark would bid and award this project 

in the summer of 2005. 

(Under Consideration) Treated Water Pipeline—SD Segment 5 (South Dakota 

Emergency Connection).—The South Dakota Emergency Connection may include 

construction of a pipeline from the east side of Sioux Falls to connect to Lincoln 

County Rural Water System. The project would include construction of the main 

treated water transmission pipeline for the Lewis & Clark System. This part of the 

emergency connection will permit temporary transmission of water from Minnehaha 

Community Water Corporation (MCWC) to the Lincoln County RWS. Additional 

water could be provided to Tea, Lincoln County RWS and Harrisburg. If pursued, 

Lewis & Clark would bid and award this project in the summer of 2005. 

(Under Consideration) Treated Water Pipeline—IA Segments 2 (Iowa Emergency 

Connection).—The next phase of the Iowa Emergency Connection may include building a short section of Lewis & Clark pipeline to connect Sheldon, Iowa to a temporary source of water. If pursued, Lewis & Clark plans to bid and award this 

project in the summer of 2005. 

Treated Water Pipeline—MN Segment 1 (Minnesota Emergency Connection).—The 

Minnesota Emergency Connection will involve construction of a pipeline from Magnolia to east of Adrian, Minnesota. The project will include construction of the main 

treated water transmission pipeline for the Lewis & Clark System. The emergency 

connection will pump water from Rock County RWS to Lincoln-Pipestone RWS and 

other Minnesota water systems under future contracts. Lewis & Clark plans to bid 

and award this project in the summer of 2005 or 2006, depending on funding levels. 

Water Treatment Plant Design.—The Value Engineering (VE) review will be performed in early 2005. The design team will proceed with design of the water treatment plant incorporating the results and recommendations from the VE review. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEM

FISCAL YEAR 2005 FUNDING REQUEST

The Mid-Dakota Project is requesting an appropriations of $17.015 million provided through the Bureau of Reclamation’s project construction program for fiscal 

year 2005. As with our past submissions to this subcommittee, Mid-Dakota’s fiscal 

year 2005 request is based on a detailed analysis of our ability to proceed with construction during the fiscal year. In all previous years, Mid-Dakota has fully obligated its appropriated funds, including Federal, State, and local, and could have obligated significantly more were they available. 

An appropriation of $17.015 million for fiscal year 2005 will complete the Federal 

Government’s funding obligation for the initial construction of the authorized 

Project. It is with pleasure that Mid-Dakota agrees with President Bush’s $17.015 

million request for Mid-Dakota in fiscal year 2005. 
422 

1Project features listed in table are subject to rescheduling based upon funding provided and 

readiness to proceed and other factors. Actual construction activities, therefore, may not coincide 

exactly with schedule presented here. 

TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 2005 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 1

The proposed construction would provide service to an estimated 1,500 more people than are currently receiving or scheduled to receive Project drinking water. 

MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEM STATEMENT OF CAPABILITIES FISCAL YEAR 2005 (OCTOBER 

2004 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2005) 

Construction Inspection—Percent of Const. Engin. and Legal Subtotals 

100 Source and Intake (Percent) .............................. ........................ 12 2 ........................

1 Expansion ........................................................... $80,000 $57,600 $9,600 $547,200 

Subtotals .............................................. $480,000 $7,600 $9,600 $547,200 

200 Water Treatment (Percent) ................................ ........................ 12 2 ........................

1 Expansion ........................................................... $710,000 $445,200 $74,200 $4,229,400 

2 VFD IEEE comp. ................................................. $250,000 $30,000 $5,000 $285,000 

Subtotals .............................................. $3,960,000 $475,200 $79,200 $4,514,400 

300 Main Trans. Pipe (Percent) ................................ ........................ 8 2 ........................

1 Expansion—BPS ................................................ $2,175,000 $174,000 $43,500 $2,392,500 

Subtotals .............................................. $2,175,000 $174,000 $43,500 $2,392,500 

400 Dist. Pipeline (Percent) ...................................... ........................ 6 6 ........................

1 Wolsey (4–3P (2)) .............................................. $2,610,000 $156,600 $156,600 $2,923,200 

2 Pearl Creek ........................................................ $1,815,000 $108,900 $108,900 $2,032,800 

3 Staum Dam ........................................................ $1,450,000 $87,000 $87,000 $1,624,000 

4 Redfield East ..................................................... $415,000 $24,900 $24,900 $464,800 

5 Vaults and stations ........................................... $280,000 $16,800 $16,800 $313,600 

Subtotals .............................................. $6,570,000 $394,200 $394,200 $7,358,400 

500 Water Storage (Percent) .................................... ........................ 12 6 ........................

1 Canning Tank .................................................... $1,120,000 $134,400 $67,200 $1,321,600 

Subtotals .............................................. $1,120,000 $134,400 $67,200 $1,321,600 

600 SCADA and Controls (Percent) .......................... ........................ 8 8 ........................

1 Controls & SCADA .............................................. $295,000 $23,600 $23,600 $342,200 

Subtotals .............................................. $295,000 $23,600 $23,600 $342,200 

TOTAL .................................................... $4,600,000 $1,259,000 $617,300 $16,476,300 

Administration as a Percent of Construction ... ........................ 1.5 ........................ $219,000 

Bur. of Rec. as a Percent of Construction ....... ........................ 3.0 ........................ $438,000 

Contingencies as a percent of Construction .... ........................ 10.0 ........................ $1,460,000 

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CAPABILITIES— 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 ........................... ........................ ........................ ........................ $18,593,300 

WETLAND COMPONENT REQUEST—FISCAL 

YEAR 2005 .................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ $317,000 

TOTAL FISCAL YEAR 2005 CAPABILITIES—FISCAL YEAR 2005 ............... ........................ ........................ ........................ $18,910,300 

Total capabilities are greater than the amount remaining in authorized funds. If 

a funding shortfall is realized, Mid-Dakota will examine its options for funding the 

shortfall when the amount is known. 
423 

2 Includes $15.0 million appropriated in fiscal year 2004, but does not include Agency ‘‘underfinancing’’ or 2005 Indexing. 

IMPACTS OF FISCAL YEAR 2005 AWARD

The most obvious impact of any significant reduction from Mid-Dakota’s request 

will be the delay of construction of one or more Project components. The $17.015 

million will allow for the completion of the Mid-Dakota Project as it is currently authorized. The requested appropriation will provide the necessary funds to proceed 

with construction of multiple contracts summarized earlier in this testimony. 

HISTORY OF PROJECT FUNDING

The Project was authorized by Congress and signed into law by President George 

H.W. Bush in October 1992. The Federal authorization for the project totaled $100 

million (1989 dollars) in a combination of Federal grant and loan funds (grant funds 

may not exceed 85 percent of Federal contribution). The State authorization was for 

$8.4 million (1989 dollars). A breakdown of Project cost ceilings are as follows: 

PROJECT COST CEILINGS (FISCAL YEAR 2004) 

Amount 

Federal Ceiling ..................................................................................................................................................... $140,279,000 

State Ceiling ........................................................................................................................................................ 9,670,000 

Subtotal Rural Water System ................................................................................................................. 149,949,000 

Wetland Enhancement Component ...................................................................................................................... 2,756,000 

Total Project Cost Ceiling ....................................................................................................................... 152,705,000 

The total authorized indexed cost of the project is approximately $152.705 million 

(fiscal year 2005 figures were not available at the time of writing this testimony). 

All Federal funding considered, the Government has provided 89 percent of its commitment ($126.726 2 million of $143.035 million) to provide construction funding for 

the Project. When considering the Federal and State combined awards, the project 

is approximately 89 percent complete, in terms of financial commitments. 

SUMMARIZATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fed. Fiscal year Mid-Dakota 

Request Pres. Budg. House Senate 

Conf. 

Enacted 

Levels 

Bureau 

Award 

Levels 

Additional 

Funds 

Total Fed. 

Funds 

Provided 

1994 ......................... 7.991 ................ ................ 2.000 2.000 1.500 ................ 1.500 

1995 ......................... 22.367 ................ ................ 8.000 4.000 3.600 ................ 3.600 

1996 ......................... 23.394 2.500 12.500 10.500 11.500 10.902 2.323 13.225 

1997 ......................... 29.686 2.500 11.500 12.500 10.000 9.400 1.500 10.900 

1998 ......................... 29.836 10.000 12.000 13.000 13.000 12.221 1.000 13.221 

1999 ......................... 32.150 10.000 10.000 20.000 15.000 14.100 2.000 16.100 

2000 ......................... 28.800 5.000 15.000 7.000 14.000 12.859 1.000 13.859 

2001 ......................... 24.000 6.040 11.040 6.040 10.040 9.398 ................ 9.398 

2002 ......................... 30.684 10.040 15.040 15.540 15.040 13.611 0.861 14.472 

2003 ......................... 29.360 10.040 17.040 17.900 17.900 16.129 0.800 16.929 

2004 ......................... 23.869 2.040 12.040 15.040 15.040 13.522 ................ 13.522 

2005 ......................... 17.015 17.015 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

Totals 1 ........ ................ 75.175 116.16 127.52 127.52 117.242 9.484 126.726 

1 Includes Congressional appropriations for the operation and maintenance of the ‘‘Wetland Enhancement’’ Component of the Project. 

Additionally, the State of South Dakota has contributed $9.67 million in grants 

to the Mid-Dakota Project, in previous years. The State of South Dakota completed 

its initial authorized financial obligation to the Mid-Dakota Project in the 1998 Legislative Session. 
424 

CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS

Mid-Dakota began construction in September of 1994, with the construction of its 

Water Intake and Pump Station. Since that eventful day of first construction start, 

we have bid, awarded, and completed 23 project components and are into construction on eight other major Project components. The following table provides a synopsis of each major construction contract: 

Contract Contract Amount with 

Change Orders 

Work Complete to 

Date 

Percent 

Dollars 

Comp. 

Contract Completion 

Date 

1–1, Intake Station ............................................... $3,944,961.74 $3,944,961.74 100 02/28/97 

1–1A, Intake Rip-Rap ........................................... $87,178.75 $87,178.75 100 05/02/98 

1–1B, Intake Road ................................................ $26,187.50 $26,187.50 100 10/01/99 

2–1, Water Treat. Plant ........................................ $10,242,564.00 $10,242,564.00 100 04/28/98 

2–1A, WTP Controls .............................................. $14,628.98 $14,628.98 100 08/03/00 

O&M Center Paving ............................................... $58,473.87 $58,473.87 100 06/13/00 

3–1A, Raw Water Pipe .......................................... $1,719,251.30 $1,719,251.30 100 03/29/96 

3–1B, Main Trans. Pipe ........................................ $7,022,055.73 $7,022,055.73 100 12/21/97 

3–1C, Main Trans. Pipe ........................................ $4,793,104.90 $4,793,104.90 100 11/10/97 

3–1D, CP System .................................................. $214,651.00 $214,651.00 100 11/01/00 

3–2A, Main Trans. Pipe ........................................ $3,155,454.93 $3,155,454.93 100 12/03/99 

3–2B, Main Trans. Pipe ........................................ $3,356,564.67 $3,356,564.67 100 12/09/99 

3–3A, Main Trans. Pipe ........................................ $2,383,513.37 $2,383,513.37 100 11/01/02 

3–3B, Main Trans. Pipe ........................................ $3,881,892.39 $3,871,671.00 99 11/13/03 

3–3C, Main Trans. Pipe ........................................ $2,630,672.25 $2,601,234.00 99 11/13/03 

4–1A/B (1–5) Dist. Pipe ....................................... $10,572,231.62 $10,572,231.62 100 10/20/97 1

11/15/97 1

11/15/98 

05/30/99 

4–1A/B (6) Dist. Pipe ........................................... $9,027,572.49 $9,027,572.49 100 10/22/99 1

12/03/00 

4–2 (1) Dist. Pipe ................................................. $4,707,394.81 $4,707,394.81 100 11/10/00 

4–2 (2) Dist. Pipe ................................................. $3,000,176.49 $3,000,176.49 100 11/13/00 

4–2 (4–5) Dist. Pipe ............................................. $5,134,974.43 $5,134,974.43 100 10/31/01 

4–2A (4) Dist. Pipe ............................................... $1,191,329.30 $1,191,329.30 100 10/31/01 

07/01/02 

4–2AP (2–3) Dist. Pipe ......................................... $11,435,814.24 $11,114,781.91 97 11/17/02 

12/31/03 

4–2AV (2–3) Dist. Pipe ......................................... $686,749.00 $686,749.00 100 11/01/03 

5–1, Highmore Tank ............................................. $1,433,000.00 $1,433,000.00 100 10/20/97 

5–1A (1) Onida Tank ............................................ $397,688.00 $397,688.00 100 06/30/99 

5–1A(2—4) Oko. Agar Getty. Tanks ..................... $1,526,453.00 $1,526,453.00 100 09/18/00 

5–2 (1) Mac’s Corner Tank .................................. $561,100.69 $561,100.69 100 10/16/00 

5–2 (2–3) Rezac Lake & Collins Slough Tanks ... $911,720.00 $911,720.00 100 09/01/01 

5–2A (1–3) Ames & Wess. Springs Tanks ........... $868,490.00 $868,490.00 100 09/01/02 

09/01/03 

5–2A (2) Cottonwood Lake Tank .......................... $695,862.98 $695,862.98 100 09/01/02 

5–3 Wolsey Tank ................................................... $2,021,414.00 $1,281,594.00 63 11/01/04 

6–1 SCADA System ............................................... $888,260.50 $837,680.72 94 12/01/03 

TOTAL ....................................................... $98,591,386.93 $97,440,295.18 

1 Intermediate completion date. 

CLOSING

Mid-Dakota is very aware of the tough funding decisions that face the Energy and 

Water Appropriations Subcommittee and we do not envy the difficult job that lies 

ahead. We strongly urge, the subcommittee to look closely at the Mid-Dakota Project 

and recognize the dire need that exists. Consider the exceptionally high level of local 

and State support. And finally consider the fact that fully funding the fiscal year 

2005 appropriation request as submitted by the President and by Mid-Dakota will 

fully fund the initial authorized components of the Mid-Dakota Project. 

Again, we thank the subcommittee for its strong support, both past and present. 
425 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE STREAM COMMISSION

SUMMARY

This statement is submitted in support of appropriations for the Colorado River 

Basin salinity control program of the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation. Congress designated the Bureau of Reclamation to be the lead agency for 

salinity control in the Colorado River Basin by the Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Act of 1974. Public Law 104–20 reconfirmed the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

role. A total of $17.5 million is requested for fiscal year 2005 to implement the authorized salinity control program of the Bureau of Reclamation. The President’s appropriation request is inadequate because studies have shown that the implementation of the salinity control program has fallen behind the pace needed to control salinity. An appropriation of $17.5 million for Reclamation’s salinity control program 

is necessary to protect water quality standards for salinity and to prevent unnecessary levels of economic damage from increased salinity levels in water delivered to 

the Lower Basin States and Mexico. 

STATEMENT

The water quality standards for salinity of the Colorado River must be protected 

while the Basin States continue to develop their compact apportioned waters of the 

river. Studies have shown that the implementation of the salinity control program 

has fallen below the threshold necessary to prevent future exceedence of the numeric criteria of the water quality standards for salinity in the Lower Basin of the 

Colorado River. The salinity standards for the Colorado River have been adopted by 

the seven Basin States and approved by EPA. While currently the standards have 

not been exceeded, salinity control projects must be brought on-line in a timely and 

cost-effective manner to prevent future effects that would cause the numeric criteria 

to be exceeded. 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was authorized by Congress and 

signed into law in 1974. The seven Colorado River Basin States, in response to the 

Clean Water Act of 1972, had formed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Forum, a body comprised of gubernatorial representatives from the seven States. 

The Forum was created to provide for interstate cooperation in response to the 

Clean Water Act, and to provide the States with information necessary to comply 

with Sections 303(a) and (b) of the Act. The Forum has become the primary means 

for the Basin States to coordinate with Federal agencies and Congress to support 

the implementation of the salinity control program for the Colorado River Basin. 

Bureau of Reclamation studies show that damages from the Colorado River to 

United States water users are about $300,000,000 per year. Damages are estimated 

at $75,000,000 per year for every additional increase of 30 milligrams per liter in 

salinity of the Colorado River. Control of salinity is necessary for the Colorado River 

Basin States, including New Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River. 

It is essential that appropriations for the funding of the salinity control program 

be timely in order to comply with the water quality standards for salinity to prevent 

unnecessary economic damages in the United States, and to protect the quality of 

the water that the United States is obligated to deliver to Mexico. An appropriation 

of only the amount specified in the President’s budget request is inadequate to protect the quality of water in the Colorado River and prevent unnecessary salinity 

damages in the States of the Lower Colorado River Basin. Studies have shown that 

the implementation of the salinity control program has fallen behind the pace needed to control salinity. Although the United States has always met the water quality 

standard for salinity of water delivered to Mexico under Minute No. 242 of the 

International Boundary and Water Commission, the United States through the U.S. 

Section of IBWC is currently addressing a request by Mexico for better quality 

water. 

Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in July 1995 

(Public Law 104–20). The salinity control program authorized by Congress by the 

amendment has proven to be very cost-effective, and the Basin States are standing 

ready with up-front cost sharing. Proposals from public and private sector entities 

in response to the Bureau of Reclamation’s advertisement have far exceeded available funding. Basin States cost sharing funds are available for the $17.5 million appropriation request for fiscal year 2005. The Basin States cost sharing adds 43 cents 

for each Federal dollar appropriated. 

Public Law 106–459 gave the Bureau of Reclamation additional spending authority for the salinity control program. With the additional authority in place and significant cost sharing by the Basin States, it is essential that the salinity control pro-
426 

gram be funded at the level requested by the Forum and Basin States to protect 

the water quality of the Colorado River. 

Maintenance and operation of the Bureau of Reclamation’s salinity control 

projects and investigations to identify new cost-effective salinity control projects are 

necessary for the success of the salinity control program. Investigation of new opportunities for salinity control are critical as the Basin States continue to develop and 

use their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River. The water quality 

standards for salinity and the United States water quality requirements pursuant 

to treaty obligations with Mexico are dependent on timely implementation of salinity control projects, adequate funding to maintain and operate existing projects, and 

investigations to determine new cost-effective projects. 

I urge the Congress to appropriate $17.5 million to the Bureau of Reclamation for 

the Colorado River Basin salinity control program, adequate funding for operation 

and maintenance of existing projects and adequate funding for general investigations to identify new salinity control opportunities. Also, I fully support testimony 

by the Forum’s Executive Director, Jack Barnett, in request of this appropriation, 

and the recommendation of an appropriation of the same amount by the federally 

chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council. 

LETTER FROM THE STATE ENGINEER’S OFFICE, WYOMING

Cheyenne, Wyoming, May 18, 2004. 

The Honorable PETE V. DOMENICI, 

Chairman, 

The Honorable HARRY REID, 

Ranking Member, 

Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on Appropriations, United 

States Senate, 127 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN DOMENICI AND SENATOR REID: This letter is sent in support of 

fiscal year 2003 funding for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project—Title II Program. Thank you in advance for inclusion of this 

letter in the formal hearing record concerning fiscal year 2005 appropriations. 

The Colorado River provides municipal and industrial water for 27 million people 

and irrigation water to nearly 4 million acres of land in the United States. The 

River is also the water source for some 2.3 million people and 500,000 acres in Mexico. Limitations on users’ abilities to make the greatest use of that water supply due 

to the River’s high concentration of total dissolved solids (hereafter referred to as 

the salinity of the water) are a major concern in both the United States and Mexico. 

Salinity in the water source especially affects agricultural, municipal, and industrial 

water users. While economic detriments and damages in Mexico are unquantified, 

the Bureau of Reclamation presently estimates salinity-related damages in the 

United States to amount to $330 million per year. The River’s high salt content is 

in almost equal part due to naturally occurring geologic features that include subsurface salt formations and discharging saline springs; and the resultant concentrating effects of our users man’s storage, use and reuse of the waters of the River 

system. Over-application of irrigation water by agriculture is a large contributor of 

salt to the Colorado River as irrigation water moves below the crop root zone, seeps 

through saline soils and then returns to the river system. 

The 1944 Mexico Treaty obligates the United States to provide 1.5 million acrefeet of water to Mexico, but does not address quality. Mexico filed a formal protest 

in the 1960’s when the salinity levels of water being delivered pursuant to the Treaty increased sharply. Several minutes, including Minute 242 to the Treaty, were negotiated to address the water quality concerns voiced by Mexico. Minute 242 requires the average annual salinity of the Colorado River water delivered to Mexico 

upstream of Mexico’s principal diversion dam (Morelos Dam) can be no more than 

115 parts per million (PPM), plus or minus 30 PPM higher than the average salinity 

of the water arriving at Imperial Dam, the lowermost point of major water diversion 

in the United States. 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the 1972 amendments to 

the Clean Water Act required the seven Basin States to adopt water quality standards for salinity levels in the Colorado River. In light of the EPA’s regulation to require water quality standards for salinity in the Basin, the Governors of Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming created the Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Forum as an interstate coordination mechanism in 

1973. To address these international and regionally important salinity problems, the 

Congress enacted the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. Title I ad-
427 

dressed the United States’ obligations to Mexico to control the River’s salinity to ensure the United States’ water deliveries to Mexico are within the specified salinity 

concentration range. Title II of the Act authorized control measures upstream of Imperial Dam and directed the Secretary of the Interior to construct several salinity 

control projects, most of which are located in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Title 

II of the Act was again amended in 1995 and 2000 to direct the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a basin-wide salinity control program. This program awards grants 

to non-Federal entities, on a competitive-bid basis, which initiate and carry out salinity control projects. The basin-wide program has demonstrated significantly improved cost-effectiveness, as computed on $1 per ton of salt basis, as compared to 

the prior Reclamation-initiated projects. The Forum was heavily involved in the development of the 1974 Act and its subsequent amendments, and continues to actively oversee the Federal agencies’ salinity control program efforts. 

During the past 31 years, the seven State Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Forum has actively assisted the Federal agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation, in implementing this unique and important program. At its October 2003 meeting, the Forum recommended that the Bureau of Reclamation seek to have appropriated and should expend for Colorado River Basin salinity control the sum of 

$17,500,000 in fiscal year 2005. We strongly believe these efforts constitute one of 

the most successful Federal/State cooperative non-point source pollution control programs in the United States. 

The State of Wyoming greatly appreciates the subcommittee’s support of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program in past years. We suggest this important basinwide water quality improvement program merits continued funding and support by 

your subcommittee. 

With best regards, 

JOHN W. SHIELDS, 

Interstate Streams Engineer, for 

PATRICK T. TYRRELL, 

Wyoming State Engineer, Wyoming Member, Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Forum. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE OF WYOMING

I write to request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program’’ for the Upper Colorado Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this lineitem amount. The funding designation we seek is as follows: $4,008,000 for the 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and 

Wildlife Management and Development. 

These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing partnerships among 

the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal 

agencies and water, power and environmental interests. The programs’ objectives 

are to recover endangered fish species while water development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The programs reflect a prudent approach to 

providing endangered species conservation and recovery within the framework of 

the Act, while concurrently resolving critical conflicts between endangered species 

recovery and the development and use of Compact-apportioned water resources in 

the Upper Colorado River Basin region of the Intermountain West. 

The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish passage structures at the Grand Valley Project and Price-Stubb diversion dams on the 

Colorado River near Grand Junction, Colorado. Fish passage will provide access to 

an additional 50 miles of historic habitat upstream of these dams. Floodplain restoration activities will continue at high-priority sites and is especially important for 

the survival of the razorback sucker species. Screening of existing diversion canals, 

needed to prevent endangered fish from being drawn out of the river and into canal 

and power plant intake structures, will proceed at the Redlands Water and Power 

Company and Bureau of Reclamation-constructed Grand Valley Project facilities. 

The requested funding for the San Juan River Recovery Program will be used for 

program management, propagation facilities, stocking efforts, non-native management efforts and construction of a fish screen in the Hogback Irrigation Project 

canal. Additional hatchery facilities, restoring floodplain habitat and fish passage, 

regulating and supplying instream habitat flows, installing diversion canal screens 

and controlling non-native fish populations are key components of the capital construction efforts ongoing in both programs. 
428 

Substantial non-Federal cost sharing funds are provided by the four States, power 

users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. Public Law 106–392, 

as amended by Public Law 107–375, authorizes the Federal Government to provide 

up to $46 million of cost sharing for these two ongoing recovery programs’ remaining capital construction projects. The four participating states are contributing $17 

million and $17 million is being contributed from revenues derived from the sale 

of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) hydroelectric power. These facts demonstrate the strong commitment and effective partnerships that are present in both 

of these successful programs. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. On behalf of the citizens of Wyoming, I thank you for that support and request the subcommittee’s assistance for 

fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s continuing financial 

participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

(CAWCD) 

Mr. Chairman, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) is 

pleased to offer the following testimony regarding the fiscal year 2005 Energy and 

Water Development appropriations request by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 

Lower Colorado Region. 

The Central Arizona Project or ‘‘CAP’’ was authorized by the 90th Congress of the 

United States under the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968. The CAP is a 

multi-purpose water resource development project designed to deliver the remainder 

of Arizona’s entitlement of Colorado River water into the central and southern portions of the State for municipal and industrial, agricultural, and Indian uses. 

CAWCD was created in 1971 as the local governmental entity responsible for contracting with the United States to repay the reimbursable construction costs of the 

CAP and, subsequently to operate and maintain the completed project. Its service 

area is comprised of Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. CAWCD is a tax-levying 

public improvement district, a political subdivision, and a municipal corporation, 

and represents roughly 80 percent of the water users and taxpayers of the State 

of Arizona. CAWCD is governed by a 15-member Board of Directors elected from the 

three counties it serves. CAWCD’s Board members are public officers who serve 

without pay. 

Project repayment is provided for through a Master Repayment Contract between 

CAWCD and the United States. Project repayment began in 1994. To date, CAWCD 

has repaid $740 million of CAP construction costs to the United States. 

CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT

In its fiscal year 2005 budget request, Reclamation seeks $34,087,000 for the 

CAP. Of this amount, $21,358,000 is requested for the continuation of construction 

of water distribution systems for various Indian water users. CAWCD supports full 

funding for this important program. 

Reclamation is also requesting $1,849,000 to continue tendon repairs to the Centennial, Jackrabbit, and Hassayampa siphons. Completing the tendon repairs to 

these siphons is critical to the long term reliability of the CAP water delivery system; therefore, CAWCD strongly supports this appropriation request. 

An amount of $6,692,000 is earmarked to fund activities associated with implementation of a 1994 biological opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

pertaining to delivery of CAP water to the Gila River Basin and for native fish activities on the Santa Cruz River. $1,951,000 and $28,000, respectively, are requested 

to complete environmental activities at Modified Roosevelt Dam and to complete a 

reservoir limnology follow-up study at Lake Pleasant. CAWCD supports these budget requests. 

Reclamation is requesting $959,000 to begin land acquisition and right-of-way activities, and to continue coordination and design elements for the water supply reliability features of the Tucson Reliability Division, also known as Tucson Terminal 

Storage. A stipulation that settles a 1995 lawsuit between CAWCD and Reclamation 

over CAP costs requires Reclamation to consult with CAWCD before proceeding 

with the development of these features because of their potential impact on 

CAWCD’s repayment obligation for CAP. Reclamation has not consulted with 

CAWCD, the city of Tucson, or other Tucson area customers about these activities. 

Until such consultation occurs, CAWCD opposes any funding for land acquisition 

and right of way activities for the Tucson Reliability Division. 
429 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT—TITLE I

In its fiscal year 2005 budget request, Reclamation is requesting $10,869,000 

under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project—Title I. This program supports maintenance of the Yuma Desalting Plant (YDP), maintaining the U.S. Bypass 

Drain and the Mexico Bypass Drain, and ensuring that Mexican Treaty salinity requirements are met. Currently, the YDP is not operational. Instead, Reclamation is 

allowing all Wellton-Mohawk drainage water (over 100,000 acre-feet per year) to bypass the YDP and flow to the Santa Clara Slough in Mexico. These flows are not 

accounted for as deliveries to Mexico under the 1944 Mexican Treaty and represent 

a significant depletion of the Colorado River water currently in storage. Continuing 

this practice will eventually reduce the amount of water available to the Central Arizona Project, the lowest priority water user in the Colorado River basin, and increase the risk of future shortages. The Colorado River system is now in its fifth 

consecutive year of below normal runoff, and water levels in Lake Powell and Lake 

Mead are at their lowest levels in over 30 years. In fact, water year 2002 was the 

lowest runoff year in recorded history on the Colorado River. Reclamation’s operation of the YDP would conserve an additional 100,000 acre-feet per year of Colorado River water for use by the lower basin States. This amount is roughly equal 

to the City of Phoenix’s annual subcontract entitlement to CAP water. 

The House of Representatives Report accompanying the fiscal year 1995 Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations bill directed Reclamation to maintain the 

YDP so as to be capable of operating at one-third capacity with a 1-year notice of 

funding. Conference Report 108–357 that accompanied the fiscal year 2004 Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act directed the Bureau of Reclamation to 

expedite its modifications to the YDP to enable state of the art operation and to accelerate permitting and environmental compliance activities. A report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations was due within 180 days. Reclamation 

indicates that this report is currently being prepared. 

Reclamation’s fiscal year 2005 budget justification documents again provide no indication that it has any intention of actually operating the YDP. The budget request 

for fiscal year 2005 is $381,000 less than Reclamation’s fiscal year 2004 budget request. Of this amount, $781,000 is requested for Title I research technology to 

‘‘. . . promote less expensive operation of the YDP and exploration of new technology to keep the YDP viable as a tool to address future water resource needs.’’ 

According to Reclamation’s budget justification documents, research advancements 

have already realized a cumulative savings of $10,000,000 in full plant operating 

expenses. This is an interesting statement in light of the fact that the plant is not 

being operated. It is also interesting to note that while Reclamation estimates $24 

million per year would be needed to operate the plant, it is requesting about $10 

million in order not to operate it. The $781,000 should be redirected toward activities necessary to make the YDP operational. 

Reclamation is requesting $1,780,000 for continuing data gathering and analysis 

regarding the salinity of flows arriving at Imperial Dam and flows going into Mexico 

as well as work associated with minimizing Wellton-Mohawk drainage flows. Work 

also includes operation of sludge disposal equipment and activities required to purify feed water to the plant. CAWCD understands that most of this work is necessary, but not directly related to YDP operations. However, since the YDP is not 

operational, it is not clear what is being done for sludge disposal and feed water 

purification. If this is pretreatment for water treated at the research facility that 

is already included in the $781,000 previously mentioned, then that portion of the 

$1,780,000 requested should be redirected to YDP rehabilitation. 

Reclamation is requesting $5,771,000 for continuing efforts to ensure the Yuma 

Desalting Plant can operate to meet Mexican Treaty requirements. This is $147,000 

more than Reclamation’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for this same line item. 

Work includes long-term maintenance of Yuma Desalting Plant infrastructure and 

facilities, maintenance of sections of the Bypass Drain, Protective and Regulatory 

Pumping Unit and mitigation features. Reclamation’s narrative does not provide 

enough information to determine how much of this total amount is needed for features other than YDP; however, past spending reports, prepared by Reclamation, indicate about 50 percent or $2.9 million might be available for necessary maintenance and rehabilitation to restore operational capability at YDP. 

Reclamation is requesting $483,000 to continue a long-term program to bank 

water and/or pursue short-term agricultural water right leases to offset the need to 

operate the plant. This is $2,759,000 less than Reclamation’s fiscal year 2004 budget 

request for the same line item. There is no possibility for a program to bank water 

in 2005. Any plans for water right leases/land fallowing will require several million 

dollars. Reclamation also notes these funds would complete the permitting and envi-
430 

ronmental compliance process for YDP operations. CAWCD supports this request 

only to the extent needed to complete the actions, documentation and permits necessary to operate YDP. 

Reclamation has included a line item in its appropriations request for $2,054,000 

for replacement of high pressure reverse osmosis pumps to correct corrosion problems and to continue to improve plant readiness and correct design deficiencies. 

CAWCD supports Reclamation’s efforts to repair any design deficiencies. We encourage Reclamation to ensure that they have a comprehensive plan in place. 

Using the information provided in Reclamation’s appropriation request, it appears 

that of the $10,869,000 requested about $6,735,000 could be used for rehabilitation 

and modernization of the YDP with a goal of one-third operational capability by the 

end of 2006. That presumes Reclamation will spend $2 to $3 million of 2004 appropriations on such activities and that the budget will remain relatively level in 2006. 

CAWCD requests that language be included in the fiscal year 2005 Energy and 

Water Appropriations bill directing Reclamation to take the necessary steps to bring 

the Yuma Desalting Plant into operation at no less than one-third capacity by the 

end of fiscal year 2006. CAWCD believes Reclamation’s budget is sufficient to accomplish this goal. 

COLORADO FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM

Reclamation is requesting $3,647,000 for the Colorado River Front Work and 

Levee System. This project regulates, stabilizes, and maintains the river channel 

and includes the existing offstream storage feature, Senator Wash Dam. This budget 

request also includes continuing work to plan and design additional offstream storage on the All American Canal. CAWCD supports the budget request for these activities. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION/RECOVERY PROJECT

Reclamation is requesting $1,298,000 for its ongoing Endangered Species Conservation/Recovery Project. This program provides for the development and implementation of projects for the stewardship of endangered, threatened, proposed, and 

candidate species that are resident or migratory to habitats within the lower Colorado Region. These activities are complementary to the Lower Colorado River MultiSpecies Conservation Program (MSCP). CAWCD supports this request. 

LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM

In its fiscal year 2005 budget request, Reclamation seeks $15,322,000 for its 

Lower Colorado River Operations Program. This program provides for Reclamation 

to continue its activities as the ‘‘water master’’ on the lower Colorado River and provides Reclamation’s funding for the lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP). $2,018,000 is for administration of the Colorado River and 

$3,177,000 is for water contract administration and decree accounting. Under Fish 

and Wildlife Management and Development, $9,027,000 is requested, of which 

$6,234,000 is earmarked for the MSCP. It is anticipated that a similar amount will 

be contributed by non-Federal parties. In addition, $1,184,000 is requested for 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yuma Clapper Rail Protection, $1,199,000 is 

for Razorback and Bonytail Chub protection, $410,000 for riparian restoration and 

research, $150,000 for NEPA compliance activities. 

The MSCP is a cost-shared program among Federal and non-Federal interests to 

develop a long-term plan to conserve endangered species and their habitat along the 

lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to Mexico. CAWCD is one of the cost-sharing 

partners. Development of this program will provide habitat for hundreds of threatened and endangered species and, at the same time, allow current water and power 

operations to continue. 

