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

29–708 PDF 2006

STRENGTHENING THE NATION’S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE: THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS’

PLANNING PRIORITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 15, 2006

Serial No. 109–172

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, NORTH CAROLINA

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

DIANE E. WATSON, California

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

TOM LANTOS, California

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

DAVE SOLAN, Professional Staff Member

LORI GAVAGHAN, Clerk

RICHARD BUTCHER, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 15, 2006 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Lamont, Douglas W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Project

Planning, accompanied by Claudia Tornblom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget, and Thomas Waters, Chief, Planning and Policy; Anu Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office; Steve Ellis, vice president,

Taxpayers for Common Sense; and S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, vice president for government affairs, American Rivers ........................................... 6

Birnbaum, S. Elizabeth ............................................................................. 43

Ellis, Steve ................................................................................................. 33

Lamont, Douglas W. .................................................................................. 6

Mittal, Anu ................................................................................................ 16

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Birnbaum, S. Elizabeth, vice president for government affairs, American

Rivers, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 46

Ellis, Steve, vice president, Taxpayers for Common Sense, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 36

Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 4

Lamont, Douglas W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Project

Planning, prepared statement of ................................................................. 10

Mittal, Anu, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government

Accountability Office, prepared statement of ............................................. 18

Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 69

(1)

STRENGTHENING THE NATION’S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE: THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS’ PLANNING PRIORITIES

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:02 p.m. in room

2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Issa and Watson.

Staff present: Larry Brady, staff director; Lori Gavaghan, legislative clerk; Tom Alexander, counsel; Dave Solan, Ph.D., and Ray

Robbins, professional staff members; Richard Butcher, minority

professional staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. ISSA. A working quorum under our rules being present, this

meeting is called to order.

Mr. Lamont, I’ll begin by also saying I understand you have

someone else from the Corps of Engineers who would like to be

able to testify if areas outside of your expertise arise. They can

come forward and just be here the whole time. That’s fine.

Mr. LAMONT. Is it appropriate now?

Mr. ISSA. It’s appropriate right now; that’s fine.

Mr. LAMONT. Claudia Tornblom is the Deputy for Management

and Budget in our Office of the Assistant Secretary.

Mr. ISSA. Excellent. At these hearings, we try to have the greatest amount of impact by having all of your staff available. I will

mention in advance before I get to it in the script that we will

swear in all who may testify and all who may assist you answering

questions so that either whether they speak directly or they whisper in your ear and you reiterate, it’s covered. We do that as a matter of committee policy in order to make it easier on you because

the last thing we want to have is you’re speaking somebody else’s

words and then you’ve been sworn and they haven’t. So hopefully

it works for all of us.

The Army Corps of Engineers has a long and distinguished history of building and maintaining critical water resources and infrastructure in the United States. As we have witnessed in Hurricane

Katrina, the Corps’ traditional missions of flood control and navigation are as important as ever. And I would like to take a moment

to personally thank the many Corps employees who have volunteered to work in the area devastated by Katrina. As I understand,

2

a fairly significant, of the total transferrable work force is presently

working in the Gulf. Again I’d like to thank the Corps for their

service and their efforts.

The Nation’s existing infrastructure is the result of priority-setting, decisions and projects constructed in the past. For decades to

come, infrastructure priorities that we set today and in the near future will impact commerce, electricity generation, wetlands, and

most importantly, the safety of communities that depend on the

Corps for flood protection. It is imperative that we have the tools

and information to make the right choices.

But the Corps faces a number of significant challenges in carrying out its mission. Funding for the Corps inevitably involves

tradeoffs between congressionally authorized projects. And, unfortunately, critical maintenance of existing infrastructure is sometimes deferred because of other competing priorities.

Next, financial management is another area of concern. It has

become a common practice for the Corps to shift funds to meet the

needs of the moment, which suggests that priority-setting within

the Corps is either lacking or not sustainable. And as the rest of

the committee comes, I would like to take a moment to set a context for that, for your statements to come.

I had the privilege of spending almost 2 years with the Corps of

Engineers on active duty and as an executive officer of an engineering company. On more than a few occasions somebody managed to

have enough construction sites that I had to have one bulldozer at

two sites at one time. It is a fairly low-level decision. It requires

that you put the bulldozer on a truck every day so that it is in both

sites at some point during the day. Four hours on both sites, no

problem. The problem is the 2-hours it takes to load the bulldozer,

get it over there and unload it was lost time.

Now that may be just a microcosm of what you are facing in the

Corps of Engineers but it is a perspective that I put on it, that if

we are asking you to have a bulldozer in two places at one time,

if that requires an inefficiency, it leads to a greater total cost for

those two projects and Congress needs to know that and Congress

needs to take action.

Third, the shortcomings in a cost/benefit analysis done by the

Corps have been well documented by the GAO, the National Academy of Sciences and the Army Inspector General. To its credit, the

Corps has moved aggressively to address these flaws and improve

its planning processes. The Corps has also taken steps to be more

cooperative and reorganize so that stove-piping no longer exists.

In conclusion, I must note that we are not here to revisit the

Water Resource Development Act, which passed the House by more

than 390 votes. We are not here to criticize the Corps or any part

of government for the purpose of making points in the press. We

are here today to find out primarily if the relationship between

Congress and the Corps has led to mixed messages, excess projects

and insufficient funds.

3

I certainly look forward to hearing from each of the witnesses.

I certainly want to hopefully set in motion in your minds the fact

that this Congressman recognizes that Congress is clearly part of

the problem in the Corps today and in the quantity of backlog,

some dating 25 years, that have never been fully funded.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Darrell E. Issa follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. ISSA. Again I look forward to hearing from our esteemed

guests. Mr. Douglas Lamont, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

Army for Project Planning. I thank you for being here. Thank the

Corps for making you available on relatively short notice. I realize

there are several people juggling their schedules to make this happen.

