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

28–266 PDF 2006

AGENCY BUDGETS AND PRIORITIES

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

(109–51)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 1, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

GARY G. MILLER, California

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

TED POE, Texas

CONNIE MACK, Florida

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana,

Vice-Chair

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Knight, Bruce I., Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service ...................... 15

Middlebrook, Craig H., Deputy Administrator, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ................................................................................................. 15

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

of Engineers .......................................................................................................... 15

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

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................................ 15

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

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

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 39

Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado ........................................................................ 62

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Knight, Bruce I. ....................................................................................................... 44

Middlebrook, Craig H. ............................................................................................. 50

Strock, Lieutenant General Carl A. ....................................................................... 64

Woodley, Hon. John Paul, Jr. ................................................................................. 70

(1)

AGENCY BUDGETS AND PRIORITIES FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2007

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND, INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, WASHINGTON,

D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m. in room 2167,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Duncan [chairman of

the committee] presiding.

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to welcome everyone to our first Subcommittee hearing of this second session of the 109th Congress.

Last year, this Subcommittee dealt with some very important

issues and moved legislation that would improve the lives of almost

every American. Working together, we passed amendments to the

Clean Water Act that would improve water quality of the Nation’s

beaches, control the overflows of untreated waste during periods of

wet weather, help communities find alternative water supplies and

protect and restore the water quality in the Long Island Sound.

In addition, we passed legislation that would establish the 21st

Century Water Commission that would address future water resource management needs, including future water supply and demand, which is a very important topic. Once again, the Subcommittee passed the Water Resources Development Act that would authorize Army Corps of Engineers projects and studies. We had a

very productive first session and I look forward to a very productive second session as well.

As for our legislative agenda, I hope that the Senate will pass

its Water Resource Development Act, so that the bill can move to

conference and then on to the President. As most of you know,

there was a letter signed a few days ago by 78 Senators asking

that floor time be given to this bill. I understand there are some

other Senators that have expressed a desire to sign on to that letter as well.

There has not been an authorization bill for the Corps of Engineers projects since 2000. Since then, the Chief of Engineers has

recommended 35 major new projects for construction and a number

of projects need to be modified in order to work more efficiently.

We have done our work here in the House, but there have been

some holdups or problems in the Senate.

The only proposed new authorization language sent to Congress

by the Administration came last week, and it is for additional flood

protection work related to Hurricane Katrina. I want to be responsive to the Administration’s request and get the Corps of Engineers
2

the authorizations that the Corps needs to strengthen the flood

protection system in New Orleans. The best way to do that, though,

is for the Administration to support adding the important Katrina

authorizations to the Senate Water Resources Development Act

that is ready for Senate floor action. This Committee can then address the needs in the context of a conference, which can be called

very quickly.

This approach will assure that the Corps of Engineers gets the

authority it needs to make the flood protection system in New Orleans stronger and better. It also will address the water resources

needs all over the Country, where members have been working

closely with communities and have been waiting several years to

get their projects authorized. In fact, there are other communities

across the Country that have potential dangers, just as we saw in

New Orleans.

Other priorities of the Subcommittee this year will be wastewater infrastructure, development of a levee inventory and safety

program, reauthorization of Brownfields grants, control of invasive

species through ballast water management, and good Samaritan

legislation to remove barriers to abandoned mine cleanups.

Today the Subcommittee meets in the first of two hearings to examine the budgets and priorities of the agencies within our jurisdiction. Today we shall hear from the Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the St. Lawrence Seaway

Development Corporation.

Next week, on March 8th, we will hear from the Environmental

Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

As a fiscal conservative, I support the President’s efforts to control Federal spending. However, as I have said before, I do not support cutting investments in this Country that have proven economic benefits. Investments in the flood damage reduction projects

help protect cities nationwide from the economic losses that come

from hurricanes and other flood events.

As the global economy expands, there will be increasing demands

on all modes of transportation. If the United States is to remain

dominant in the world economy, we must have a modern transportation system. That means ports and waterways that can accommodate the transportation needs of tomorrow.