CAWCD supports Reclamation’s budget request for the Lower Colorado River Operations Program. The increased funding level is necessary to support the MSCP effort as well as environmental measures necessary to fully implement the interim 

surplus criteria for the lower Colorado River. These are critical programs upon 

which lower Colorado River water and power users depend. 

CAWCD welcomes this opportunity to share its views with the committee, and 

would be pleased to respond to any questions or observations occasioned by this 

written testimony. 
431 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, I am writing to request your support for 

an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation 

within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation 

Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this line-item amount. Of these funds, I respectfully 

request the designation of $4,008,000 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, 

consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish passage, floodplain restoration activities, 

screening of existing diversion canals, propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FORT PECK ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES AND DRY

PRAIRIE RURAL WATER

FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST

The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural Water respectfully request fiscal year 2005 appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation from the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Funds will be used to construct 

critical elements of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System, Montana (Public 

Law 106–382, October 27, 2000). The amount requested is $25,000,000, based on capability to spend the requested funds as set out below: 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 WORK PLAN—FORT PECK RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM (PUBLIC LAW 

106–382) 

Funding Costs 

Appropriations Requested ..................................................................................................... $25,000,000 

Estimated Rescission and Underfinancing @ 10.18% ....................................................... (2,545,000 ) 

Available Federal Funds .......................................................................................... 22,455,000 

Fort Peck Tribes: 

Federal Funds ............................................................................................................... 15,911,000 

Work Plan: 

Design and Reclamation Oversight .................................................................... .......................... $1,136,000 

Missouri River Water Treat Plant ....................................................................... .......................... 14,775,000 

.......................... 15,911,000 

Dry Prairie: 

Federal Funds ............................................................................................................... 6,544,000 

Non-Federal Funds ....................................................................................................... 2,067,000 

Total ......................................................................................................................... 8,611,000 

Work Plan: 

Design and Reclamation Oversight .................................................................... .......................... 609,000 

Complete Culbertson to Medicine Lake Pipeline ................................................ .......................... 331,000 

Dane Valley and E. Med. Lake Pipelines ............................................................ .......................... 7,671,000 

.......................... 8,611,000 
432 

The sponsor Tribes and Dry Prairie greatly appreciate the previous appropriations 

from the subcommittee that have permitted building the Missouri River intake, the 

critical water source, and the first phase of the Culbertson to Medicine Lake Pipeline Project. 

The request is less than the average annual appropriations needed to complete 

the project in fiscal year 2012, as provided by the authorizing legislation: 

Total Federal Funds Authorized (October 2003 Dollars) ..................................................................................... $207,333,000 

Federal Funds Expended Through Fiscal Year 2004 ........................................................................................... $1,804,000 

Percent Complete ................................................................................................................................................. 0.87 

Amount Remaining ............................................................................................................................................... $205,529,000 

Average Required for Fiscal Year 2012 Finish (Public Law 106–382) .............................................................. $25,691,000 

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

This project, which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana 

and the Dry Prairie portion of the project outside the Reservation, was authorized 

by Public Law 106–382 in October 27, 2000. The request for fiscal year 2005 will 

continue the construction of the Missouri River water treatment plant, which will 

require fiscal year 2006 funds in the estimated amount of $5 million for completion. 

The request will also complete the Culbertson to Medicine Lake Project, which was 

initiated in fiscal year 2003, and advance the construction of the Dane Valley/ 

Bainville/East Medicine Lake Projects. 

The project also has the capability beyond the amount requested, based on current 

status of design, to build the first portion of the pipeline leaving the water treatment plant at a cost of $10 million. The pipeline section will be east of the water 

treatment plant and will serve the community of Poplar, headquarters community 

for the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes. Construction is scheduled to start in fiscal 

year 2006. This will also provide a source of water for a section of the Fort Peck 

Indian Reservation contaminated by oil drilling operations and the subject of EPA 

orders to the responsible non-Tribal oil company. The oil company will provide the 

distribution system necessary to mitigate the problems and the Assiniboine and 

Sioux Rural Water System will provide the interconnecting pipeline without duplicating any facilities identified in the Final Engineering Report. This is an exigent 

circumstance that will be corrected by the project in fiscal year 2006. No funds are 

requested for fiscal year 2005 for this project even though design will be complete. 

The Dry Prairie rural water system will finish the facilities necessary to bring 

water supplies from an existing treatment plant on the Missouri River at 

Culbertson to Medicine Lake where the existing water treatment is inoperable. The 

system to be completed in fiscal year 2005 will also provide the capability to connect 

Bainville, Dane Valley and East Medicine Lake residents. The latter project will 

rely on fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 funds to mitigate costs of hauling water 

so prevalent there. The budget request is consistent with the Master Plan as approved by the Bureau of Reclamation. 

PROJECT STATUS AND COMPLETION

The Final Engineering Report (FER), water conservation plan and Finding of No 

Significant Impact were completed in fiscal year 2002. Congressional review of the 

project ended in August 2003, and construction began immediately. The Missouri 

River intake and the Culbertson to Medicine Lake pipeline projects are under construction and are scheduled for completion in October 2004. 

Design of the water treatment plant is now well advanced. The design of the lagoons at the water treatment plant and the site landscaping will be completed in 

third-quarter fiscal year 2004, and construction of these preliminary facilities will 

begin in late fiscal year 2004. The main facility will begin construction in fiscal year 

2005 at a cost of $20 million. 

Design of the Poplar to Big Muddy pipeline is well advanced and can be completed 

to utilize first quarter fiscal year 2005 funds, but the appropriation requirements 

to undertake this pipeline construction in combination with the water treatment 

plant are considered too great to include in the funding request. Therefore, construction of this pipeline will depend on the availability of funds not currently identified 

in fiscal year 2006 or fiscal year 2007. The discussion of this pipeline is intended 

to demonstrate the capability of the project to use funds prior to fiscal year 2007 

if funding were available. 

Similarly, the design of the branch pipelines that will serve rural residents between Culbertson and Medicine Lake is well ahead of funding. There is more capa-
433 

bility to use funds than will be available in either fiscal year 2004 or fiscal year 

2005. 

The project master plan is provided for review on the following page. 

LOCAL PROJECT SUPPORT

The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when they conceived 

it and sought means of improving the quality of life in the region. The planning was 

a logical step after successful completion of an historic water rights compact with 

the State of Montana. This compact was the national ‘‘ice breaker’’ that increased 

the level of confidence by other Tribes in Indian water right settlement initiatives. 

The Tribes did not seek financial compensation for the settlement of their water 

rights but expected development of meaningful water projects as now authorized. 

The 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism from its Treasure 

State Endowment Program to finance the non-Federal share of project planning and 

construction. Demonstrating support of Montana for the project, there were only 

three votes against the statutory funding mechanism in both the full House and 

Senate. The 2001 and 2003 Montana Legislatures have provided all authorizations 

and appropriations necessary for the non-Federal cost share. 

Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of all 14 communities within the service area to participate in the project. Rural support is strong, 

with about 70 percent of area farms and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees of $100 per household. 
434 
435 

NEED FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

The Fort Peck Indian Reservation was previously designated as an ‘‘Enterprise 

Community’’, underscoring the level of poverty and need for economic development 

in the region. The success of economic development within the Reservation will be 

significantly enhanced by the availability of higher quality, safe and more ample 

municipal, rural and industrial water supplies that this regional project will bring 

to the Reservation, made more necessary by an extended drought in the region. Outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the Dry Prairie area has income levels that 

are higher than within the Reservation but lower than the State average. 

The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than similar projects 

is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri River for a distance of more than 60 

miles. Many of the towns in this regional project are located 2 to 3 miles from the 

river, including Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton, Culbertson, 

and Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a transmission system outside 

the Fort Peck Indian Reservation will deliver water 30 to 40 miles north of the Missouri River. Therefore, the distances from the Missouri River to all points in the 

main transmission system are shorter than in other projects of this nature in the 

Northern Great Plains. 

ADMINISTRATION’S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

The administration’s budget for fiscal year 2005 was severe disappointment. It 

was the only authorized project in the rural water category with construction underway that did not receive funding. Other projects authorized at the same time in both 

the rural water and water and related resources categories, of similar nature to this 

project, were generously funded. Of greatest concern now is the need for Reclamation to justify the zero funding amount. In all previous meetings with the Commissioner and his representatives and with OMB, no concerns with the project were 

raised other than the concerns raised with all projects that the Federal Budget is 

too constrained, non-Indians should bear a greater cost share and other priorities, 

such as homeland security, are more demanding of Federal funds. OMB specifically 

stated in our favor that the project had provided more support and justification of 

its benefits and costs than most Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation 

projects prior to authorization. Under the circumstances, there is considerable concern on our part that previously undisclosed issues will be generated in support of 

the absence of a budget request. 

The Tribes and Dry Prairie worked extremely well and closely with the Bureau 

of Reclamation prior to and following the authorization of this project in fiscal year 

2000. The Bureau of Reclamation reviewed and commented on the Final Engineering Report, and all comments were either incorporated into the report or agreement 

was reached on final presentation. The Commissioner, Regional and Area Offices of 

the Bureau of Reclamation were consistently in full agreement with the need, scope, 

total costs, and the ability to pay analysis that supported the Federal and non-Federal cost shares. Bureau of Reclamation reviewed in writing all of these items thoroughly and formally and there were no areas of disagreement or controversy in the 

final formulation of the project. Bureau of Reclamation testimony during the authorization phase fully supported the project within the Fort Peck Indian Reservation 

and opposed any Federal participation in the costs of the project outside the Fort 

Peck Indian Reservation, as a matter of policy, but Congress addressed that issue 

in Public Law 106–382. 

The Bureau of Reclamation collaborated with the Tribes and Dry Prairie to conduct and complete value engineering investigations of the Final Engineering Report 

(planning), the Culbertson to Medicine Lake pipeline (design), the Poplar to Big 

Muddy River pipeline (design), the Missouri River intake (design) and (during the 

week of March 31, 2003) on the regional water treatment plant (design). Each of 

these considerable efforts has been directed at ways to save construction and future 

operation, maintenance and replacement costs as planning and design proceeded. 

Agreement with Reclamation has been reached in all value engineering sessions on 

steps to take to save Federal and non-Federal costs in the project. 

Cooperative agreements have been developed and executed from the beginning 

phases to date between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Tribes and between Bureau of Reclamation and Dry Prairie. Those cooperative agreements carefully set out 

goals, standards and responsibilities of the parties for planning, design and construction. All plans and specifications are subject to levels of review by the Bureau 

of Reclamation pursuant to the cooperative agreements. The sponsors do not have 

the power to undertake activities that are not subject to oversight and approval by 

the Bureau of Reclamation. Each year the Tribes and Dry Prairie are required by 
436 

the cooperative agreements to develop a work plan setting out the planning, design 

and construction activities and the allocation of finding to be utilized on each project 

feature. 

Clearly, the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System is well supported by the 

Bureau of Reclamation planners. Congress authorized the project with a plan formulated in full cooperation and collaboration with the Bureau of Reclamation, and 

major project features are under construction. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER ENERGY DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION

The Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA) appreciates the opportunity to submit its views on funding for specific programs of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Western Area Power Administration in the fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. We look forward to working with 

you and the subcommittee on these issues of importance to electric consumers in 

the Colorado River Basin States. The first issue is a request for Federal funds to 

pay for costs of increased security at Federal multi-purpose dams. The Bureau of 

Reclamation has requested $43 million for dams under its jurisdiction for fiscal year 

2005. CREDA is attempting to determine whether this represents the total amount 

that will be spent by the Bureau for increased security in fiscal year 2005 or not. 

The second issue is a request for $10,000,000 of additional funds for the Western 

Area Power Administration of the Department of Energy relating to the Animas-La 

Plata project. 

CREDA is a non-profit, regional organization representing consumer-owned municipal and rural electric cooperatives, political subdivisions, irrigation and electrical 

districts and tribal utility authorities that purchase hydropower resources from the 

Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). CRSP is a multi-purpose Federal project 

that provides flood control; water storage for irrigation, municipal and industrial 

purposes; recreation and environmental mitigation, in addition to the generation of 

electricity. CREDA was established in 1978, and serves as the ‘‘voice’’ of CRSP contractor members in dealing with resource availability and affordability issues. 

CREDA represents its members in dealing with the Bureau—as the owner and operator of the CRSP—and the Western Area Power Administration—as the marketing 

agency of the CRSP. 

CREDA members serve nearly 3 million electric consumers in the six western 

States of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. CREDA’s 

member utilities purchase more than 85 percent of the power produced by the 

CRSP. In addition, several Indian tribes have joined CREDA as affiliate members 

prior to receiving allocations of CRSP power on October 1, 2004. 

With regard to the President’s proposed fiscal year 2005 budget request, CREDA 

has two primary concerns: 

NON-REIMBURSABILITY OF POST-9/11 SECURITY COST INCREASES

Federal multipurpose projects across the country provide millions of citizens with 

a multitude of benefits, including flood control, municipal, rural, and industrial 

water supply, navigation, recreation, and, of course, hydropower. Providing adequate 

security for these multi-purpose, federally owned facilities is important to all U.S. 

citizens. In the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001, Federal agencies 

involved in the Federal power program (the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, and the Federal Power Marketing Administrations) have 

determined that significant increases in security are needed, and will continue for 

years to come. 

Adequately protecting and securing national assets, such as the Federal multipurpose dams, comes with a price tag. In 1941 and 1942, Congress treated increased 

security costs before and after Pearl Harbor as non-reimbursable (e.g., as costs to 

be borne by the Federal Government and financed through appropriations, rather 

than reimbursed by hydropower customers) because of the obvious national security 

interest at stake and the benefits these projects offer to all Americans. Thus far, 

Congress has agreed with this historical precedent, as evidenced by Senate Appropriations report language for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004, which stated 

that funds made available to respond to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks 

shall be non-reimbursable and indicates these costs ‘‘are recurring’’ (S. Rept. 107– 

220 and S. Rept. 108–105). House report language for fiscal year 2003 also supported this view (H. Rept. 107–681). 

The Bureau of Reclamation received $28.4 million in the fiscal year 2003 Energy 

and Water Appropriations bill and an additional $25 million in the 2003 Supplemental Appropriations bill to cover increased costs to protect Reclamation dams and 
437 

other facilities post September 11. The Bureau also received $28.5 million for increased security costs in the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water bill that was signed 

into law in December 2003. The Bureau of Reclamation recognized the above historical precedent and the sound policy behind it and, in fiscal year 2003 and 2004, administratively determined that additional security costs should be non-reimbursable 

(Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Keys, April 2002). The Corps of Engineers 

did not, treating additional security investments at Corps facilities as reimbursable. 

Due to budget constraints and pressures to control costs from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget directs the Bureau and the Corps to recover some of the costs of increased security measures from 

entities that benefit from the multi-purpose projects. Given our past experience with 

the Bureau and the Corps, we believe that power customers will be unfairly singled 

out to pay the reimbursable costs. 

The reasons that security costs at Federal dams should continue to be non-reimbursable are: (1) these facilities are Federal and multi-purpose in nature, and the 

benefits accrue to a vast number of citizens in many States; (2) protection of these 

Federal facilities is clearly in the national interest and should remain a Federal responsibility; and (3) by taking this funding stream out of the appropriations process, 

congressional oversight of Reclamation’s use of the funds would be greatly diminished, thereby reducing accountability for the type and expense of the security 

measures imposed. 

CREDA urges the committee to include the following statutory language in the 

fiscal year 2005 Water and Energy Development Appropriations bill, to clarify that 

the additional costs of securing facilities of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps 

of Engineers and the Federal power marketing administrations are a Federal responsibility and should be non-reimbursable: 

‘‘For fiscal year 2005 and each fiscal year thereafter, the increased costs of ensuring security of Bureau of Reclamation dams, federal power marketing administration facilities and Corps of Engineers multipurpose facilities in the aftermath of the 

events of September 11, 2001, shall be non-reimbursable and non-returnable.’’ 

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT

The Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Title III, Section 

301(b)(10), Public Law 106–554, December 21, 2000) authorized development of the 

Animas-La Plata Project to satisfy water right claims of the Southern Ute and Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribes in southwest Colorado (known collectively as the ‘‘Colorado 

Ute Indian Tribes’’). The project requires construction of a reservoir, pumping plant 

and appurtenant facilities to provide water supply and delivery of municipal and industrial water and other benefits to the Tribes. 

In order to provide power from the CRSP to the Durango Pumping Plant, transmission facilities will need to be constructed, operated and maintained by the Western Area Power Administration. These transmission facilities do not provide any 

benefit to CRSP power customers; they are required solely to deliver water to 

project beneficiaries. 

The Western Area Power Administration will be responsible for construction, operation and maintenance of these transmission facilities, and requires additional appropriations in the amount of $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2005 to meet the construction timetable established by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the project manager. 

Since the transmission lines will power the pumping plant required for delivery of 

water to Native American and non-Native American municipal and industrial users, 

the costs related to the transmission facilities and services should not be borne by 

the CRSP power customers and should be considered non-reimbursable and nonreturnable. To do otherwise could turn 102 years of Reclamation law on its head. 

Failure to address this issue in the fiscal year 2005 appropriations cycle could jeopardize the current construction schedule for the Animas-La Plata project and subject 

CRSP power customers and the consumers they serve to an unfair financial burden. 

The Western Area Power Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, the water users and the Colorado Ute 

Indian Tribes all support the inclusion of the following language in the fiscal year 

2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill: 

‘‘For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, section 302(a)(1)(E) of the 

Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7152), and other related activities including conservation and renewable resources programs as authorized, including official reception and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500, $183,100,000 

to remain available until expended, of which $170,756,000 shall be derived from the 

Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That all authorities and fu-
438 

ture contributions described in Section 402, subparagraph (b)(3)(B) of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 previously assigned to the 

Secretary of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, shall be transferred to 

the Secretary of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further, That of the 

amount herein appropriated, $10,000,000 shall be available until expended on a 

nonreimbursable basis to the Western Area Power Administration to design, construct, operate and maintain transmission facilities and services for the Animas-La 

Plata Project as authorized by sections 301(b)(10) of Public Law 106–554.’’ 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MNI WICONI PROJECT

FISCAL YEAR 2005 CONSTRUCTION BUDGET REQUEST

The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries (as listed below) respectfully request appropriations and can demonstrate capability for construction in fiscal year 2005 in the 

amount of $39,317,000 as follows: 

Amount 

Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System: 

Core Facilities (Pipelines and Pumping Stations) ...................................................................................... $8,128,000 

Distribution System on Pine Ridge ............................................................................................................. 10,224,000 

West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System ..................................................................................................... 11,020,000 

Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System ..................................................................................................................... 7,325,000 

Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water System ............................................................................................................... 2,620,000 

Total Mni Wiconi Project ......................................................................................................................... 39,317,000 

The project sponsors were provided by the 107th Congress (Public Law 107–367) 

with all the authority necessary to finish this project at the level of development 

originally intended on a schedule through fiscal year 2008. Completion of the project 

is now clearly achievable as shown in the table below: 

Total Federal Required (October 2003 Dollars) ................................................................................................... $409,523,000 

Estimated Federal Spent Through Fiscal Year 2004 ........................................................................................... $278,110,000 

Percent Spent ....................................................................................................................................................... 67.9 

Amount Remaining ............................................................................................................................................... $131,413,000 

Years to Completion ............................................................................................................................................. 4 

Average Required for Fiscal Year 2008 Finish .................................................................................................... $32,853,000 

The administration’s budget for this project in fiscal year 2005 ($18.2 million for 

construction) is a disappointment for a second year in a row. The amount requested 

by the administration falls far short of the average amount needed to complete the 

project in fiscal year 2008. The needs and merits of this project are considerable as 

described in section 3. 

The project’s operation, maintenance and replacement request from the sponsors 

is in addition to the construction request and is presented in section 8. 

OSRWSS CORE PIPELINE TO REACH PINE RIDGE INDIAN RESERVATION IN FISCAL YEAR

2005

OGLALA SIOUX WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM CORE REQUEST 

Amount 

South Core: 

Stamford to Kadoka: 

Reservoir to Kadoka Pipeline ............................................................................................................. $1,036,000 

Pump Station, 2 Reservoirs ............................................................................................................... 2,111,000 

Kadoka to White River Pipeline .................................................................................................................. 2,587,000 

North Core: 

WTP toward Hayes Pipeline ......................................................................................................................... 2,394,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 8,128,000 

The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and parts of West River/Lyman-Jones remain 

without points of interconnection to the OSRWSS core. The requested funding level 
439 

for the OSRWSS core of $8.128 million will complete the project from Stamford to 

the northeast corner of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation where, in combination 

with the western part of West River/Lyman-Jones, the remaining 50 percent of the 

design population resides. Funds will also be used by the Oglala Sioux Tribe to 

build the North Core westerly toward Hayes in the West River Lyman Jones service 

area with the intent to complete the OSRWSS North Core and all other core facilities in fiscal year 2007. Two additional years of funding will be required to complete 

the OSRWSS North Core system to serve the Reservation. 

The 2000 census confirms that the Oglala Sioux population on Pine Ridge is growing at a rate of 27 percent per decade or 11⁄2 times greater than projected from the 

1990 census. Delivery of Missouri River water to this area is urgently needed. 

All proposed OSRWSS construction activity will build pipelines that will provide 

Missouri River water immediately to beneficiaries. In many cases, construction of 

interconnecting pipelines by other sponsors is ongoing, and fiscal year 2005 funds 

are required to complete projects that will connect with the OSRWSS core and begin 

others. 

Funding for OSRWSS core and distribution facilities is necessary to bring economic development to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, designated as one of five 

national rural empowerment zones by the previous administration. The designation 

serves to underscore the level of need. Economic development is largely dependent 

on the timely completion of a water system, which depends on appropriations for 

this project. 

Finally, the subcommittee is respectfully requested to take notice of the fact that 

fiscal year 2005 will significantly advance construction of facilities that continues 

our progress toward the end of the project. The subcommittee’s past support has 

brought the project to the point that the end can be seen. Key to the conclusion of 

the project in fiscal year 2008 is the completion of the OSRWSS core to the Pine 

Ridge Indian Reservation. Toward this end, funds are included in the fiscal year 

2005 budget to build the connecting pipelines between the northeast corner of the 

Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and the central portion of the Reservation near Kyle. 

Rosebud is similarly engaged in the construction of major connecting pipelines that 

will deliver water southerly to the central portions of the Rosebud Indian Reservation and to service areas for West River/Lyman-Jones. 

UNIQUE NEEDS OF THIS PROJECT

This project covers much of the area of western South Dakota that was formerly 

the Great Sioux Reservation established by the Treaty of 1868. Since the separation 

of the Reservation in 1889 into smaller more isolated reservations, including Pine 

Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule, tensions between the Indian population and the 

non-Indian settlers on former Great Sioux lands have been high with little easing 

by successive generations. The Mni Wiconi Project is perhaps the most significant 

opportunity in more than a century to bring the sharply diverse cultures of the two 

societies together for a common good. Much progress has been made due to the good 

faith and genuine efforts of both the Indian and non-Indian sponsors. The project 

is an historic basis for renewed hope and dignity among the Indian people. It is a 

basis for substantive improvement in relationships. 

Each year our testimony addresses the fact that the project beneficiaries, particularly the three Indian Reservations, have the lowest income levels in the Nation. 

The health risks to our people from drinking unsafe water are compounded by reductions in health programs. We respectfully submit that our project is unique and 

that no other project in the Nation has greater human needs. Poverty in our service 

areas is consistently deeper than elsewhere in the Nation. Health effects of waterborne diseases are consistently more prevalent than elsewhere in the Nation, due 

in part to (1) lack of adequate water in the home and (2) poor water quality where 

water is available. Higher incidences of impetigo, gastroenteritis, shigellosis, scabies 

and hepatitis-A are well documented on the Indian reservations of the Mni Wiconi 

Project area. At the beginning of the third millennium one cannot find a region in 

our Nation in which social and economic conditions are as deplorable. These circumstances are summarized in Table 1. Mni Wiconi builds the dignity of many, not 

only through improvement of drinking water, but also through direct employment 

and increased earnings during planning, construction, operation and maintenance 

and from economic enterprises supplied with project water. We urge the subcommittee to address the need for creating jobs and improving the quality of life 

on the Pine Ridge and other Indian reservations of the project area. 

Employment and earnings among the Indian people of the project area are expected to positively impact the high costs of health care borne by the United States 

and the Tribes. Our data suggest clear relationships between income levels and Fed-
440 

eral costs for heart disease, cancer and diabetes. During the life of the Mni Wiconi 

Project, mortality rates among the Indian people in the project area for the three 

diseases mentioned will cost the United States and the Tribes more than $1 billion 

beyond the level incurred for these diseases among comparable populations in the 

non-Indian community within the project area. While this project alone will not 

raise income levels to a point where the excessive rates of heart disease, cancer and 

diabetes are significantly diminished, the employment and earnings stemming from 

the project will, nevertheless, reduce mortality rates and costs of these diseases. 

Please note that between 1990 and 2000 per capita income on Pine Ridge increased 

from $3,591 to $6,143, and median household income increased from $11,260 to 

$20,569, due in large part to this project, albeit not sufficient to bring a larger percentage of families out of poverty (Table 1). 

TABLE 1.—PROFILE OF SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS: 2000 

Indian Reservation/State 2000 Population 

Change 

from 

1990 

(Percent) 

Income Families 

Below 

Poverty 

(Percent) 

Unemployment 

(Percent) Per Capita 

(Dollars) 

Median 

Household 

(Dollars) 

Pine Ridge Indian Reservation ............................... 15,521 27.07 6,143 20,569 46.3 16.9 

Rosebud Indian Reservation .................................. 10,469 7.97 7,279 19,046 45.9 20.1 

Lower Brule Indian Reservation ............................. 1,353 20.48 7,020 21,146 45.3 28.1 

State of South Dakota ............................................ 754,844 8.45 17,562 35,282 9.3 3.0 

Nation ..................................................................... 281,421,906 13.15 21,587 41,994 9.2 3.7 

Financial support for the Indian membership has already been subjected to drastic cuts in funding programs through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This project is 

a source of strong hope that helps off-set the loss of employment and income in 

other programs and provide for an improvement in health and welfare. Tribal leaders have seen that Welfare Reform legislation and other budget cuts Nation-wide 

have created a crisis for tribal government because tribal members have moved back 

to the reservations in order to survive. Economic conditions have resulted in accelerated population growth on the reservations. 

The Mni Wiconi Project Act declares that the United States will work with us 

under the circumstances: 

‘‘. . . the United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate and 

safe water supplies are available to meet the economic, environmental, water supply 

and public health needs of the Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule Indian 

Reservations . . .’’. 

Indian support for this project has not come easily because the historical experience of broken commitments to the Indian people by the Federal Government is difficult to overcome. The argument was that there is no reason to trust and that the 

Sioux Tribes are being used to build the non-Indian segments of the project and the 

Indian segments would linger to completion. These arguments have been overcome 

by better planning, an amended authorization and hard fought agreements among 

the parties. The subcommittee is respectfully requested to take the steps necessary 

the complete the critical elements of the project proposed for fiscal year 2004. 

The following sections describe the construction activity in each of the rural water 

systems. 

OGLALA SIOUX RURAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM—DISTRIBUTION

OGLALA SIOUX WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION REQUEST 

Amount 

West Boundary Supply ......................................................................................................................................... $506,000 

Manderson Loop ................................................................................................................................................... 1,454,000 

Rockyford to Redshirt ........................................................................................................................................... 179,000 

White River to HWY 73/44 Junction: 

Pump Station, Service Lines and Reservoirs .............................................................................................. 3,127,000 

HWY 73/44 Junction to Kyle ................................................................................................................................. 4,923,000 

Indefinite quantities ............................................................................................................................................. 35,000 

TOTAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 10,224,000 
441 

With the conclusion of projects under construction in fiscal year 2002, the Oglala 

Sioux Tribe completed all facilities that can be supported from local groundwater. 

The Tribe, representing more than 40 percent of the project population will rely on 

the OSRWSS core to convey Missouri River water to and throughout the Reservation. Much pipeline has been constructed, primarily between Kyle, Wounded Knee 

and Red Shirt and between Pine Ridge Village and the communities of Oglala and 

Slim Buttes. Additional construction of the Manderson Loop is proposed in fiscal 

year 2005. 

Of particular importance to the Oglala Sioux Tribe is the continuation of the main 

transmission system from the northeast corner (Highway 73/44 junction) of the Reservation to Kyle in the central part of the Reservation. The transmission line is 

needed to interconnect the OSRWSS core system with the distribution system within the Reservation in order to deliver Missouri River water to the populous portions 

of the Reservation. This critical segment of the project can be continued in fiscal 

year 2005 to coincide with the westward construction of the OSRWSS core to the 

northeast corner of the Reservation (see section 2). It will require funds in fiscal 

year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 to complete. This component of the Oglala system 

has been deferred for several years due to inadequate funding. The component is 

urgently needed for the OSRWSS core system to be utilized on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. 

WEST RIVER/LYMAN-JONES RURAL WATER SYSTEM—DISTRIBUTION

WR/LJ RURAL WATER SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION REQUEST 

Amount 

Mellette East ........................................................................................................................................................ $533,000 

Moenville .............................................................................................................................................................. 9,566,000 

Quinn Town Distribution ...................................................................................................................................... 176,000 

Vivian Town .......................................................................................................................................................... 441,000 

Indefinite Quantities ............................................................................................................................................ 304,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 11,020,000 

Continued drought conditions in the project area have created serious health and 

economic hardships for WR/LJ members waiting to receive Mni Wiconi water service. A survey of members attending the WR/LJ annual meeting on October 8, 2003 

in Midland revealed that, of those members not receiving project water, 67 percent 

were hauling water for domestic use and 45 percent were hauling water for livestock. Their current source of water, highly mineralized wells and dried up dams, 

present a serious health hazard and unaffordable increases in production costs due 

to the time and cost of hauling water. 

The requested appropriation is directed to serving members between Ft. Pierre 

and Philip. The highest priority is completion of the Moenville project. Houston 

Rose, prior to his death, pioneered initial efforts to bring quality water to this WR/ 

LJ service area closest to the Mni Wiconi water treatment plant. The economy of 

the area he represented is based on livestock operations that are dependent on quality water supplies. 

WR/LJ is now the water service provider in the towns of Quinn and Vivian, however, the existing distribution piping is over 50 years old and is a very high priority 

for replacement. Funding is also requested for the construction of pumping station 

and reservoirs required to deliver the full design capability of the pipelines under 

construction. As a testimony to public recognition of the advantages of quality water 

and the reliability of the system WR/LJ continues to add users within those areas 

previously constructed. These additions are being financed by member contributions 

as part of the statutory non-Federal matching requirement. 

The Mni Wiconi project, due to continued congressional support, has progressed 

to where the project beneficiaries can look forward to its timely completion and receive the intended project benefits. We sincerely appreciate your support. 

ROSEBUD RURAL WATER SYSTEM (SICANGU MNI WICONI)

ROSEBUD SIOUX RURAL WATER SYSTEM REQUEST 

Amount 

Hidden Timber ...................................................................................................................................................... $1,317,000 
442 

ROSEBUD SIOUX RURAL WATER SYSTEM REQUEST—Continued 

Amount 

Rosebud Improvements ........................................................................................................................................ 737,000 

Rural Antelope ...................................................................................................................................................... 866,000 

Okreek ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,030,000 

Mission Northwest ................................................................................................................................................ 447,000 

Livestock Water .................................................................................................................................................... 1,271,000 

Service Connections ............................................................................................................................................. 657,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 7,325,000 

Fiscal year 2005 efforts build upon the successes of the past 2 years. The Rosebud 

Core pipeline will begin providing water from the OSRWSS at Murdo to Rosebud 

and WR/LJ water users in Mellette County. As a result, the limited supply of high 

quality ground water available from the Rosebud wellfield can be used as a source 

of supply for northeast Todd County. 

The Rosebud Sioux Tribes efforts in fiscal year 2005 focus on connecting additional homes to new and existing pipelines. The Antelope to Okreek Pipeline, completed in late 2003, provides a supply of high quality ground water to the rural Antelope, northwest Mission, Hidden Timber and Okreek project areas. In this portion 

of northern Todd County, the Ogallala Aquifer is not present and ground water is 

of poor quality and limited quantity where available. Private and community wells 

have failed in the area and while the Antelope to Okreek Pipeline solved the problem for the community of Okreek, many rural residents are anxiously waiting for 

water. 

The problems are exacerbated in the Hidden Timber area. Where ground water 

occurs, nitrate concentrations are frequently in excess of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act primary standard. The high nitrate concentrations pose an acute threat to the 

unborn and young children. 

The major features of the proposed fiscal year 2005 work plan focus on distribution and service lines for this area. Proposed projects for this area include Rural Antelope, Mission Northwest, Okreek and Hidden Timber. It is envisioned that both 

private contractors and the tribal construction program would be responsible for 

construction. 

The other major project proposed for fiscal year 2005 address improvements needed in the community of Rosebud. In fiscal year 2004, the Tribe will be connecting 

the lower older part of Rosebud to the rural water system. While this will improve 

the quality and reliability of supply, improvements are needed to ensure water 

reaches the users. In several areas, older cast iron pipe has corroded and needs to 

be replaced. In other areas, older asbestos concrete pipe is still in use and felt to 

be a health threat. The focus of the work in Rosebud in fiscal year 2005 is to provide 

a reliable source of high quality water to all service connections. 

The Tribe will also expand its service line program. The focus of this effort is new 

homes and homes that have been constructed since transmission or distribution 

lines have been installed. It is also proposed to start developing livestock watering 

facilities. The Tribe has not constructed any of these facilities to date with Mni 

Wiconi funding and the realty of prolonged drought is having an affect on historic 

livestock watering sources of supply. A reliable source of water for livestock is necessary to maintain one of the more viable components of the reservation economy. 

The total amount requested for the Sicangu Mni Wiconi in fiscal year 2005 is 

$7,325,000. 

LOWER BRULE RURAL WATER SYSTEM—DISTRIBUTION

The Lower Brule Rural Water System (LBRWS) has gained the support of the 

other sponsors to complete its share of the project with funds appropriated in fiscal 

year 2005 budget, based on an appropriation of funds for the project in the range 

generally received. This support is not only a benefit for LBRWS and its users but 

to the project as a whole. By funding LBRWS in this manner, a savings of approximately $1.5 million will be experienced by the project. 

With the funds received in fiscal year 2004, LBRWS will complete the design, cultural resource evaluation and the securing of easements for the remaining service 

areas and installing mainlines and service lines required to provide water to all of 

the homes on the Lower Brule Indian Reservation. The fiscal year 2004 funds will 

also allow LBRWS to begin installing water lines to pasture taps. Since the area 

has experienced 2 years of drought conditions, many of the dams are dry. The provi-
443 

sion of water will allow some pastures to be utilized that would have otherwise been 

of no benefit to the ranchers. 