Ms. Anu Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environmental

Team of the Government Accountability Office. Thank you for

being here and again thank you for the work that the GAO has already done.

Mr. Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Thank you for being here. We live and die by our watchdog organizations here and I do emphasize and die.

And Ms. Elizabeth Birnbaum, vice president and general counsel,

American Rivers.

Thank you all for being here. As I mentioned earlier, for all of

you and anyone who you are going to have assist you, I would ask

that you stand now and be sworn in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. ISSA. I indicate that all said affirmative and the one gentleman in the back, if you would also give the recorder your name

and spelling, that will help. And please have a seat.

The ranking member is on her way back. As you probably know,

we have the president of Liberia speaking before a joint session. I

ducked out early but for appropriate reasons, some of the Members

will be coming in afterwards. So the good news is you miss an

opening statement, although she may want to give it when she gets

in.

But Mr. Lamont, if you would begin.

Oh, and I will ask and I will clearly get unanimous consent that

all of your written testimony be placed in the record, which will

allow you to go off of your testimony and add or modify as you see

fit. In fairness to so many speakers, try to be about 5 minutes. If

it runs over a little bit, we certainly would be understanding.

Thank you.

STATEMENTS OF DOUGLAS W. LAMONT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR PROJECT PLANNING, ACCOMPANIED BY CLAUDIA TORNBLOM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, AND THOMAS

WATERS, CHIEF, PLANNING AND POLICY; ANU MITTAL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; STEVE ELLIS, VICE

PRESIDENT, TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE; AND S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AMERICAN RIVERS

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS W. LAMONT

Mr. LAMONT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify

on strengthening the Nation’s infrastructure, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers planning priorities.

The Corps of Engineers civil works program provides a framework to develop reasoned environmental and engineering solutions

7

to support the water resources needs of our Nation. Over the last

few years the Corps has implemented several initiatives to improve

its planning processes and maintain and strengthen its planning

expertise.

Mr. ISSA. Is the green light lit?

Mr. LAMONT. Yes, sir, it is. Shall I move closer?

Mr. ISSA. We may be able to adjust it but if you would move as

close as you can, I would appreciate it.

Mr. LAMONT. These initiatives include revisions to the planning

guidance, the planning models improvement program, peer review,

the establishment of planning centers of expertise, planner capability development, and project priority-setting. I would like to briefly

describe each of these initiatives for you.

The Corps water resources planning is guided by the U.S. Water

Resources Council’s 1983 Economic and Environmental Principles

and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. The analyses required for individual project decisions go well beyond the calculation of benefit and cost ratios. Systematic evaluation of projects of different scales and scopes is required so that tradeoffs among different mixes of project purposes

and alternative solutions can be identified.

Using the Principles and Guidelines as the basic analytical

framework, the Corps has developed its planning guidance in response to evolving national priorities and congressional direction,

which include considerations such as greater emphasis on environmental protection and restoration and greater collaboration among

project interests.

Recently the Corps has issued guidance to broaden the planning

considerations through collaborative watershed-based planning and

to more fully document alternative plans’ beneficial and adverse effects in the areas of national economic development, environmental

quality, regional economic development, and other social effects.

This approach would provide a basis for more comprehensive solutions to complex water resource challenges.

The use of technical models is part of the science and engineering that form the foundation of our investment decision documents.

To ensure the quality and credibility of the Corps’ models, the

Corps has implemented a Planning Models Improvement Program.

This program enhances the planning capability of the Corps by requiring the use of certified and defensible technical models in the

development of its decision documents. The use of the certified

models will improve the Corps’ ability to provide theoretically and

technically sound data for decisionmaking. The guidance and emphasis of this program should also, in the long term, result in significant efficiencies in conducting planning studies.

Early last year the Corps adopted a peer review process as called

for in the Information Quality Act. Our peer review process closely

follows the Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

issued by the Office of Management and Budget in 2004. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the technical quality of Corps

documents is evaluated by a group of independent reviewers not involved with the report production. Potential projects that are controversial, precedent-setting or have significant national effects will

8

also require external peer review by experts outside the Corps of

Engineers.

In addition, external peer review is added in most cases where

the risk and magnitude of a proposed project are such that a critical examination by a qualified person or a team outside the Corps

is necessary.

Further, the Corps has established a Civil Works Review Board

composed of Corps Senior Executive Service personnel and a deputy commanding general for the Corps of Engineers to determine

if the planning recommendations of the Corps districts are ready

for formal State and agency review and circulation of a proposed

Report of the Chief of Engineers.

In August 2003 the Director of Civil Works designated six national Planning Centers of Expertise to enhance the Corps’ planning capability for inland navigation, deep draft navigation, ecosystem restoration, hurricane storm damage reduction, flood damage reduction, and water management and reallocation. The centers have key roles in maintaining and strengthening planner core

competencies within the Corps, providing technical assistance, providing independent review, transferring the latest technology, and

sharing lessons learned and best practices throughout the Corps’

Planning Community of Practice.

With the increasing maturity and development of these centers,

the Corps can more widely leverage its resources regionally and nationally. Fully functioning centers will provide leadership for the

Corps planning process nationwide, support the regional technical

specialists, provide for independent technical reviews, ensure certified models are used in decisionmaking documents, share lessons

learned, develop core training modules and oversee the implementation of new guidance.

The ability of an organization to work with not only the scientific

and engineering aspects of water resources but also the economic

and environmental components depends upon a multi-talented, experienced work force. One way the Corps is addressing the need for

experienced planners is through the Planning Associates Program

that is an advanced training opportunity for Corps water resource

planners at the journeyman level. The goals of this program are to

broaden the planners’ competencies in solving complex water resources problems, to strengthen their leadership skills, and to retain critical planner capability within the Corps of Engineers.