Unfortunately, the proposed budget continues a trend of underinvestments in water infrastructure. The result has been a steady

and general degradation of our navigation and flood control infrastructure. Overall, the Corps budget request for fiscal year 2007 of

$4.7 billion is 42 percent below the fiscal year 2006 enacted

amount of $8.2 billion, including supplemental appropriations. A

fully obligated Corps program would be $9 billion in fiscal year

2007, far above the $4.7 billion requested.

Under the proposed budget, no new Corps studies are funded

that would lead to traditional projects. This would affect not only

the availability of good investment options in the future but also

would affect staffing levels in the Corps, since employees are paid

in part with study funds. Construction funds for Corps projects are

concentrated on a few ongoing projects that can be finished rel-
3

atively soon. This leaves most ongoing projects with no funding at

all.

As in recent years, the budget request constrains funding for the

operation and maintenance of Corps projects. The now chronic

problem of deferred projects is affecting the navigability of our waterways. Some waterways have been temporarily closed, and ships

must enter and leave some ports only partially loaded, greatly increasing the transportation costs.

The most startling thing about this budget request is that it

would require the termination of 532 ongoing studies and projects.

These are important efforts that the Congress has authorized and

funded. Members have worked hard with the Corps and local officials to see that the necessary partnership agreements were made.

This budget request abandons our constituents and causes them to

question the credibility of the Federal Government to live up to its

obligations.

The budget request for the Natural Resources Conservation Service is even worse than that for the Corps of Engineers. The small

watershed program that provides small cost effective projects that

protect our water and our land in rural America would receive no

funding under this budget.

The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is a transportation agency that manages the U.S. part of the St. Lawrence

Seaway. The budget request includes a proposal for new tolls on

the use of the Seaway. This seems inconsistent with the Department of Transportation’s efforts to increase use of the Seaway as

a means of reducing congestion on other modes of transportation.

I look forward to hearing from the agency representatives that

have come to testify. But first, I want to recognize my good friend,

the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Congresswoman Eddie

Bernice Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding

today’s hearing on the fiscal year 2007 budget and its impact on

the programs within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, the Presidential priorities reflected in this budget

are contrary to the Nation’s priorities of protecting public safety

and the environment, investing in the future and ensuring continued economic prosperity. Quite simply, this budget is not adequate

to meet the Nation’s needs.

Mr. Chairman, this budget takes a penny-wise, pound-foolish

view of the economy, making imprudent short term cuts to programs that have proven essential for long term economic health.

This Administration fails to recognize that continued investment in

water-related infrastructure is a key element for stimulating and

improving the U.S. economy, an economy built on the investments

of our predecessors.

Cutting investments today and exploding future deficits can only

serve to deny economic opportunity to future generations. For example, in my district, the President’s budget eliminates funding for

the Dallas Floodway extension project. This flood control project

along the Trinity River provides critical flood protection for downtown Dallas and the neighborhoods of Oak Cliff and West Dallas.

Raising the level of flood protection and protecting the lives and

livelihood of some 12,500 homes and businesses.
4

Think of the American Center, where the Mavericks play, or the

Dallas Area Rapid Transit office, or the city and county administration offices, the Federal offices and Federal courts and much new

development going on now. And it almost happened Saturday

night. But in addition to all of this, Mr. Chairman, it floods the

original Neiman Marcus. That’s what gets my attention.

[Laughter.]

Ms. JOHNSON. The City of Dallas estimates that this project will prevent an excess of $8 billion in flood damages and provides additional recreation opportunities for those visiting the Dallas metropolitan area. This is just one example of the impact of the Corp’s

budget. I am certain that every member of this Committee could

identify similar important projects that are targeted for elimination

or reduction in this budget.

I am also concerned about the impact of this budget on the

Corps’ ability to conduct vital operation and maintenance activities.

For both navigation and flood control projects the passage of time

has taken a toll and has created the real possibility of catastrophic

failure to essential transportation linkages of flood transportation

projects.

As the Nation learned in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina

and Rita, poorly constructed or maintained flood control structures

can result in tremendous economic and personal hardship as well

as the loss of life. Mr. Chairman, this budget forces the Corps to

do more with less money. It bets the continued reliability of our infrastructure on the hope that it will hold together just a few more

years. This is very irresponsible.