The fiscal year 2005 funds will allow the completion of the installation of pasture 

taps and a new 400,000 gallon elevated water tank in Lower Brule. The existing 

tank is in a location where the slides (soil movement) have occurred. As a result, 

the stability of the tank’s foundation is in question. 

OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT BUDGET

The sponsors have and will continue to work with Reclamation to ensure that 

their budgets are adequate to properly operate, maintain and replace (OMR) their 

respective portions of the overall system. The sponsors will also continue to manage 

OMR expenses in a manner ensuring that the limited funds can best be balanced 

between construction and OMR. In fiscal year 2003, the approved budget for OMR 

was $8.228 million, which was adequate. Funding was not adequate in fiscal year 

2004 at the $6.254 level and will not be adequate at the same leveling the administration’s proposed fiscal year 2005 budget of $6.254 million for OMR. 

The project has been making significant progress especially over the last 2 years 

with the initiation of operation of the OSRWSS Water Treatment Plant near Ft. 

Pierre and the installation of a significant quantity of pipeline. The result is the 

need for sufficient funds to properly operate and maintain the functioning system 

throughout the project. As a result, the OMR budget must continue to be adequate 

to keep pace with the portion of the system that is placed in operation. 

In addition to ongoing operation and maintenance activities, water conservation 

is an integral part of the OMR of the project. Water conservation not only provides 

immediate savings from reduced water use and production, it also extends the useful life and capacity of the system. Proposed funding is not adequate to perform 

water conservation functions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE REDLANDS WATER & POWER COMPANY

Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, I am writing to request your support for 

an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation 

within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation 

Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this line-item amount. Of these funds, I respectfully 

request the designation of $4,008,000 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, 

consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish passage, floodplain restoration activities, 

screening of existing diversion canals, propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Wayne Dowd, and pleased 

to represent the Red River Valley Association, as its President. Our organization 

was founded in 1925 with the express purpose of uniting the citizens of Arkansas, 

Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to develop the land and water resources of the Red 

River Basin. 

The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association during its 79th 

Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February 19, 2004, and represent the 

combined concerns of the citizens of the Red River Basin Area as they pertain to 

the goals of the Association. 

Our western rivers played a very important part in the development and economic 

success of the States west of the Mississippi River. An agency responsible for the 

development of those water resources has been the Bureau of Reclamation. In our 

four State region they have been most active in Oklahoma. 
444 

I would like to comment on two specific requests for the future economic well 

being of the citizens residing in the Red River Valley region in Oklahoma. We support the following two studies and request that the Bureau of Reclamation be funded at their full fiscal year 2005 capability. 

North Fork of the Red River, OK, Investigation Study.—The W.C. Austin (Altus 

Lake and Dam) Project in southwestern Oklahoma, is authorized to provide water 

for irrigation to approximately 48,000 acres of privately owned land in southwestern 

Oklahoma; control flooding on the North Fork of the Red River and augment municipal water supply for the City of Altus. Secondary benefits include fish and wildlife 

conservation and recreation opportunities. Project features include Altus Dam, four 

canals, a 221-mile lateral distribution system and 26 miles of drains. The LugertAltus Irrigation District (LAID) is responsible for operation and maintenance of the 

project. 

Water demand in the District and region is growing which, in turn, is reducing 

future water availability and economic development opportunities. This proposed investigation would: (1) develop a hydrologic model of the NFRR watershed; and (2) 

evaluate opportunities for augmenting water availability in the project region. 

We support a 3-year comprehensive evaluation of water resources in the North 

Fork of the Red River in Oklahoma for a total study cost of $670,000. We sincerely 

appreciate your support in allocating $150,000 in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations. 

An allocation of $150,000 is requested for the fiscal year 2005 appropriations. 

Arbucle-Simpson Aquifer Study.—The Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer has been designated a sole source aquifer by EPA and a large number of Oklahomans depend 

on its protection for their health and economic future. This is an important source 

of water supply for: the citizens of Ada, Sulphur, Mill Creek and Roff; the Chickasaw National Recreational Area; Chickasaw and Choctaw Tribal members; and 

many farmers and ranchers owning land overlying the basin. Contributions from the 

aquifer also provide the perennial flow for many streams and natural springs in the 

area. The Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer underlines approximately 500 square miles of 

south-central Oklahoma. 

During recent years, a number of issues have emerged which have caused concerns about the utilization and continued health of the aquifer. These concerns include issues over water use, exportation of water out of the area, impacts of groundwater development on the flows in the significant springs and rivers, and competition for water and water quality. 

In order to assure the future well-being of the aquifer we support a 5-year study 

to include detailed assessments of; the formation’s hydrogeology, water quality and 

vulnerability; groundwater-surface water interactions; land use changes and related 

impacts; Tribal-State water rights; and overall management of the resources. The 

initial estimates put the total study cost at $2.7 million; however, due to its complexity and new issues concerning Chickasaw and Choctaw Tribal interest, a better 

cost estimate will be known after the second year of the study. We appreciate your 

support of this study by funding the first year of the study in the fiscal year 2004 

appropriations for $700,000. 

We request $1,000,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and support that the 

study be cost shared, 90 percent Federal and 10 percent State/Local funds. 

The Red River Valley Association understands these are difficult times with our 

Nation’s budget, so we appreciate your support for these studies in fiscal year 2004. 

We feel they are extremely important to the welfare of the citizens in Oklahoma 

and request that you again support these studies in fiscal year 2005. 

We are always available to provide additional information and answer whatever 

questions you may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Background.—In an average year, half of Santa Clara County’s water supply is 

imported from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary (BayDelta) watersheds through three water projects: The State Water Project, the Federal Central Valley Project, and San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy Project. In conjunction with locally-developed water, this water supply supports more than 1.7 million 

residents in Santa Clara County and the most important high-tech center in the 

world. In average to wet years, there is enough water to meet the county’s longterm needs. In dry years, however, the county could face a water supply shortage 

of as much as 100,000 acre-feet per year, or roughly 20 percent of the expected de-
445 

mand. In addition to shortages due to hydrologic variations, the county’s imported 

supplies have been reduced due to regulatory restrictions placed on the operation 

of the State and Federal water projects. 

There are also water quality problems associated with using Bay-Delta water as 

a drinking water supply. Organic materials and pollutants discharged into the 

Delta, together with salt water mixing in from San Francisco Bay, have the potential to create disinfection by-products that are carcinogenic and pose reproductive 

health concerns. 

Santa Clara County’s imported supplies are also vulnerable to extended outages 

due to catastrophic failures such as major earthquakes and flooding. As demonstrated by the 1997 flooding in Central Valley, the levee systems can fail and the 

water quality at the water project intakes in the Delta can be degraded to such an 

extent that the projects cannot pump from the Delta. 

Project Synopsis.—The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an unprecedented, cooperative effort among Federal, State, and local agencies to restore the Bay-Delta. With 

input from urban, agricultural, environmental, fishing, and business interests, and 

the general public, CALFED has developed a comprehensive, long-term plan to address ecosystem and water management issues in the Bay-Delta. 

Restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem is important not only because of its significance as an environmental resource, but also because failing to do so will stall efforts to improve water supply reliability and water quality for millions of Californians and the State’s trillion dollar economy and job base. 

The June 2000 Framework for Action and the August 2000 Record of Decision/ 

Certification contain a balanced package of actions to restore ecosystem health, improve water supply reliability and water quality. It is critical that Federal funding 

be provided to implement these actions in the coming years. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—An amount of $9 million was appropriated for 

CALFED activities under the various units of the Central Valley Project in fiscal 

year 2004. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Recommendation.—It is requested that the committee 

support an appropriation add-on of $15 million, in addition to the $15 million in the 

administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget, for a total of $30 million for California 

Bay-Delta Restoration. 

SAN LUIS RESERVOIR LOW POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Background.—San Luis Reservoir is one of the largest reservoirs in California, 

and is the largest ‘‘off-stream’’ water storage facility in the world. The Reservoir has 

a water storage capacity of more than 2 million acre-feet and is a key component 

of the water supply system serving the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and 

California’s State Water Project. San Luis is used for seasonal storage of Sacramento-San Joaquin delta water that is delivered to the reservoir via the California Aqueduct and Delta-Mendota Canal. The San Luis Reservoir is jointly owned 

and operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of 

Water Resources. 

The San Luis Reservoir provides the sole source of CVP water supply for the San 

Felipe Division contractors—Santa Clara Valley Water District (District), San Benito County Water District and, in the future, Pajaro Valley Water Management 

Agency. When water levels in San Luis Reservoir are drawn down in the spring and 

summer, high water temperatures result in algae blooms at the reservoir’s water 

surface. This condition degrades water quality, making the water difficult or impractical to treat and can preclude deliveries of water from San Luis Reservoir to San 

Felipe Division contractors. In order to avoid the low point problem, the reservoir 

has been operated to maintain water levels above the critical low elevation—the 

‘‘low point’’—resulting in approximately 200,000 acre-feet of undelivered water to 

south of the Delta State and Federal water users. The frequency of the low point 

problem will increase in the future as delta pumping becomes more restricted and 

demands grow for full allocation and use of all of the water in San Luis Reservoir. 

Project Goals and Status.—The goal of the project is to increase the operational 

flexibility of storage in San Luis Reservoir and ensure a high quality, reliable water 

supply for San Felipe Division contractors. The specific project objectives are to: 

—Increase the operational flexibility of San Luis Reservoir by increasing the effective storage. 

—Ensure that San Felipe Division contractors are able to manage their annual 

Central Valley Project contract allocation to meet their water supply and water 

quality commitments. 

—Provide opportunities for project-related environmental improvements. 

—Provide opportunities for other project-related improvements. 
446 

From the Public Scoping meetings held in August 2002 and working with a Stakeholder Committee and Regulatory Agencies, the District identified approximately 75 

conceptual solutions to the low point problem. From these, the District has narrowed down the list of conceptual solutions to seven feasible alternatives to be studied in the environmental review process. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—No appropriation was requested in fiscal year 2004. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Recommendation.—It is requested that the committee 

support authority for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to conduct feasibility studies 

of the San Luis Reservoir low point problem and an appropriation add-on of $5.5 

million. 

SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM (SOUTH BAY WATER

RECYCLING PROGRAM)

Background.—The San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, also 

known as the South Bay Water Recycling Program, will allow the City of San Jose 

and its tributary agencies of the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control 

Plant to protect endangered species habitat, meet receiving water quality standards, 

supplement Santa Clara County water supplies, and comply with a mandate from 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Water Resources Control Board to reduce wastewater discharges into San Francisco Bay. 

The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) collaborated with the City of San 

Jose to build the first phase of the recycled water system by providing financial support and technical assistance, as well as coordination with local water retailers. The 

design, construction, construction administration, and inspection of the program’s 

transmission pipeline and Milpitas 1A Pipeline was performed by the District under 

contract to the City of San Jose. 

Status.—The City of San Jose is the program sponsor for Phase 1, consisting of 

almost 60 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines, pump stations, and reservoirs. Completed at a cost of $140 million, Phase 1 began partial operation in October 1997. Summertime 2003 deliveries averaged 10 million gallons per day of recycled water. The system now serves over 450 customers and delivers over 7,000 acrefeet of recycled water per year. Phase 2 is now underway. In June 2001, San Jose approved an $82.5 million expansion of the program. The expansion includes additional pipeline extensions into 

the cities of Santa Clara and Milpitas, a major pipeline extension into Coyote Valley 

in south San Jose, and reliability improvements of added reservoirs and pump stations. The District and the City of San Jose executed an agreement in February 

2002 to cost share on the pipeline into Coyote Valley and discuss a long-term partnership agreement on the entire system. Phase 2’s near-term objective is to increase 

deliveries by the year 2010 to 15,000 acre-feet per year. 

Funding.—In 1992, Public Law 102–575 authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to 

work with the City of San Jose and the District to plan, design, and build demonstration and permanent facilities for reclaiming and reusing water in the San 

Jose metropolitan service area. The City of San Jose reached an agreement with the 

Bureau of Reclamation to cover 25 percent of Phase 1’s costs, or approximately $35 

million; however, Federal appropriations have not reached the authorized amount. 

To date, the program has received $26.5 million of the $35 million authorization. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Funding.—An amount of $3 million was appropriated in fiscal 

year 2004 for project construction. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Recommendation.—It is requested that the congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $3 million in fiscal year 2005 

budget to fund the work. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHWESTERN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, the Southwestern Water Conservation District (the ‘‘District’’) is a political subdivision of the State of Colorado formed by the 

Colorado legislature in 1937 under C.R.S. 37–47–101, et seq. The District is charged 

with conserving and developing the waters of the San Juan and Dolores Rivers, tributaries to the Colorado River. 

On behalf of the District, we are writing to request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 included as an item in the administration’s 

proposed budget for the Bureau of Reclamation (‘‘Reclamation’’) labeled ‘‘Endangered 

Species Recovery Programs and Activities for the Upper Colorado River Region’’. Of 

that amount, $691,000 is designated for construction activities under the San Juan 

River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (‘‘San Juan Program’’) and 

$4,008,000, is designated for similar construction activities under the Recovery Im-
447 

plementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River 

Basin (‘‘Upper Basin Program’’). In addition, $535,000 is designated for Fish and 

Wildlife Management and Development, consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of endangered fish passages, floodplain restoration activities, screening of existing diversion 

canals, endangered fish propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These cooperative programs involving the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah 

and Wyoming, four Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests are ongoing in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Basins and have as their objective recovering endangered fish species while water development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, State water 

law, and inter-State water compacts. 

The San Juan Program is supported by the States of Colorado and New Mexico, 

the Southern Ute Indian, Jicarrilla Apache and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes and the 

Navajo Nation, water development interests, Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(‘‘FWS’’). The Program provides Endangered Species Act compliance for new depletions and for 600,000 acre-feet of existing depletions in Colorado and New Mexico, 

including the Animas-La Plata and the San Juan-Chama Projects, which are to provide water as part of tribal reserved water rights settlements. In addition, the Program provided the ESA compliance for a 121,000 acre-foot/year depletion to complete the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. 

In fiscal year 2005, the San Juan Program will continue substantial recovery activities that include habitat restoration, endangered fish propagation, and the development of fish passage structures in the San Juan River to expand the available 

habitat for the endangered fish. 

The Upper Basin Program is supported by the States of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, environmental organizations, power users, water development interests, Reclamation, the FWS, and the Western Area Power Administration. This Recovery 

Program, now in its fifteenth year of operation, has the objective of cooperatively 

recovering four endangered fish in compliance with the Endangered Species Act 

while water development moves forward. Beginning in fiscal year 1994, the Upper 

Basin Program initiated specific studies and actions in preparation for the construction activities necessary to recover the endangered fish. 

The fiscal year 2005 funds for both Programs will enable their vital activities to 

continue and to be successfully completed in subsequent fiscal years. The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these 

multi-State, multi-agency programs. We request the subcommittee’s assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s continuing 

financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY

DISTRICT

Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, I am writing to request your support for 

an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation 

within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation 

Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this line-item amount. Of these funds, I respectfully 

request the designation of $4,008,000 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, 

consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish passage, floodplain restoration activities, 

screening of existing diversion canals, propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and inter-State water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 
448 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UPPER GUNNISON RIVER WATER CONSERVANCY

DISTRICT

Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, I am writing to request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation 

within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation 

Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this line-item amount. Of these funds, I respectfully 

request the designation of $4,008,000 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, 

consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish passage, floodplain restoration activities, 

screening of existing diversion canals, propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER CONGRESS

Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, I am writing to request your support for 

an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation 

within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation 

Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this line-item amount. Of these funds, I respectfully 

request the designation of $4,008,000 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, 

consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish passage, floodplain restoration activities, 

screening of existing diversion canals, propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENVER WATER

Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid, I am writing to request your support for 

an appropriation in fiscal year 2005 of $5,234,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation 

within the budget line item entitled ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation 

Program’’ for the Upper Colorado River Region. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2005 includes this line-item amount. Of these funds, I respectfully 

request the designation of $4,008,000 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program; $691,000 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and $535,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, 

consistent with the President’s budget request. The requested fiscal year 2005 appropriation will allow construction of fish passage, floodplain restoration activities, 

screening of existing diversion canals, propagation facilities, endangered fish stocking, and non-native fish management. 

These funds are authorized by Public Law 106–392. Substantial non-Federal cost 

sharing funds are provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New 

Mexico, power users, and water users in support of these recovery programs. These 

programs are carried out consistent with State law and interstate water compacts. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. I request the subcommittee’s 
449 

assistance relative to fiscal year 2005 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY (HPS) AND HEALTH

PHYSICS PROGRAM DIRECTORS ORGANIZATION (HPPDO) 

This written testimony for the record for fiscal year 2005 requests $500,000 for 

the Health Physics Graduate Fellowship program through the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (DOE–NE) to help address 

the shortage of Health Physicists, which is an issue of extreme importance to the 

safety of our Nation’s workers, members of the public, and our environment. 

The Department of Energy has recognized that the safety of our Nation’s workers, 

members of the public, and our environment is in jeopardy because of the projected 

near-term and long-term shortage of sufficient educated radiation safety professionals to protect them. The organizations responsible for the performance and education of radiation safety professionals, i.e., the Health Physics Society (HPS) and 

the Health Physics Program Directors Organization (HPPDO), are very pleased that 

DOE–NE brought this crisis to the attention of the committee and has committed 

to take action to address it. In his testimony to the committee on March 3, 2004, 

William D. Magwood, IV, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and 

Technology, stated, ‘‘The Department is concerned that the Nation may soon not 

have the trained health physicists who are needed to assure the safety of all nuclear 

and radiological activities. With this budget, we begin building a program to reverse 

the negative trends in this field as we have already done in nuclear engineering.’’ 

The committee has expressed strong support for the University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support program’s efforts to provide fellowships, scholarships, and 

grants to students enrolled in science and engineering programs at U.S. universities, and has expressed concern about the ability of the Nation to respond to the 

growing demand for trained experts in nuclear science and technology. In Senate 

Report 108–105, the committee also recognized the need to support health physics 

academic programs as part of this effort when it wrote, ‘‘The Committee recommendation strongly encourages the Department to request sufficient funding in 

future years to fund all meritorious proposals, including appropriate proposals to 

support health physics university programs.’’ 

We applaud DOE’s response to the committee’s encouragement by including, in 

the words of Director Magwood, ‘‘. . . a small but important element to provide 

scholarships and graduate fellowships to students studying the vital and too-often 

overlooked discipline of health physics’’ and we are appreciative of having the 

$200,000 in the President’s proposed budget applied to health physics programs. 

However, the HPS and HPPDO believe that in order to meet the supply needs 

of health physicists funding for the health physics programs should be at least 

$500,000 in order to build a program to reverse the negative trend. 

Health Physics is the profession that specializes in radiation safety, an integral 

and necessary distinct discipline within the nuclear sciences. A recent workforce 

study by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has shown that the projected demand 

for health physicists for both the Government and Industry far surpasses the current ability of the academic programs to meet these employment demands, projecting a shortage of over 100 health physicists by 2011. The number of health physics program graduates in 2001 was one-half the number in 1996. A matter of great 

concern is that the NEI study does not address the impact that the lack of sufficient 

qualified radiation safety professionals will have on our Nation’s health and homeland security programs. For example, the homeland security effort to provide training and radiation detection instruments to first responders, to establish guidelines 

for responding to a radiological terrorist event, to develop and deploy measures for 

the interdiction of radioactive materials beyond our borders, and to employ nuclear 

and radiation technology in screening for contraband materials requires health 

physics professionals. A recent survey conducted by the Health Physics Society indicates that present demand for radiation safety professionals is approximately 130 

percent of supply. The NEI study projects a growth in that number to 400 percent 

by 2011 in the nuclear industry alone. 

We submitted testimony to the committee last year that requested approximately 

$2 million in fiscal year 2005 and included a plan we felt would stem the decline 

of health physics university academic programs, and would assist in the public’s understanding of radiation safety as it is applied to the Nation’s energy, health, and 

security policies. That plan included academic program support for HP Graduate 
450 

1See for example President Bush’s February 2003 statement at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

news/releases/2003/02/20030206-12.html: 

‘‘We’re also going to work to produce electricity and hydrogen through a process called fusion. 

Fusion is the same kind of nuclear reaction that produces—that powers the sun. The energy 

produced will be safe and clean and abundant. We’ve spent quite a bit of money, as the senators 

here will tell you, on whether or not fusion works. And we’re not sure if it will be able to 

produce affordable energy for everyday use. But it’s worth a try. It’s worth a look. Because the 

promise is so great. 

‘‘So the United States will work with Great Britain and several European nations, as well 

as Canada, Japan, Russia and China, to build a fusion test facility and create the largest and 

most advanced fusion experiment in the world. I look forward to working with Congress to get 

it funded. I know you all have considered this in the past. It’s an incredibly important project 

to be a part of. 

‘‘Imagine a world in which our cars are driven by hydrogen and our homes are heated by electricity from a fusion power plant. It’ll be a totally different world than what we’re used to . . .’’. 

See also Secretary Abraham’s January 2003 statement (at http://fire.pppl.gov/) specifically 

stating that: ‘‘It is imperative that we maintain and enhance our strong domestic research 

program... Critical science needs to be done in the U.S., in parallel with ITER, to strengthen 

our competitive position in fusion technology.’’ 

Also, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science 2004 Strategic Plan states: ‘‘The 

President has made achieving commercial fusion power the highest long-term priority for our 

Nation. Our challenge is to develop a science-based solution that harnesses fusion energy to 

power our industry and homes. We will do this by joining an international burning plasma experiment, ITER, and exploring other promising technologies.’’ 2See http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov/Sub/Mission/MissionlStrategic.htm. 

Fellowship Programs, HP Undergraduate Scholarship Programs, Health Physics 

Education & Research (HPER) Grants, and HP Minority-Majority Partnerships. It 

also included Health Physics Society program support for academic program ABET– 

ASAC Accreditation and HPS Science Teacher Workshops. We are realistic about 

the pressures of this year’s budget and realize all six of these of these programs cannot be supported this fiscal year. 

We consider it important program to address immediately the HP Graduate Fellowship program. We need between 15 and 20 fellows in a 2-year Masters Degree 

program to start meeting our Nation’s manpower needs for radiation safety personnel. A single fellowship would be about $30,000 annually, considering stipend, 

tuition and fees. Funding of $500,000 would allow for approximately 15 fellows and 

allowance for overhead administration costs. Funding at the administration’s budget 

request of $200,000 would support approximately 6 fellows, less than half of the 

minimum need. 

The committee’s favorable consideration of this request will help meet our Nation’s radiation safety needs of the future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the American Nuclear Society, I would like to express our concern regarding recent changes in the 

direction of U.S. fusion research. In a letter exchange with Dr. John Lindl of the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Dr. Raymond Orbach, the Director of the 

DOE Office of Science stated the current administration position: ‘‘now is not the 

right time for us to invest in energy related R&D for fusion, for either MFE (magnetic fusion energy) or for IFE (inertial fusion energy)’’. This position has been reflected in the Office of Fusion Energy Science fiscal year 2005 budget request in 

which the so-called ‘‘long-range’’ fusion technology research activities have been terminated. DOE has also been reducing its efforts on the advanced design of fusion 

energy systems. The total funding cut in these areas is about $9 million from the 

fiscal year 2003 level. 

With these changes, U.S. magnetic fusion energy research will become effectively 

a plasma physics research program while inertial fusion energy research will become a high-energy-density physics program. As the eliminated programs represent 

less than 5 percent of fusion research expenditures, their elimination is based mainly on policy grounds (as opposed to cost saving reasons). 

It is difficult to understand this decision to terminate the fusion technology program given the support for fusion energy research at the highest administration levels,1 the plan for the United States to join construction of the ITER device which 

is the highest priority facility listed in DOE Office of Science’s Strategic Plan,2 and 

the continuing construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF). 

It would seem prudent to maintain some balance in the program between science 

and technology and between MFE and IFE. This is reflected in several statements 

from the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee (FESAC, which provides ad-
451 

3 In a March 5, 2003 letter to Dr. Orbach, the FESAC said, ‘‘. . . devastating cuts to certain 

program elements are alarming; this note expresses our most serious concerns,’’ and commented, 

‘‘Thus, FESAC is puzzled by the elimination in the fiscal year 2004 budget of funding for fusion 

technology.’’ The FESAC said, ‘‘Similarly, inertial fusion energy (IFE) is an important element 

of a balanced U.S. fusion program: it provides the principal alternative to magnetic fusion and 

takes advantage of NNSA investments in the National Ignition Facility. The fiscal year 2004 

budget, however, eliminates (fusion) chamber technology for both MFE (magnetic fusion energy) 

and IFE.’’ With respect to the Advanced Design and Analysis program, the FESAC said, ‘‘The 

study of future energy systems is a central component of fusion research. Its evolving 

conceptualization of an eventual fusion power plant has helped us visualize our target, while 

allowing us to identify key scientific challenges.’’ ‘‘In summary,’’ the 2003 FESAC letter said, 

‘‘FESAC finds the Presidential request for fusion research funding in fiscal year 2004 to be not 

only meager but also harmfully distorted. It terminates components of the program that are 

truly essential.’’ (see http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/MorelHTML/FESAClChargeslReports- 

.html). 

vice and recommendations to the DOE Office of Science Director) in regard then to 

the fiscal year 2004 budget. At that time, DOE had proposed to terminate the fusion 

technology effort in fiscal year 2004 but a Congressional add-on and a stronglyworded letter from FESAC 3 helped to provide a reprieve. The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes the same fusion technology funding cuts which, as part of the 

fiscal year 2004 budget, were criticized by FESAC in 2003. 

Fusion technology research addresses the fundamental scientific issues that will 

be encountered in fusion systems with substantial amount of fusion energy (including such fusion facilities as ITER and NIF). It provides solutions to near term technology issues that will certainly arise in building and operating facilities like the 

NIF and ITER. The advanced design and analysis of fusion energy systems provide 

a vision of the ultimate fusion energy goal and a tool that is useful for guiding the 

highest leverage near term scientific research. 

Other participants in ITER, in particular the E.U. and Japan, have strong programs in fusion technology R&D in preparation for testing in ITER and leading to 

a power reactor in the future. It would be regretful at this stage for the United 

States to pull out of this R&D area and to be left in the precarious position of having to catch-up with our international partners in the future once we decide to seriously develop the advanced technology required for attractive fusion power plants 

(of either MFE or IFE types). 

I hope that this subcommittee will share our concern about this apparent disconnect between the administration fusion energy goals and this recent fusion energy funding policy change as well as about the increasing gap in fusion technology 

expenditure and expertise between the United States and its international partners. 

We strongly recommend additional funding to the Department of Energy, Office of 

Science, Fusion Energy Sciences fiscal year 2005 budget, with at least $5 million 

specifically allocated to restoring the funding in the Fusion Technologies and Advanced Design categories. We also recommend a strong accompanying statement of 

support from the subcommittee on these activities. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COALITION OF NORTHEASTERN GOVERNORS

Dear Mr. Chairman, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased 

to provide this testimony for the record to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee 

on Energy and Water Development as it considers fiscal year 2005 funding for the 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) of the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE). While we recognize the many demands being placed upon Federal 

resources in the coming year, we urge the subcommittee to provide the increased 

Federal funding support for renewable energy programs, particularly the national 

and regional partnerships that advance research, development, demonstration and 

deployment of renewable energy technologies. The Governors appreciate the subcommittee’s previous support for one of these partnerships, the Regional Biomass 

Energy Program (RBEP), and the decision of the EERE to continue this valuable 

Federal-State-private partnership for bioenergy. We request the subcommittee to 

fund the EERE’s renewable programs at a level that will enable DOE to continue 

its support of the RBEP program at $5 million in fiscal year 2005. 

Renewable energy plays an increasingly vital role in a strategy to meet the country’s near and longer-term energy needs. It is an important component of the diverse mix of fuels essential for a reliable energy supply. Today, biomass provides 

a larger percentage of the Nation’s total energy mix than do hydroelectric sources; 

and it is responsible for more energy output than all other renewable technologies 

combined. Ethanol and electricity generation from biomass feedstocks contribute 

over 3 percent of the Nation’s energy consumption. In the Northeast, bioenergy pro-
452 

duced from the region’s forest and agricultural resources contributes to approximately 5 percent of the region’s energy consumption. Some of the most promising 

technologies which can meet renewable energy needs in the near-term and lessen 

the Nation’s dependence on fossil fuels use biomass. 

While the CONEG Governors recognize Federal support for bioenergy can take 

many forms, we specifically support a level of funding for the EERE’s renewable energy programs that will enable the DOE to continue its support of the Regional Biomass Energy Program and its effective network of regional host organizations at a 

level of $5 million in fiscal year 2005. This RBEP network is an important partner 

in the Federal Government’s multi-faceted initiatives to encourage a diverse energy 

resource mix and energy efficiency across the country. Funding for the RBEP program will allow this valuable Federal-State-private sector initiative to continue— 

without interruption—the pioneering regional projects and technical assistance networks which help bring bioenergy into regional energy markets across the Nation. 

The revitalized RBEP encompasses all 50 States in five regional programs. It is 

an important tool in the Nation’s effort to realize the opportunities which bioenergy 

offers for energy production, economic development and sound environmental management. The regional program is uniquely situated to target program resources to 

the specific biomass opportunities of each part of the country. Through a blend of 

projects and technical assistance networks, the RBEP identifies opportunities for 

and helps reduce barriers to the commercialization of biomass technologies; promotes coordinated State and Federal public policies in support of bioenergy; and 

educates consumers on the opportunities and benefits of biomass energy. 

The RBEP’s success is closely tied to its use of State-based regional organizations 

to administer and coordinate program resources and activities. These organizations, 

with their direct ties to elected and appointed State decision-makers and agencies, 

are uniquely able to leverage Federal, State and private sector resources and cooperation across State and Federal agencies, among various States, and between the 

public and private sector. These organizations have: 

—the ability to gain governors’ and State legislators’ attention and commitment 

to bioenergy; 

—the capacity to leverage resources and cooperation for collaborative policy and 

technical projects from private companies and multiple State and Federal agencies—transportation, environmental protection, public utility commission, and 

agriculture; 

—the capability to move quickly to address emerging issues; and 

—the ability to offer staff with extensive biomass program management experience. 

The CONEG Policy Research Center is pleased to be part of the Northeast Regional Biomass Program (NRBP) and its work to advance renewable biomass energy, the region’s most abundant resource. From Maine to Maryland, the NRBP encompasses a wide range of activities that cover all biomass resources and technologies. The NRBP makes possible State-level working groups that promote publicprivate partnerships for biomass development, and it helps promote policies that 

support renewable biomass. It encourages demonstrations of leading edge technologies, and conducts public education and outreach that helps condition the marketplace for new bioenergy technologies and biobased products. A major strength of 

the NRBP is its ability to link biomass development to other public policy goals, 

such as creating new economic opportunities, preserving agricultural or forest lands 

for current use, and reducing air and water pollution. As Renewable Portfolio Standard programs have and continue to be promulgated in the Northeast States, biomass 

power has recently begun to be a focus of new and significant project development. 

The contributions of the NRBP program over the years has played, and will continue to play, an essential role in stimulating and facilitating this market development through its working groups, extensive networking, and leadership of its regional coordinator. 

Congressional funding for EERE’s renewable energy programs at a level in fiscal 

year 2005 that will permit $5 million for the RBEP will allow these partnerships, 

with their administration by proven host agency organizations, to strengthen the established bioenergy networks that transfer experience and coordinate activities 

within a State, throughout a region and across the Nation. 

We thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to share the views of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, and we stand ready to provide you with any additional information on the importance of the Regional Biomass Energy Program and 

the Northeast Regional Biomass Program to the Northeast and the rest of the Nation, as well as the vital role biomass can play in meeting the Nation’s energy 

needs. 
453 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB LAWRENCE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

COST/BENEFITS OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGY R&D

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Dr. L.R. (Bob) Lawrence, Jr., and I am President of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., a consulting firm 

in Alexandria, Virginia. I, and my firm, have been working with the Department 

of Energy’s Geothermal program since 1990, and during the past 14 years, we have 

seen many positive changes in the program which are helpful to the industry and 

to our country as a whole. I come before you, today, to request $30 million for the 

program for fiscal year 2005, the same level that was appropriated for fiscal year 

2003, of which, $6 million would be applied to the GeoPowering the West portion 

of the Program. 

Geothermal electric generation, at 16 billion Kw-hrs per year, is the largest contributor to delivered electricity from Renewables except for Hydro generation. For 

the past several years, the Geothermal Technology program has been held back at 

budget levels below $30 million. This has been harmful to the industry which is dependent upon the technology evolving from the DOE programs to develop new and 

ever more difficult resources. During the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process, the 

Senate funded the Geothermal program at $37 million. Although the Conference 

only funded the program at $30 million, it was certainly a step in the right direction. It is consummately in the national interest to increase the funding level of this 

program to $30 million annually to accelerate increased geothermal use for energy 

purposes. The fiscal year 2004 appropriation of $25.5 million was, unfortunately, a 

step backward, causing cuts in numerous, high quality, ongoing programs. 

At $30 million, it gives the Geothermal program the chance to move forward with 

industry on several fronts. At the $30 million level, strong programs, heavily cost 

shared with industry, can move ahead addressing Enhanced Geothermal Systems, 

where tertiary treated waste water is injected deep into the earth to provide additional needed water to under-saturated geothermal resources. The GeoPowering the 

West program, addressing 19 Western States, can be strengthened. And most importantly, Cost-Shared Exploratory Drilling, Reservoir Definition, and New Resource 

Exploration can move forward in areas where it has slowed to nearly a stop. Even 

at $30 million, the Geothermal program will be the lowest funded of all Renewables, 

even though the program returns the most revenue to the government and has been 

the most successful based on present generation annual levels. 

OVERVIEW

Cost-shared Department of Energy investments in geothermal energy R&D, starting in the 1970’s, have made possible the establishment of the geothermal industry 

in the United States. Today that industry generates over 16 billion kilowatt-hours 

per year in the United States, alone. The total, retail value of this electricity exceeds 

$1 billion per year. The Industry: 

—returns over $41 million annually to the Treasury in royalty and production 

payments for geothermal development on Federal lands; 

—supplies the total electric-power needs of about 4 million people in the United 

States, including over 7 percent of the electricity in California, about 10 percent 

of the power in Northern Nevada, and about 25 percent of the electricity for the 

Island of Hawaii (the Big Island); 

—employs some 30,000 U.S. workers; 

—uses over $500 million worth of steel structures; 

—displaces emissions of at least 16 million tons of carbon dioxide, 20,000 tons of 

sulfur dioxide, 41,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 1,300 tons of particulate matter every year, compared with production of the same amount of electricity from 

a state-of-the-art coal-fired plant; 

—has installed geothermal projects worth $3.0 billion overseas, mostly in the Philippines and Indonesia. 