The Corps has also established an Advanced Degree Program in

Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management that has

been created in close partnership between the Universities Council

on Water Resources and the Corps of Engineers. It is designed to

provide the next generation of Corps water resources professionals

with a requisite skill set to address multi-objective planning and

management. Planners completing the program earn a masters degree or doctorate from one of the participating accredited universities.

The Corps has played and continues to play a large role in the

development and management of the Nation’s water and related

land resources. The administration’s 2007 budget incorporates objective, performance-based metrics for the construction program,

funds the continued operation of commercial navigation and other

9

water resource infrastructure, and supports the restoration of nationally and regionally significant aquatic ecosystems, with emphasis on the Florida Everglades, the Upper Mississippi River, and the

coastal wetlands of Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, the Corps of Engineers is committed to staying on

the leading edge of service to the Nation. I am confident that the

planning process improvements and performance-based budgeting

recently undertaken by the Corps have strengthened our ability to

be responsive to the Nation’s complex water resources needs. I will

be happy to answer any questions, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamont follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. Ms. Mittal.

STATEMENT OF ANU MITTAL

Ms. MITTAL. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to be here today to

discuss the Corps of Engineers’ civil works planning and project

management processes. My testimony today is based on five reports

issued by GAO over the last 4 years and focuses on two specific aspects of the civil works program. First I will cover shortcomings

that we have identified and the economic analyses used by the

Corps to support its planning decisions on specific civil works

projects. And second, I will cover the Corps’ lack of an effective financial planning and priority-setting process for managing its civil

works appropriations.

As you know, before undertaking a civil works project, the Corps

generally completes a two-phased planning study. This two-phased

process helps inform congressional decisionmakers about whether

or not to authorize a civil works project and helps determine if Federal investment is warranted. As part of this process, the Corps

analyzes and documents whether the costs of constructing the

project are outweighed by the benefits provided by the project.

Consequently, the accuracy and reliability of the Corps’ cost/benefit analysis is critical to ensuring that only the most beneficial

projects are proposed to decisionmakers. However, our reviews of

individual civil works projects and activities have found that the

results of the Corps’ analysis are often questionable and are inadequate to support this kind of strategic decisionmaking.

Specifically, when we reviewed the Corps’ cost/benefit analyses

for four different projects and activities, we found that they were

fraught with errors, mistakes and miscalculations. These analyses

often used invalid assumptions and outdated data to arrive at their

conclusions. In each of our reviews we found that the Corps’ analyses typically understated the cost of a project and overstated its

benefits. For example, when we have tried to recalculate the benefits of some of these projects we have only been able to find credible

support for about a fraction of the benefits claimed by the Corps.

More troubling is the fact that these analyses went through a

three-tiered Corps internal review process but none of these reviews detected any of the problems that we uncovered. This raises

serious questions in our minds about the adequacy of the Corps’ internal reviews.

In response to our report, usually at the direction of the Congress, the Corps has addressed or is in the process of addressing

the specific issues identified relating to these individual projects.

However, we remain concerned about the extent to which these

problems are systemic in nature and therefore may be prevalent

throughout the rest of the Corps’ civil works portfolio. Effectively

addressing these issues may require a more global and comprehensive revamping of the Corps’ project planning processes rather than

a piecemeal approach.

We also undertook a review last year on how the Corps manages

its appropriations for the civil works program. We found that the

Corps did not have an effective financial planning and management system for these accounts. As a result, the Corps could not

identify the highest priority projects across hundreds of authorized

17

projects and allocate appropriated funds to them in an efficient

manner. To manage its appropriated funds, we found that the

Corps relied on a just-in-time reprogramming approach and moved

funds among projects as needed.

The benefit of this just-in-time approach was that it provided

funds rapidly to projects that had unexpected needs. However, this

approach also resulted in many unnecessary and uncoordinated

movements of funds among projects. We found that over a 2-year

period the Corps moved over $2.1 billion by conducting over 7,000

reprogramming actions and many of these actions were conducted

for reasons that were inconsistent with the Corps’ own guidance.

In response to the findings in our report, the Congress has directed the Corps to revise its procedures for managing its civil

works appropriations starting in fiscal year 2006. The Corps has

been directed to reduce its reliance on reprogramming actions and

institute a more rational financial discipline for the civil works appropriations accounts.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the recurring themes in our reviews of

individual Corps projects indicate that the Corps’ track record for

providing reliable information to assess the merits of undertaking

certain civil works projects and managing its appropriations for

this program is spotty, at best. This is of particular concern in a

time when decisionmakers have to determine how to best provide

increasingly scarce Federal resources to hundreds of competing

civil works needs across the country.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mittal follows:]

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. And I want to thank you for your testimony

and the other testimonies arriving in a timely fashion.

Mr. Lamont, I want to thank the Corps for getting theirs in to

OMB on time. I will mention that as we are trying to put together

questions, OMB held it up until 6 p.m. last night. So hopefully we

will be thorough in our questions and the minority counsel when

they arrive I am sure are going to somewhat have the same story

of feeling that you did not blind-side them but they did not have

a lot of notice.

Mr. LAMONT. Thank you for your understanding.

Mr. ISSA. We certainly understand the Corps was timely in its

delivery to the administration.

Mr. Ellis.

STATEMENT OF STEVE ELLIS

Mr. ELLIS. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am

Steve Ellis, vice president of programs at Taxpayers for Common

Sense, a national nonpartisan budget watchdog. Thank you for

holding this hearing on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ planning process and project priorities.

I want to be clear from the outset that I have a great deal of respect for the Corps and for Congress. However, we have been significantly concerned about the well-documented waste of taxpayer

dollars on our Nation’s water resources program.

Over the last several years there have been numerous studies

into the Corps’ shortcomings, some of which were just mentioned.

In a more direct way, Katrina exposed many of these same weaknesses. It appears Congress’s response has been to do nothing because the lack of strong rules, easily manipulated economics, and

a priority-free environment lends itself to pork barrel spending and

political machinations.