Mr. Chairman, these cuts are also not limited to the Corps, but

also in the budgets of other Federal agencies represented here

today. The small watershed programs for the Natural Resources

Conservation Service are completely eliminated. There is no consideration of termination costs, no consideration of State or local investment, and no consideration of the potential threat to public

safety that comes from shutting down these programs. This budget

abandons rural communities.

I hope the witnesses will listen to the concerns over the cuts proposed by the President’s budget and will understand the real impact behind these numbers. The implication of insufficient investment in our Nation’s water-related infrastructure to both the current and future economy are massive. But the implications of failure of our navigation flood control infrastructure can be devastating, not only to local economies, but to lives and livelihoods.

As demonstrated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Federal

Government will either pay up front to protect lives and property

or will pay afterwards to rebuild and restore people’s lives. This

Committee understands these potential impacts. Clearly, we need

to do a better job of educating this Administration to this point.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Does anyone on our side wish to make an opening statement?

Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have a statement

that I will enter into the record. But let me thank you and the

Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, for calling this hearing today.
5

Mr. Chairman, the President’s budget does not even come close

to meeting the needs of our Nation’s infrastructure or its environment. We cannot continue to under-invest in the Nation’s infrastructure or its environment. We have an obligation to the American people to take care of our infrastructure and resources and an

obligation to provide for a better, cleaner and safer world to them

and the world in which we live.

Let me say that I want to associate myself with your comments

concerning over 500 studies that have been authorized, and many

of them are underway, that this budget would completely eliminate. I have major concerns with the budget cuts that are proposed

and would hope that not only will we continue to have the hearings

as you have outlined for the Subcommittee, but also that we will

go to the appropriators and attempt to restore many of the cuts

that the President is proposing.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Gilchrest.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple brief

comments.

I think this Committee has the ability through oversight to work

with you to see which projects that are still out there should be cut.

And I am sure there are a number of them. I can give you a number in my district with the Corps of Engineers, with dredging and

deepening projects, that we want off the table. So we can do that.

I hope we can work through that process.

One of the aspects of the Clean Water Act is the enforcement

arm of the Corps of Engineers through their regulatory program.

Well, that has been slashed, and a number of people in various districts, my own included, have been cut or retired and there are no

Corps of Engineers regulators now looking at those problems with

non-tidal wetlands and being developed.

I know land use is a local issue. But for years in my district, we

had the kind of regulatory agent from the Corps of Engineers dealing with those issues, not only effectively to preserve that ecosystem, but they worked very well with local communities to be

able to identify that. And in the NRCS, there are just a myriad of

wonderful little programs that are stunning in their success of

helping people understand how human activity can be compatible

with nature’s design and everybody benefits in the long run. And

there is a huge reduction in overall costs.

So I am glad we are holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. As we

go through this process, there are some issues that we need to face

bluntly, squarely, frankly. And I know you guys, unless you have

a relative at OMB, you have to be careful with what you say with

their budget and the Administration’s budget. We are not under

those same restrictions here.

But if we are looking to balance the national budget and pay off

the national debt, we are not going to do it with these small, little

projects that are beneficial and enhance the dynamics of economic

growth.

I am looking forward to your testimony and thank you again, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.
6

Ms. Tauscher.

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very happy to

see Lieutenant General Strock and Mr. Woodley here at today’s

hearing. I apologize, I have three hearings going on at the same

time. But I will be brief, and I am probably going to submit some

questions for General Strock to answer by writing.

We all know that we have an aging infrastructure, both of transit systems, highways and water systems. They are near the end

of their useful lives. We need rejuvenation, we need investment

and repair. I think we are all on the same page for that. We also

have expanding populations and an economy that requires new and

improved infrastructure systems.

That is why I really don’t understand the President’s budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers, and why it is so puzzling

that seemingly hundreds of projects around the Country apparently

are no longer important and not even important enough to be studied.

In California, for example, 86 projects have been de-funded. Specifically in my district, the President’s budget included no funding

for the CALFED levee integrity program. If you are not familiar

with this program, it is designed to identify the most critical levees

in the San Francisco Bay Delta and target where Federal investment should be made. The Bay Delta supplies drinking and agricultural water to over 22 million Californians, and millions of acres

of farm land. Additionally, it holds back the waters of the San

Francisco Bay and Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.