NEAR TERM POTENTIAL

The geothermal industry, with appropriate government R&D support, can provide 

an additional 600 Megawatts of power in about 18 months. This power will come 

from: 

—Use of tertiary treated wastewater injection (Enhanced Geothermal Systems): 

200 MW. 

—Implementation of new technologies into old plants, well field upgrades, and 

turbine replacements: 400 MW. 
454 

In addition, direct use increases, through the GeoPowering the West initiative, 

will provide an additional, near term, 100MW of use for heating, cooling, industrial 

drying, agricultural applications, and recreational purposes. 

This is an additional 700MW of clean, renewable, geothermal energy available 

within 2 years with appropriate government funding and support, right in the heart 

of the western States that presently have the most critical power problems. 

LONGER TERM POTENTIAL

The long term potential of Geothermal energy in the United States is estimated 

to be 25,000 MW of electrical generation and an additional 25,000 MW of direct use. 

To date, the geothermal industry has made use of only the highest grade geothermal 

resources in the United States. The keys to realizing the enormous potential of geothermal energy are improved technology to tap resources that can not, at present, 

be economically developed, and cost shared programs with industry for accelerated 

implementation of the technology. Substantial investments in R&D by the geothermal industry, acting alone, have not happened and are unlikely, because the developers are uniformly financial entities, with small engineering components, which 

rely on the technology centered at national laboratories and university institutes for 

project development and engineering. 

TECHNOLOGY NEEDS

Applied R&D is essential to reduce the technical and financial risks of new technology to a level that is acceptable to the private sector and its financial backers. 

The U.S. geothermal industry has conducted a series of workshops to determine the 

industry’s needs for new technology and has recommended cost-shared R&D programs to DOE based on the highest-priority needs. 

The Geothermal Industry supports the Strategic Plan of the DOE Office of Geothermal Technology. The plan calls for increased spending, quickly reaching $50 to 

$60 million per year, a geothermal budget level consistent with that recommended 

by the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in 

their 1997 report. Technical needs include: 

Drilling.—Geothermal drilling differs dramatically from oil and gas drilling since 

the necessary production holes are three times as wide as oil and gas production 

holes, and they must be drilled through hard, volcanic rock rather than sedimentary 

soils. Also, because of the high temperatures and corrosive nature of geothermal 

fluids, geothermal drilling is much more difficult and expensive than conventional 

oil and gas drilling. Each well costs $1 million to $3 million, and an average geothermal field consists of 10 to 100 or more wells. The drilling technology program 

continues to show cost-saving advancements. 

Exploration and Reservoir Technology.—The major challenge facing the industry 

in exploration and development of geothermal resources is how to remotely detect 

producing zones deep in the subsurface so that drill holes can be sited and steered 

to intersect them. No two geothermal reservoirs are alike. Present exploration techniques are not specific enough, and result in too many dry wells, driving up development costs. The industry needs better geological, geochemical, and geophysical techniques, as well as improved computer methods for modeling heat-extraction strategies from geothermal reservoirs. 

Energy Conversion.—The efficiency in converting geothermal steam into electricity 

in the power plant directly affects the cost of power generation. During the past decade, the efficiency of dry- and flash-steam geothermal power plants was improved 

by 25 percent. It is believed that geothermal power-plant efficiency can be improved 

by an additional 10 to 20 percent over the next decade with a modest investment 

in R&D. 

Reclaimed Water Use for Geothermal Enhancement.—Many potential geothermal 

resources are not utilized due to insufficient water in the hot zones. Reclaimed 

water, the disposal of which is an expensive problem for many communities, could 

be used productively, in many cases, to enhance the geothermal resources, making 

them more economically viable for local use. In the United States, over 300 western 

communities each have a potentially useable geothermal resource co-located within 

5 miles. The technology which will evolve from this effort could be broadly applicable to these communities and their combined energy and wastewater problems. 

GeoPowering the West.—This initiative, now in its fourth year, seeks to develop, 

as well as provide information and implement, those technologies needed to utilize 

geothermal resources in the over 300 presently identified ‘‘co-located’’ communities 

in 19 Western States. Studies now underway may increase the number of communities to over 350. The program is creating partnerships with the subject communities to utilize hot geothermal waters for direct use applications such as space con-
455 

ditioning, industrial drying, agricultural applications, and recreational purposes. Additionally, the program will provide technology needed to explore these resources for 

generation potential. In the short time that this program has been ongoing, it has 

played a major role in expanding the number of States with geothermal electric generation potential from four to eight, or a doubling of candidate States. This program 

is singularly important to the expanded geothermal future of our country and 

should be expanded to $6 million for fiscal year 2005. 

GeoSciences.—Basic research in the GeoSciences needs to continue at national 

laboratories, universities, and research institutes to expand and advance the knowledge base in this technology area. Funding the GeoSciences ensures a flow of new, 

capable, engineers and scientists into this important field as well as expanding the 

basic knowledge base surrounding geothermal resources and geothermal energy. It 

is important for this program to continue. 

CONCLUSION

The cost shared, cooperative, research, development, and implementation projects 

of the Department of Energy’s Geothermal program should serve as a model for programs whose purpose is to provide and enhance national benefits, while reaping a 

return on investment for the taxpayer. The $41 million that the industry returns 

to various governmental entities in royalties and leases exceeds, annually, the 

amount that the government invests in the future of the technology. Yet, the future 

of the technology and the expanded industry is closely tied to these programs. Clearly, the Geothermal research and technology development is an outstanding example 

of a proper, taxpayer investment. $30 million is required for fiscal year 2004. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB LAWRENCE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

REQUIRED REPLACEMENT OF THE TOPOCK-DAVIS-MEAD TRANSMISSION LINE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Bob Lawrence, and 

I am President of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., a consulting firm in Alexandria, 

VA. Our company is involved in a variety of high technology subjects largely related 

to the Energy sector. 

I am here, today, to request an appropriation of $20 million for fiscal year 2005 

for replacement of the Topock-Davis-Mead transmission line with Aluminum Matrix 

Composite Conductor (AMC). The Topock-Davis-Mead line runs along the Colorado 

River on the Western boundary of Arizona and serves the electricity needs of the 

communities there including Havasu City (pop. 50,000), Bullhead City (33,769), Mohave Valley (13,694), Needles, CA (5193) and the Mohave Indian Tribe. It is the primary load server for this region. The line also provides needed service to Kingman, 

AZ (22,092) and Blythe, CA (21,376). The line is operating with all of its capacity 

allocated. The $20 million requested would be the first of two increments for a total 

of $35 million to replace this line with AMC conductor. Studies accomplished by 

WAPA and others show that to double the capacity of this transmission corridor 

would cost $10 million to $17 million more with conventional technologies than it 

would using the AMC conductor option. A simple line for line replacement, using 

the AMC option, will increase the capacity by well over a factor of 3, and some studies indicate a factor of 8. 

WAPA ratepayers presently pay about $80 million more to the government than 

WAPA receives in appropriations on an annual basis. If WAPA were a private utility, these funds would be available to upgrade their system. In the WAPA case, the 

‘‘surplus’’ goes back to the Federal treasury. Yet, the WAPA budget request to Congress contains only $12 million for ‘‘construction’’ which is woefully inadequate to 

maintain their system with needed upgrades. Therefore, it is requested that the 

funding to pay for the upgrading of this line come from the annual ‘‘surplus,’’ and 

be designated ‘‘non-reimbursable.’’ 

The service area for this line is one of the hottest regions of the United States. 

Without air conditioning, individuals of fragile health in the region could be at considerable risk. The region served by Topock-Davis-Mead is populated largely by retirees, causing a greater than normal percentage of elderly in the population. These 

are the people that could be particularly, negatively affected by a transmission shutdown, causing a loss of electrical service, and air conditioning, during peak summer 

temperatures. The situation is now approaching critical. 

The region is experiencing load growth, as much as 10 percent per year in some 

areas. The Parker-Davis dam system is operating at full capacity, and all of the generated power is being delivered through the transmission system. There is no capa-
456 

bility for additional transmitted power in the immediate region above what is presently demanded. 

WAPA is legislatively responsible for ‘‘system reliability,’’ but is not required to 

provide for load growth beyond the generation of the Parker-Davis dam system. 

The Topock-Davis-Mead line, when running at peak capacity, is thermally limited 

and limited by the sag. If additional power is transmitted, the line would sag beyond 

the safe limits established by national electrical safety code standards. It was excessive sag in a transmission line that triggered the blackout event of August 14, 2003, 

in the Northeast and Midwest. It is essential that this be avoided in this WAPA 

DSR transmission trunk. 

The conventional solution to this problem would be to construct a new transmission line in the area, requiring new right-of-way, new towers, and new lines. The 

transmission path is in an archeologically significant and environmentally sensitive 

area, which makes new right-of-way an unattractive option. 

The Department of Energy has been evolving this potential solution at the request 

of Congress. Since 1998, DOE has been developing and testing the Aluminum Matrix Composite Conductor (AMC), also called Aluminum Conductor Composite Reinforced (ACCR). This is a high capacity transmission line conductor that could provide very substantial capacity increases by simply replacing the old technology lines 

with the new, AMC/ACCR option. Field testing of this option, now underway, has 

met all needed utility specifications. AMC/ACCR is in operational service in Hawaii, 

North Dakota, Minnesota and Arizona. AMC/ACCR is now available for commercial 

sale and application. 

The use of this new technology on the Topock-Davis-Mead line would offer key 

benefits including: 

—Ensure delivery of power to the citizens of the surrounding communities. 

—Improve the reliability of the region by addressing a known problem. 

—Elimination of a bottleneck resulting in an 8-fold increase in power transfer capability (in this case the flow would be north to Mead, the most critical 500kV 

feed into Southern California) 

—Preserve the visual landscape since no visual change to the existing line would 

occur and no additional land is required. 

—Avoid the environmental impact associated with building a new line and time 

delays that can occur during the permitting process. 

—Provide additional revenue to the Federal Government in the form of increased 

power sales or additional wheeling charges for carrying power from other producers. 

Finally, this project would provide a ‘‘showcase installation’’ for a new, well tested, 

technology and would spur further adoption. The experiences of the past 2 years 

have clearly shown that our Nation needs an affordable option that will improve, 

upgrade, and increase the capacity of our national grid without adding to the environmental insult of overhead, electric transmission lines. The Aluminum Matrix 

Composite Conductor appears to be the most near term option available. 

The program to develop this option was begun in fiscal year 2002 with $4 million, 

and was continued through fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 at $4 million per 

year. Substantial cost sharing from both industry and utilities occurred. The need 

for the Congressionally mandated $4 million per year has now ended. Accessories 

tailored for each conductor installation were also developed and tested. The testing 

included a low-voltage outdoor test span operated by ORNL that can continuously 

cycle a 1,200-foot multispan line to high-temperature operation. 

Multi-year field trials are now demonstrating medium and large size conductor 

performance under different conditions, such as various voltages, mechanical loading conditions, and operating conditions. The testing is proceeding flawlessly. WAPA 

is hosting two of the ongoing field trials which began in fiscal year 2002 under this 

program. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank the chairman and his staff for having the 

foresight to provide the needed funding to bring the development program and the 

status of the technology to this point. Clearly, it is the best option to replace outdated, conventional technology lines in critical locations such as the Topock-DavisMead corridor. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB LAWRENCE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY R&D

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Bob Lawrence, I 

am President of Bob Lawrence and Associates, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia. I appre-
457 

ciate the opportunity to present this testimony, today, on the important subject of 

Superconductivity. I am here to request an appropriation of $49 million for the Department of Energy program for fiscal year 2005. 

BACKGROUND

Of all the technologies which are emerging today, Superconductivity is arguably 

one of the most promising in terms of dramatic, potential enhancements to American infrastructure and national benefits. Laboratory results have moved into government-industry partnerships aimed at accelerating superconducting products into 

the electrical marketplace with concurrent, dramatic, energy efficiency and environmental improvements. Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici summed up the 

promise and accomplishments of this program, earlier this year, when he noted that, 

20 years ago, superconducting material only came in 1 centimeter lengths, whereas 

today, they are making cables out of it. This is exceptional progress in research. 

Superconductivity is the property of a material to conduct unusually large quantities of electrical current with virtually no resistance. Since the middle of the century, researchers have known that certain ceramic materials show superconducting 

properties when they approach a temperature near absolute zero, or the temperature of liquid hydrogen and liquid helium. Practical applications of these materials 

are difficult, however, since they are characteristically very costly to make, very 

brittle in nature, and prohibitively expensive to cool to the required, very low temperature. 

In 1986, a new class of ceramic materials was discovered which showed superconducting properties at temperatures up to 34K. Since that time, improvements 

have produced superconducting materials at the temperature of liquid nitrogen, or 

72K. These ‘‘high temperature’’ superconducting (HTS) materials have generated 

great excitement since the projected costs of applications have dropped by orders of 

magnitude, and first viable products appear to be within reach. 

THE PROGRAM

Today, a number of HTS-based pieces of electrical equipment are at the prototype 

stage with capable manufacturing entities intimately involved. Early candidates for 

commercial products include Transformers, Electric Motors, Generators, Fault Current Limiters, and underground Power Cables. Later in the commercialization process, replacements for overhead transmission lines are also foreseen; however, this 

will not be an early application. To enhance and accelerate the prospects for early 

commercialization of HTS products, the Department of Energy has developed a 

vertically integrated program in which product oriented teams are focused on the 

development and implementation of HTS equipment. Under the title of the Superconductivity Partnership Initiative (SPI), these vertically integrated teams typically 

each consist of an electric utility, a system manufacturer, an HTS wire supplier, and 

one or more national laboratories. Supporting these vertical teams is a Second Generation Wire Initiative, in which development teams are exploiting research breakthroughs at Los Alamos, Argonne, and Oak Ridge National labs that promise unprecedented current-carrying capabilities in high-temperature superconducting 

wires. Since superconducting wire is the main component of all superconducting cables, products and systems, the price drop projected by the Second Generation technology is highly significant and important to successful commercialization. 

Transformer development is being carried out by the team of Waukesha Electric 

Systems, Intermagnetics General Corporation, Rochester Gas and Electric, 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This team 

has conducted a series of reference designs concentrating mostly on a 30-MVA, 138- 

kV/13.8kV transformer which is representative of a class expected to capture about 

half of all U.S. power transformer sales in the next two decades. According to industry experts, Japan and Europe are somewhat ahead of the United States in transformer development. 

The United States HTS electric motor team is headed by Reliance Electric with 

American Superconductor Corp as the HTS coil supplier and manufacturer. Also on 

this team are Centerior Energy (a utility company) and Sandia National Laboratory. 

‘‘In February 1996, Reliance Electric successfully tested a four-pole, 1800 rpm synchronous motor using HTS windings operating at 27°K at a continuous 150kW output. The coils... achieved currents of 100A . . . , 25 percent over the initial goal 

of 80 A.’’ This program has now been extended to ‘‘develop a pre-commercial prototype of a 3.7MW HTS motor’’. The demonstration of this motor will be an important 

milestone in the commercialization process, since it will provide a measure of efficiency, reliability, and projected costs and benefits. 
458 

Generator efforts in the United States have recently begun with a team headed 

by General Electric. The efforts here, again, appear to be behind those in Japan. 

In Japan, funds expended on HTS design, development, and demonstration exceed 

those in the United States. This Japanese, heavily funded effort involves 16 member 

organizations with representation from the electric utilities, manufacturers of electric power equipment, research organizations, manufacturers of HTS wire and tape, 

refrigeration and cryogenic suppliers, and independent research institutes. 

Fault Current Limiters represent a new class of electric utility equipment with 

many attractive properties. This type of equipment may, in fact, be a market leader, 

since its properties appear to provide substantial potential cost savings to electric 

utilities as well as containing power outages. This type of equipment is only possible 

using superconducting technology. 

Exciting developments have taken place in the field of underground HTS cables 

for transmission and distribution. In the United States, two teams are pursuing two 

different technical concepts, but each team is led by a powerhouse electrical cable 

manufacturer; Pirelli North America, and Southwire Co. First design cables are now 

under test in practical applications. Worldwide, about 10 superconducting electric 

power cable demonstrations are now underway, in various stages of completion. 

THE BENEFITS

Dramatic cost and energy savings are projected when the candidate systems and 

products from superconducting technology are fully implemented, with incremental 

benefits accruing from the time of technology readiness and commercial introduction 

to the time of full market penetration. When fully implemented into the electric generation and utilization sectors of our economy, superconducting technology is expected to save $8 billion per year in retail value of presently lost electricity, lost 

due to transmission and distribution. An additional $8 billion per year can be saved 

with the installation of superconductive transformers and electric motors. Yet another $1 billion or so can be saved by full implementation of HTS generators. This 

totals fully implemented benefits of $17 billion per year from full implementation 

of HTS technology in presently envisioned equipment. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) experts and studies carried out by Energetics, Inc. indicate that HTS 

underground cable savings would be in the range of 125,000 kWhr per mile, per 

year. At the present average rate of 6.89 cents per kWhr, this corresponds to retail 

level monetary savings of $8,612.50 per mile per year. These savings will flow directly into reductions in taxpayer electric bills, under a competitive electricity delivery environment. 

EFFECTS OF FISCAL YEAR 2004 CUTS

As is well known, the Department of Energy, for fiscal year 2004, elected to fund 

the Superconductivity program at $32 million, even though the final, Conference 

version of the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill ‘‘urged’’ a funding level of $48 million. This decision has been devastating to the program and the industry, and if it 

isn’t corrected, the damage to the program will be such that it will take many years 

to recover. This type of action must absolutely be avoided in the future. 

NATIONAL SECURITY

Above ground transmission lines are vulnerable to terrorist attack, as well as severe weather. High Temperature Superconductivity would allow transmission lines 

to be placed underground with very large capacity increases per cross section. This 

also allows for a more environmentally effective use of the surface land. Higher national security and better environmental posture: a good combination. 

There are Defense applications of this technology, enabling in nature, applying to 

directed energy weapons. Exact applications are sensitive in nature, but it is important to note that the benefits from success in this technology will apply to many 

cross sections of the American economy and infrastructure. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. Major efforts in this technology are now underway in China, South Korea, 

Japan, and a number of European countries, as well as the United States. It is very 

important that we make every effort to be ahead of the rest of the world in this 

technology, and for that reason, I ask that the committee provide an appropriation 

of $49 million for the Superconductivity R&D program for fiscal year 2005. 
459 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION

The Solar Energy Industries Association represents photovoltaic, concentrating 

solar power, and solar thermal manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and installers nationwide. I am writing to request research funding of $100 million for 

photovoltaics, $20 million for Concentrating Solar Power, and $5 million for Solar 

Heating and Lighting, as well as potential future Federal procurement programs. 

This is a substantial increase over current funding levels, but in line with funding 

proposed in the conference Energy Bill, as supported by SEIA. 

PHOTOVOLTAICS

Our industry is at a critical decision point. While clean energy industries soar 

worldwide, the United States is increasingly left behind. Worldwide solar production 

in 2003 was more than 760 million watts, up from just over 550 million in 2002. 

However, the United States produced just 109 megawatts—the first U.S. production 

decline in recent memory. We must stop this trend, before we become dependent on 

importing yet another source of energy. 

The overall industry is supercharged; world PV production is now doubling almost 

every 2 years. Bell Labs produced the first watt of commercial PV in 1954, and we 

expect to produce more than one billion watts in 2004. However, increasingly, that 

production occurs in Japan and Germany. 

Leaving aside environmental and energy security concerns, this is a major issue. 

The Renewable Energy Policy Project estimates that each megawatt of solar produced supports 35.5 jobs over 10 years—more than any other energy source. At that 

rate, a solar industry which continues to grow at current rates would support more 

than 100,000 jobs by 2020; an industry half the size of General Motors. Many of 

these are very high value-added manufacturing jobs, with major manufacturing in 

TN, NJ, MI, IL, MA, OH, MD, WA, DE, CA, and elsewhere. Federal R&D has a 

real impact on where these plants develop. My members tell me that the opportunity to participate in DOE’s world-class research is one of their primary considerations when deciding where to locate manufacturing. 

Other nations have noted this industry’s potential, and are coupling incentive programs with increasingly aggressive research funding. However, while the 

photovoltaics industry has more than doubled in size since 2000, U.S. research fund-
460 

ing for photovoltaics has remained essentially flat; this makes even less sense when 

you consider the program’s impressive results. The DOE PV research program has 

been a major reason why solar manufacturing prices have dropped by more than 

half in the last 10 years alone. (Below—DOE’s PV Roadmap is now predicting that 

solar electricity will be available for less than $.08/kWh within the next 10 years.) 

These innovations occur in a competitive cost-sharing environment that ensures 

rapid development of technologies that would not likely emerge otherwise. As a result of this excellent work, PV electricity is now cost-competitive in a growing number of markets for homes, businesses, and remote applications alike—the number 

and size of these markets will only increase as costs continue to fall. 

Continuing advances in crystalline silicon technologies could bring prices down by 

half again, while DOE’s Systems-Driven Approach squeezes optimum efficiency and 

reliability out of every part of the solar system, from panels to connectors to inverters. Meanwhile, the Thin Film Partnership is beginning large-scale commercialization of their products, which use much less raw material and more rapid continuous-line production processes. Equally exciting are the ‘‘generation beyond next’’ 

nanostructured and organic solar cells being developed by many domestic companies 

and labs—these flexible cells offer the possibility of manufacturing millions of watts 

of solar on machines similar to today’s printing presses, out of chemicals we currently use to make paint and toothpaste. 

The 2003 Peer Review of DOE’s Photovoltaics subprogram, assembled by a team 

of eminent scientists and researchers including a retired Scientific Advisor for 

Exxon Corporate Research, heaped praise upon the program’s achievements, noting 

‘‘The role of the laboratories in the projects reviewed has been outstanding in terms 

of quality of science, technology and engineering; relevance to national needs and 

DOE mission; and programmatic performance, management and planning.’’ However, they felt the need to note that DOE is now in the position of having to choose 

between research and basic equipment needs: 

‘‘Equipment and facilities are aging and failing at the laboratories... Funds for 

personnel and current research are being cannibalized to sustain equipment that 

should have been replaced long ago . . . An exceptional research capability at both 

Sandia and NREL is at risk in the immediate future unless DOE develops a strategy for dealing with these ongoing strains... the panel heard frequent references 

to specific equipment and facilities that were: 

‘‘—Aging and less capable than new equipment. 

‘‘—Failing from lack of maintainability. 

‘‘—Being kept in operation at the expense of funds to support staff patent applications, conferences and publications. 

‘‘It appears that the operating budgets at NREL and Sandia are being partly cannibalized to keep basic equipment operating.’’ (Emphasis added.) 
461 

The current fiscal year 2005 administration request for the photovoltaics pro- gram—ca. $75 million—is insufficient to support the research needs of the evolving 

technology and growing industry behind these programs. If we are to meet DOE’s 

goal of PV-generated electricity for $.06/kWh by 2020, funding needs to be increased 

substantially. SEIA requests $100 million for the photovoltaics program in total. 

CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER

CSP systems currently produce 354 MW of clean, reliable, and relatively inexpensive power in the California desert—enough for ca. 120,000 homes. New companies 

are now entering this market with newer, more refined, and more sophisticated 

technologies. Early construction has begun for another 50 MW plant in Nevada, and 

a 1 MW plant in Arizona. Other project sites are in early negotiations now, and the 

Western Governor’s Association has stated that they support further developing this 

resource. Recently, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson announced he plans to 

use $3 million in capital outlay funds to attract concentrating solar power plants 

to his State. 

A recent ‘‘due diligence’’ review of the CSP program, conducted by third party consultants Sargent and Lundy under the auspices of the National Research Council, 

found that ‘‘CSP technology is a proven technology for energy production, there is 

a potential market for CSP technology and that significant cost reductions are 

achievable assuming reasonable deployment of CSP technologies occurs.’’ The administration’s own budget document for 2003 states: 

‘‘Large-scale CSP technologies have been operating successfully in the California 

desert for 15 years. Over this time the cost of these systems has decreased by a factor of 3... they are currently the least expensive source of solar electricity. Recent technology advancements... (have) revitalized the CSP industry and placed 

them in a position to play a major role in near-term green power opportunities, both 

domestically and overseas, as costs are projected to drop into the 6 to 8 cents/kWh 

range.’’ 

Given this degree of support and promise, a closeout budget request (ca. $2 million) is unjustifiable. The funding rollercoaster for the CSP program has damaged 

its ability to make long-term investments and retain high quality staff. Laboratory 

staff has been reduced by 70 percent, a staggering loss of knowledge and expertise. 

Priceless equipment goes unused or will be soon dismantled. 

Funding of $20 million would allow the Department of Energy to revitalize this 

program, maintaining an ability to validate technology and components as well as 

lowering operations and maintenance costs in a stable environment. We expect that 

CSP plants could generate massive amounts of electricity for prices in the neighborhood of $.07 to $.09/kWh by the end of the decade. (For instance, using CSP on less 

than one-quarter of 1 percent of Arizona’s land area could meet the State’s entire 

electrical needs.) Given the growth potential of this industry and the very strong 

international interest in these technologies, it seems a small price to pay. 

We also note with interest the provision of the recent conference Energy Bill that 

provides substantial research support for using Concentrating Solar Power as a 

source of new hydrogen fuel. Solar will undoubtedly be one of the critical cornerstone technologies of the hydrogen economy, giving us the ability to produce zeroemissions motor fuels when and where we want them. Concentrating Solar Power 

offers two unique opportunities in this regard; conventional electrolysis of water to 

generate hydrogen, and, unique to solar, inexpensive thermochemical processes that 

use a direct catalytic conversion. 

SOLAR HEATING AND LIGHTING/ZERO ENERGY BUILDINGS

SEIA also strongly supports the Solar Buildings projects, including the visionary 

Zero Energy Buildings Program. The multi-year goal of ZEB is to allow widespread 

adoption of zero energy residences by 2010 and commercial buildings by 2015. This 

would slow and eventually eliminate new buildings’ consumption of our finite energy 

sources. Builders around the country are increasingly developing new construction 

techniques and materials, and including solar technologies which will achieve zero 

finite fuel source energy consumption. For these programs we request $8 million in 

funding, and we support the administration’s attempts to move this program into 

its logical niche in the Interior appropriations budget, where partnerships with 

DOE’s Buildings program could make the most of relevant equipment and expertise. 

A different program, formerly filed under the ‘‘solar buildings’’ heading, is Solar 

Heating and Lighting. Solar water heating technologies are utilized around the 

world in quantities far exceeding those in the United States. Such systems can significantly reduce electricity and natural gas consumption. Solar water heating tech-
462 

nologies are already ubiquitous in many other countries, thereby saving other energy sources for higher value purposes. 

Within this program, emphasis is placed on reducing the cost of solar water heating by using lightweight polymer materials to replace the heavy copper and glass 

materials in today’s collectors. The goal is to complete R&D on new polymers and 

manufacturing processes to reduce the cost of solar water heating to 4¢/kWh by the 

end of 2004. We recommend that this program be funded explicitly at the $5 million 

level. 

FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS

While they are not yet law, we would like to draw the subcommittee’s attention 

to two areas of the proposed energy bill as supported by SEIA (both H.R. 6 and the 

new S. 2095). Sec. 205 would authorize substantial purchases of photovoltaics on the 

part of the Federal Government, driving down costs nationwide and giving the government a good long-term energy investment. Sec. 902 would cost-share the installation of renewable energy systems in State or local buildings, improving the energy 

independence and financial situation of State and local governments with new clean 

energy devices. 

CONCLUSION

Solar energy’s benefits to the Nation are far too numerous to list here comprehensively. However, we cannot mention enough that as a long-lived source of renewable 

energy, solar enables us to make more of our energy at home, rather than being 

forced to acquire it overseas or from volatile fuel markets. Modular and simple to 

install, it can provide quick answers to grid congestion or supply inadequacy, while 

sidestepping environmental and NIMBY issues. The high coincidence of solar panels’ peak output with daily peak demand makes them an attractive solution for load 

pockets or seasonal demand spikes, avoiding the dirtiest and least efficient conventional generators. 

Increased investment in solar also ties us more closely to a source of energy that 

can be used anywhere in the Nation, and which becomes less expensive, not more, 

every single year. These are nontrivial considerations when the Chairman of DuPont recently declared that high natural gas costs will prompt the company to shift 

its ‘‘center of gravity’’ overseas, and when the Conference Board, the Chicago Fed, 

and Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan all publicly cite volatility and escalation 

in energy costs as a major uncertainty as well as a drag on economic growth. 

Expanded use of renewable energy is also a key recommendation of the report on 

mitigating the natural gas market crisis, as issued in September 2003 by the Secretary of Energy’s National Petroleum Council (NPC). The NPC report set as its 

number one recommendation to ‘‘Improve Demand Flexibility and Efficiency’’ with 

an emphasis on the use of renewable fuels and technologies for power generation. 

Clean energy is the most likely next tech boom, and other nations’ research and 

incentive spending shows that they are very much aware of this fact. As Business 

Week correctly observed in their March 22 issue, economically viable solar power 

could drive a transformative ‘‘job boom’’ in the coming century, maintaining American leadership in the world economy as did the automobile and the commercial aircraft earlier this century. I urge the subcommittee to make the most of this historic 

opportunity. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS

The American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) is a non-profit society of nearly 

6,000 scientists. My name is Mary Lou Guerinot, President of ASPB and Professor 

at Dartmouth College. ASPB urges the subcommittee to support the fiscal year 2005 

budget request of the Department of Energy of $228,422,000 for the Chemical 

Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division of the Office of Basic Energy 

Sciences. This represents an increase of $8.8 million or 4 percent. 

The Biosciences program within the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division supports fundamental research needed to develop future biotechnologies related to energy. The supported research focuses on the biological mechanisms occurring in plants and microorganisms. 

Plants and microbes fit readily into the energy context by virtue of serving as renewable resources for fuel and other fossil resource substitutes, as vehicles to restore previously disrupted environmental sites, and as potential components of industrial processes to produce new products and chemicals in an environmentally benign manner. 
463 

The Biosciences program is devoted to the fundamental science underlying the use 

of biological systems to produce and conserve energy. 

Biosciences research on plants and microbes opens the opportunity to synthesize 

an almost limitless variety of energy-rich organic compounds and polymers. DOE’s 

biosciences fundamental research could lead to higher quality plant products, more 

environmentally benign products and a reduction in the increasing demand for imported petroleum. 

The DOE Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences’ Division of Chemical 

Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences is a competitive grants program in which 

awards are made based on merit. The Division and its Biosciences program select 

the best research proposals as determined in a process of peer review. Leading researchers at universities throughout the Nation are funded by the Biosciences program. 

The Biosciences program currently supports research in the following areas: 

Plant Science 

—Structure and function of the plant cell wall (cellulose, lignin, hemicellulose, 

and protein) 

—Biophysical and biochemical mechanisms of photosynthesis 

—Plant primary and secondary metabolism 

—Genetic and biochemical mechanisms of plant growth and development 

—Bioenergetics, ion uptake, and other membrane-related phenomena 

—Arabidopsis genome sequencing 

—Functional plant genomics 

Fermentation Microbiology 

—Bioenergetics and metabolic properties of anaerobic microbes 

—Degradation of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose 

—Biochemistry, genetics, and physiology of microbes that metabolize one and two 

carbon compounds 

—Mechanisms of plant symbiotic and pathogenic interactions 

—Functional microbial genomics 

Extremophilic Organisms 

—Biochemistry, genetics and physiology of hyperthermophilic microbes 

—Mechanisms of life under extreme conditions, temperature, salt, pH, etc. 

—Metabolism of inorganic compounds 

Biomaterials and Biocatalysis 

—Biosynthesis of novel materials 

—Catalytic antibodies 

—Structural and kinetic characterization of energy-related enzymes 

—Bioadhesion 

The Biosciences program has sponsored many leading research efforts. For example, Biosciences program grant support led to a breakthrough in cellulose biosynthesis research. Plant cell walls are the major energy component of renewable 

biological resources. Cellulose is the major constituent of the plant cell wall and represents the most abundant biopolymer on earth. 

Dr. R. Malcolm Brown, Jr. and colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin 

gave the first experimental confirmation of an important structure involved in cellulose biosynthesis. This work featured a combination of molecular biology and 

immunocytochemistry techniques. This research provides an exciting springboard 

for future applications in the efficient design of specific complex carbohydrates and 

other renewable carbon resources. 

As another example, research sponsored earlier by the Biosciences program led 

to new findings on the capture of energy from photosynthesis. This research led to 

the presentation to Biosciences-program-grantee Dr. Paul Boyer of the shared award 

of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (biochemistry). Photosynthesis is nature’s way 

of utilizing sunlight to produce chemical energy and to bring carbon dioxide into biological organisms. Increased knowledge in this area could lead to a better understanding of how to manage carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Further research in 

this area could also contribute to development of alternative energy sources. 

At the latter part of the 19th Century, people throughout the world were dependent upon plants and other contemporaneous biological sources for the production of 

organic materials. Plants and animals provided the only sources of fibers, coatings, 

lubricants, solvents, dyes, waxes, fillers, insulation, fragrances, detergents, sizing, 

wood, paper, rubber and many other types of materials. In 1930, fully 30 percent 

of industrial organic chemicals were still derived from plants. 
464 

The discovery of extensive petroleum reserves and advances in chemistry and petroleum engineering resulted in a major shift to reliance on fossil sources of organic 

feedstocks such as petroleum. These developments also led to the development of 

petroleum-based materials, such as inexpensive plastics, with properties that could 

not be duplicated at the time by abundantly available natural materials. 

Advances in modern plant research made possible by support from the Biosciences 

program can result in a shift toward use of feedstocks from domestically grown 

plants for chemical products. Plant-produced products can provide the chemical industry with much greater diversity than is available from the comparatively limited 

structures found in crude oil. 

Knowledge gained from Biosciences-supported research is leading to enhanced 

plants that will provide the feedstocks for new types of polyurethane, new biodegradable lubricants and superior quality nylon having stronger and more flexible 

fibers. The United States produces nylon, polyurethane and other plastics to supply 

multi-billion dollar markets. Genetically modified crop production of nylon alone 

could create over $2 billion in new income for America’s growers. 

Plants are a major source of renewable and alternative fuels in the United States. 

Greater knowledge of the basic biology of plants will lead to further economies in 

domestic production of renewable fuels. 