Congress and the Corps have become, wittingly or unwittingly,

partners in wasting the U.S. taxpayers’ money. The agency’s roughly $5 billion budget is almost entirely made up of earmarks for

projects. By courting Members of Congress, the Corps helps ensure

that their budget level is maintained. The Corps takes care of Congress and Congress takes care of the Corps.

The Army Inspector General pointed out that for the Corps, ‘‘the

budget process was deemed a first-half irrelevancy. The measure of

effectiveness of the divisions and districts was the amount of funds

actually appropriated by Congress.’’

Then chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, Sonny Callahan, indicated his interest in getting the Dog River

in Mobile, AL dredged because it had silted in too much for even

recreational traffic. Recreational dredging is not a Corps mission,

so the project was redefined as environmental restoration because

as noted in an internal Corps memo, ‘‘The project is Congressman

Callahan’s personal initiative. The yellow dot on the photo below

shows Mr. Callahan’s Mobile residence in relation to the Dog

River.’’ I can tell you that it was right next door. The Dog River

was his back yard.

The Corps is incapable of correcting itself. For example, dredging

projects on the Delaware and the Columbia Rivers were found by

independent experts to not be economically justified, returning penVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:23 Oct 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\29708.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
34

nies for every dollar invested. In response, the Corps created review panels but then ignored serious economic shortcomings in the

projects, declared victory, and moved ahead with them.

Part of the blame lays with the rules that govern project selection, the Principles and Guidelines. More than 20 years old, these

rules need to be revised to consider new factors in the benefit/cost

analysis, updates to the economic methodology and reorienting the

civil works program toward fewer and less structural projects.

For example, the Corps’ current method of calculating benefits

has encouraged high-risk development by creating a false sense of

confidence in flood damage reduction projects. To be sure, flood insurance and disaster relief payments have also contributed but now

a levee that is built to protect soybeans can end up growing subdivisions.

Since the 1920’s the Federal Government has spent more than

$123 billion on flood damage reduction projects. During that same

period, average annual flood damages have nearly trebled to $6 billion.

As projects churn through the flawed development process, they

end up in a heap called a backlog. The Corps has a $58 billion

backlog of authorized projects that have yet not been constructed.

There is no prioritization system for projects, so the $2 billion in

annual construction funding is spread thinly across many projects.

Corps appropriations include irrigation systems, wastewater

treatment, and water supply facilities, none of which are primary

Corps missions. The Corp is involved in building schools. Building

and renovating schools is a laudable job but should not be a priority of the Nation’s premier water resources agency.

The lack of priorities and the symbiotic Corps-Congress relationship have significant costs. President Bush has frequently criticized

the pre-9/11 mindset. Well, those making the much-ado-about-nothing argument on the Corps are suffering from a pre-Katrina

mindset. With more than 1,000 lives lost and a total cost likely exceeding $100 billion, we need to fundamentally alter our country’s

approach to water resources if we are to avoid this devastation in

the future.

After Katrina hit and the levees failed in New Orleans, many

said we did not spend enough money. No, we did not spend enough

money wisely. Louisiana took home $1.9 billion in Corps funding

in the 5 fiscal years preceding Katrina. That was more than any

other State. California came in a distant second at less than $1.4

billion. We had the money. It went to the wrong things, like a new

lock on the Industrial Canal in New Orleans. Levees on the very

same Industrial Canal failed, inundating the lower Ninth Ward. In

retrospect, lock or levees? I hope our priorities would be different

today.

In closing, to reign in this culture of waste, strong new measures

must be enacted. This includes earmark and lobby reform. It also

means modernizing the Corps by establishing independent review,

developing a prioritization system, and updating the Principles and

Guidelines. The earmarked project-by-project budgeting must be

ended. It is up to Congress to reign in the Corps and the excesses

of their fellow lawmakers.

35

Thank you for holding this hearing and we hope that we can

work together to bring the Corps of Engineers into the 21st century

and to meet our country’s pressing water resources needs in a fiscally responsible manner. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:]

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. That was not only almost exactly on the

5-minutes but you alternated very well between the failures of the

Corps and the failures of the Congress. I thought that was pretty

fair.

Ms. Birnbaum.

STATEMENT OF S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for

the opportunity to appear today. My name is Liz Birnbaum and,

as you mentioned, I am the vice president for government affairs

at American Rivers, the Nation’s leading river conservation organization, with over 40,000 members and working with thousands of

local watershed and river groups across the country. We also cochair the Corps Reform Network, a growing coalition of more than

135 organizations from across the country.

To protect lives, communities, the economy, and the environment, Congress must modernize Corps of Engineers project planning. No stronger evidence is needed than the horrifying flooding

of New Orleans, which highlighted many critical problems with the

Corps’ project planning and construction.

First, Corps projects repeatedly suffer from flawed project planning and design. Hurricane Katrina was a Category 3 storm when

it reached New Orleans, a storm the flood walls were supposed to

protect against. The floodwall design did not meet the Corps’ own

guidelines, and the Corps failed to act on additional concerns about

unstable soils and levee heights. A panel of the American Society

of Civil Engineers has concluded that the system’s failure demonstrates that ‘‘fundamental flaws were part of how the system was

conceived and developed.’’

Second, New Orleans exemplifies how many Corps projects destroy natural systems that provide the first line of defense against

floods. Since the 1930’s, Louisiana has lost about 1,900 square

miles of coastal wetlands, which protect against storm surges. The

Corps contributed to these wetlands losses with upstream projects

that blocked the sediment necessary to nourish coastal wetlands

and downstream levees that pushed the remaining sediment load

out into the Gulf.

Another Corps project, the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, or Mr.

GO, also damaged 20,000 acres of coastal wetlands. But more than

that, community leaders, activists and scientists had warned for

years that Mr. GO would funnel storm surges directly to the city,

yet the Corps did not act. The initial flooding that devastated St.