Should there be a massive levee failure in the Delta, a major

California water supply would essentially be shut off. Last year,

the program received $500,000 and preliminary reports from the

Corps’ Sacramento district office show a need of well over $1 billion

in levee repairs. An official report on the levees is set to be delivered to Congress on May 18th, but it is clear that Federal investment is not required in fiscal year 2007.

My constituents and I do not find that the CALFED levee integrity program is without merit. So why does the President? In fact,

it is imperative to the welfare and economy of the State of California and the Nation that the Delta levees are protected. Unfortunately, this project seemingly was caught up in OMB’s new performance guidelines which have not been debated here in Congress.

The annual budget process is not the way to change the rubric to

understand and to determine the efficacy of Corps projects. That

process belongs to Congress, and if warranted should be included

in the WRDA Act redevelopment, which we hope we can have this

year.

So I would like to hear from the panel today on the topic, because we should not leave here this year without adopting a final

WRDA reauthorization.

We also have an interest in ensuring that the Army Corps has

the tools to conduct its missions across the Country. The projects

undertaken by the Corps are vital to the safety of our constituents

and the economy of our Nation. There are many of us here in Congress who would like to work with the Corps to ensure that they

are working at their full capacity on meritorious projects around

the Country. Unfortunately, that is not reflected in the budget sent
7

to Congress year after year by this Administration. I hope next

year we are presented with a different set of circumstances.

As I said, I would like to submit some questions to Lieutenant

General Strock that he could answer in writing, as I may have to

leave before I have the opportunity to ask them directly. And Mr.

Chairman, I thank you for having this hearing and I yield back the

balance of my time.

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

Mr. Fortuno.

Mr. FORTUNO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, dear colleagues, Lieutenant General Carl Strock,

Commanding General of the Army Corps of Engineers, and distinguished members of the panel.

First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Corps

of Engineers for the great work they have done and continue doing

in my district and throughout the Nation. The infrastructure

projects under your jurisdiction are indispensable for the economic

advancement of our Nation. This reality became very palpable, unfortunately, through the devastation that hit the Gulf Coast region

last fall.

Puerto Rico, due to its geography and location, is at great risk

of major flooding, not only during hurricane season, but throughout

the year, due to torrential rains. The Corps of Engineers in Puerto

Rico has 33 projects of interest, most of them flood control projects,

of which only 3 are being funded in the fiscal year 2007 budget.

I am concerned at the 42.5 percent reduction in fiscal year 2007

civil works program and how this reduction will impact the infrastructure and security of our Nation, including my constituents in

my district.

I strongly support this Committee’s position that the Corps

should be funded at a level that will allow it to achieve its full capability, which is based on the Committee Views and Estimates,

and that it should be $5.5 billion for fiscal year 2007. In the particular case of Puerto Rico, I urge the Army Corps to reconsider its

decision to put into suspense the Portuges and Bucana flood control

project. I also urge the Corps to consider funding to CAP 205

projects flood control projects of great importance to my district,

Rio Fajardo and Rio Ojo de Agadilla. In both cases, the respective

mayors have offered to contribute the funding of those projects.

Also of importance are the flood control projects of the Rio

Orocovis, Rio Nigua in Salinas, and Rio Grande de Loiza in

Gurabo. I would also like to stress the importance of the Portuges

and Bucana flood control project. Last summer, I had the opportunity to visit the project, along with Mr. Richard Bonner, Deputy

District Engineer for Programs of the Jacksonville District Office.

I was impressed by the magnitude of the project and the positive

impact it had in the municipality of Ponce. The cost benefit ratio

of the project is very high at 2.7. This ratio, however, does not take

into consideration the risk of life involved, extensive property damage and the growth in the Ponce urban area that will be directly

impacted if there is a 100 year flood.