The science community deeply appreciates the continued strong support of the 

subcommittee for innovative research on plants and microbes sponsored by the 

Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SOUTHEASTERN FEDERAL POWER CUSTOMERS, INC. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the Southeastern 

Federal Power Customers (‘‘SeFPC’’ or ‘‘Customers’’), I am pleased to provide testimony in reference to the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Department of Energy and related Federal Power Marketing Administrations 

(‘‘PMAs’’). My testimony will focus primarily on the budget request for the Southeastern Power Administration (‘‘SEPA’’). Among other issues, we wish to emphasize 

that the proposed changes in SEPA’s Puchased Power and Wheeling (‘‘PP&W’’) 

budget would have a negative impact on Federal preference power customers 

throughout the Southeast. 

SEPA purchases, transmits, and markets the power generated at Federal reservoirs to municipal systems, rural electric cooperatives, and other wholesale customers throughout the Southeast. The SeFPC has enjoyed a long and successful relationship with SEPA that has greatly benefited the approximately 5.8 million customers that are SeFPC members. As the subcommittee is aware SEPA markets the 

energy and capacity that is generated from the Federal reservoir projects in the 

Southeast. The SeFPC represents some 238 rural cooperatives and municipally 

owned electric systems in the States of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Virginia, and Illinois, which purchase 

power from SEPA. In some cases, SEPA supplies as much as 25 percent of the 

power and 10 percent of the energy needs of SeFPC customers. 

ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSAL TO ZERO OUT PURCHASED POWER AND WHEELING

The administration has proposed the elimination of all Federal funding for PP&W 

by the end of 2004. The President’s proposal would reduce PP&W funding for SEPA 

by 100 percent in the upcoming fiscal year, from the current level of $34.5 million 

to the proposed level of $0. This proposal is very troubling to the SeFPC. The failure 

to fund these important programs under SEPA’s jurisdiction could have dire consequences for the Federal power program in the Southeast and Federal preference 

power generally. 

If the President’s proposal becomes law, the power supply for the not-for-profit 

distributors and their customers throughout the Southeast will be severely disrupted. SEPA’s customers also will likely lose the benefits of long-term contractual 

arrangements for transmission and purchased power. Because SEPA does not own 

its own transmission lines, the loss of PP&W appropriations will force us to arrange 

our own transmission services, including delivery services from SEPA projects. Also, 

elimination of SEPA’s purchased power funds will force us to buy our power from 

sources other than SEPA at higher prices, which will be passed directly to our customers. 
465 

PROPOSAL WOULD YIELD NO COST SAVINGS FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

It is important to note that the President’s proposal would yield no cost savings 

for the Federal Government. The use of PP&W revenues is a discretionary function 

with no budgetary impact. PP&W funds are repaid annually by preference customers. Moreover, if PP&W funds are eliminated, SEPA’s annual return to the U.S. 

Treasury of roughly $155 million would likely be reduced significantly. 

Thank you in advance for considering our comments on the President’s proposed 

fiscal year 2005 budget for SEPA. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION

The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal and other State and locally 

owned utilities throughout the United States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public 

power utilities deliver electricity to one of every seven electric consumers (about 40 

million people), serving some of the Nation’s largest cities. However, the vast majority of APPA’s members serve communities with populations of 10,000 people or less. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining our fiscal year 

2005 funding priorities within the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee’s 

jurisdiction. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM (REPI)

The Department of Energy’s REPI program was created in 1992’s Energy Policy 

Act (EPAct) as a counterpart to the renewable energy production tax credits made 

available to for-profit utilities. EPAct authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) 

to make direct payments to not-for-profit public power systems and rural electric cooperatives at the rate of 1.5 cents per kWh (now closer to 1.8 cents when adjusted 

for inflation) from electricity generated from solar, wind, geothermal and biomass 

projects. According to DOE sources, in order to fully fund all past and current REPI 

applicants, $60 million would be needed for fiscal year 2005. Despite the demonstrated need, however, DOE has again asked for only $4 million for fiscal year 

2005, citing budgetary constraints. 

Approximately 25 percent of electric utility customers are served by not-for-profit 

public power systems and rural electric cooperatives. Fully funding REPI is an issue 

of comparability for the communities served by these systems. For example, in 2000, 

for-profit utilities and private developers received about $58 million in renewable 

energy tax credits for wind power alone. The same year, REPI subscribers received 

only $3.99 million for renewable energy projects of all types. While APPA supports 

increasing renewable energy use throughout the utility sector, our member utilities 

simply must receive comparable federally sanctioned incentives to help in that effort. 

We believe Congress was committed over a decade ago to removing economic barriers to enable all communities to benefit from the production of more renewable 

and clean energy. We also believe that Congress is equally committed today—not 

only to producing more renewable energy, but also to diversifying America’s portfolio 

of fuels, decreasing our reliance on foreign sources of energy, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, under a fully funded REPI program, close to 60 million 

metric tons of carbon equivalent could be reduced through the development of existing landfills into landfill-gas-to-energy projects. In order to ensure that these efforts 

and other renewable energy goals are achieved throughout the electric utility industry, Congress must provide an increase for REPI. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

As is demonstrated by our strong support for REPI, APPA believes that investing 

in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs is critical. We urge the subcommittee to support adequate funding to ensure that renewable energy usage continues to increase as part of the portfolio of fuel options available to our Nation’s 

electric utilities. 

FEDERAL POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS (PMA’S)

Purchase Power and Wheeling 

We urge the subcommittee to authorize appropriate levels for use of receipts so 

that the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) and the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) can con-
466 

tinue to purchase and wheel electric power to their municipal and rural electric cooperative customers. 

The fiscal year 2005 DOE budget proposes to eliminate the ability of WAPA, 

SEPA, and SWPA to use receipts—which do not score in the Federal budget process—to provide these services to their customers. Although appropriations are no 

longer needed to initiate the purchase power and wheeling (PP&W) process, the subcommittee continues to establish ceilings on the use of receipts for this important 

function. 

The PP&W program is important because hydroelectric generation and customer 

use are rarely in exact balance—both vary from hour-to-hour and day-to-day. The 

PMA’s often make purchases in the spot market to ‘‘firm’’ the resource when generation is less than the amount contracted for delivery. Additionally, in low-water 

years, the PMA’s often purchase additional power to fulfill their contracts with customers. The PMA’s then must negotiate to transmit this power to their customer— 

often over non-Federal transmission lines (wheeling is the charge that the PMA’s 

pay to move electricity over a non-Federal transmission line). For individual PMA 

customers—many of whom are the distribution utility of very small towns—to be 

forced to perform these purchase power and wheeling functions would be extremely 

inefficient, and would almost certainly result in rate increases for the retail customers of these small utilities. 

The PP&W arrangement is effective, has no impact on the Federal budget, and 

is supported by the PMA customers who pay the costs. Therefore, we request that 

the subcommittee authorize the use of receipts in fiscal year 2005 as follows: 

—Western Area Power Administration (WAPA).—$227.6 million authorization 

needed in the fiscal year 2005 bill. 

—Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA).—$32.7 million authorization needed in the fiscal year 2005 bill. 

—Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA).—$2.9 million authorization needed in the fiscal year 2005 bill. 

Security Costs 

We urge the subcommittee to reaffirm the Federal Government’s responsibility to 

pay the costs of increased security measures at Federal, multi-purpose facilities and 

delivery systems and include language to ensure that such costs are non-reimbursable. 

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation moved 

aggressively to strengthen security measures at Federal dams throughout the West, 

including such facilities as Hoover, Grand Coulee and Glen Canyon dams. These 

multipurpose facilities provide important flood control, water storage for irrigation, 

municipal and industrial uses, power generation, recreation and environmental mitigation benefits, and are a linchpin of the regional economy. 

To date, funds appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 for anti-terrorism/site security measures at Bureau of Reclamation facilities have been treated 

as non-reimbursable pursuant to an administrative determination. This decision 

found that counter-terrorism protections are not considered normal operation and 

maintenance activities and that the national security interests justifies making the 

expenditures a Federal responsibility. 

This determination is also consistent with how similar costs were treated in the 

aftermath of the attacks on Pearl Harbor in World War II. To ensure that the costs 

of increased security at Federal facilities continue to be treated as a non-reimbursable Federal expenditure, we request that you include the following language in the 

fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations bill: 

‘‘For fiscal year 2005 and each fiscal year thereafter, the increased costs of ensuring security of Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers dams and the Federal 

power marketing administrations in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 

2001, shall be non-reimbursable and provided through appropriated funds.’’ 

Animas-La Plata 

The Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Title III, Section 

301(b)(10), Public Law 106–554, December 21, 2000) authorized development of the 

Animas-La Plata Project to satisfy water right claims of the Southern Ute and Ute 

Mountain Tribes in southwest Colorado (known collectively as the ‘‘Colorado Ute Indian Tribes.’’) The project requires construction of a reservoir, pumping plant and 

appurtenant facilities to provide water supply and delivery of municipal and industrial water and other benefits to the Tribes. 

In order to provide power from the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) to the 

Durango Pumping Plant, transmission facilities will need to be constructed, oper-
467 

ated and maintained by the Western Area Power Administration. Because these 

transmission facilities are associated with the satisfaction of the Tribes’ water rights 

claims, all amounts expended for their construction, operation and maintenance 

should be considered non-reimbursable and non-returnable. If Congress does not 

clarify that these costs are non-reimbursable and non-returnable, CRSP power customers run the risk that the costs of the transmission facilities and services will be 

shifted to them, despite the fact that they receive no benefit from them. 

WAPA will be responsible for the construction, operation and maintenance of 

these transmission facilities, and requires additional appropriations in the amount 

of $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2005 to meet the construction timetable established by 

the Bureau of Reclamation, the project manager. WAPA, the Bureau of Reclamation, 

the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, the water users, the Colorado 

Ute Indian Tribes and APPA all support the inclusion of the following language in 

the fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill: 

‘‘For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, section 302(a)(1)(E) of the 

Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7152), and other related activities including conservation and renewable resources programs as authorized, including official reception and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500, $183,100,000 

to remain available until expended, of which $170,756,000 shall be derived from the 

Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That all authorities and future contributions described in Section 402, subparagraph (b)(3)(B) of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 previously assigned to the 

Secretary of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, shall be transferred to 

the Secretary of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further, That of the 

amount herein appropriated, $10,000,000 shall be available until expended on a 

nonreimbursable basis to the Western Area Power Administration to design, construct, operate and maintain transmission facilities and services for the Animas-La 

Plata Project as authorized by sections 301(b)(10) of Public Law 106–554.’’ 

STORAGE FOR HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE

Since 1982, the Nation’s electricity customers have contributed $22 billion to the 

Nuclear Waste Fund to finance centralized Federal management of spent nuclear 

fuel used for commercial purposes. We therefore support the administration’s efforts 

to finalize the location of a permanent storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 

The President requested $880 million for fiscal year 2005 for the nuclear waste 

repository at Yucca Mountain. While we support the President’s budget request of 

$880 million, if legislation is not enacted to take $749 million of the requested funds 

‘‘off-budget’’ as the administration assumes, we hope that resources are available to 

the subcommittee to adequately fund Yucca, but not at the expense of other valuable programs, such as the Renewable Energy Production Incentive and other programs mentioned in this statement. 

ADVANCED HYDROPOWER TURBINE PROGRAM

APPA supports the administration’s budget request of $6 million for the Advanced 

Hydropower Turbine Program for fiscal year 2005. This program is a joint industrygovernment cost-share effort to develop a hydroelectric turbine that will protect fish 

and other aquatic habitats while continuing to allow for the production of emissionfree hydroelectric power. 

During the next 15 years, 220 hydroelectric projects will seek new licenses from 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Publicly owned projects constitute 50 percent of the total capacity that will be up for renewal. Many of these 

projects were originally licensed over 50 years ago. Newly imposed licensing conditions can cost hydro project owners 10 to 15 percent of power generation. A new, 

improved turbine could help assure that any environmental conditions imposed at 

relicensing in the form of new conditioning, fish passages or reduced flows are not 

accomplished at the expense of emission-free, renewable energy production. This is 

particularly important given the increasingly competitive market in which electric 

utilities operate today. Flow levels will affect the economics of each of these projects 

and many will be unable to compete if the current trend toward flow reduction continues. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC)

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has requested $210 million 

for fiscal year 2005 for its overall operations. APPA supports this request. The 

FERC is charged with regulating certain interstate aspects of the natural gas, oil 

pipeline, hydropower, and electric utility industries. Such regulation includes 
468 

issuing licenses and certificates for construction of facilities, approving rates, inspecting dams, implementing compliance and enforcement activities, and providing 

other services to regulated businesses. These businesses pay fees and charges that 

cover most of the cost of the government’s operations. 

NAVAJO ELECTRIFICATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

APPA supports full funding for the Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program 

at its $15 million authorized funding level for fiscal year 2005 and for each succeeding year of its authorization (through 2006). The purpose of the program is to 

provide electric power to the estimated 18,000 occupied structures in the Navajo Nation that lack electric power. 

The Navajo Nation is served by the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA), an 

APPA member. NTUA provides electric, natural gas, water, wastewater treatment, 

and photovoltaic services throughout the Navajo Indian Reservations in the States 

of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. Fully funding the Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program will significantly improve the quality of life for the people of the 

Navajo Nation. 

NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

APPA supports the administration’s efforts to promote greenhouse gas reductions 

through voluntary programs and investments in new technologies. We therefore 

support DOE’s request of $3 million for fiscal year 2005 to spur innovation of technologies that will reduce, avoid, or capture greenhouse gas emissions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BIOMASS ENERGY RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2005 appropriation for biomass research, development, and deployment (RD&D) conducted by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Separate 

statements will be submitted in support of biomass RD&D performed under the Interior and Related Agencies Bill by EERE, and on forest biomass production research performed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDAFS). 

BERA recommends appropriations of $92,500,000 for biomass RD&D in fiscal year 

2005 under EERE’s Biomass and Biorefinery Systems program and Hydrogen Technology program as follows: 

—$2,000,000 for Feedstock Infrastructure R&D. 

—$26,000,000 for Platforms R&D: Thermochemical Conversion ($13,000,000) and 

Bioconversion ($13,000,000). 

—$19,000,000 for Utilization of Platform Outputs, Integration of Biorefinery Technologies at PDU and pilot scales: Thermochemical Conversion ($9,000,000) and 

Bioconversion ($10,000,000). 

—$39,000,000 for State-Industry Partnerships: Biorefinery Systems Development 

($34,000,000 demonstration facilities) and State & Regional Partnerships (SRP, 

formerly the Regional Biomass Energy Program, RBEP) ($5,000,000). 

—$6,500,000 for biomass-related projects under Hydrogen Technology. 

On behalf of BERA’s members, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 

opportunity to present the recommendations of BERA’s Board of Directors for the 

high-priority projects and programs that we strongly urge be continued or started. 

BERA is a non-profit association based in Washington, DC. It was founded in 1982 

by researchers and private organizations that are conducting biomass research. Our 

objectives are to promote education and research on the production of energy and 

fuels from virgin and waste biomass that can be economically utilized by the public, 

and to serve as a source of information on biomass RD&D policies and programs. 

BERA does not solicit or accept Federal funding for its efforts. 

The level of earmarks in the last few years has resulted in premature reductions 

of scheduled programs by EERE. BERA respectfully asks the subcommittee to carefully consider the impacts of all earmarks on EERE’s RD&D. If they are for projects 

that are not included in DOE’s formal funding request, BERA urges that they be 

add-ons to the baseline funds rather than deductions. In fiscal year 2004, about 35 

percent of the appropriation for EERE’s RD&D is provided as earmarked funds. 

EERE’s planned objectives are therefore extremely difficult or impossible to achieve 

because the appropriation provided for fiscal year 2004 is only about 7.5 percent 

more than the baseline funding requested. 

The original goal of the Biomass and Bioproducts Initiative (BBI) created as a result of ‘‘The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000’’ and Title IX of the 

Farm Bill was to triple the usage of bioenergy and biobased products. Congress has 
469 

provided annual funding for the BBI since fiscal year 2000. A strategic plan was 

developed by the multi-agency Biomass Research and Development Board (BRDB), 

co-chaired by the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture, to achieve this goal. Its 

achievement is necessary because of environmental and energy security and supply 

issues, and our increasing dependence on imported oil. We must determine whether 

practical biomass systems capable of displacing much larger amounts of fossil fuels 

can be developed. For example, biomass energy consumption in 2002 was about 1.66 

million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) per day. BERA strongly urges that the BBI 

be continued in fiscal year 2005 at the funding level recommended by BERA for the 

cost-shared demonstration projects shown in the table on page 3. The highest priority should be given to this program component. 

PROGRAM INTEGRATION, COORDINATION, AND MANAGEMENT

For several years, BERA has urged that all biomass-related research funded by 

DOE should be coordinated and managed at DOE Headquarters so that the program 

managers are heavily involved in this activity. We are pleased to note that this 

process, which began in fiscal year 2002, has continued in fiscal year 2004. BERA 

congratulates DOE on the progress made in restructuring the program and its management. BERA also congratulates DOE and USDA for the cooperation and joint coordination of the programs of each department to increase the usage of agricultural 

and forestry biomass for the production of much larger amounts of affordable fuels, 

electricity, and biomass-derived products than have been realized in the past. These 

efforts are expected to help facilitate the transition of waste and virgin biomass in 

the United States into major sources of renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals. 

However, without full incorporation of the BBI into DOE’s and USDA’s biomass 

research programs, the time table for this transition will be stretched out for several 

decades and possibly never happen except to a very limited extent for niche markets. Large, strategically located, energy plantations are ultimately envisaged in 

which waste biomass acquisition and virgin biomass production systems are integrated with conversion systems and operated as analogs of petroleum refineries to 

afford flexible slates of multiple products from multiple feedstocks. Unfortunately, 

relatively large amounts of capital and inducements are required to convince the 

private sector to get involved in developing even modest size projects in the field. 

So to help implement this essential program, BERA includes the BBI as a line-item 

in its annual testimony. 

BERA also continues to recommend that implementation of the BBI should include identification of each Federal agency that provides funding related to biomass 

energy development and each agency’s programs and expenditures, as is done by the 

DOE and USDA today. This is an on-going activity that should be expanded to include other agencies and departments to help fine-tune the critical pathways to program goals. Continuous analysis of the information compiled should enable the coordination of all federally funded biomass energy programs through the BRDB to 

facilitate new starts focused on high priority targets, and help to avoid duplication 

of efforts, unnecessary expenditures, and continuation of projects that have been 

completed or that do not target program goals. Full implementation of the BBI will 

enhance the value of the Federal expenditures on biomass research to the country 

in many different ways. 

BERA RECOMMENDATIONS

BERA’s recommendations consist of a balanced program of mission-oriented 

RD&D on conversion research and technology transfer to the private sector. Advanced conversion processes and power generation technologies, alternative liquid 

transportation fuels, and hydrogen-from-biomass processes are emphasized. Biomass 

production RD&D for energy uses is expected to be done by the USDA. 

BERA continues to recommend that at least 50 percent of the Federal funds appropriated for biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-up projects, are used 

to sustain a national biomass science and technology base via sub-contracts for industry and universities. While it is desirable for the national laboratories to coordinate this research, increased support for U.S. scientists and engineers in industry, 

academe, and research institutes that are unable to fund biomass research will encourage commercialization of emerging technologies and serious consideration of 

new ideas. It will also help to expand the professional development and expertise 

of researchers committed to the advancement of biomass technologies. 

Although progress has been made, EERE has terminated research in several critical thermochemical and microbial conversion areas. BERA believes that a balanced 

program of high-priority research should be sustained and protected, so we continue 

to recommend both a diversified portfolio of research and an appropriate amount of 
470 

funding for scale-up without diminishing either EERE’s R&D or scale-up programs. 

BERA’s specific dollar allocations are listed in the table on page 3. Additional commentary on each program area is presented on pages 3, 4 and 5. Other mission-oriented biomass RD&D programs are funded through EERE’s Industrial Technologies 

Program by the Interior and Related Agencies Bill. DOE’s basic research on biomass 

energy outside of EERE by the Office of Science, which supports academic research, 

should be designed to complement EERE’s mission-oriented biomass RD&D and the 

BBI. 

ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDED BY BERA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

BERA recommends that the appropriations for biomass RD&D in fiscal year 2005 

be allocated as shown in the accompanying table. For fiscal year 2005, EERE has 

again incorporated revisions in nomenclature and has zeroed-out, consolidated, or 

moved some programs within EERE. So our recommendations are generally listed 

in the same order as the funding requests under EERE’s headings and program 

area titles except several program areas are included that are either new or that 

BERA recommends be restored to maintain a balanced program. Note that the recommended budgets for the demonstration projects do not include industry cost-sharing, which is required to be a minimum of 50 percent of each project cost. BERA 

recommends that funds for the BBI be used for these scale-up projects after evaluating the projected contribution of each project to the BBI’s goals. New projects 

should not be started until this is done. 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy Program Area 

Recommended Budget for 

Research Scale-Up 

Biomass/Biorefinery Systems: 

Feedstock Infrastructure ............. Harvesting Equipment/Storage/Logistics ............ $2,000,000 ........................

Platforms R&D ............................ Thermochemical Conversion: 

Advanced Combustion & Controls .................. 2,000,000 ........................

Oxygenates from Syngas ................................ 4,000,000 ........................

Liquid Fuels from Pyrolysis ............................ 4,000,000 ........................

Chemicals from Syngas & Pyrolysis ............... 3,000,000 ........................

Bioconversion: 

Pretreatment and Hydrolysis .......................... 4,000,000 ........................

Organisms and Enzymes ................................ 4,000,000 ........................

Fermentation (Ethanol) ................................... 4,000,000 ........................

Fermentation (Methane) ................................. 1,000,000 ........................

Utilization of Platform Outputs ........... Integration of Biorefinery Technologies: 

Thermochemical Conversion: 

Small Modular Power Generation 2 ............ ........................ $2,000,000 

Biomass Cofiring Power Generation 2 ........ ........................ 2,000,000 

Oxygenates and Mixed Alcohols 2 ............... ........................ 5,000,000 

Bioconversion: 

Ethanol from Cellulosics 2 .......................... ........................ 5,000,000 

Value-Added Products 2 .............................. ........................ 5,000,000 

State-Industry Partnerships ................. Biorefinery Systems Development: 3

Design Optimization, Efficiencies ................... 3 1,000,000 ........................

Product Slates, Economics, Markets .............. 3 1,000,000 ........................

Siting, Acquisition, Construction .................... 3 2,000,000 3 20,000,000 

Operations ....................................................... ........................ 3 10,000,000 

State & Regional Partnerships ........................... 0 5,000,000 

Subtotal .................................. .............................................................................. 32,000,000 54,000,000 

Hydrogen Technology 1 ......................... Thermal Processes (Reforming) .......................... 500,000 1,000,000 

Photolytic Processes (Algae) ............................... 1,000,000 ........................

Innovative Conversion Processes ........................ 4,000,000 0 

Subtotal .................................. .............................................................................. 5,500,000 1,000,000 

Totals ...................................... .............................................................................. 37,500,000 55,000,000 

Grand Total ............................. .............................................................................. ........................ 92,500,000 

1 BERA’s recommendations pertain only to the biomass-based portion of Hydrogen Technology. 

2 BERA’s recommendations should be used for scale-up at the PDU and pilot-plant scales, preferably with industry cost-sharing. 

3 All demonstration projects should be cost-shared with industry and state participation. 
471 

Feedstock Infrastructure, Harvesting Equipment, Storage, and Logistics.—DOE 

terminated biomass production research a few years ago and is concentrating on infrastructure development, including novel systems for collecting agricultural residues, the analysis of sustainable feedstock systems, and regional and national costsupply relationships. In fiscal year 2005, EERE plans to continue work on the harvesting and logistics roadmap, the sustainability roadmap, and policy considerations, and is expected to include work on one-pass harvesting systems for wheat 

straw and corn stover, innovative densification and storage systems, and regional 

modeling that integrates economic and environmental considerations. BERA recommends that EERE continues to develop the feedstock infrastructure, while the 

USDA Forest Service initiates and continues RD&D on woody biomass for energy. 

Platforms R&D, Thermochemical Conversion.—Continuation of thermochemical 

conversion R&D to develop advanced biomass combustion and gasification methods 

could have environmental and economic benefits that can lead to significant growth 

in power generation from waste biomass and combined energy recovery-disposal 

methods for certain kinds of high-moisture waste biomass such as biosolids (municipal sewage), and for MSW, agricultural residues, and wood wastes. Most of this research has been phased out by EERE. Completion of the development of mediumBtu biomass gasification technologies is also an essential component for the production of fuel gases including synthesis gas (syngas) and hydrogen, power, and chemicals. BERA recommends restoration of this R&D with the goal of developing the 

next generation of advanced combustion and gasification processes for power generation. 

Several thermochemical conversion methods are available for liquefaction of waste 

and virgin biomass feedstocks to afford storable liquid fuels and chemicals. Included 

among them are the catalytic conversion of syngas from biomass to liquid products 

such as ethanol, mixed alcohols, and other oxygenates; the catalytic hydrogenation 

of biomass and biomass derivatives such as natural oils and waste triglycerides for 

the direct production high-cetane diesel fuels; and biomass liquefaction under supercritical conditions of pressure and/or temperature in aqueous media. These technologies offer a wide range of options for liquefaction of all categories of waste and 

virgin biomass. Note also that syngas production from biomass is established technology, and that several processes are commercially available. For several years, 

BERA has recommended that EERE support thermochemical liquefaction processes. 

This should have been a key component of EERE’s research, but has been a minimally funded R&D effort, particularly when compared with the effort expended on 

other conversion technologies. It is noteworthy that EERE has significantly increased this activity for fiscal year 2005. 

The pyrolysis of biomass, or its thermal decomposition in the absence of oxygen, 

yields a large number of gaseous, liquid, and solid products. Hardwood feedstocks 

were used commercially until the 1930’s to manufacture fuel gases, solvents, chemicals, fuel oils, and charcoal. Because of the continuously increasing prices of natural 

gas and crude oils, a few small-scale commercial biomass pyrolysis systems have recently been installed and operated under innovative conditions that increase product 

flexibility to yield cost-competitive products. BERA recommends that R&D on both 

waste and virgin biomass pyrolysis be added to EERE’s program to help perfect advanced processes. It is encouraging to note that pyrolytic oils have been added to 

EERE’s project roster for fiscal year 2005. All of the basic data compiled at DOE 

on biomass pyrolysis in the 1970’s and 1980’s should be reexamined in this work. 

BERA urges that thermochemical conversion R&D for both biomass liquefaction 

and gasification processes be restored, expanded, and continued and be given a 

higher priority by EERE. 

Platforms R&D, Bioconversion.—The goal of achieving efficient hydrolysis of lowcost cellulosic feedstocks to obtain the sugars and of simultaneous conversion of the 

resulting pentoses and hexoses to fermentation ethanol requires the use of special 

processes for producing genetically engineered organisms and cellulase systems at 

acceptable costs and performance on a commercial scale. Research by industry and 

academe should continue to perfect these technologies for incorporation into the 

overall conversion systems used for these processes. This will ensure that the best 

possible skills and technologies are brought to bear. 

Methane fermentation (anaerobic digestion) is unique in that it produces methane, the major component in natural gas, at high concentrations in the medium-Btu 

product gas from a full range of virgin and waste biomass. DOE has terminated 

most of this research, which can lead to advanced waste disposal-energy recovery 

processes as well as the alleviation of numerous environmental problems encountered during waste treatment in urban communities and agricultural facilities. This 

research should be restored. 
472 

Bioconversion is useful for converting a variety of biomass and derivatives to a 

wide range of commodity or high-value organic chemicals and polymers. The use of 

selected microbial populations is in fact the only practical route to certain types of 

chemicals and polymers. An exploratory program to advance this technology is a 

natural adjunct to DOE’s on-going Bioconversion R&D. BERA recommends that part 

of this research effort should focus on this field. 

Utilization of Platform Outputs, Integration of Biorefinery Technologies, 

Thermochemical Conversion and Bioconversion.—BERA recommends that this effort 

utilize the best available information produced by the Platforms R&D programs for 

testing, confirming, and perfecting the conversion technologies at the PDU and pilotplant scales shown in the table on page 3. This will generate the information needed 

to support the design, construction, and operation of demonstration facilities under 

State-Industry Partnerships, Biorefinery Systems Development (see following section). 

Commentary on the value of intermediate scale process R&D is in order. For example, several projects performed at semi-commercial plant scales or that involved 

modules of commercial plants have been funded to develop processes for converting 

low-cost cellulosic feedstocks to fermentation ethanol. Unfortunately, the results of 

this effort have not led to operating systems despite the excessive time and relatively large budgets that have been provided to conduct the work. It is apparent 

that although the science is feasible, the scale-up projects have not yet been successful. But it is still important to commercialize this technology to help reduce the cost 

of fermentation ethanol. Intermediate-scale projects such as those conducted at the 

PDU and pilot-plant scales can more readily focus on efficient development of the 

critical information and operating data needed to overcome or eliminate existing 

scale-up barriers. It is also essential that integrated feedstock acquisition-biorefinery systems be designed and built using this information for demonstration in 

the field on a sustainable basis. The pathways to successful development of these 

systems are in hand now. They should be implemented. 

State-Industry Partnerships, Biorefinery Systems Development.—Overall, this program component should focus on the ultimate objective of sustainable operation of 

biorefineries integrated with biomass acquisition systems in relatively large field 

demonstration facilities (energy plantations). This effort should address siting, plant 

design, financing, permitting, construction, environmental controls, waste processing 

and disposal, and sustained operations; feedstock selection, transport, storage, and 

delivery; all waste disposal and emissions issues; and storage and delivery of the 

salable products to market. BERA recommends that industrial partners and States 

be carefully selected for participation in this cost-shared program. This work should 

be given the highest priority. BERA recommends that the funds for the BBI provided by Congress should be used for this effort. Long-range planning is essential 

to ensure that each project has a high probability of success and lays the groundwork for continued installation of similar systems by the private sector. Since only 

a minimal effort has been conducted to date in the United States on this type of 

program, BERA recommends that the first demonstration facility target the acquisition of waste and/or virgin biomass feedstocks for conversion into electricity, liquid 

and gaseous fuels, and chemicals. Existing moderate- and large-scale facilities from 

terminated and continuing EERE projects, such as biomass cofiring, gasification, liquefaction, and fermentation, should be carefully examined to determine whether one 

or more are suitable for these projects. The partnerships should be in place at the 

start of each demonstration project. 

State and Regional Partnerships (Formerly Regional Biomass Energy Program).— 

The Regional Biomass Energy Program (RBEP) was a model outreach program for 

more than 20 years. No other DOE program had the information transfer role, capabilities, level of experience, or widespread networks of the RBEP, nor has there been 

a partnership program so closely affiliated with the highest levels of State and regional government energy organizations. DOE has replaced the RBEP with a new 

program, State and Regional Partnerships (SRP), that will involve collaboration 

with States on technology transfer, research, development, field testing, and other 

needed efforts to overcome market barriers. BERA feels that RBEP can provide a 

strong foundation for the SRP, and that adequate funding should be provided to sustain the new SRP because of the history and successful track record of the RBEP. 

Hydrogen Technology.—Research on the thermal reforming of biomass and on 

splitting water with algae, should be continued. In addition, innovative conversion 

methods such as the use of anaerobic digestion under ambient conditions and catalytic and non-catalytic thermochemical gasification under certain operating conditions that minimize methane formation while maximizing hydrogen formation 

should be studied. These technologies may lead to low-cost hydrogen production 

methods. 
473 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

ABOUT THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) is one of the Nation’s preeminent institutions for scientific research and public education. Since its founding 

in 1869, the Museum has pursued its mission to ‘‘discover, interpret, and disseminate—through scientific research and education—knowledge about human cultures, 

the natural world, and the universe.’’ It is renowned for its exhibitions and collections of more than 32 million specimens and cultural artifacts. With nearly 4 million 

annual visitors—approximately half of them children—its audience is one of the 

largest and most diverse of any museum in the country. Museum scientists conduct 

groundbreaking research in fields ranging from all branches of zoology, comparative 

genomics, and bioinformatics to earth, space, and environmental sciences and biodiversity conservation. Their work forms the basis for all the Museum’s activities 

that seek to explain complex issues and help people to understand the events and 

processes that created and continue to shape the Earth, life and civilization on this 

planet, and the universe beyond. 

More than 200 Museum scientists, led by 46 curators, conduct laboratory and collections-based research programs as well as fieldwork and training. Scientists in five 

divisions (Anthropology; Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences; Invertebrate Zoology; 

Paleontology; and Vertebrate Zoology) are sequencing DNA and creating new computational tools to retrace the evolutionary tree, documenting changes in the environment, making new discoveries in the fossil record, and describing human culture 

in all its variety. The Museum also conducts undergraduate, graduate, and 

postdoctoral training programs in conjunction with a host of distinguished universities. 

The AMNH collections are a major resource for Museum scientists as well as for 

more than 250 national and international visiting scientists each year. They often 

include endangered and extinct species as well as many of the only known ‘‘type 

specimens,’’ or examples of species by which all other finds are compared. Collections such as these are historical libraries of expertly identified and documented examples of species and artifacts, providing an irreplaceable record of life on earth. 

The Museum interprets the work of its scientists, highlights its collections, addresses current scientific and cultural issues, and promotes public understanding of 

science through its renowned permanent and temporary exhibits as well as its comprehensive education programs. These programs attract more than 400,000 students 

and teachers and more than 5,000 teachers for professional development opportunities. The Museum also takes its resources beyond its walls through the National 

Center for Science Literacy, Education, and Technology, launched in 1997 in partnership with NASA. 

SUPPORT FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCIENCE MISSION AND GOALS

As one of the world’s leading science organizations, DOE’s primary strategic goals 

include maintaining a world class scientific research capability and protecting the 

Nation’s security. Its science program supports fundamental research in energy, 

matter, and the basic forces of nature and the advanced computational tools critical 

to research. The American Museum shares DOE’s fundamental commitments to cutting-edge research and technology in support of science and education. 

Genomic Science 

DOE’s scientific leadership encompasses genomics research and advanced sequencing technologies. With the historic completion of the first draft of the human 

genome, work on the frontiers of genome science continues as a critical element of 

the DOE mission, not only by helping to protect against bio-terrorism but also by 

contributing to the broad goal of developing ‘‘a fundamental, comprehensive, and 

systematic understanding of life.’’ DOE focus areas include research in energy-related biology, comparative genomics, organisms’ responses to biological and environmental cues, and experimental and computational approaches to predictive understanding of microbes and microbial communities. The Genomes to Life program is 

based on the understanding that genomes, especially those of the simplest organisms, provide a window into the basic mechanics of life. The program addresses 

energy, environmental, and national security needs and also promises advances in 

medical treatment. 