Bernard Parish and the lower Ninth Ward came from Mr. GO.

Third, the Corps does projects that encourage development in

high-risk areas, placing people in harm’s way. After Hurricane

Betsy hit New Orleans in 1965, killing 75 people, instead of reinforcing levees located at the city’s edge, the Corps planned a new

system stretching miles into uninhabited wetlands. The Corps then

claimed the increased property values of the newly drained wetlands as an economic benefit. Tragically, many of these wetlands

became the impoverished eastern Orleans Parish neighborhoods

that suffered the brunt of Katrina’s flooding.

Fourth, Corps projects and project funding do not prioritize national needs. While Louisiana receives far more money for Corps

44

projects than any other State, as Steve mentioned, the funding has

not been directed to priority flood protection projects. Over the past

5 years Congress sent $1.9 billion, again as Mr. Ellis mentioned,

none of which went to upgrade New Orleans’ defenses. New Orleans’ repeated requests for increased flood protection garnered only

a small appropriation to study the problem.

The flooding of New Orleans is by no means the only evidence

of the need to modernize Corps projects. The flood of studies listed

in the attachment to my testimony, from the National Academy of

Sciences, the Government Accountability Office, the Army Inspector General, and independent experts, shows that the Corps’ problems are pervasive, affecting projects nationwide.

Although the problems are large, the solutions are manageable.

A bill recently introduced in the Senate, S. 2288, would make necessary changes.

First, input from independent experts must be integrated into

Corps project planning. A transparent process should allow independent outside experts to examine whether projects will meet

needs while minimizing costs and environmental harm. S. 2288

would subject all projects costing more than $25 million or projects

deemed controversial to review by an outside panel of experts. This

input would then receive weight in the Corps’ planning process.

Second, Congress should require the Corps to protect natural systems. In addition to avoiding harm to rivers and wetlands whenever possible, the Corps must mitigate any impacts that cannot be

avoided. S. 2288 would require the Corps to meet the same mitigation requirements as everyone else does. Wetlands mitigation offers

a host of benefits, including natural flood protection. One wetland

acre, saturated one foot deep, retains 330,000 gallons of water,

enough to flood 13 average homes thigh deep.

Third, the Corps’ planning guidelines must be modernized. The

Corps is operating under 20-year-old planning guidelines that promote the destruction of the healthy natural ecosystems that defend

against storm surges and flooding but allow the Corps to recommend projects in high-risk areas, luring people into harm’s way

and that do not adequately address loss of life. Indeed, under the

current rules, the Corps can count draining wetlands as an economic benefit of a project. S. 2288 would reinstate the Water Resources Council to address these and other failings of the Corps’

planning guidelines, in consultation with the National Academy of

Sciences.

And here I am going to accept the offer to step off my written

testimony and mention the Corps cannot do this itself. The Water

Resources Council established these guidelines in 1983 and then

disbanded. It has not met since then. The Corps cannot fix this

problem itself.

Finally, Congress should ensure that the Corps gives Congress

necessary information to prioritize projects that will provide vital

flood protection for urban areas and critical infrastructure, and

avoid damage to natural flood protection systems. S. 2288 would

ask the Water Resources Council to analyze how Corps projects can

reflect national priorities for flood damage reduction, navigation,

and ecosystem restoration. It would require the Corps to plan

45

projects that avoid the unwise use of floodplains and that restore

and maintain natural systems that defend against flooding.

We urge Congress to address these lessons so tragically highlighted by Hurricane Katrina and we urge Congress not to pass another Water Resources Development Act unless needed reforms are

included. We would be happy to work with the committee to make

these changes a reality.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Birnbaum follows:]

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Mr. ISSA. Thank you all. Thank you for very much staying within, I think, a good timeframe. And for all of you went off your prepared speeches, you are allowed to go off your prepared speeches

and I always appreciate that.

I will begin questioning. This hearing is not about Katrina. I

want to make that clear. But it is inevitable that Katrina is a poster child for what the Corps should be in the future and perhaps

what it has not been, and what Congress’s role has not been in the

past. So I hope you will all look at this as anecdotal questions, because we are using Katrina, but not that this committee is investigating Katrina.

Mr. Lamont, Ms. Birnbaum’s testimony claims the Corps knowingly used incomplete, outdated weather information in the design

of the levees that were to protect New Orleans. I am astonished

that the Corps may use obsolete data for projects the primary purpose.

This is an allegation that I have heard before. Would you like to

address it, please, of how old the data was, why there was not an

update before the levees were produced and how it may have impacted the levees?

Before you answer, I would ask that you primarily concentrate

on what this committee should look to doing in the future. Again

I do not want this to be about a specific event but rather, is there

a flaw that either has been corrected or could be corrected and if

so, what Congress would also participate in doing. Please, Mr. Lamont.

Mr. LAMONT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am involved with the

forensic investigation of what happened in New Orleans. Let me

give you some quick background on that, to put this in proper context.

The Chief of Engineers, General Strock, set up an Interagency

Performance Evaluation Task Force composed of some of the best

and brightest people within the Corps, outside the Corps, and in

academia, to try to find out exactly what happened. This is the first

time that I have heard, for example, that there may have been an

allegation of parameters that may have been looked aside.

As a professional engineer myself, and engineers in the community and the Corps of Engineers, the first thing that you are going

to look at is the available information and the existing design criteria and codes at the time. A lot of these were designed back in

the 1960’s and I do not know this as a fact but I suspect that the

design criteria have changed over time.

The Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force is also having the results of their input reviewed separately by the American

Society of Civil Engineers. Mr. Woodley, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, has also established under Mr.

Rumsfeld’s direction a contract with the National Academies of

Science to independently review what the ASCE is externally reviewing and what the Corps of Engineers Interagency Task Force

is looking at.