I also feel very strongly that this project should be analyzed

under the same guidelines of dam safety projects, which I understand are exempted from the cost benefit analysis. Prior to initi-
8

ation of this project’s construction, flooding occurred almost annually. Major floods have occurred in 1954, 1961, 1970, 1975, 1985

and 1992. The value of the property subject to flooding exceeds

$600 billion. The 100 year floodable area without construction of

the Portuges Dam covers 1,833 acres in the center of the city of

Ponce. That 100 year flood event will impact 13,200 residences and

over 5 million square feet of commercial and office area. Most of

the city schools and not-for-profit organizations are within the

floodable area.

Close to 40,000 people could be directly affected by the flooding in the area, while the inundation damages range from $200 million

for the 25 year flood to over $500 million for the 100 year flood

event. Average inundation damages are estimated at over $20 million. In order to be able to complete this project within the next

five years, it must be funded at a level not lower than $25 million.

I once again would like to the Corps of Engineers for the great

work they are doing in my district. I strongly support an increase

in funding level and urge you to reconsider your budgetary decision

on putting the Portuges and Bucana Dam project in suspense.

Again, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortuno. We want to try

to prevent some more major disasters before they happen. Certainly, we will work with you. I understand for example, that Sacramento is at higher risk right now than even New Orleans was

before Katrina.

Mr. Blumenauer.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is appropriate that this is sort of our first jumping off point this year. I

know that you and the Ranking Member have been looking at ways

that we can focus on understanding what is at stake with water

resources.

I am hopeful, we go through a little bit of this every year with

the budget, because it is never quite what we want and expect. The

Administrations, Republican and Democratic, have tended sometimes to slide past some priorities that they think Congress just

might fund. They have to squeeze a lot in a small box.

I do appreciate some signals that we have been receiving over

time dealing with issues of priorities and cost sharing, cost responsibility. There are some things here, I share some concerns that my

colleagues have raised. I also like the notion that we may send

some signals about some long term major investments and what

the relative role should be between the State, Federal, local and

private owners, things like artificial beach construction, for instance. I think there are some areas here that we can have a very

product discussion.

I hope that as Congress works with you on understanding what

is in the budget, the adjustments we are going to make, that it can

provide a jumping off point for us in a post-Katrina period. We

have had some painful discussions, and I know it is difficult for the

men and women who work with the Corps and the programs, because there is lots of stress and strain. There is anticipation about

what is going to come, and a big job that is being dealt with right

now, not just in New Orleans. But obviously that is the most visible.
9

I am hopeful that we can finally update our partnership with

you. I hope that we will not be operating under principles and

guidelines that were drafted a quarter century ago. That is embarrassing. It does not help you. It does not send the right signals.

And it does not guide us where we need to be going.

I am hopeful that we will do a better job of being frank in Congress and between the Administration and Congress about the

prioritization. In the past, to be frank, a lot of things have ended

up being funded that have had more political interest than probably could be merited in terms of just a rigorous assessment of priority.

And I am hopeful that a budget that is going to be increased by

this Congress, no question about it, but that it can be increased in

a fashion that is consistent with our principles, that are going to

save more lives, more property, more emphasis on natural restoration that is not going to have you spinning your wheels and us

chasing projects, frankly, in some cases, that are from a different

era. I am hopeful that we can walk that fine line.

And I understand people are concerned locally. But we have

things that have to drop off this list. We can’t just keep updating

some stuff that we know will never be built. And we can’t ask the

men and women in the Corps to sort of keep everything shelf ready

when we have immediate demands that are facing us.

So I look at this as more a point of departure. We have watched

this happen year after year. But this year, the stakes are higher.

Your job is harder, the public awareness is higher, and we have

had very vivid illustrations of what works and what does not.

While you have been working to transform the Corps, I have enjoyed my interaction with men and women in the Corps since I

have been in Congress. I know where people want to go. And the

men and women in the trenches understand where we need to go.

We need to have a budget that gets us there. We need to have

policies that get us there, and we need to, I think, up the ante this

year more than ever.

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your courtesy in permitting me to

share some observations. We have lots of people, so we will probably be flopping in and out of this hearing. But this is very important, I think, as a point of departure, and I look forward to the

presentation.

But more important, I look forward to the shirt sleeve sessions

were we can take the positive things that are here, build on them

and get the most out of the budget that we are going to be approving.