The American Museum is home to a preeminent molecular research program and 

is deeply engaged in genome research closely tied to DOE’s mission areas and research priorities. In the era of genomics, museum collections have become critical 

baseline resources for the assessment of genetic diversity of natural populations. 
474 

Studying genomic data in a natural history context makes it possible to more fully 

understand the impacts of new discoveries in genomics and molecular biology. 

Frozen Tissue Collection 

The Museum offers unique research resources in support of its molecular program. It has expanded its collections to include biological tissues and isolated DNA 

preserved in a super-cold storage facility. Because this collection preserves genetic 

material and gene products from rare and endangered organisms that may become 

extinct before science fully exploits their potential, it is an invaluable research resource in many fields, including genetics, comparative genomics, and biodefense. Capable of housing 1 million specimens, it will be the largest super-cold tissue collection of its kind. Since it was launched 3 years ago, 22,000 specimens not available 

at any other institute or facility have already been accessioned. 

Cluster Computing 

DOE science programs are committed to ‘‘providing extraordinary tools for extraordinary science.’’ The Museum, too, is a leader in developing computational 

tools, as parallel computing is an essential enabling technology for phylogenetic (evolutionary) analysis and intensive, efficient sampling of a wide array of study organisms. Museum scientists have constructed an in-house 700-processor computing facility that is the fastest parallel computing cluster in an evolutionary biology laboratory and one of the fastest installed in a non-defense environment. Their pioneering 

efforts in cluster computing, algorithm development, and evolutionary theory have 

been widely recognized and commended for their broad applicability for biology as 

a whole. The bioinformatics tools Museum scientists are creating will not only help 

to generate evolutionary scenarios, but also will inform and make more efficient 

large genome sequencing efforts. Many of the parallel algorithms and implementations (especially cluster-based) will be applicable in other informatics contexts such 

as annotation and assembly, breakpoint analysis, and non-genomic areas of evolutionary biology and other disciplines. 

Institute of Comparative Genomics 

Building on its strengths in comparative genomics, and in concert with the scientific goals of DOE, in 2001 the Museum established an Institute for Comparative 

Genomics so as to contribute its unique resources and expertise to the Nation’s 

genomic research enterprise. The Institute is positioned to be one of the world’s premier research facilities for mapping the genome across a comprehensive spectrum 

of life forms. 

The Institute has already established a record of significant research achievements. These include obtaining a patent for an innovative approach to analyzing 

microarray data that will facilitate improved diagnoses of diseases such as cancer 

and development of drugs to treat such diseases; developing computational techniques to analyze chromosomal sequence data; building a comprehensive database 

of all known finished and incomplete genomes of microbial species; developing effective methods of culturing difficult to culture species as well as new methods for obtaining embryos for antibody staining; conducting whole genome analysis of disease 

causing microorganisms to understand the evolutionary changes that take place in 

a genome to make it more or less virulent; and developing phylogenetic techniques 

to advance understanding of bacterial genomics and the evolution of pathogenicity. 

Institute scientists have also won major grants to lead international research teams 

in assembling the ‘‘tree of life.’’ 

The Institute’s research programs are complemented by an ambitious agenda of 

genomics-related exhibitions, conferences, and public education programming, including the landmark exhibition, The Genomic Revolution in 2001. Education and 

afterschool programs introduce students to genome science, and the Museum has 

held several international conferences on important genomics topics: Sequencing the 

Human Genome: New Frontiers in Science and Technology, in Fall 2000; Conservation Genetics in the Age of Genomics in Spring 2001; New Directions in Cluster 

Computing in June 2001; and in 2002, an international meeting to examine current 

knowledge of life’s history, Assembling the Tree of Life: Science, Relevance, and 

Challenges. The March 2004 symposium presents Expanding the Ark: The Emerging Science and Practice of Invertebrate Conservation. 

As it moves forward, the Institute, working in cooperation with New York’s outstanding biomedical research and educational institutions, is focusing on molecular 

and microbial systematics, on constructing large genomic databases, and on expanding our understanding of the evolution of life on earth and the evolution of critical 

organismal form and function through analysis of the genomes of selected microbes 

and other non-human organisms. Development of Institute activities entails expanding expertise in microbial systematics and the molecular laboratory program that 
475 

now trains dozens of graduate students every year; utilizing the latest sequencing 

technologies; employing parallel computing applications that allow scientists to solve 

combinatorially complex problems involving large real world datasets; and developing of K–12 curriculum materials, scientific conferences, and exhibits. 

As the foregoing makes clear, the research interests and expertise of DOE and 

the Museum are closely aligned in key areas pertinent to the agency’s biological and 

environmental research, including comparative and microbial genomics, 

bioinformatics, and computational science. We are mutually committed to the importance to humans of nonhuman organisms’ DNA sequences, to developing the computational tools to integrate and understand data, and to modeling complex biological systems. We seek a partnership with DOE to further these mutual goals, advancing projects such as the following: 

—New strategies for studying complex microbial communities.—Investigations into 

the molecular characterization and phylogenic analysis of genes involved in 

biofilm formation to offer new insights into the formation, properties, and evolution of microbial communities. 

—New approaches to bioinformatics and algorithm development.—Using statistical 

physics analogues to model NP-hard problems in evolutionary tree construction 

in order ultimately to aid in the design of novel approaches to long-standing biological problems and generate new insights into the processes of interest to 

DOE. 

—New strategies for characterizing microbial communities in nature.—Analysis of 

samples of uncultured microbial communities, stored in the Museum’s frozen 

tissue collection at temperatures that preserve nucleic acids and proteins, to 

complement field analysis, and to provide access for the scientific community to 

this information through the collection’s database and informatics tools. 

The Museum requests $3 million to partner with DOE and to employ the unique 

capacities of the Institute of Comparative Genomics for advancing shared research 

and education priorities in genomics science. The Institute’s comparative and microbial research programs support DOE’s biological and environmental research function (the BER account); and its diverse strengths and unique resources in comparative genomics will help to further DOE’s goals for building a scientific research capacity to enable advances and discoveries in DOE science through world-class research. The Museum intends to support the Institute with funds from non-Federal 

as well as Federal sources and proposes to use the requested $3 million towards 

overall costs for the Institute’s microbial genomics research program, including 

equipping the molecular laboratories to accommodate additional senior scientists, 

graduate and postdoctoral trainees; upgrading instrumentation with the latest highthroughput technology; and scientific outreach and dissemination via website, online 

databases, and other means. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW

JERSEY

The following is the testimony of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New 

Jersey (UMDNJ), the largest freestanding public university of the health sciences 

in the Nation. The University is located on five State-wide campuses and contains 

three medical schools, and schools of dentistry, nursing, health related professions, 

public health and graduate biomedical sciences. UMDNJ also comprises a University-owned acute care hospital, three core teaching hospitals, an integrated behavioral healthcare delivery system, and affiliations with more than 200 health care 

and educational institutions State-wide. 

We appreciate the opportunity to bring to your attention our priority projects that 

are consistent with the biomedical research mission of the Department of Energy. 

These projects are State-wide in scope and include collaborations both within the 

University system and with our affiliates. 

Our first priority is the development of the Regional Biocontainment Laboratory 

at UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School in Newark. The 2001 terrorist attacks on the 

United States, the release of anthrax through the United States mail, and the proliferation of biological weapons materials and technologies have resulted in an unprecedented sense of urgency for greater bioterrorism preparedness. In 2003 the 

NIH-National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) selected the 

Northeast BioDefense Center (NBC), a consortium of research organizations spread 

across four States, as one of eight Regional Centers of Excellence for BioDefense and 

Emerging Infectious Diseases Research. Scientists at UMDNJ, along with researchers at Rutgers University and the Public Health Research Institute, are key part-
476 

ners in helping the NBC frame practical solutions to public health threats emanating from both bioterror and emerging infectious diseases. 

Following NIAID’s designation of the Northeast BioDefense Center as a Regional 

Center of Excellence, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School was awarded almost $21 

million from the NIH to build a 13,000-square-foot regional biocontainment (Bio 

Safety Level-3) laboratory at the International Center for Public Health (ICPH) in 

Newark, New Jersey. NIH views the construction of the regional biocontainment 

laboratories as critical components of the planned network of extramural Regional 

Centers of Excellence to accelerate research on the highly dangerous and infectious 

pathogens in the biodefense field. 

This new BSL–3 facility augments two other existing laboratory facilities at the 

ICPH and on the UMDNJ Newark campus, and once operational, will bring the 

total BSL–3 space in Newark to 21,500 square feet, creating one of the largest focal 

points of containment space in the country. Of the 208 scientists participating in 

the NBC program, more than 50 percent work within 25 miles of Newark. The construction of the laboratory will allow a critical mass of biodefense scientists to be 

assembled in Newark, forming the heart of biodefense and infectious disease research in the region. The strategic location of the new laboratory is well suited to 

provide infrastructure support to regional public health agencies in the event of a 

national bioterrorism emergency. UMDNJ respectfully seeks $10 million in targeted 

appropriations to supplement the NIAID award as the received funds do not fully 

provide for the laboratory’s construction. 

Our second priority is the development of the Child Health Institute of New Jersey at UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS) in New Brunswick. 

As part of the State’s public higher education system, the medical school encompasses 21 basic science and clinical departments and integrates diverse clinical programs conducted at 34 hospital affiliates and numerous ambulatory care sites in the 

region. RWJMS ranks among the top one-third of medical schools in the Nation in 

terms of grant support per faculty member. It is home to The Cancer Institute of 

New Jersey, the only NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in New Jersey; 

The Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine; the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, one of the leading environmental health programs in the country; and the Child Health Institute of New Jersey. 

The mission of the Child Health Institute is to build a comprehensive biomedical 

research center focused on the health and wellness of children. In this program, 

medical researchers direct efforts towards the prevention and cure of environmental 

and genetic diseases of infants and children at molecular and cellular levels. 

The Child Health Institute will be the cornerstone institution of a major research 

and clinical effort to understand, prevent and treat childhood diseases. It is integral 

to the long-term plan for the enhancement of research at UMDNJ–RWJMS in developmental genetics, particularly as it relates to disorders that affect a child’s development and growth, physically and cognitively. The program will enable the medical 

school to expand and strengthen basic research efforts with clinical departments at 

the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital (RWJUH) and, in particular, those involved with the new Bristol-Myers Squibb Children’s Hospital at RWJUH, especially 

obstetrics, pediatrics, neurology, surgery and psychiatry. The construction of the 

Child Health Institute at RWJMS will fill a critical gap through the expansion, by 

new recruitment, of a intellectual base upon which basic molecular programs in 

child development and health will build. 

At the Child Health Institute, research will serve as the basis for new treatments, 

therapies and cures for such devastating and debilitating childhood syndromes as 

asthma, autism, diabetes, muscular dystrophy, birth defects and neuro-developmental disorders. Research will focus on the molecular and genetic mechanisms 

which direct the development of human form, subsequent growth, and acquisition 

of function. Broadly, the faculty and students will investigate disorders that occur 

during the process of development to discover and study the genes contributing to 

developmental disabilities and childhood diseases; to determine how genes and the 

environment interact to cause childhood diseases; and to identify the causes and 

possible avenues of treatment of cognitive disorders broadly found among conditions 

such as mental retardation, autism and related neurological disorders. 

Research at the Child Health Institute will focus on molecular mechanisms of 

early embryonic development, a natural, but vulnerable, water-based environment. 

Normal child development is a water dependent process, reflecting water quality, 

quantity and its ‘‘management’’ by cells and tissues. A critical component of the research infrastructure being developed within the Child Health Institute is an Imaging Core Facility. Through this facility researchers will be able to better visualize 

the dynamics of structures within cells and cells within developing tissues. Under-
477 

standing these dynamics is crucial to expanding knowledge of the processes involved 

in embryonic and later development. 

The Child Health Institute of New Jersey builds on existing significant strengths 

in genetic, environmental, and neurosciences research within the UMDNJ–RWJMS 

and associated joint programs with Rutgers University and other research institutes. For example, the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute 

(EOHSI) is a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) recognized center of excellence which investigates environmental influences on normal 

and disordered functions; The Cancer Institute of New Jersey (CINJ), a National 

Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, studies disordered cell 

growth; and the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine (CABM) characterizes gene structure and function. 

The CHI will act as a magnet for additional growth in research and healthcare 

program development in New Jersey. The Institute will encompass 150,000 gross 

square feet and will house more than 40 research laboratories and associated support facilities. Fourteen senior faculty will direct teams of M.D. and Ph.D. researchers, visiting scientists, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students and technicians, for 

a full complement of some 130 employees. Construction costs for the Institute are estimated to be approximately $72 million; 

approximately half of this figure is generally associated with local employment. At 

maturity, the Institute is expected to attract $7 to $9 million of new research funding annually. The Institute’s total annual operating budget is projected to be $10 

to $12 million, with total economic impact on the New Brunswick area projected to 

be many times this amount. The Child Health Institute has assembled more than $40 million to fund its building and programs through a strong partnership among private, corporate and government entities. The support of the Congress has resulted in more than $6 million 

in directed appropriations for the CHI over the past 4 years, including appropriations from this committee in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. We respectfully seek $2 million to complement support already received in Federal participation to further advance the development of the Child Health Institute 

of New Jersey. Requested funding will be utilized for the purchase of analytical 

equipment, including laser scanning and photon microscopes for the Imaging Core 

Facility within the Child Health Institute. 

Support is also requested in fiscal year 2005 to enable the Informatics Institute 

of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey to recruit additional faculty and build core research facilities for modern drug discovery. This initiative will 

strengthen the University’s graduate program in bioinformatics that is training the 

next generation of scientists in the field, and will accelerate the work of UMDNJ 

scientists to convert research findings into novel drug candidates. 

Bioinformatics is revolutionizing biomedical research by integrating mathematics, 

computer science, molecular biology and genetics. Scientists use bioinformatics to 

accelerate the discovery of new drugs and vaccines for the prevention and treatment 

of many diseases. The Informatics Institute was established in 2001 to strengthen 

informatics-driven activities at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and to forge new academic/industry partnerships in this emerging area. The 

University’s first graduate program in bioinformatics, funded by a $2.3 million grant 

from the State of New Jersey, is helping to meet a critical shortage of skilled workers in bioinformatics and related disciplines. 

Academic collaborations already established by the Informatics Institute are advancing priority Federal goals in homeland security and the discovery of cures and 

treatments for major diseases. Partnerships forged by the Institute complement and 

enhance significant Federal resources that have strengthened UMDNJ’s centers of 

excellence in biodefense and infectious disease research, cancer research and treatment, environmental health and toxicology, and biomedical polymer engineering. 

UMDNJ presently supports a broad array of research programs engaged in the 

discovery and characterization of potential drug targets (genes, proteins). However, 

the full value of these substantial research accomplishments is often lost, due to the 

absence of capacity for translating these targets into novel drug candidates. This capability can be provided only through major investment in resources for modern 

drug discovery: bioinformatics, computer-aided molecular modeling and design, medicinal chemistry, and high-throughput synthesis and screening of drug candidates. 

The opportunity is especially compelling in New Jersey, which is home for 15 of the 

world’s largest pharmaceutical companies and more than 150 biotechnology companies and which ranks highest in per capita number of scientists and engineers in 

the Nation. 

The sustained growth of our graduate program and other informatics initiatives 

requires a major investment in computational facilities and the recruitment of addi-
478 

tional bioinformatics faculty and staff. We respectfully seek Federal participation of 

$6 million in fiscal year 2005 to recruit additional bioinformatics and medicinal 

chemistry faculty and postdoctoral researchers, and to build core research facilities 

for modern drug discovery. 

We thank this committee for its strong support of biomedical research and for the 

University’s programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTOR

COALITION FOR OPERATION CLEAN AIR’S SUSTAINABLE INCENTIVE PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the California Government and Private Sector Coalition for Operation Clean Air’s (OCA) Sustainable 

Incentive Program, we are pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our fiscal year 2005 funding request of $11,000,000 for OCA as part of a Federal match for the $180 million already contributed by California State and local 

agencies and the private sector for incentive programs. This request consists of 

$11,000,000 from DOE for alternative fuels and utility infrastructure funding. 

California’s great San Joaquin Valley is in crisis. Home to over 3.3 million people, 

its 25,000 square miles now has the unhealthiest air in the country. Even Los Angeles, long known as the smog capital of the Nation, can boast better air quality by 

certain standards. While peak concentrations of air pollutants are still greater in 

Los Angeles, for the past 4 years, the San Joaquin Valley has exceeded Los Angeles 

in violations of the ozone 8-hour Federal health standard. 

A combination of geography, topography, meteorology, tremendous population 

growth, urban sprawl and a NAFTA corridor of two major highways with over 5 million diesel truck miles per day, have collided to produce an air basin in which over 

300,000 people, nearly 10 percent of the population, suffer from chronic breathing 

disorders. In Fresno County, at the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, more than 16 

percent of all children suffer from asthma, a rate substantially higher than any 

other place in California. The extreme summertime heat creates smog even though 

smog-forming gases are less than half the amount in the Los Angeles basin. There 

is no prevailing wind to flush the natural geologic bathtub and, as a result, pollutants and particulates stagnate, accumulate, and create unhealthy air. 

Degradation of human health is not the only consequence of poor quality air. In 

December 2003, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Board decided 

to become the first Air District in the Nation to voluntarily declare itself an ‘‘extreme’’ non-attainment area. This designation, if approved by USEPA, will defer 

until 2010 the date for attainment of Federal standards of air quality, but comes 

at a cost of imposing permitting on thousands of more businesses and even further 

discouraging business expansion or relocation. More Valley’s businesses will be required to obtain permits and comply with increasingly burdensome regulations imposed by Federal and State law and the Air Pollution Control District, resulting in 

added cost in compliance, reporting and record keeping. At the same time, the area 

is burdened by chronic unemployment rates of nearly 20 percent. Encouraging business expansion in or relocation to the San Joaquin Valley to combat unemployment 

will be extremely difficult in the face of such regulatory burdens. 

The San Joaquin Valley is home to the most productive agricultural land in the 

world. Over 350 crops are produced commercially on 28,000 farms encompassing 

more than 5 million irrigated acres. While the agricultural industry has made great 

strides at considerable expense to replace old diesel engines and manage fugitive 

dust and other emissions, farming does contribute to the problem. However, it is a 

$14 billion industry that forms the backbone of the Valley’s economy, and its vitality 

is crucial. 

Industry alone is not the source of the Valley’s poor air quality. Population growth 

rates exceeding those in the rest of the State and most of the Nation, in an area 

without effective mass transit, where cheap land has led to a landscape of suburbia 

and sprawl, results in excessive over-reliance on the automobile. Trucking has increased dramatically with the increase in population, and Federal free trade policies. Other factors such as fireplace burning in the winter, open field agricultural 

burning because of lack of sufficient alternatives, and wild fires resulting from lack 

of controlled burning in the nearby foothills and mountains all contribute to the 

problem. 

Despite the challenges listed above, much progress has been made. The State has 

spent nearly $80 million on improvement and compliance programs. Local government and private industry have spent over $100 million on technology and compliance. As specific examples, over one-half of the diesel operated irrigation pumps 

used by agriculture have been replaced with cleaner engines. The City of Tulare has 
479 

converted its entire fleet of vehicles to natural gas as have several other private 

fleet operators. A $45 million federally financed comprehensive study of ozone and 

particulate matter is nearing completion. As a result, the number of 1-hour EPA 

health standard exceedences has been reduced by 40 percent since 1989. 

But much more needs to be done. The District estimates that daily emissions 

must be reduced by 300 tons to achieve attainment. There is no single or short-term 

quick fix. The entire Valley (an area the size of the State of Connecticut) is part 

of the problem and the entire Valley will need to be part of the solution. 

Operation Clean Air is a coalition of business, government, health care, and environmental groups throughout the eight-county San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District. Its goal is to clean the Valley’s air and increase its economic prosperity. The coalition seeks to catalogue efforts that have produced positive effects 

and identify those strategies that could produce even greater effects if supported by 

sufficient resources. At the heart of its efforts will be an array of sustainable, voluntary practices and activities that can and will be undertaken by all of the residents of the San Joaquin Valley, both public and private, to improve air quality. 

This unique public-private partnership has invested considerable resources in this 

project to date, and will continue to do so, but Federal funding is both imperative 

and justified to help address what is essentially an unfounded Federal mandate. 

For fiscal year 2005, our Coalition is seeking funding of $11,000,000 from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Supply Program for the installation and operation of alternative fuels infrastructure throughout the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basin. Infrastructure for both mobile and stationary engines is included and will 

allow for the accelerated introduction of alternatively fueled vehicles in municipal 

fleets, public school fleets, and private fleets as well as for stationary, agricultural 

irrigation pump engines in the rural areas. The widespread use of lower-emitting 

engines will provide significant improvement to air quality in the San Joaquin Valley while furthering the goals of the President’s National Energy Policy, which recommends enhancement of the supply of reliable energy while protecting our environment. OCA believes, like DOE, that there is direct applicability of alternative 

fuel (e.g. natural gas) engine expertise to the development and deployment of hydrogen power systems. OCA wants to see the San Joaquin Valley as the first area in 

the Nation for hydrogen infrastructure development and hydrogen vehicle deployment. This is in direct alignment with the Secretary’s long-term vision of a zero mission future, free of reliance on imported energy. Development of alternative fuel infrastructure will augment the low-emission vehicle program by providing much 

needed compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) fueling facilities. 

Thank you very much your consideration of our requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER

PROGRAM

DOE Inertial Confinement Fusion Program—DOE [National Nuclear Security 

Agency (NNSA)] Defense Programs for fiscal year 2005. 

BACKGROUND

The inertial confinement fusion (ICF) program is a key element in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) authorized by Public 

Law 103–160 to ‘‘establish a stewardship program to ensure the preservation of the 

core intellectual and technical competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons.’’ The OMEGA laser at the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser 

Energetics (LLE) is the principal laser research facility for the University and three 

national laboratories (Los Alamos, Sandia, and Livermore) for ICF and SSP experiments. LLE is the only facility that also trains significant numbers of graduate students in inertial fusion. The OMEGA laser, the highest-power ultraviolet fusion 

laser in the world, is the principal laser facility for SSP activities for DOE in fiscal 

year 2005 and for a number of years to come. The Secretary of Energy Advisory 

Board (SEAB) National Ignition Facility Laser System Task Force Report noted the 

importance of continuing scientific contact with ‘‘. . . the laser-based research at 

the University of Rochester.’’ 

LLE (since 1970) is the only ICF program that has been jointly supported by the 

Federal Government, State government, industry, utilities, and a university. LLE 

makes fundamental scientific contributions to the national program. The Laboratory 

transfers technology to the public and private sectors through the training of graduate students and interactions with industry and other Federal laboratories. The 
480 

Laboratory also serves as a National Laser Users’ Facility benefiting scientists 

throughout the country. 

The present primary mission of LLE’s research is to validate the direct-drive option for ICF intended for use on the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in order to 

demonstrate ignition and energy gain. DOE proclaimed that OMEGA is also needed 

to meet mission-critical requirements for ignition on NIF, and to conduct experiments to support the SSP mission, including some that are classified, in collaboration with the national laboratories. 

The OMEGA laser at LLE is the only operating experimental facility that can 

demonstrate the scientific potential of direct drive to provide a modest- to high-gain 

energy option for the Nation. For fiscal year 2005 funds are also requested to continue construction of the extended performance capability (EP) to the OMEGA facility and funds to continue to develop petawatt technologies for the national program. 

DOE has approved the mission need and purchase of long-lead procurements during 

fiscal year 2003, and approval of the final design is expected during fiscal year 2004. 

The Congress provided $20,000,000 to continue the OMEGA EP project in the fiscal 

year 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, which will significantly expand the research capabilities of the existing OMEGA facility. OMEGA EP 

provides the Nation with an enhanced capability to perform SSP experiments, to 

test high-gain ICF concepts, and to provide a premier high-intensity-laser interaction facility for the United States. The University of Rochester is providing a new 

building ($20 million) for the OMEGA EP project at no cost to the government. Because the new cost-shared facility will keep the research at the LLE technologically 

current, LLE will be able to continue to be a national and world leader in its field, 

and serve as an important, cost-effective support facility to assure the success of the 

NIF. This represents an unusually successful partnership among the private sector, 

academia, and the State and Federal governments. The OMEGA facility will be the 

only large laser implosion facility for NNSA in the United States until at least 2008 

when NIF construction is completed. 

REQUESTED ACTION

To provide the support for program deliverables and the operation and extension 

of OMEGA (for both ICF experiments and SSP experiments), and to maintain the 

related training programs at Rochester, a total of $69,469,000 for the University of 

Rochester for fiscal year 2005 is required. This amount includes $41,469,000 for operating funds and $4,000,000 for the OMEGA EP facility included in the administration’s request, and an additional $21,000,000 for the OMEGA extended performance capability, and $3,000,000 for petawatt technology development required to 

maintain the cost and schedule of the project. 

DISCUSSION

Thermonuclear fusion is the process by which nuclei of low atomic weight such 

as hydrogen combine to form higher atomic weight nuclei such as helium. In this 

process some of the mass of the original nuclei is lost and transformed to energy 

in the form of high-energy particles. Energy from fusion reactions is the most basic 

form of energy in the universe; our sun and all other stars produce energy by thermonuclear fusion reactions occurring in their interior. Fusion is also the process 

that provides the vast destructive power of thermonuclear weapons. The most significant long-term potential commercial application of fusion is the generation of 

electric power. 

To initiate fusion reactions, the fuel must be heated to tens of millions of degrees. 

In stellar bodies, containment is possible because of the large gravitational force. On 

earth, two approaches are being investigated to demonstrate controlled fusion: magnetic confinement fusion and inertial confinement fusion (ICF). ICF involves the 

heating and compression of fusion fuel by the action of intense laser or particle 

beam drivers. There are two approaches to ICF, direct and indirect drive: indirect 

drive involves the conversion of beam energy to X-rays to compress a fuel capsule 

in an enclosure called a hohlraum; direct drive involves the direct irradiation of 

spherical fuel capsules by energy from a laser and may be more energetically efficient than indirect drive. For either approach, if very extreme density and temperature conditions are produced, it is possible to produce many times more energy in 

these fusion reactions than the energy provided by the drivers. 

OMEGA EXTENDED PERFORMANCE (OMEGA EP) FACILITY AT UR/LLE

The University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics (UR/LLE) is the 

lead laboratory for direct-drive inertial confinement fusion (ICF) and is the location 

of the OMEGA laser facility. Only three facilities, OMEGA at Rochester, Z at 
481 

Sandia National Laboratory, and a few operating beamlines of NIF are available to 

conduct high-energy-density physics experiments in support of the Nation’s Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) and ICF. (In fiscal year 2003, over half of the 

OMEGA shots, 742, were for outside users, including 578 for the national laboratories.) OMEGA and the National Ignition Facility (NIF) under construction at the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are designed to support SSP and ICF by 

performing planar-target and spherical-implosion experiments at high laser irradiation intensities. Using high-energy, high-power lasers, a highly compressed core of 

deuterium-tritium fuel can be assembled that, with the full energy of NIF, will 

achieve controlled thermonuclear ignition and gain. (Ignition refers to initiating a 

self-sustaining fusion reaction, and gain refers to achieving more energy out of the 

reaction than was used to initiate it.) 

Three years ago UR/LLE proposed to construct a super-high-intensity, high-energy laser facility. DOE has approved the mission need and purchase of long-lead 

procurements in fiscal year 2003, and approval of the final design is expected during 

fiscal year 2004. The Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act provided $20,000,000 to continue this project. The project schedule and 

cost, based on actual funding received to date, are shown in the table below. The 

total cost ($82,000,000 in as-spent dollars) is unchanged from the previous request. 

The University of Rochester is providing a building, estimated to cost about 

$20,000,000 to house the new facility. The new building is under construction and 

is slated for completion by January 2005. 

OMEGA EP will significantly benefit SSP and ICF through the ability to produce 

intense photon, proton, and electron beams for radiography and by conducting experiments to test advanced computer codes relevant to nuclear weapons, basic 

science, and astrophysics. There are additional exciting basic science applications 

that enhance our national ability to attract and retain the scientific expertise required for the United States’ nuclear weapons program in the future. 

Super high-intensity, high-energy laser sources will significantly advance ignition 

physics. Very high intensities allow the ICP and SSP programs to test advanced 

concepts that can increase the gain of an ICF target. During the past year, LLE 

scientists have examined using NIF for direct drive (laser light directly drives the 

target). Calculations indicated that the gain is potentially at least three times larger 

than can be achieved using indirect drive (conversion of laser light to X-rays that 

drive the target). Since a conversion of laser light to X-rays is not required for direct 

drive, the efficiency of the process is higher. With direct drive, the target absorbs 

about five times more energy, and it is this increased energy that is responsible for 

the higher gain. 

OMEGA EP, when completed, will support the SSP and ICF programs. Concomitantly, with the delay of the NIF this added capability would contribute substantially to the critical need to recruit and retain graduate students, postdoctoral associates, University faculty members, and national laboratory scientists in areas of national need. 

OMEGA is the only facility capable of assembling an highly compressed deuterium-tritium core from a cryogenic target; it is the only location where advanced 

concepts for ignition and gain can be tested. Other advantages include (1) operating 

synergies with OMEGA will reduce operating costs, (2) UR/LLE has an established 

scientific user base, and (3) UR/LLE has a proven track record of delivering similarsized projects on time and on budget as well as operating and maintaining largescale laser systems. 

The construction time line and cost for this extended capability is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal Year 

2004 

Fiscal Year 

2005 

Fiscal Year 

2006 

Fiscal Year 

2007 

Design & Long Lead Procurement ....................... 13 .................... .................... .................... ....................

Procurement and Assembly ................................. .................... 20 25 .................... ....................

Integration & Commissioning .............................. .................... .................... .................... 17 7 

Total Project Cost.—$82,000,000 (OMEGA EP) plus $20,000,000 (building) plus 

$1,500,000 from New York State (auxiliary target chamber) equals $103,500,000. 

(This is for OMEGA EP, $82 million from the Federal Government, $20 million from 

the University, and $1.5 million from New York State. Not included is the operating 

and research cost that are included in the administration’s request annually.) 
482 

PREVIOUS FEDERAL FUNDING 

Amount 

Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation ........................................................................................................................... $63,132,000 

Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriation ........................................................................................................................... 47,878,800 

Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriation ........................................................................................................................... 34,693,000 

Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation ........................................................................................................................... 33,150,000 

REQUESTED ACTION

To provide the support for program deliverables and the operation and extension 

of OMEGA (for both ICF experiments and SSP experiments), and to maintain the 

related training programs at Rochester, a total of $69,469,000 for the University of 

Rochester for fiscal year 2005 is required. This amount includes $41,469,000 for operating funds and $4,000,000 for the OMEGA EP facility included in the administration’s request, an additional $21,000,000 for the OMEGA extended performance 

capability, and $3,000,000 for petawatt technology development required to maintain the cost and schedule of the project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ENERGY SCIENCES COALITION

Chairman Domenici, the Energy Sciences Coalition expresses its great appreciation for the leadership you have shown as chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. We applaud your vision of how the programs 

of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science will lead to research discoveries and 

technological developments benefiting this and future generations. We are requesting $3.8 billion for the Office in fiscal year 2005. 

The Energy Sciences Coalition is a broadly based organization representing scientists, engineers and mathematicians in universities, industry, professional societies, and national laboratories. We share your belief that the research supported 

by the Office of Science has and will make significant contributions to our Nation’s 

security and standard of living. 

The coalition supports the findings of several reviews of the programs of the Office 

of Science, and the pressing need to augment its funding. Last fall, Secretary Spencer Abraham’s Advisory Board released a report on the department’s science programs. This task force panel was chaired by MIT President Charles Vest, including 

the former president of the NASDAQ Stock Market; industry, university, and association CEOs; and senior policy analysts. Among their findings and conclusions are: 

‘‘America can be free, secure and economically strong in the 21st century only if 

we continue to excel in science and advanced technology.’’ ‘‘America can meet its energy needs if and only if we make a strong and sustained investment in research 

in physical science, engineering, and applicable areas of life science, and if we translate advancing scientific knowledge into practice.’’ ‘‘DOE science budgets have not 

received the priority merited by their importance to our Nation’s future energy, security, and economy.’’ ‘‘The federal investment in physical science and engineering 

has been stagnant for over thirty years. During this same period, the Department’s 

national laboratories have suffered from decay and deferred maintenance, and U.S. 

industry has largely phased out its basic research programs and organizations. As 

a result, the U.S. is no longer the clear leader in some important areas of science.’’ 

Groundbreaking research supported by the Office of Science is conducted in universities and other institutions across the United States. 

Our Nation benefits not only from the discoveries that will be made with this support, but also from the training of America’s next generation of researchers. Such 

training will be instrumental in maintaining our Nation’s technological superiority 

in the international marketplace. The Office of Science also plays an extremely important and unique role in the design, construction, and operation of large-scale 

user facilities used by researchers supported by the Department of Energy, National 

Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation. 

Enclosed please find a copy of the Energy Sciences Coalition’s fiscal year 2005 

funding statement. After carefully considering the President’s science goals in areas 

such as hydrogen energy, fusion, the human genome, climate change, and a review 

of the 20-year facilities and strategic plans, the Coalition recommends an increase 

in the budget for the Office of Science of not less than $350 million to a level over 

$3.8 billion. 
483 

In closing, I again express the coalition’s gratitude for the leadership that you and 

your colleagues have demonstrated in supporting the important work of the Office 

of Science. Please do not hesitate to contact me if the Coalition can be of any assistance. 

The Energy Sciences Coalition (ESC) supports the Department of Energy (DOE) 

Office of Science funding levels approved by both the House and Senate in their respective versions of the Energy Policy Act. These funding levels are easily justifiable 

given the tremendous scientific opportunities that currently exist, as well as the 

broad range of other science-related issues that the Office of Science is uniquely positioned to address. These opportunities, and the facilities and projects needed to 

achieve them, are well documented and outlined in both the Department’s 20-year 

scientific facilities plan released in November 2003 and the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board’s (SEAB) December 2003 report on DOE science. 

However, the Energy Sciences Coalition is also aware of the significant fiscal constraints facing the administration and Congress this year. Weighing the economic 

and national security value of investments in these science programs against current fiscal constraints, the Energy Sciences Coalition urges an fiscal year 2005 increase of not less than $350 million for the DOE Office of Science, bringing the total 

DOE Office of Science budget to a level over $3.8 billion. While significantly less 

than the fiscal year 2005 levels contained in the House and Senate passed energy 

policy bills cited above, this figure is similar to the funding levels these bills contained for fiscal year 2004. 