The heart of this is that the chief of engineers and Mr. Woodley

are looking for the answers in a transparent fashion. We are trying

to get to the bottom of exactly what happened, to determine lessons

61

learned, and then incorporate that in the reconstitution of the levee

system in New Orleans.

I have no personal knowledge, sir, of the allegations that I just

heard. I think this needs to be further examined as this comes

about. We are looking for a June 1st date to wrap up the Interagency Performance Task Force information and provide that information to the NRC panel and also to ASCE. That is the best information I have at this time.

Mr. ISSA. OK. And what I would like to do is give you a copy.

This is from a site Greenwire that specifically says that the Corps

of Engineers knew the threat to the levees as early as 1972. It does

quote that the knowledge, the research was done in 1959 for a

worst-case scenario, so you were very close to accurate on it being

the 1960’s.

I would like to give this to you so that in answer after the fact,

if you could respond to the specifics of this as you look at when the

design was done and whether or not the weather data of 1959 was,

in fact, what was used, because this is something that—like anything you pull down off the Internet, as good as it might seem, you

would certainly like to give an opportunity for fair response. So if

you will make sure they get a copy of it.

I would like to go to something, and I make it a point not to try

to characterize—I characterize folksy things from my own life, but

I try not to make things about my own district. And with 88 percent of your funds earmarked in fiscal year 2006, I think way too

many of us have lived and died based on how much we earmark

for our own districts. And the only thing I can say in defense is

if we do not do it, the remaining amount is not sufficient for you

to do those jobs in our districts that need to be done, either.

But I would like to talk briefly about one that I would like your

response on. The San Luis Rey River project, which is over a decade old, was a project that was to be completed in about 6 years,

5 to 6 years. It ran out of funding and additionally, the maintenance that was to be done during that time was not done. So what

started off as a flood prevention levee now is, in fact, habitat in

which the Corps of Engineers on an annual basis pays to exchange

eggs from smart birds to dumb birds so that the dumb bird will

continue to be around as an endangered species. The Corps of Engineers manually removes arrondo and other invasive species so as

to minimize the flooding while, at the same time, not being able to

disturb habitat in general.

Isn’t the best—and this comes to the real question—isn’t the best

way for the Corps to do a project to start the project, have full

funding on the project until the project is completed, regardless of

whether there is a powerful appropriator representing that district

or not? And shouldn’t there be a process in which a project in its

development says if it is not done on this time schedule, there will

be secondary or potential secondary costs? Shouldn’t that be part

of the whole way the Corps allocates its resources?

Mr. LAMONT. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to ask our

Deputy for Management and Budget, who is emminently more

qualified than myself, to try to answer that.

Mr. ISSA. Well, I hit a home run if I can get the big guns in here.

Thank you.

62

Ms. TORNBLOM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is easy to say that

the Corps budget is largely earmarked, but many of those are the

President’s earmarks. Some of them are congressional earmarks

that are added to the budget.

The Corps budget is that way because each project is individually

authorized. We do not have underlying generic authorization in

most cases. So the program has evolved over the decades as you

see it now, individual project funding.

On occasion the administration has proposed fully funding

projects. That was never found acceptable by the Congress, for I

am sure a variety of reasons. We are, however, moving steadily toward prioritizing the project based on performance and how near

they are to completion and being much more efficient about the

way we use the funds, reducing the number of reprogrammings

and the number of continuing contracts which require further funding in the future.

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate that but my real question was since I have

one in my district that I have been up close and personal on, that

has at least $18 million of mitigation required because on an annual basis during construction it was never cleared because funds

were reprogrammed away.

Now that is a personal, anecdotal, granted, but a personal observation where the Corps is now doing the work of Fish and Wildlife,

spending Corps money on an annual basis in order to meet agreedon requirements as a result of accidentally creating habitat in a

project that was supposed to have 200-year flood benefits, now may

have less than a 100-year flood benefit. And just so you understand

why this is so significant.

I have advised and the attorneys for the city that contracted and

should have already had full cost of maintaining the thing, I have

advised them not to accept the project because there is no basis for

them to take your problem, your habitat you have created, and

take it on. There is no reason for them to spend the million dollars

a year. So the $18 million, if not spent, will mean that in perpetuity $1 million more a year will be spent by the Corps from your

$5 billion budget to continue basically producing habitat because

the city is not going to accept the output of the levees because it

does not meet the spec that you agreed to, all of this because on

an annual basis, the dredging was not done and the project was not

completed. It was defunded and stretched out over more than a

decade.

Ms. TORNBLOM. We are trying to avoid stretching the money

across as many projects, which has the effect that you just described, by concentrating the resources we do have on fewer

projects that produce higher benefits for the Nation so that we can

get them finished.

Mr. ISSA. Well, how do we do that as the Congress is really the

question, and I want others to pipe in. Particularly Miss Mittal,

you said, and I know all of you actually said the Corps cannot do

it itself. There is a belief by the other three panelists that the

Corps itself, which has 25-year-old projects that have been substantially unfunded but left on the books for all these years, is incapable of getting rid of a project and narrowing the scope to where

63

within a $5 billion level of funding, you can do and realistically

deal with.

I mean it would be more than a decade if you took on no new

projects to finish all the projects that you have in your backlog

today. Is that a fair assessment, if I just do $5 billion into $58 billion of known backlog? Is that a fair assessment?

Ms. TORNBLOM. Your math is correct, sir.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Mr. Ellis. And I will get to the ranking member quickly because

I think we need to get her in, too.

Mr. ELLIS. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I would just point out that

the $5 billion is the total Corps budget. They only have $2 billion

in construction funding, so your $58 billion is actually going to take

a lot longer to finish than just a decade.

Mr. ISSA. I am not that young. That is why I picked a number

I could deal with.