Thank you.

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

Does anyone on our side have any statement? Anybody else wish

to make a statement?

Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Johnson, thank you for getting us together on the proposed

budget and the priorities.

I must look back over the nine and a half years that I have been

here, and in every instance that I can remember, and I will stand

corrected, I have been a 100 percent supporter of the Corps, not
10

only during budget time, but during the year. I have gone to the

meetings of the Corps in my district and other districts. When

things got hot and heavy, I was a defender of the Corps.

This year, I am going into the audience. And I am telling you,

between now and the first time of the meeting that we have in the

district, I hope there are some real dramatic changes. This is not

reality TV. And I do not see much of a connection between the fact,

between the conditions presented in this budget and the priorities

that you presented here. In fact, this is a very vague budget. It is

mind boggling to see after all the debates we have had, Mr. Chairman, over the past five years, that we are at this stage in the history of mankind, in this Congress, in this Committee.

Every year, as we prepare for this hearing, we know that the Administration’s Army Corps priorities will be very different from

those of the Congress. This is something that we agree on on both

sides of the aisle. So I don’t know which party the Administration

represents, to be very frank with you. We are very committed on

this issue of what is needed out there to protect our waterways, to

ensure clean water, to protect those folks out there in terms of

damage from flooding and their life and limb.

I do not know what we need to do to communicate the severity

of what is going on in the United States of America. We have had

one example in the last eight months, which was a tragedy. And

we will have others, maybe inland, maybe on our waterways, if we

don’t attend to things.

What we hope is that the Administration will not completely ignore important projects initiated by the Congress, continually supported by our appropriations. This year, we are surprised to learn

that the Army Corps has reprogrammed money Congress appropriated for important projects, and moved this money to their own

priorities. That is astonishing. That has put a finger in the eye of

the Congress if I ever saw it. We learned that they have no plan

to return the money to projects.

In my district, a dam was being built on the Ramapo River. Mr.

Woodley knows quite well what I’m talking about. It is short $2.5

billion of previously appropriated money, the full amount necessary

to complete this project. Since there is no plan to return the money,

by this April the dam is in danger of being, will be out of funds,

half built.

We have told the very people, and I use this only as an example,

Mr. Chairman, we told the very people involved in this dam, my

district is a little bit downstream, and it will be catastrophic if this

thing does not get done, for both districts, we told the people, you

told the people, this was going to get done. If we don’t have the

money there, it ends in April.

Now, do you want me to go to the meeting with you to explain

it? I will gladly do it. But I am going to be in the audience. Or you

find the money.

Now, how many other projects across the United States of America? This Congress cannot be treated the way we are being treated.

This is not why the folks sent me down here. And it is not why

you are doing your job, and you all do a great job, I tell you that.

And I know you are the messengers. So the messenger will have

to hear the story or find a different way to do this.
11

In another project, the Army Corps has been holding extensive

public hearings regarding a floodway buyout program, a buyout

program, we talked about this for years, around the Pumpton

River, to save people from extensive flooding and to use the area

for flood management. The project has lost almost $900,000 in reprogrammed funds. It is zero funded in the 2007 budget. That was

a brilliant stroke. And now my constituents who have been intimately involved in the process are left up a creek without a paddle,

literally.

You know that many of us over the past 25 years have been looking for a way to deal with this flooding in our area. We have tried

everything. We have gone from tunnels, which have cost 50 times

more, down to at least doing the preliminary things, the fundamental things. If we can’t get this right, what in God’s name can we

get right?

These reprogramming issues need to be addressed. These

projects are Congressional priorities identified in previous years

and then now, suddenly, they are lacking funds. That is not acceptable.

In terms of broader priorities, I find the budget’s stated goal of

‘‘proposing funding for the continued development and restoration

of the Nation’s water and related resources’’ to directly contradict

their actual funding proposed in the budget. A glaring example of

this is the Passaic River Restoration Project in New Jersey. Many

cities along the Passaic River, one of the most polluted rivers in the

Country, are looking toward redeveloping abundant and under-utilized waterfront land to meet their need of new commercial, industrial and residential investment.