We believe that growth for the DOE Office of Science at a rate lower than 10 percent in fiscal year 2005 and in the next few years—a growth rate which is less than 

what is called for in the House and Senate authorization bills—will make it virtually impossible for the Department to move forward with the initiatives and recommendations outlined in the 20-year plan and by SEAB without severely damaging already existing and very successful DOE science programs. 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 ESC FUNDING STATEMENT ENDORSEES

American Chemical Society; American Institute of Physics; American Mathematical Society; American Physical Society; American Society of Agronomy; American Society of Plant Biologists; Association of American Universities; Battelle; Crop 

Science Society of America; Fusion Power Associates; General Atomics; Krell Institute; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Michigan State University; National 

Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges; North Carolina State 

University; Ohio State University; Optical Society of America; Princeton University; 

Purdue University; Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Soil Science Society of America; Southeastern Universities Research Association; Stanford University; Stony Brook University; Universities Research Association, Inc.; University of 

California; University of Chicago; University of Cincinnati; University of Houston; 

University of Pittsburgh; University of Southern California; University of Tennessee; University of Washington; University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC

RESEARCH

On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and 

the university community involved in weather and climate research and related 

education, training and support activities, I submit this written testimony for the 

record of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and 

Water Development. 

UCAR is a 68-university member consortium that manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and additional programs that support and extend the country’s scientific research and education capabilities. In addition to its member research universities, UCAR has formal relationships with approximately 100 additional undergraduate and graduate schools including several 

historically black and minority-serving institutions, and 40 international universities and laboratories. UCAR’s principal support is from the National Science Foundation (NSF) with additional support from other Federal agencies including the Department of Energy (DOE). 

DOE OFFICE OF SCIENCE

We were extremely pleased to see the recommendations of the task force of the 

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board contained in the Final Report of the Task Force 

on the Future of Science Programs at the Department of Energy. The scientific com-
484 

munity is aware that the report recommendation to strengthen the Federal investment in the physical sciences and advanced engineering research is supported by 

many members of Congress; it is a recommendation on which I am sure many subcommittee members would like to act. 

DOE is the largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences, but 

the level of funding for DOE’s core science programs has remained stagnant for 

years, while the number of ‘‘congressionally directed projects’’ has increased. While 

many of these add-ons seem worthy, they are diverting DOE’s base funding from 

peer-reviewed research programs that are planned well in advance to accomplish 

DOE’s mission in service to the country and are competed among the country’s top 

researchers. 

In the House Science Committee’s recently released ‘‘Views and Estimates’’ for fiscal year 2005, the committee acknowledges the very difficult budget decisions Congress will have to make this year. However, as it has in past years, it criticizes the 

administration’s budget request for DOE’s Office of Science, calling it ‘‘inadequate’’ 

and ‘‘dwarfed’’ by support for the life sciences in recent years. Two bills, H.R. 34 

and S. 915, authorize increased funding for the Office of Science, essentially doubling its budget. The conference report to H.R. 5, The Energy Policy Act of 2003, 

recommends that the Office of Science budget be funded at $4.2 billion, a 23 percent 

increase over the fiscal year 2004 amount. 

As you are well aware, a healthy science budget ensures a vital workforce, strong 

economy, and contributes directly to national security. The administration’s fiscal 

year 2005 request cuts DOE’s Office of Science by 2 percent. I urge the subcommittee to fund the DOE Office of Science at the level of the fiscal year 2004 

Original Appropriation plus Adjustments, or $3.5 billion, at the very least, and to 

enable the agency to apply the entire appropriated amount toward planned agency 

research priorities. This level of research funding will critically augment and reinvigorate the work of researchers throughout the Nation. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) 

program develops the knowledge necessary to identify, understand, and anticipate 

the potential health and environmental consequences of energy production and use. 

These are issues that are absolutely critical to our country’s well-being and security, 

yet the request of $496.6 million for BER research is down over 29 percent from 

the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of $641.5 million. This reduction eliminates over 

$80.0 million worth of ‘‘extra projects’’ funded last year. 

Peer-reviewed university research programs play a critical role in the BER program involving the best researchers the Nation’s institutions of higher learning 

have to offer, and developing the next generation of researchers. Approximately half 

of BER basic research funding supports university-based activities directly and indirectly. All BER research projects, other than those in the ‘‘extra projects’’ category, 

undergo regular peer review and evaluation. In step with the recommendation made 

above for the Office of Science, I urge the subcommittee to fund Biological and Environmental Research at the level of the fiscal year 2004 Original Appropriation plus 

Adjustments, or $641.5 million, and to enable BER to apply the entire appropriated 

amount toward planned agency research priorities that are peer-reviewed and involve the best researchers to be found within the Nation’s university research community as well as the DOE labs. 

CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH

Within BER, the Climate Change Research long-term goal is to deliver improved 

climate data and models for policy makers to determine safe levels of greenhouse 

gases for the Earth system. This work is critical to the health of the planet. The 

extremely important target capability for fiscal year 2005 is to enable studies of the 

interactions between the carbon cycle and climate and between secondary sulfur 

aerosols and climate. The Climate Change Research Request of $142.9 million is flat 

with the fiscal year 2004 Original Appropriation level. I urge the subcommittee to 

fund Climate Change Research at a level that is consistent with the request for 

BER stated above. 

Climate Change Research is composed of several programs of great importance to 

the atmospheric sciences community and the Nation. Climate and Hydrology contains Climate Modeling which develops the best coupled atmospheric-ocean general 

circulation models, and Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Research which 

contributes to our understanding of the processes that control solar and thermal infrared radiative transfer through clouds and at the earth’s surface. ARM supports 

a number of scientific ‘‘Fellows,’’ making an important contribution to the develop-
485 

ment of the next generation of climate scientists. Both Climate Modeling and ARM 

are programs that are of critical importance to the Nation’s overall climate change 

research efforts. Climate and Hydrology receives a 0.6 percent increase in the fiscal 

year 2005 request. I urge the subcommittee to fund Climate and Hydrology at a 

level that is consistent with the request for BER and Climate Change Research stated above. 

Also within Climate Change Research, Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle 

is a program that includes Atmospheric Science, the work of which is essential for 

assessing the effects of energy production on air quality and climate through the 

quantification of the impacts of energy-related aerosols on climate. This work will 

be closely linked with the ARM program described above. I urge the subcommittee 

to fund Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle at a level that is consistent with 

the request for BER and Climate Change Research stated above. 

GLOBAL CHANGE EDUCATION PROGRAM (GCEP)

Within the Climate Change Research program, the Global Change Education Program funds the DOE’s Summer Undergraduate Experience and Graduate Research 

Environmental Fellowships, as well as positions in the Significant Opportunities in 

Atmospheric Research and Science (SOARS) program, which is managed by UCAR. 

The DOE education programs are not slated to receive an increase, which has been 

the case for many years. DOE participation in the multi-agency funded SOARS program has been eliminated completely by BER program managers because of funding 

issues. 

The lack of ethnic diversity among advanced-degree atmospheric science graduates is well documented. SOARS is a model mentoring program, which received the 

prestigious Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring in 2001. Now in its eighth year, SOARS provides a unique, 4- 

year experience for underrepresented students interested in graduate work in the 

atmospheric and related sciences. If funding for the Climate Change Research Program does not increase over the fiscal year 2005 requested level, underrepresented 

students will be turned away from this invaluable SOARS experience. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH (ASCR)

DOE’s ASCR provides advances in computer science and the development of specialized software tools that are necessary to research the major scientific question 

being addressed by the Office of Science. ASCR’s continued progress is of particular 

importance to atmospheric scientists involved with complex climate model development, research that takes enormous amounts of computing power. By their very nature, problems dealing with the interaction of the earth’s systems and global climate 

change cannot be solved by traditional laboratory approaches. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has begun work on its Fourth Assessment 

Report to be completed in 2007, and ASCR’s contribution to this international document will be critical. In order to maintain our international leadership in advanced 

computing, I urge the subcommittee to provide ASCR with the requested level of 

$204.3 million. 

CONCLUSION

On behalf of UCAR and the atmospheric sciences research community, I want to 

thank the subcommittee for the important work you do for U.S. scientific research. 

We appreciate your attention to the recommendations of our community concerning 

the fiscal year 2005 budget of the Department of Energy. We understand and appreciate that the Nation is undergoing significant budget pressures at this time, but 

a strong Nation in the future depends on the investments we make in science and 

technology today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHERN STATES ENERGY BOARD

Mr. Chairman, the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) is pleased to provide 

this statement for the record to the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Energy and Water Development as it considers fiscal year 2005 funding for the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(EERE), and specifically related to the biomass/biofuels fiscal year 2005 budget request. SSEB governors recommend that the Congress appropriate $5,000,000 to the 

State/Regional Biomass Partnership and direct the Department to work with regional governors’ organizations, specifically the Southern States Energy Board, the 

Coalition of Northeast Governors Policy Institute, the Council of Great Lakes Gov-
486 

ernors and the Western Governors’ Association, to make the Partnership even more 

successful. 

This line item, which would continue an appropriation that has appeared in every 

Federal budget since fiscal year 1983, is for the purpose of promoting economic development by fostering the use of biobased products and bioenergy, and takes advantage of and sustains existing networks and infrastructure developed throughout 

the Nation by the regional governors’ organizations. 

The Board commends Congress for restoring $3,000,000 to the U.S. DOE Regional 

Biomass Energy Program (RBEP) in the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Bill and 

$2,000,000 in the Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations 

bill. In addition, the Board wishes to commend the administration for reinstating 

the State/regional biomass partnership in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. SSEB 

and other regional governors organizations received new cooperative agreements for 

the fiscal year 2003 funding on March 2, 2004. 

Energy independence is a critical element in the administration’s Energy Policy 

and can be significantly enhanced by developing viable domestic alternative energy 

sources. Funding for the State/regional biomass partnership greatly enhances the 

States’ ability to participate in the development of biomass energy markets. 

As the precursor to the State/Regional Biomass Partnership, the Regional Biomass Energy Program was created by Congress in 1983 under the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations bills Public Law 97–88 and Public Law 98–50. 

The enabling legislation instructed DOE to design its national program to work with 

States on a regional basis, taking into account regional biomass resources and energy needs. 

The five regional partnerships, working with representatives in all 50 States, 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and hosted primarily by regional governors’ organizations (Southern States Energy Board, Coalition of Northeastern Governors, 

the Council of Great Lakes Governors and the Western Governors’ Association) are 

recognized nationally for their combined experience related to biomass technologies 

and policies. SSEB and other regional governors’ organizations hosting State/regional biomass energy partnerships are critical to DOE for formulating policies and 

facilitating private sector deployment of advanced energy technologies and practices 

into target markets. 

Beyond the potential economic development benefits, participating States gain the 

opportunity to strengthen and integrate the work of energy, agriculture, forestry, 

environmental and other State agencies. Where issues are the same among several 

States, strategies can be developed to address these issues across State borders. Examples include the development of similar State legislative actions, working with 

the private sector with multi-State locations, and multi-State training and outreach 

to economize resources. 

In the past, the southern States have participated in this strategy through the 

Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program (SERBEP) which has provided 

over $5.8 million in project funds since 1992 with a cost-share of over $21 million 

by leveraging State and private funding for technology development and deployment. In 1999, SSEB was selected as the ‘‘host organization’’ for the SERBEP and 

received funding through a 5-year cooperative agreement. 

SSEB is an interstate compact organization with enabling legislation in each 

member State, covering the 16 States plus Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

all members of the Southern Governors Association. To assure broad based representation, SSEB is governed by a board composed of the governor and a member 

of the House and Senate from each member State and a Federal representative 

named by the President under Public Law 87–563 and Public Law 92–440. Over the 

years of administering the SERBEP, SSEB has created awareness and support for 

bioenergy/biobased products in the executive and legislative branches of State government, improved the effectiveness of State/regional biomass activities, provided 

more formal interaction between the States and improved policy development and 

coordination in particular. 

We urge Congress to include this modest but vital appropriation in the fiscal year 

2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill to protect the Federal Government’s 20-year investment in State/regional biomass activities, and to continue 

the promotion of the strong Federal interest in viable and growing biobased products and bioenergy. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY

The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single life science organization in the world, with more than 43,000 members, appreciates the opportunity 
487 

to provide written testimony on the fiscal year 2005 budget for the Department of 

Energy (DOE) science programs. The ASM represents scientists working in academic, medical, governmental, and industrial institutions worldwide. Microbiological 

research is focused on human health and the environment and is directly related 

to DOE programs involving microbial genomics, climate change, bioremediation, and 

basic biological processes important to energy sciences. 

DOE OFFICE OF SCIENCE

The scientific enterprise and the overall economy continue to benefit enormously 

from investments in the basic sciences made by the DOE Office of Science. The DOE 

Office of Science, the Nation’s primary supporter of the physical sciences, is also an 

essential partner in the areas of biological and environmental science research as 

well as in mathematics, computing, and engineering. Furthermore, the Office of 

Science supports a unique system of programs based on large-scale, specialized user 

facilities that bring together working teams of scientists focused on such challenges 

as global warming, genomic sequencing, and energy research. The Office of Science 

is also an invaluable partner in certain scientific programs of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) and supports 

peer-reviewed, basic research in DOE-relevant areas of science in universities and 

colleges across the United States. These cross-disciplinary programs contribute enormously to the knowledge base and training of the next generation of scientists, 

while providing worldwide scientific cooperation in physics, chemistry, biology, environmental science, mathematics, and advanced computational sciences. 

The Office of Science will play an increasingly important role in the administration’s goal of U.S. energy independence in this decade. Many DOE scientific research programs share the goal of producing and conserving energy in environmentally responsible ways. Programs include basic research projects in microbiology, as well as, extensive development of biotechnology-based systems to produce 

alternative fuels and chemicals, to recover and improve the process for refining fossil fuels, to remediate environmental problems, and to reduce wastes and pollution. The administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2005 includes $3.4 billion for the Office of Science, representing a decrease of $68 million compared to fiscal year 

2004. The 2 percent cut proposed for fiscal year 2005 for the Office of Science is 

a significant departure from the congressionally authorized level of $4 billion. The 

proposed budget for Biological and Environmental Research (BER) in fiscal year 

2005 is $502 million or $140 million below fiscal year 2004. The proposed budget 

for Basic Energy Sciences (BES) in fiscal year 2005 would provide $1.06 billion, representing an increase of $53 million, or 5.2 percent, over the prior year. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS

DOE is the lead Federal agency supporting genomic sequencing of non-pathogenic 

microbes through its Genomics: GTL Program. This sequence information provides 

clues into how we can design biotechnological processes that will function in extreme conditions and potentially solve pressing national priorities, such as energy 

and environmental security, global warming, and energy production. The administration has requested $67.5 million for fiscal year 2005, compared to funding of 

$63.5 million for fiscal year 2004. These requests include a $4 million increase for 

research on function and control of molecular-scale machines for energy and environmental applications, as well as $5 million for Project Engineering and Design of 

the first Genomics: GTL project, the Facility for Production and Characterization of 

Proteins and Molecular Tags. 

In view of the valuable insights and tremendous practical potential from microbial genomic sequencing, the ASM recommends that Congress provide an additional $25 

million for the GTL Program in fiscal year 2005. ASM believes that these additional 

funds will be vital if DOE’s role in this science frontier is to expand. 

BER GENOMICS: GTL PROGRAM

Since microbes power the planet’s carbon and nitrogen cycles, clean up our 

wastes, and make important transformations of energy, they are an important 

source of biotechnology products, making DOE research programs extremely valuable for advancing our knowledge of the non-medical microbial world. Knowing the 

complete DNA sequence of a microbe provides important keys to the biological capabilities of the organism and is the first step in developing strategies to more efficiently detect, use, or reengineer that microbe to address an assortment of national 

issues. The DOE Genomics: GTL genomic sequencing program has an important impact on nearly every other activity within BER. In addition to this program itself, 

a substantial portion of the DOE Joint Genome Institute’s (JGI) sequencing capacity 
488 

continues to be devoted to the sequencing of microbial genomes as well as DNA in 

mixed genomes obtained from microbial communities dwelling within specialized ecological niches. As part of these efforts, DOE continues to complete DNA sequences 

of genomes in microbes with potential uses in energy, waste cleanup, and carbon 

sequestration. 

About 40 percent of the JTI capacity is dedicated to serving direct DOE needs, 

primarily through the Genomics: GTL program, while the remaining 60 percent of 

this capacity serves as a state-of-the-art DNA sequencing facility for whose use scientists submit proposals that are subject to merit review. These sequencing projects 

will be conducted at no additional cost for the extramural scientific community. 

These efforts are expected to have a substantial impact on the BER Environmental 

Remediation Sciences program, reflecting the fact that much of this program is focusing on the use and role of microbes in environmental remediation. In addition, 

the Genomics: GTL program will continue to have a major impact on the BER Climate Change Research program because of the role microbes play in the global carbon cycle and the potential for developing biology-based solutions for sequestering 

carbon. 

The ASM applauds DOE’s leadership in recognizing this important need in 

science and endorses expansion of its microbial genome sequencing efforts, particularly in using DNA sequencing to learn more about the functions and roles of the 

preponderance of microorganisms that cannot yet be grown in culture. The ASM 

also sees this program as the basis for an expanded effort to understand more 

broadly how genomic information can be used to understand life at the cellular and 

higher levels, and thus urges Congress to fully support this exciting program. 

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

The overall goal of the DOE Environmental Management Science Program 

(EMSP), which was transferred from Environmental Management to the BER program, is to support basic research that improves the science base underpinning the 

clean up of DOE sites. Traditional clean up strategies may not work or be cost effective for many of the challenges that could prevent the successful closure of DOE 

sites. The EMSP, through its support of basic research, aims to develop and validate 

technical solutions to complex problems, providing innovative new technologies to 

overcome major obstacles that lead to future risk reduction and cost and time savings. It is the intent or the expectation of the EMSP that the basic research projects 

funded are directed toward specific issues and uncertainties at the DOE cleanup 

sites. 

DOE bioremediation activities are centered on the Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research (NABIR) program, a basic research program focused on determining how and where bioremediation may be applicable as a reliable, efficient, and 

cost-effective approach for cleaning up or containing metals and radionuclides in 

contaminated subsurface environments. In the NABIR program, research advances 

will be made from molecular to field scales; on genes and proteins used in bioremediation and in overcoming physicochemical impediments to bacterial activity; 

in non-destructive, real-time measurement techniques; on species interaction and response of microbial ecology to contamination; and in understanding microbial processes for altering the chemical state of metallic and radionuclide contaminants. 

NABIR activities have a substantial involvement of academic scientists. 

Additional EMSP research efforts will focus on contaminant fate and transport in 

the subsurface, nuclear waste chemistry and advanced treatment options, and novel 

characterization and sensor tools. In addition, studies on bioremediation of organic 

contaminants are conducted in EMSP, complementing EMSP projects will continue 

to be funded through a competitive peer review process. The most scientifically meritorious research proposals and applications will be funded based on availability of 

funds and programmatic relevance to ensure a complete and balanced research portfolio that addresses DOE needs. Research will be funded at universities, national 

laboratories, and at private research institutes and industries. This research will be 

conducted in collaboration with the Office of Environmental Management. Funding 

is reduced to increase research at and development of Field Research Centers 

through the NABIR program. 

The administration’s proposed budget for Bioremediation research, including the 

NABIR program, is $105 million, a $2.8 million decrease compared to fiscal year 

2004. The ASM considers these DOE environmental remediation programs to be of 

considerable importance, and recommends that funding for fiscal year 2005 be increased by an additional $5 million. 
489 

CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH

The ASM is pleased to see the administration’s support of Climate Change Research continue in its fiscal year 2005 budget. The ASM endorses the President’s 

proposed $143 million budget for fiscal year 2005, which is about equivalent with 

levels in fiscal year 2004. The Climate Change Research subprogram seeks to apply 

the latest scientific knowledge (i.e., genomic, new computational methods) to the potential effects of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the climate and the environment. This program is DOE’s contribution to the interagency U.S. Global Change 

Research Program proposed by President Bush in 1989 and codified by Congress in 

the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–106). This program is 

vital if science is to advance its understanding of the radiation balance between the 

surface of the Earth and the uppermost portions of the atmosphere and how this 

will affect the planet’s climate and ecosystems. 

The Ecological Processes portion of the subprogram is focused on understanding 

and simulating the effects of climate and atmospheric changes on the biological 

structure and functioning of planetary ecosystems. Research will also identify potential feedbacks from changes in the climate and atmospheric composition. This research is critical if we are to better understand the changes occurring in our ecosystems from increasing levels of atmospheric pollutants. 

The ASM urges Congress to support this important research within the Office of 

Science budget. The Climate Change Research subprogram is a key component in 

developing more accurate climate modeling and ecosystem data, and promises to 

yield new technologies to address future climate shifts. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCE

The administration’s requested funding for the Office of Basic Energy Sciences 

(BES) for fiscal year 2005 is $1.06 billion, representing an increase of $53 million 

over fiscal year 2004. This program is a principal sponsor of fundamental research 

for the Nation in the areas of materials sciences, chemistry, geosciences, and biosciences as it relates to energy. Program initiatives include microbiological and 

plant sciences focused on harvesting and converting energy from sunlight into energy feedstock such as cellulose and other products of photosynthesis, as well as 

how those chemicals may be further converted into energy rich molecules such as 

methane, hydrogen and ethanol. Alternative and renewable energy sources will remain of strategic importance in the Nation’s energy portfolio, and DOE is well positioned to advance basic research in this area. The advances in genomic technologies 

have given this research area a tremendous new resource for advancing the Agency’s bioenergy goals. 

NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND UNIQUE FACILITIES

New technologies and advanced instrumentation derived from DOE’s expertise in 

the physical sciences and engineering have become increasingly valuable to biologists. The beam lines and other advanced technologies for determining molecular 

structures of cell components are at the heart of current advances to understand 

cell function and have practical applications for new drug design. DOE advances in 

high throughput, low cost DNA sequencing; protein mass spectrometry, cell imaging 

and computational analyses of biological molecules and processes are other unique 

contributions of DOE to the Nation’s biological research enterprise. The budget request for the DOE Nanoscale Science program includes an increase of $8.7 million 

to a level of $211 million for fiscal year 2005. Furthermore, DOE has unique field 

research facilities for environmental research important to understanding biogeochemical cycles, global change and cost-effective environmental restoration. In short, 

DOE’s ability to conduct large-scale science projects and draw on its unique capabilities in physics, computation and engineering is critical for future biological research. 

The ASM strongly supports the basic science agenda across the scientific disciplines and encourages Congress to maintain its commitment to the Department 

of Energy research programs. Such commitment will help maintain U.S. leadership 

in science and technology. 
490 

SCHEDULE OF FEDERAL AWARDS 2004 

Federal Grantor/Pass-through Grantor/Program Title Cost Center Federal CFDA Number Program or Award Amount Grants Receivable 1/1/2004 Receipts or Revenue Recognized Disbursements/ Expenditures Grants Receivable 12/31/2004 

MAJOR PROGRAMS: 

Resident Postdoctoral Research ............................................................................................... 783 93 .283 $999,381 .00 $89,902 .49 ...................... ...................... $89,902 .49 

Total Major Programs ........................................................................................................... ............ .................... 999,381 .00 89,902 .49 ...................... ...................... 89,902 .49 

OTHER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE: 

HHS: 

NIGMS-MARC .................................................................................................................... 789 93 .88 431,300 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 Environmental Micoorganisms ......................................................................................... 694 93 .856 10,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 DNA Repair and Mutagenesis .......................................................................................... 457 93 .393 25,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 Summer Institute ............................................................................................................. 848 93 .856 24,000 .00 532 .99 ...................... ...................... 532 .99 Conf Biofilms ................................................................................................................... 425 93 .121 25,000 .00 25,000 .00 ...................... ...................... 25,000 .00 Environmental Pathogens ................................................................................................ 694 93 .856 10,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 Microbial Triggers of Disease .......................................................................................... 666 93 .855 5,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 Candida and Candidiasis ................................................................................................ 434 93 .121 10,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... ..........................

National Science Foundation: 

Plant Biotechnology .......................................................................................................... 678 47 .074 15,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 Pathogens ......................................................................................................................... 697 47 .074 110,000 .00 33,608 .72 ...................... ...................... 33,608 .72 Sub Contract BioSciEd Net .............................................................................................. 787 47 .076 100,000 .00 30,838 .75 ...................... ...................... 30,838 .75 Beyond Microbial Genomics ............................................................................................. 691 47 .074 15,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... ..........................

U.S. Department of Energy: 

DNA Repair and Mutagenesis .......................................................................................... 457 81 .049 20,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 Prokaryotic Development .................................................................................................. 472 81 .049 10,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 Geobiology ........................................................................................................................ 675 81 .049 15,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 Microbial Ecology and Genomics ..................................................................................... 676 81 .049 25,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 Multicellular Cooperation ................................................................................................. 671 81 .049 15,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 Systems Microbiology ....................................................................................................... 691 .................... 10,000 .00 6,461 .06 ...................... ...................... 6,461 .06 

USDA: 

Conference Salmonella ..................................................................................................... 421 10 .206 10,000 .00 10,000 .00 ...................... ...................... 10,000 .00 Pre-harvest Food Safety ................................................................................................... 663 10 .001 5,000 .00 5,000 .00 ...................... ...................... 5,000 .00 Pre-harvest Food Safety ................................................................................................... 663 10 .2 25,000 .00 19,350 .00 ...................... ...................... 19,350 .00 Pre-harvest Food Safety ................................................................................................... 663 10 .206 10,000 .00 7,000 .00 ...................... ...................... 7,000 .00 Conf Salmonella Pathogenesis ........................................................................................ 421 10 .206 10,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 

EPA: 

Microbial Eolocy ............................................................................................................... 676 66 .5 20,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 
491 

Infectious Disease GI Tract .............................................................................................. 670 66 .606 50,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 PO HHS/FDA Pre-harvest Food ......................................................................................... 663 .................... 10,000 .00 10,000 .00 ...................... ...................... 10,000 .00 PO US Dept of Army ......................................................................................................... 475 .................... 10,000 .00 .......................... ...................... ...................... 0 

Total Other Awards ...................................................................................................... ............ .................... 1,025,300 .00 147,791 .52 $0 .00 $0 .00 147,791 .52 Total Federal Awards ................................................................................................... ............ .................... 2,024,681 .00 237,694 .01 0 .00 0 .00 237,694 .01 
492 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE

On behalf of the nuclear energy industry, I thank you for your support of nuclear 

technology-related programs in the Energy Department (DOE) and your oversight 

of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for fiscal 2004. 

The Nuclear Energy Institute is responsible for developing policy for the U.S. nuclear industry. NEI’s 270 corporate and other members represent a broad spectrum 

of interests, including every U.S. energy company that operates a nuclear power 

plant. NEI’s membership also includes nuclear fuel cycle companies, suppliers, engineering and consulting firms, national research laboratories, manufacturers of 

radiopharmaceuticals, universities, labor unions and law firms. 

My statement for the record addresses three key points for your consideration this 

year: 

(1) Congress should reclassify the Nuclear Waste Fund, reorienting it to its original purpose and ensuring adequate funding for the Yucca Mountain repository 

project. 

(2) Increased research and development (R&D) on advanced nuclear technology is 

essential to maintain America’s leadership role in commercial nuclear technologies. 

(3) The NRC’s budget and staffing should be reassessed in light of current trends. 

I also will discuss briefly several important programs that the nuclear energy industry supports, including research into the health effects of low levels of radiation. 

CONGRESS SHOULD RECLASSIFY THE NUCLEAR WASTE FUND

The Nuclear Waste Fund was established in 1982 as a separate account in the 

Federal treasury. However, congressional efforts to control deficit spending in the 

1980’s and 1990’s changed the status of the fund. Currently, Congress funds the 

used fuel programs within the confines of the discretionary spending allocation for 

the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. As a result, annual appropriations for Yucca Mountain and related programs have been reduced $723 million 

below DOE’s budget requests in the past 11 years—significantly hampering DOE’s 

progress toward accepting the Nation’s used nuclear fuel. Funding shortfalls in past 

years have forced DOE to defer important programs, including procuring transportation containers for used reactor fuel; acquiring transportation and logistics services; creating the final grant process for providing emergency responder assistance; 

developing a transportation infrastructure in Nevada; and working with regional, 

State, tribal and local representatives on transportation planning. 

The industry urges Congress to reclassify the Nuclear Waste Fund this year, as 

proposed by the president’s fiscal 2005 budget and introduced as H.R. 3981, to prevent future funding shortfalls for Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Waste Fund has 

three unique characteristics that justify modifying the current budget rules governing its use in this way: 

—The Federal Government is obligated by law and contracts signed with electric 

companies that operate nuclear power plants to implement the used fuel management program. 

—The fund is intended to cover the entire cost of the Federal Government’s commercial used fuel management program over several decades. 

—The disposal of used nuclear fuel from commercial reactors is financed entirely 

through a fee established by Federal law and paid by consumers of electricity 

generated at nuclear power plants. 

INDUSTRY SUPPORTS BUDGET REQUEST OF $880 MILLION FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN

The industry greatly appreciates the House for its report language emphasizing 

the need for early action on infrastructure development for the used nuclear fuel 

disposal program. The committee’s direction resulted in an announcement by DOE 

on preferences for rail transport in Nevada and should lead to a record of decision 

on route selection this year. 

Last year, the H.R. 6 conference report endorsed the highest level of funding for 

Yucca Mountain to date. At $580 million, DOE could address many technical challenges necessary for submitting an application to the NRC by December for a license 

to construct the repository. 

NEI recognizes the challenge that the committee faces in fiscal 2005, based on assumptions included in the budget request on this issue and urges the committee to 

make allocations under section 302(b) of the Budget Act consistent with fully funding the administration request of $880 million for Yucca Mountain. Absent sufficient 

funding in fiscal 2005, the industry does not believe the program will meet key milestones for accepting used fuel in 2010, and these potential delays will result in higher costs for the program and increased liabilities to the government. 
493 

Although the repository program is the foundation of our national policy for managing used nuclear fuel, the nuclear industry also recognizes the value in researching emerging technology for used reactor fuel treatment and management. Such farsighted programs will allow our Nation to remain the world leader in nuclear technologies. However, technologies like transmutation—the conversion of used nuclear 

fuel into a smaller volume of less toxic materials—still require a Federal repository 

for disposal of the radioactive by-products generated from the process. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS NECESSARY

The industry supports increased funding for fiscal 2005 for DOE’s R&D programs 

for the development of new nuclear energy systems. The nuclear energy industry 

urges the committee to approve at least $60 million for the Nuclear Energy Technology (NET) program. Within the NET program, $10 million should be earmarked 

for the early site permit process as requested by DOE. This is an important component of the revised NRC licensing process for new nuclear power plants passed by 

Congress in 1992, and testing is already under way. An additional $50 million 

should be used to begin a 6-year, cost-shared program to test the combined operating and construction license process for new nuclear plants, based on the industry’s response to a DOE solicitation that will be awarded this year. DOE should support deployment of proven generation III-plus technology for this program. 

The industry believes that the government has an early role in bringing advanced 

reactor concepts, known as Generation IV reactors, to the marketplace. NEI urges 

your support for a next-generation nuclear plant at the new Idaho National Laboratory, funded through the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative program. 

The industry also supports the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative at $9 million. 

Although DOE continues to fund the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (I–NERI), the domestic version of this program, NERI, has been terminated 

and a new initiative has been proposed. We believe the current program fills a vital 

need identified in a 1997 report by the President’s Council of Advisers on Science 

and Technology (PCAST) and endorsed by the energy secretary’s Nuclear Energy 

Research Advisory Committee. We do not support the change for NERI. Rather, the 

industry believes this collaborative program between national laboratories, industry 

and universities should be continued at $7 million for fiscal 2005. 

PCAST also recommended another R&D initiative—the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program—to produce additional amounts of affordable energy 

from America’s 103 commercial reactors. Through NEPO, DOE has been working 

with the nuclear industry and DOE’s national laboratories to apply new technology 

to nuclear and non-nuclear equipment. The industry encourages the committee to 

allocate $10 million for the NEPO program to help fund important research on materials management issues at nuclear power plants, including improved availability 

and maintenance at nuclear plants; technology to predict and measure the extent 

of materials degradation from plant aging; introducing new materials in a cost-effective manner to mitigate materials effects; and as an underpinning to both the applied materials and technology development and deployment activities, advanced research tools and the evolving knowledge of materials properties. DOE has proposed 

no funding for the program in fiscal 2005 despite the obvious benefits that the national laboratories can bring to bear on these issues. 

The industry also requests $27.5 million for DOE’s University Support Program, 

which supports vital research and educational programs in nuclear science at the 

Nation’s colleges and universities. With nuclear plant license renewal continuing at 

a brisk pace and the industry considering plans for new nuclear plants, demand for 

highly educated and trained professionals will continue. NEI encourages the committee to consider a new $2 million program within the Office of Nuclear Energy, 

Science and Technology to support universities that have undergraduate and graduate programs in health physics. The industry’s most recent human resources survey reveals an increasing demand for health physics professionals. This need will 

become acute in the next few years when many will retire. 

NRC BUDGET AND STAFFING SHOULD BE REASSESSED

Our Nation’s focus on security has led to significant security enhancements at nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plant security was among the most robust in the 

industrial sector before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and our facilities are 

even more secure today. By year’s end, our industry will have invested an additional 

$1 billion over the past 2 years in security-related improvements, such as fortified 

perimeter security, improved background checks and tighter access control and detection ability at our plants. The nuclear energy industry has added one-third more 

security officers, for a total of 7,000 well-trained, armed security officers at our 67 
494 

nuclear power plant sites. The industry will continue to make these investments 

and improvements to enhance private industry’s best security program. 

The NRC’s proposed fiscal 2005 budget totals $670.3 million, an increase of $44.2 

from the fiscal 2004 budget, and the highest ever for this agency. Fiscal 2005 is an 

appropriate time for the NRC to review its budget and resource allocations in light 

of current demands and other resources available. The industry’s 103 commercial 

reactors are operating at world-class levels of safety and reliability. Nearly 75 percent of the reactors have the NRC’s highest safety performance indicator in all categories, and most of the others have only a single indicator in the next lower level. 

The excellent safety record of U.S. nuclear power plants lays the groundwork for 

refining regulatory oversight based on performance and safety insights. Additionally, insights from the reactor oversight process indicate that several major regulations for power reactors are not providing a significant safety value. A disciplined 

review of the regulatory process should be undertaken to focus on the more probable, safety-significant events rather than highly unlikely events. 

INDUSTRY SUPPORT FOR ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES

Nuclear Nonproliferation.—The industry supports the disposal of excess weaponsgrade nuclear materials through the use of mixed-oxide fuel in reactors in the 

United States and Russia. 