Mr. ELLIS. I understand. But I do think that there are two points

that I would like to raise about this. One is that absolutely Congress is part of the problem in giving a little bit more money to the

Corps and stretching it out further over more projects. In just the

fiscal year 2007 budget that the president has proposed, there were

532 earmarks that he defunded that were in the fiscal year 2006

appropriation, so that was 532 projects that Congress essentially

added to that budget last year.

Also——

Mr. ISSA. You mean the President took away and we put back?

Mr. ELLIS. Well, you put in the fiscal year 2006 and then he specifically delineated those projects were not getting funding in fiscal

year 2007. I imagine that a significant number of those, if not all

of those, will reappear in the fiscal year 2007 budget for the Corps.

The other point I would like to make is that in the Corps’ planning, in their economic analyses of projects, they actually assume

optimal funding when they do the economic analysis, the benefit/

cost ratio. So there is some optimal timeline of building a project.

If it is a $50 million project you could not spend all the $50 million

in 1 year. It would take a couple of years.

So let us say you take $10 million a year for 5 years to build a

project. The Corps assumes that in their economic analysis. That

has never happened. I do not think that has ever happened probably for a Corps project, where it has gotten every dime that it

could have possibly spent in a particular year. So what the Corps

is effectively——

Mr. ISSA. Hoover Dam would be the clear exception.

Mr. ELLIS. What that actually ends up meaning, though, is that

it holds the cost down and it accelerates the delivery of the benefits. So it essentially skews the benefit/cost analysis to help justify

projects when, in reality, it is going to cost more and the benefits

are going to take longer to be achieved. So it actually ends up

skewing it to justify more projects, as well.

Mr. ISSA. It is clear that we could have an infinite amount of

questions. As soon as Miss Birnbaum has made her comment, I

want to turn this over to the ranking member so she can get her

questions in. Please.

64

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I just want to comment that we are supporting

the idea that there needs to be some sort of legislative way to

prioritize Corps projects to meet the problems you are talking

about and the bill I was talking about, S. 2288, would have the

Water Resources Council do that every 2 years with a specific requirement that they balance maintaining the rankings with any

new really important projects that might come along.

So somebody has to sit back and balance any new important priorities, but also look at that consistency of funding that you are

talking about and maintaining consistent priorities at the same

time.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. First, I want to apologize, Mr. Chairman, for being

late and not hearing the presentations. So if I repeat something

that has already been addressed, just let me know.

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming down and I wanted

to side with you, Mr. Chairman, that we have some problems in

the State of California and I do not know how priorities are being

set now that FEMA is operating under Homeland Security. From

testimony I heard earlier today, the kind of bureaucracy that has

been set up under Homeland Security automatically has an effect

on FEMA where it cannot move as quickly to respond.

Now we had one of the greatest disasters this country has ever

known, Katrina, Wilma, and all the rest of the ladies, female

names.

Mr. ISSA. Guys are getting their turn now but they are underproducing. It seems the big ones are still tending to be women on

these hurricanes. Did you notice that?

Ms. WATSON. Well, you know, let us just take the names off and

have Hurricane A and B and C and get out of that debate.

Anyway, in all seriousness, I am really concerned about how we

set priorities. What I read in the paper is all that I know because

information, vital information is not always shared with the Members of the House. Just understand that.

I want to commend my chair for going after some of these issues

and doing oversight because, as you know, many of our committees

do not do the oversight that we are responsible for.

The question is I hear the Corps of Engineers trying to repair the

17th Street Bridge levee is using material that cannot last the

strength of a category 3 landfall. I would like someone to respond

to that.

The other thing I need a response to, I understand that FEMA

has people down there and they are not given work orders but they

are getting paid the big bucks. And when we talk about the funding for FEMA to address the levees, why is it we have contractors

that are there sitting on ships and sitting in mobile units waiting

to work but they are getting paid?

Now if my information is inaccurate, please correct me because

all I know is what I read in the newspapers. Really, we do not get

informed. Regardless of what you hear, we do not get informed.

So can someone respond?

65

Mr. LAMONT. Yes, ma’am. To give you the best possible information, if I could, I would like to turn to Mr. Tom Waters, who could

bring you up to speed on that.

Ms. WATSON. Please do.

Mr. ISSA. Please come up and sit in the hot seat.

Mr. WATERS. Thank you. I am not going to be able to give a good,

definitive answer on the debris. I am sorry but I just do not have

that information available.

Ms. WATSON. I am not talking about the debris. I am talking

about addressing the needs of the levees, the materials and the

cost of doing it and the time span in which it is supposed to be

done. I understand there are people down there and they are not

working, but they are getting paid.

Mr. WATERS. Yes, ma’am. And I——

Ms. WATSON. These are FEMA contracts.

Mr. WATERS. Right. And I just cannot answer that part of the

question. I do not have enough information to provide you an answer in terms of what you are asking about the acquisition and

how that is going with the debris. But we certainly can find out

the answer to that and get it to you.

Ms. WATSON. I would like to give you something in writing and

have you respond to us in writing.

Mr. WATERS. Yes, ma’am.

On the question of materials on the 17th Street Canal, Mr. Lamont earlier gave a description of an effort that the Chief of Engineers and Mr. Woodley have commissioned using the National

Academies, American Society of Civil Engineers and Corps of Engineers, probably the best group of experts ever convened in the

country to examine what exactly has happened there. This is called

the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force and they have

made two public findings so far. The last one was released on

March 10th.

I am not going to be able to address the materials. That is a matter of public record, but the——

Ms. WATSON. Excuse me. Is that public record accurate?

Mr. WATERS. Well, it is a public record that is being reviewed by

experts and yes, ma’am. We are bringing the best——

Ms. WATSON. OK. Well, let me tell you what I read.

Mr. WATERS. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. WATSON. That the materials that were in the levee, the one

that broke, were inferior materials and now the Corps is using another material that will not withstand landfall at category 3. That

is what I am reading.

Mr. WATERS. Yes, ma’am. And the final conclusions of what happened and why the levees were breached will be available—the

schedule for that is the first of June of this year. And I cannot address the materials. It is a work in progress, unless something is

covered in the report that was published on March 10th. That is

about as good as I can do, I am afraid.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you for nothing. You cannot address it.

Is there anyone that can address the work orders for the people

who were called down to work on the levees? I understand they are

not working and getting paid big dollars. Anyone? If you cannot address it, then do not respond.

66

Mr. LAMONT. We would be happy to take the question and answer it for the record to the best of our ability, ma’am.

Ms. WATSON. I will put it in writing.

Mr. LAMONT. As Ms. Tornblom has just pointed out to me, the

issue relative to FEMA, we have no knowledge about.

Ms. WATSON. All right.

Mr. LAMONT. But we will investigate that and get back to you

on that.

Ms. WATSON. Fair enough. I will send it to you in writing, I will

share with the chair and other members of our committee, and I

will share the response. Thank you.

Mr. ISSA. And I am going to ask unanimous consent that all

Members, present or not present, be able to have followup questions and submit them to each of you in writing. Additionally, I

would ask unanimous consent that the record be left open for 2

weeks or extended further by the majority and minority, if necessary, to allow for that.

I will tell you that the efficiency of this has been excellent, but

there is no question that we are going to have additional followup

questions. I would like to thank you for beginning the process with

us.

I would like to summarize, in closing, that it appears very much

at the end of this hearing, as it began, that the Congress is a willing and active culprit in the poor performance of the Corps’ projects

in that clearly if we have $58 billion of backlog projects, $2 billion

in funding, and a larger and larger amount of funds that find

themselves unintendedly going to the studies, the mitigation, various activities under the Endangered Species Act and others, as a

result, those continue on an every-year basis while, in fact, the

project itself may be at a virtual standstill.

So I think that will characterize a lot of the questions we are

going to have, not just for all of you but for the Members themselves as we begin to find out how we can one, eliminate a $58 billion backlog or two, fund it in a reasonable period of time.

I will close, with the ranking member’s permission, by letting you

all know that when I entered Congress and actually when Ms.

Watson entered Congress we had a similar backlog in military

housing. We had a policy of talking about how special the troops

were but not building them housing. Using public-private partnerships and some other techniques, we have substantially reduced

that. Hopefully, with the great minds that exist on both sides of

this issue, we can begin to look at how we could eliminate the

backlog with Congress of those that must be there.

Last and least, I would charge all of you to, whether asked specifically or not, you are being asked now to give me as many

projects that are still on the books for as many years as you can

that, in fact, you believe should be eliminated and reauthorized if

and only if Congress is willing to put substantial new dollars.

We will followup with the rest in writing. I want to thank you

for your time. I want to thank the audience, who came here to participate and to listen, for their attentiveness.

And with that, I would yield to the ranking member.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much.

67

My concern is this. I was not here when you discussed the

projects and the timing, and so on, but we know that there are climate changes and we know that we are going to in a matter of few

months get back into another hurricane season and we are going

to have devastating hurricanes. And when we talk about the backlog, what are we doing to take into consideration if we are going

to dump money into these projects, to do it in a more timely fashion?

I take my own State of California. We are always prone to earthquakes. We know the big one is coming. Every 19 years we have

a huge earthquake.

So I hear about the backlog. I hear about the funding, Mr. Chairman. I hear that we are cutting funds. What are we doing to be

ready in case there is another hurricane? What are we doing to address the fact that we are going to have another earthquake? We

have them every day. I just want to know what kind of planning

and thinking goes into it.

Some things cannot be put off, and let me give you an example.

In 1994 we had a huge earthquake in California. The freeway that

went down, went down in my district, right, in the center of my

district and affected the 405, affected the 10, affected the 5, the I–

5, and so on. And the Governor had a plan and we were in the

third segment. I said you cannot do that. I said you have to fix all

freeways and you have to be able to see that they can withstand

an earthquake that goes to 7. By the way, there is no 10 on the

Richter Scale. It only goes to 9. So you have to retrofit all of them

at the same time because we never know where the next—we are

on a fault line, so putting it off, you know, project one over several

years and project two, project three, this lays us bare.

So I am wondering can anyone respond to how we lay out what

priority fixing of levees receives? We are having tremendous problems in the northern part of our State. I was just up there Sunday

around the Sacramento area and we have flooding because the levees did not stand up.

So how do you think this through and how do you plan? How do

you set priorities? Can anyone respond?

Mr. LAMONT. Ma’am, I will give it a try.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

Mr. LAMONT. It is clearly a dynamic world that we are living in

right now. There is definitely a limitation of resources that are

available to fund projects.

This is myself personally speaking as an engineer. This country

is probably faced with looking at the infrastructure that is out

there, looking at it from a regional or national basis, and then

making some hard decisions by the administration, working with

the Congress, and that is about as far as I would want to go right

now.

Ms. WATSON. Do you want to add anything?

Ms. TORNBLOM. I mentioned earlier what we are using to

prioritize the construction projects, the remaining benefit/cost ratios, looking at the performance, trying to finish projects that are

under way.

In terms of the levees you are speaking of, we are just right now

taking another look at that since the Governor has elevated the

68

issue and I expect some movement on that soon to raise the priority of that. We have been talking about it but you are probably

right; we have not done much about it yet.

Mr. ISSA. OK. And with that, I am going to use the power of the

gavel to thank you all and to say that I have no doubt this is not

the last hearing on this subject.

Ms. WATSON. And may I have my opening statement included in

the record?

Mr. ISSA. We made that by unanimous consent when I sat here

alone.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]

69

70

71

72

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. With that, we are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

[The Army Corps of Engineers Response to Chairman’s Questions

follows:]

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Æ