Low-Dose Radiation Health Effects Research.—The industry strongly supports 

continued funding for the DOE’s low-dose radiation research program. 

Nuclear Research Facilities.—The industry is concerned with the declining number of nuclear research facilities. We urge the committee to fully fund the request 

for a DOE lead lab in Idaho for nuclear energy research and development. 

Uranium Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning.—The industry fully 

supports cleanup of the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, KY; Portsmouth, OH; 

and Oak Ridge, TN. Commercial nuclear power plants contribute more than $150 

million to the Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund for government-managed uranium enrichment plants each year. Other important environmental, safety 

and/or health activities at these facilities should be paid for out of general revenues. 

International Nuclear Safety Program and Nuclear Energy Agency.—NEI supports 

the funding requested for the DOE and NRC’s international nuclear safety programs. They are programs aimed at improving the safe commercial use of nuclear 

energy worldwide. 

Medical Isotopes Infrastructure.—The nuclear industry supports the administration’s program for the production of medical and research isotopes. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE

The Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) appreciates the opportunity to submit 

written comments for the record regarding funding for a National Isotope Program 

in fiscal year 2005. SNM is an international scientific and professional organization 

founded in 1954 to promote the science, technology and practical application of nuclear medicine. Its 14,000∂ members are physicians, technologists and scientists 

specializing in the research and practice of nuclear medicine. 

To that end, SNM advocates the creation of a National Isotope Program to ensure 

consistent radioisotope research and production programs as isotope availability is 

crucial to nuclear medicine procedures and innovation in this field. The Society 

stands ready to work with policymakers at the local, State, and Federal levels to 

advance policies and programs that will that our Nation have a steady supply of 

isotopes for the advancement of nuclear medicine research. 

WHAT IS NUCLEAR MEDICINE?

Nuclear medicine is a medical specialty that involves the use of small amounts 

of radioactive pharmaceuticals, called ‘‘Radiotracers’’ or ‘‘Tracers,’’ to help diagnose 

and treat a variety of diseases. These tracers are detected by special types of cameras that work with computers to provide nuclear medicine physicians and the patient’s doctor precise pictures of the area of the body being imaged. It is a way to 

gather medical information that may otherwise be unavailable, require exploratory 

surgery, or necessitate more expensive diagnostic tests. 

Nuclear medicine procedures, such as PET (positron emission tomography) and 

SPECT (single-photon emission tomography), often identify abnormalities very early 

in the progression of a disease—long before some medical problems are apparent 

with other diagnostic tests. This early detection allows a disease to be treated early 

in its course when there may be a more successful prognosis. 
495 

An estimated 16 million nuclear medicine imaging and therapeutic procedures are 

performed each year in the United States. Nuclear medicine procedures are among 

the safest diagnostic imaging tests available. The amount of radiation from a nuclear medicine procedure is comparable to that received during a diagnostic X-ray. 

Some of the more frequently performed nuclear medicine procedures include: 

—Bone scans to examine orthopedic injuries, fractures, tumors or unexplained 

bone pain. 

—Cardiac scans to identify normal or abnormal blood flow to the heart muscle, 

measure heart function or determine the existence or extent of damage to the 

heart muscle after a heart attack. 

—Breast scans which are used in conjunction with mammograms to more accurately detect and locate cancerous tissue in the breasts. 

—Liver and gallbladder scans to evaluate liver and gallbladder function. 

—Cancer imaging to detect tumors and determine the severity (staging) of various 

types of cancer. 

—Treatment of thyroid diseases and certain types of cancer. 

—Brain imaging to investigate problems within the brain itself or in blood circulation to the brain. 

—Renal imaging in children to examine kidney function. 

FUNDING CUTS AND PROGRAM RESTRUCTURING THREATEN NUCLEAR MEDICINE

The Nation needs a consistent, reliable supply of isotopes for medical, security, 

space power, and research uses. Today, new isotopes for diagnostic and therapeutic 

uses are not being developed, critical isotopes for national security are in short supply, and demand for isotopes critical to homeland security exceeds supply. Additionally, the national isotope infrastructure is chronically under funded at the DOE. 

New science, such as molecular nuclear medicine, is emerging that will require 

reliable supplies of isotopes. By abandoning isotope research at the DOE, innovative 

medical research progress into radiopharmaceuticals will be lost, and the medical 

community will not benefit from valuable discoveries for the diagnosis and treatment of millions of Americans. 

Isotopes for research & development (R&D) at reasonable prices are not available 

due to declining resources and policy change in the DOE Isotope Program. The DOE 

program and its resources have been declining for two decades, and recent policy 

changes by DOE have significantly worsened the situation and are impeding the development of new isotope applications. Recently DOE eliminated all R&D funding 

for DOE applications and production. Lost opportunities to develop new advanced 

technologies through isotope research will have major impacts on pressing needs of 

the United States in health care and national security. 

The Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative (ANMI) at the DOE fostered peer-reviewed nuclear medicine research studies that advanced medical and clinical research and practice in this important area of medicine. The program was funded 

at $2.5 million in fiscal year 2000, 2001 and 2002. By abandoning this program in 

fiscal year 2003, innovative medical research progress into radiopharmaceuticals 

was lost. 

Also, the fiscal year 2003 budget instituted an upfront payment policy for development and production of radionuclides for treatment or research. This restructuring 

severely hampered researcher’s ability to obtain essential radioisotopes by imposing 

a much higher cost on researchers, and created a difficult payment situation, since 

researchers often cannot commit outlays until grants are issued and funds are received, with the end result being an adverse effect on public health. A resulting crisis in the availability of isotopes constrained existing nuclear medicine procedures 

and had a chilling effect on research into new procedures to diagnose and treat serious and life-threatening diseases, such as cancer. 

Additionally, relying on foreign sources for radioisotopes severely hampers researcher’s ability to obtain essential radioisotopes. Because no commercial isotopeproducing reactors exist in the United States, there is a strong dependence on foreign sources for reactor-produced radioisotopes. The U.S. facilities for reactor-produced isotopes are limited to DOE and university reactors, primarily at the University of Missouri Research Reactor Center (MURR). The resulting crisis in the availability of isotopes will constrain existing nuclear medicine procedures and will have 

a chilling effect on research into new procedures to diagnose and treat serious and 

life-threatening diseases, such as cancer. 

Decline in nuclear and radiochemistry education is not being addressed to avoid 

impacts on radioisotope production and applications R&D. A recent survey with 19 

universities found a continuation of a long-term decline in the number of graduate 

programs, graduate students, and faculty in the United States in nuclear and 
496 

radiochemical fields. Currently, there are 5–10 U.S. Ph.D. graduates in these research fields each year while the projected demand in the near future at the DOE 

and within the nuclear medicine community will be several hundred Ph.D.’s. In the 

past, foreign graduates have solved the shortage of nuclear scientists. However, because of a worldwide decline in the number of young scientists in the field, foreign 

graduates are not available to address the shortage. 

CREATION OF A NATIONAL ISOTOPE PROGRAM

Congress should realign isotope resources to create the National Isotope Program 

to produce essential isotopes, reestablish R&D for production and isotope applications, establish nuclear technology education activity, and support isotope production infrastructure of new and existing facilities. 

Major components of a National Isotope Program include: 

—Establishment of a national program to meet the national need for isotopes. The 

program should be supported at the Secretary of Energy level with the program 

director reporting at a high level in DOE; 

—Collaboration with R&D, medical, and industrial users to assess isotope needs 

and transfer technologies to accelerate applications; 

—Facilitation of the transfer of commercially viable isotope programs to the private sector; 

—Investment in R&D to improve isotope production, processing, and utilization; 

—Continuously monitoring the isotope needs of researchers and clinicians; 

—Establishment of an education program to ensure that the next generation of 

nuclear and radiochemists are trained and available to support the Nation’s 

needs; and 

—Upgrade the capability at the University of Missouri and other existing facilities 

that produce isotopes. 

A National Isotope Program will continue innovation in nuclear medicine to meet 

the health care needs of the Nation. To that end, SNM advocates the allocation of 

$25 million in fiscal year 2005 for the creation of the National Isotope Program. 

CONCLUSION

The Society of Nuclear Medicine once again stands ready to work with policymakers to advance policies that will reduce and prevent suffering from disease for 

all Americans, while ensuring an adequate nuclear medicine workforce. Again, we 

thank you for the opportunity to present our views on funding for nuclear medicine 

workforce and research related programs and stand ready to answer any questions 

you may have. 
(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

American: 

Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statement of the .............................. 473 

Nuclear Society, Prepared Statement of the .................................................. 450 

Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 465 

Society: 

For Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 486 

Of Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 462 

Arizona Power Authority, Letter From the ........................................................... 363 

Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, Prepared Statement of the ......... 308 

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Prepared Statement of the .............. 306 

Beckner, Dr. Everet H., Deputy Administrator, Defense Programs, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy ................................ 63 

Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah: 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 188 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 69 

Bi-State Turkey Creek Association, Prepared Statement of the ......................... 338 

Biomass Energy Research Association, Prepared Statement of the .................... 468 

Blue Valley Association, Prepared Statement of the ............................................ 336 

Board of: 

Commissioners of the Pontchartrain Levee District, Prepared Statements 

of the.......................................................................................................... 357, 358 

Levee Commissioners For the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta, Prepared Statement of the .................................................................................................... 339 

Mississippi Levee Commissioners, Prepared Statement of the .................... 334 

Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., Prepared Statements of .................... 453, 455, 456 

Bowman, Admiral Frank L., Deputy Administrator, Naval Reactors Program, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy ................ 63 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 95 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 93 

Brazos River Harbor Navigation District, Prepared Statement of the ............... 394 

Broderick, James, Chairman for Colorado, Prepared Statement of .................... 310 

Brooks, Ambassador Linton F., Under Secretary, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, Department of Energy: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 79 

Statements of.................................................................................................... 63, 72 

Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana, Statement of ................... 218 

Calaveras County Water District, Prepared Statement of the ............................ 391 

California Government and Private Sector Coalition for Operation Clean Air’s 

Sustainable Incentive Program, Prepared Statement of the ............................ 478 

Cameron County, Texas, Prepared Statement of .................................................. 393 

Carey, Bob, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of 

Energy ................................................................................................................... 159 

Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), Prepared Statement 

of the ..................................................................................................................... 428

Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District, Prepared Statement of 

the .......................................................................................................................... 395 

Chu, Margaret, Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, 

Department of Energy: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 169 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 168 
Page

ii 

City of: 

Crookston, Minnesota, Prepared Statement of the ........................................ 294 

Flagstaff, Arizona, Prepared Statement of the .............................................. 299 

Granite Falls, Minnesota, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 292 

Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners, Prepared Statement of 

the .................................................................................................................. 287 

Morro Bay, Prepared Statement of the ........................................................... 380 

St. Helena, California, Prepared Statement of the ........................................ 389 

Stillwater, Prepared Statement of the ............................................................ 289 

Virginia Beach, Virginia, Prepared Statement of the ................................... 366 

Watsonville, California, Prepared Statement of the ...................................... 419 

Clay and Bailey Manufacturing Company, Prepared Statement of the .............. 339 

Coalition of Northeastern Governors, Prepared Statement of the ...................... 451 

Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi: 

Prepared Statements of ................................................................................... 6, 219 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 53 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 219 

Colorado: 

River: 

Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the ................... 411 

Board of California, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 398 

Congress, Prepared Statement of the ...................................................... 448 

Energy Distributors Association, Prepared Statement of the ............... 436 

Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of the ...................... 431 

Springs Utilities, Prepared Statement of ....................................................... 408 

Cook, Beverly, Assistant Secretary, Office of Environment, Safety and Health, 

Department of Energy: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 163 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 159 

Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc., Prepared Statement of 

the .......................................................................................................................... 331 

Craig, Senator Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 71 

Questions Submitted by................................................................................. 54, 131 

Statements of......................................................................................... 31, 143, 222 

Crescent City Harbor District, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 363 

DECO Companies, Inc., Prepared Statement of ................................................... 337 

Denver Water, Prepared Statement of ................................................................... 448 

Department of Natural Resources, State of Utah, Prepared Statement of 

the .......................................................................................................................... 400 

Dolores Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the ....................... 409 

Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico: 

Opening Statements of .................................................................... 1, 63, 135, 207 

Prepared Statements of ................................................................... 2, 66, 137, 209 

Questions Submitted by...................................................... 44, 117, 189, 198, 205 

Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota: 

Prepared Statements of .................................................................................... 220 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 251 

Statements of .................................................................................................... 219 

Duchesne County Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the ...... 408 

Empire State Development Corporation, State of New York, Prepared Statement of .................................................................................................................. 345 

Energy Sciences Coalition, Prepared Statement of the ........................................ 482 

Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, Statement of ............ 70 

Fifth Louisiana Levee District, Prepared Statement of the ................................. 301 

Flowers, Lieutenant General Robert B., Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers—Civil, Department of the Army, Department of Defense—Civil .......... 257 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 267 

Statement Of ..................................................................................................... 265 

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural Water, Prepared Statement of the ........................................................................................ 431 

Four Corners Power Plant, Prepared Statement of the ....................................... 410 

Garman, David, Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy ................................................................... 1 
Page

iii 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 9 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 8 

Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the ............... 401 

Grand Valley Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of the ................... 411 

Green Brook Flood Control Commission, Prepared Statement of the ................. 341 

Hayes, Pam, Budget Office, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior ......................................................................................................................... 207 

Health Physics Society (HPS) and Health Physics Program Directors Organization (HPPDO), Prepared Statement of the ..................................................... 449 

Hewgley, James M., Jr., Chairman for Oklahoma, Prepared Statement of ....... 313 

Holman, Gerald H., Chairman for Kansas, Prepared Statement of .................... 310 

Irrigation & Electrical Districts’ Association of Arizona, Prepared Statement 

of the ..................................................................................................................... 400

Johnston, J. Ronald, Program Director, Central Utah Project Completion 

Act Office, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior ...................... 207 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 239 

Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the ............ 408 

Kansas City: 

Industrial Council, Prepared Statement of the .............................................. 337 

Missouri, Prepared Statement of .................................................................... 318 

Keys, John W., III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 207 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 228 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 224 

Latture, Paul, II, Chairman for Arkansas, Prepared Statement of .................... 309 

Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of the .................... 420 

Livers Bronze Co., Prepared Statement of the ...................................................... 338 

Longsworth, Paul M., Deputy Administrator, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy ....... 63 

Louisiana: 

Department of Transportation and Development, Prepared Statement of 

the .................................................................................................................. 303 

Governor’s Task Force on Maritime Industry, Prepared Statement of 

the .................................................................................................................. 327 

Magwood, William D., IV, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and 

Technology, Department of Energy: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 24 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 23 

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Prepared Statement of the ............................................................................................................ 383 

Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of the ............................ 421 

Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association, Prepared Statement of the ......... 348 

Mni Wiconi Project, Prepared Statements of the ............................................. 413, 438 

Mo-Ark Association, Prepared Statement of the ................................................... 336 

Moss Landing Harbor District, Prepared Statement of the ................................. 343 

Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington: 

Prepared Statements of ............................................................................... 146, 276 

Questions Submitted by............................................................... 59, 133, 197, 203 

Statements of.................................................................................................. 29, 145 

Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of the ............................................................................................................ 386 

National Mining Association, Prepared Statement of the .................................... 354 

New: 

Jersey Maritime Resources, Department of Transportation, State of New 

Jersey, Prepared Statement of ..................................................................... 345 

Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of the ............ 425 

York City Economic Development Corporation, Prepared Statement of ..... 345 

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the .... 410 

Nuclear Energy Institute, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 492 

Orbach, Raymond L., Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 16 
Page

iv 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 15 

Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, Prepared Statement of the ............. 419 

Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., Prepared Statement of the ............. 409 

Port: 

Of: 

Garibaldi, Prepared Statement of the ..................................................... 325 

Los Angeles, Prepared Statement of the ................................................. 287 

Sacramento, California, Prepared Statement of the .............................. 382 

San Luis Harbor District, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 330 

Provo River Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of the ..................... 407 

Public Service Company of New Mexico, Prepared Statement of the ................. 411 

Raley, Bennett W., Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Department 

of the Interior, Prepared Statement of ............................................................... 232 

Red River Valley Association, Prepared Statements of the............................. 360, 443 

Redlands Water & Power Company, Prepared Statement of the ........................ 443 

Reid, Senator Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada: 

Prepared Statements of .......................................................................... 5, 141, 214 

Questions Submitted by................................................................................. 57, 248 

Statements of.................................................................................... 3, 67, 138, 210 

Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Prepared 

Statement of the ................................................................................................... 373 

Roberson, Jessie H., Assistant Secretary, Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 148 

Statements of................................................................................................ 135, 147 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the City of Mesa, Arizona, 

Prepared Statement of the .................................................................................. 350 

Santa Clara Valley Water District, Prepared Statements of the .................... 367, 444 

Seminole Tribe of Florida, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 351 

Society of Nuclear Medicine, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 494 

Solar Energy Industries Association, Prepared Statement of the ....................... 459 

Southeastern: 

Colorado Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the .............. 447 

Federal Power Customers, Inc., Prepared Statements of the .................. 298, 464 

Southern States Energy Board, Prepared Statement of the ................................ 485 

Southwestern Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of the ............ 446 

St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas, Prepared Statement of the ................... 364 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ...................................... 376 

State: 

Engineer’s Office, Wyoming, Letter From the ................................................ 426 

Of Wyoming, Prepared Statement of the ........................................................ 427 

Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska: 

Questions Submitted by................................................................................. 55, 283 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 216 

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority, Prepared Statement 

of the ..................................................................................................................... 316

The: 

Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of ................................................. 396 

Port Commerce Department, The Port Authority of New York & New 

Jersey, Prepared Statement of ..................................................................... 345 

Salvajor Company, Prepared Statement of .................................................... 338 

University: 

Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared Statement of the ............ 483 

Of: 

Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Prepared Statement of the ..... 475 

Rochester, Prepared Statement of the ..................................................... 479 

Upper: 

Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the .. 448 

Mississippi River Basin Association, Prepared Statement of the ................ 321 

Vance Brothers Inc., Prepared Statement of ......................................................... 337 

Ventura Port District, Prepared Statement of the ................................................ 324 

Volusia County, Florida, Prepared Statement of .................................................. 352 
Page

v 

Warehouse One, Inc., Prepared Statement of ....................................................... 337 

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Prepared Statement of the ......... 382 

Wolf, Bob, Director, Budget Office, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 207 

Woodley, John Paul, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 

Corps of Engineers—Civil, Department of the Army, Department of Defense—Civil: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 259 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 257 

(vii) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Page 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 283 

Appropriation Accounts ........................................................................................... 263 

Civil Works: 

Construction Backlog ....................................................................................... 268 

Program Transformation ................................................................................. 269 

Financing and Management Initiatives for Operating Projects .......................... 261 

Focus on High-return New Investments ................................................................ 260 

Homeland Security .................................................................................................. 272 

Need for a More Robust Business Management System ...................................... 270 

Overview of Fiscal Year 2005 Army Civil Works Budget .................................... 259 

Performance-based Budgeting ................................................................................ 259 

President’s Management Agenda ........................................................................... 262 

Summary of Fiscal Year 2005 Program Budget .................................................... 267 

Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation’s Economy and Defense ......... 271 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 188 

Removal of MOAB Uranium Mill Tailings Pile .................................................... 188 

Salt Cavern Disposal Remediation Alternative .................................................... 189 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 117 

Advanced Concepts .................................................................................................. 74 

Budget and Program Highlights ............................................................................ 82 

Cooperation with Office of Nuclear Energy ........................................................... 123 

Cryogenic Targets .................................................................................................... 127 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................... 77, 84 

Emerging Threat—Pakistan ................................................................................... 120 

Establishing Scientific Milestones .......................................................................... 128 

Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization ...................................................... 82 

Fallout ...................................................................................................................... 111 

First Cluster-Laser Integration .............................................................................. 126 

Fiscal Year 2005 Department of Energy Budget Request .................................... 96 

Funding Schedule for: 

Directed Stockpile Work .................................................................................. 108 

Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign ............................................ 109 

International Nuclear Fuel Markets ...................................................................... 124 

Libya ......................................................................................................................... 121 

Los Alamos Schools ................................................................................................. 118 

Lower Liability Standard ........................................................................................ 120 

Management Issues ................................................................................................. 86 

MESA/CMR Facilities ............................................................................................. 130 

Modern Pit Facility .................................................................................................. 130 

MOX .......................................................................................................................... 113 

Program ............................................................................................................. 120 

National Ignition Facility (NIF)......................................................................... 100, 125 
Page

viii 

National Ignition Facility (NIF)—Continued 

Other Options ................................................................................................... 129 

Plan .................................................................................................................... 103 

Naval Reactors ......................................................................................................... 85 

Fiscal Year 2005 Department of Energy Budget Detail ................................ 97 

Nuclear: 

Deterrence ......................................................................................................... 112 

Nonproliferation ................................................................................................ 115 

Research ............................................................................................................ 106 

Stockpile Report ................................................................................................ 116 

Testing ............................................................................................................... 104 

Tests Since Baneberry ...................................................................................... 105 

Weapons Incident Response ............................................................................ 83 

Office of the Administrator ..................................................................................... 86 

OMEGA .................................................................................................................... 127 

Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL) ............................................................... 133 

Performance Measurements, Goals, and Accomplishments ................................. 98 

Program Infrastructure and Administrative Requirements ................................ 98 

Removal of Additional Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) .................................... 123 

Research & Development (R&D) Funding ............................................................. 123 

Revised Nuclear Stockpile Plan .............................................................................. 117 

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator............................................................. 100, 108, 117 

Russia—Uncosted Balance & Access Issues .......................................................... 121 

Russian Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) ............................................................ 118 

Safeguards and Security ......................................................................................... 117 

Design Basis Threat ......................................................................................... 82 

Space Reactors ......................................................................................................... 131 

Staffing and Technical Challenges ......................................................................... 131 

Technical Area 18 Los Alamos National Laboratory ............................................ 131 

Today’s Nuclear-Powered Fleet .............................................................................. 95 

Weapons Activities .................................................................................................. 83 

Z Machine ............................................................................................................ 114, 128 

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 188 

Budget Request ........................................................................................................ 205 

Cost Reduction Initiatives ....................................................................................... 175 

Ensuring Adequate Resources to Complete the Mission ...................................... 174 

Fiscal Year: 

2003 Accomplishments ..................................................................................... 170 

2004 Ongoing Activities ................................................................................... 171 

2005 Key Activities ........................................................................................... 172 

Questions Submitted to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management ...................................................................................................................... 205 

The: 

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request ................................................................... 170 

2010 Objective ................................................................................................... 170 

Transportation Mode and Routes for Yucca Mountain ......................................... 187 

Yucca: 

Mountain: 

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request ............................................................ 186 

Metal Storage Containers ......................................................................... 205 

Transportation .................................................................................................. 206 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 44 

Alaska Examination of Geothermal Sites .............................................................. 55 

Assistance to Alaska Companies ............................................................................ 55 

Barter Arrangements .............................................................................................. 52 

Biomass: 

And Biorefinery Systems R&D ........................................................................ 12 

R&D and: 

National Laboratories ............................................................................... 53 

Universities ................................................................................................ 54 

Rationale for Cuts ............................................................................................ 59 

Centers for Excellence in Hydrogen ....................................................................... 46 
Page

ix 

Ceramic Ion Transport Membranes Project .......................................................... 53 

Departmental Energy Management Program ....................................................... 13 

Energy Efficiency: 

And Renewable Energy .................................................................................... 4, 7 

Program Direction ............................................................................................ 41 

Evaluation of Renewable Energy Sources on Public Lands ................................. 55 

Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 14 

Financial Assistance to Geothermal Development in Alaska .............................. 59 

For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) ................. 57 

Funding: 

A Commercial Biomass Plant .......................................................................... 54 

For Concentrating Solar Power ....................................................................... 58 

Genomics: GTL Facilities ........................................................................................ 59 

Geothermal Technology ........................................................................................... 12 

High Temperature Superconductor Program ........................................................ 59 

Hydrogen: 

In the Pacific Northwest .................................................................................. 60 

Technology ......................................................................................................... 10 

Idaho National Laboratory ...................................................................................... 49 

Industry-Laboratory Cooperation ........................................................................... 60 

Intergovernmental Activities .................................................................................. 13 

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) .............................. 44, 57 

Iowa Environmental/Education Project ................................................................. 57 

Louisiana Energy Services—Enrichment .............................................................. 51 

National Climate Change Technology Initiative Competitive Solicitation Program ...................................................................................................................... 14 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory ................................................................ 58 

Nuclear Energy: 

Budget ............................................................................................................... 47 

Technologies/Nuclear Power 2010 ................................................................... 48 

OMB Funding Request ............................................................................................ 46 

Offshore Wind .......................................................................................................... 15 

Program Direction ................................................................................................... 14 

R&D vs. Funding for Demonstration Projects ....................................................... 46 

Radiopharmaceuticals ............................................................................................. 51 

Renewable Energy: 

Program in Alaska ............................................................................................ 56 

Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request .................................................. 10 

Solar Energy Technology ......................................................................................... 11 

Storage Centers ....................................................................................................... 46 

Tidal Energy Projects Cost in Alaska .................................................................... 56 

Time Scale for Hydrogen in Northwest ................................................................. 60 

Twenty Year Facility Plan ...................................................................................... 44 

Ultra High-Speed Super Computers ...................................................................... 60 

University Programs ............................................................................................... 50 

User Facilities .......................................................................................................... 57 

Who Controls the Hydrogen Initiative? ................................................................. 45 

Wind and Hydropower Technologies ...................................................................... 11 

Zero Energy Buildings ............................................................................................. 11 

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 188 

Budget Details ......................................................................................................... 199 

DOE: 

And HHS Studies ............................................................................................. 201 

Site Profiles ....................................................................................................... 199 

Energy: 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program......................... 167, 182 

Supply ................................................................................................................ 163 

Environment, Safety and Health Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request .................. 163 

Existing Samples—Marshall Islands ..................................................................... 203 

Marshall Islands: 

Annual Meeting ................................................................................................ 203 

Carryover Funds ............................................................................................... 202 

Health Testing .................................................................................................. 202 

Other Defense Programs ......................................................................................... 165 

Oversight Reorganization Reform .......................................................................... 198 
Page

x 

Questions Submitted to the Office of Environment, Safety and Health ............. 198 

Reporting of Injury at DOE Sites ........................................................................... 198 

Worker Safety Site Profiles ..................................................................................... 184 

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 188 

BNFL Contract Costs Overruns ............................................................................. 176 

Defining High-Level Waste ..................................................................................... 194 

Demonstrating Results ............................................................................................ 150 

DOE Plan to Convert Depleted Uranium .............................................................. 196 

$500 Million Settlement for BNFL ......................................................................... 192 

Hanford: 

Employees Exposure to Tank Farm Vapors ................................................... 180 

300-Area Closure .............................................................................................. 177 

IG Report on Safety Performance .......................................................................... 181 

Laboratory Direct Research Funding at Idaho ..................................................... 177 

LDRD Funding At Oak Ridge and Savannah River ............................................. 177 

Los Alamos Cleanup ................................................................................................ 190 

Managing Future Waste Costs ............................................................................... 191 

New Mexico Cleanup Agreement ........................................................................... 183 

Office of Future Liability ........................................................................................ 190 

Plutonium Traces at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ................................................. 183 

Questions Submitted to the Office of Environmental Management .................... 189 

Risk Based End States ............................................................................................ 196 

Initiative ............................................................................................................ 175 

Small Business Contracts and EM Cleanup ......................................................... 196 

The Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request ................................................................... 152 

Transuranic Waste .................................................................................................. 188 

Waste: 

Deposits at WIPP ............................................................................................. 191 

Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) ...................................................... 178, 187, 193 

WIPP Detection of Plutonium ................................................................................. 189 

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 44 

Advanced: 

Fuel Cycle Initiative ........................................................................................ 26, 38 

Reactor Hydrogen Code Generation Project ................................................... 34 

Advancement of Nuclear Energy Technology ........................................................ 39 

Alaska Examination of Geothermal Sites .............................................................. 55 

Assistance to Alaska Companies ............................................................................ 55 

Barter Arrangements .............................................................................................. 52 

Biomass: 

R&D and: 

National Laboratories ............................................................................... 53 

Universities ................................................................................................ 54 

Rationale for Cuts ............................................................................................ 59 

Centers for Excellence in Hydrogen ....................................................................... 46 

Ceramic Ion Transport Membranes Project .......................................................... 53 

Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 43 

Evaluation of Renewable Energy Sources on Public Lands ................................. 55 

Financial Assistance to Geothermal Development in Alaska .............................. 59 

For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) ................. 57 

Funding: 

A Commercial Biomass Plant .......................................................................... 54 

For Concentrating Solar Power ....................................................................... 58 

Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems ................................................................ 25 

Genomics: GTL Facilities ........................................................................................ 59 

High Temperature Superconductor Program ........................................................ 59 

Hydrogen in the Pacific Northwest ........................................................................ 60 

Idaho National Laboratory ...................................................................................... 49 

Industry-Laboratory Cooperation ........................................................................... 60 

INEEL Solicitation and Infrastructure .................................................................. 39 

INL—DOE’s Command Center for Nuclear R&D ................................................. 28 

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) .............................. 44, 57 

Iowa Environmental/Education Project ................................................................. 57 
Page

xi 

Louisiana Energy Services—Enrichment .............................................................. 51 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory ................................................................ 58 

Nuclear: 

Energy ............................................................................................................... 4 

Budget ........................................................................................................ 47 

Technologies/Nuclear Power 2010 ............................................................ 48 

Engineering Programs ..................................................................................... 23 

Hydrogen Initiative .......................................................................................... 26 

Power 2010 ........................................................................................................ 27 

OMB Funding Request ............................................................................................ 46 

R&D vs. Funding for Demonstration Projects ....................................................... 46 

Radiological Facilities Management ....................................................................... 28 

Radiopharmaceuticals ............................................................................................. 51 

Renewable Energy Program in Alaska .................................................................. 56 

Storage Centers ....................................................................................................... 46 

Tidal Energy Projects Cost in Alaska .................................................................... 56 

Time Scale for Hydrogen in Northwest ................................................................. 60 

Twenty Year Facility Plan ...................................................................................... 44 

Ultra High-Speed Super Computers ...................................................................... 60 

University: 

Programs ........................................................................................................... 50 

Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support ............................................................. 27 

User Facilities .......................................................................................................... 57 

Who Controls the Hydrogen Initiative? ................................................................. 45 

World Nuclear Power Plants Under Construction On Order ............................... 35 

Yucca Mountain ....................................................................................................... 42 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 44 

Advanced Scientific Computing Research ............................................................. 18 

Alaska Examination of Geothermal Sites .............................................................. 55 

Assistance to Alaska Companies ............................................................................ 55 

Barter Arrangements .............................................................................................. 52 

Basic Energy Sciences ............................................................................................. 19 

Biological and Environmental Research ................................................................ 19 

Biomass: 

R&D and: 

National Laboratories ............................................................................... 53 

Universities ................................................................................................ 54 

Rationale for Cuts ............................................................................................ 59 

Centers for Excellence in Hydrogen ....................................................................... 46 

Ceramic Ion Transport Membranes Project .......................................................... 53 

Evaluation of Renewable Energy Sources on Public Lands ................................. 55 

Financial Assistance to Geothermal Development in Alaska .............................. 59 

For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) ................. 57 

Funding: 

A Commercial Biomass Plant .......................................................................... 54 

For Concentrating Solar Power ....................................................................... 58 

Fusion Energy Sciences ........................................................................................... 19 

Genome Science ....................................................................................................... 34 

Genomes to Life Program ....................................................................................... 33 

Genomics: GTL Facilities ........................................................................................ 59 

High: 

Energy Physics ................................................................................................. 20 

Temperature Superconductor Program .......................................................... 59 

Hydrogen in the Pacific Northwest ........................................................................ 60 

Idaho National Laboratory ...................................................................................... 49 

Industry-Laboratory Cooperation ........................................................................... 60 

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) .............................. 44, 57 

Iowa Environmental/Education Project ................................................................. 57 

Louisiana Energy Services—Enrichment .............................................................. 51 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory ................................................................ 58 

Nuclear Energy: 

Budget ............................................................................................................... 47 

Physics ............................................................................................................... 20 

Technologies/Nuclear Power 2010 ................................................................... 48 

Office of Science Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request .............................................. 3 
Page

xii 

OMB Funding Request ............................................................................................ 46 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Facilities ................................................. 29 

Protein and Molecular Tags Facility ...................................................................... 33 

R&D vs. Funding for Demonstration Projects ....................................................... 46 

Radiopharmaceuticals ............................................................................................. 51 

Renewable Energy Program in Alaska .................................................................. 56 

Safeguards and Security ......................................................................................... 21 

Science: 

Laboratories Infrastructure ............................................................................. 21 

Plans and Priorities .......................................................................................... 17 

Priorities ............................................................................................................ 32 

Program Direction ............................................................................................ 22 

Programs ........................................................................................................... 18 

Storage Centers ....................................................................................................... 46 

Tidal Energy Projects Cost in Alaska .................................................................... 56 

Time Scale for Hydrogen in Northwest ................................................................. 60 

Twenty Year Facility Plan ...................................................................................... 44 

Ultra High-Speed Super Computers ...................................................................... 60 

University Programs ............................................................................................... 50 

User Facilities .......................................................................................................... 57 

Who Controls the Hydrogen Initiative? ................................................................. 45 

Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists ........................................... 22 

Z Machine Application to the Science Program .................................................... 32 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 248 

Addressing Long-standing Department Challenges ............................................. 235 

Budget Overview ...................................................................................................... 232 

Bureau of Reclamation ............................................................................................ 233 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ........................................................................... 230 

Central: 

Utah Project Completion Act ........................................................................... 235 

Valley Project Restoration Fund ..................................................................... 230 

Dakota Water Resources Act .................................................................................. 251 

Demonstrated Commitment and Accomplishments .............................................. 231 

Desalination ............................................................................................................. 249 

Fiscal Year 2005 Planned Activities ...................................................................... 232 

Five-Year Expenditures .......................................................................................... 254 

Fort Yates Intake Structure Failure ...................................................................... 251 

Hydropower .............................................................................................................. 253 

Investing in Conservation ....................................................................................... 237 

Klamath Basin ......................................................................................................... 235 

Pick-Sloan Hydropower ........................................................................................... 252 

Policy and Administration ...................................................................................... 229 

President’s Management Agenda ........................................................................... 230 

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) ............................................................. 230 

Red River Valley Water Supply Project ................................................................. 251 

Site Security ............................................................................................................. 253 

Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program........................................... 249, 250 

Water 2025 ............................................................................................................... 248 

And Related Resources ..................................................................................... 228 

Title XVI ............................................................................................................ 249 

Æ