Much of this property holds limited value because the river’s industrial legacy has left it in a state of contamination and abandonment. The ongoing Lower Passaic River Restoration Project is pulling a host of resources from the Corps, the EPA, the State of New

Jersey and private entities to achieve a true comprehensive cleanup of the river in the shortest amount of time. This project is an

important component of the Urban River Restoration Initiative,

which has the lofty goal of restoring some of our Nation’s great rivers to beauty and magnificence, which drew cities to sprout. Cities

started at the bend of rivers. That is where it all started.

In order to maintain the extensive consortium of parties, Federal

investment in the river study is necessary. According to the 2005

civil works program five year development plan, this project should

have $1.5 million this year. Instead, it is among a long list of

projects which we will put on hold, what is it, over 400, I think,

of those projects.

Now, I don’t think it is good enough for you to be the messengers. I think that you need to be advocates so that you can restore your own credibility. I want to stand and work with the

Corps, as everybody on this panel does, everybody, with no exceptions. The Peckman River is another example. It is a project that

was authorized by this Subcommittee six years ago. It is wallowing

in budgetary limbo in the President’s budget.

The President’s budget zeroed out funding, last year we restored

$150,000. You know what gets under my skin most of all, Mr.

Chairman? Okay, we can say, well, we will get together on both
12

sides of the aisle, we will get together with the Senate and we will

put some of these monies back. I believe that as well intentioned

as that is, to me it is dishonest. Because if I have to make a distinction, if I have to make a decision as to whether I can, and I

use the example all the time, you give Barry Bonds and Sammy

Sosa and Mr. Giamba $70,000 of tax cuts or, or mind you, or, provide for clean water for our residents, prevent flooding from ruining property and taking lives, it did in my district, I will choose the

latter.

You have to make that decision. You cannot simply be a messenger. I am sorry for sounding pedantic, and I apologize for that.

But what do you expect of us? What do you want us to do? Go

through the same act three?

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Pascrell, let me say, you know I love your

statements better than just about anybody. But you have been a

little over 10 minutes.

Mr. PASCRELL. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. I am going to see if anybody else has a statement

on either side.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much.

I know the representatives who appear before me can only argue

for the President’s budget. And you are hearing some frustration

from members on what that budget does not include. This is a committee that has done its homework on WRDA, for example, and yet

a full bill has not come out of the Congress.

You will hear members speak about their own districts. They are

usually talking about something that the State built and that they

are wanting the Federal Government to subsidize. I am in a different position, gentlemen. I am talking about something that you

built, something built entirely by the Federal Government long before there was any home rule in the District of Columbia, something that might have been built differently had there been home

rule at the time.

Moreover, what I am talking about is in every sense a Federal

facility. Because I am talking about the system built by the Corps

of Engineers that deals with our stormwater overflow. In case

members want to know what that means when it comes to the capital of the United States, it means that the sewage from the Federal presence, including from this building, goes into this contraption, that is what I think of it as now, because it is old, obviously,

and outdated, that when it rains hard, simply overflows. What that

means is that the sewage from the Congress and other Federal

buildings and from downtown Washington, this is mostly sewage

from the Federal presence, not from the residents of the District of

Columbia, mixes with the stormwater and overflows into, if you

will forgive me, the streets of the Nation’s capital.

Here we are dealing with all that the Corps could do when it did

it, which was to build a system which combined these systems, at

least at the point of overflow. We are to the point where nobody

could be expected to fix this system out of its own budget, if that

is a city, and where of course the Federal responsibility is abundantly clear more so than any single item I dare say affecting a

member’s district and any budget affecting such a system. The Fed-
13

eral Government has understood it is implicated. That is why we

subsidized the matter. All the District of Columbia is asking for is

a subsidy as well. But we are talking about a system that has, I don’t know, $5 bil- lion worth of, $2 billion, let me say. It goes up, I have been asking

for it for so long, it is hard to know where it is today, worth of

work, where the city is willing to do its job but where the Federal

Government, because it uses the very facility I am talking about,

and because it built it from scratch, has a very special obligation.

The WRDA bill, and I appreciate what this Subcommittee was able to do, could only put in a $35 million authorization. What happens of course is that the President’s budget sometimes includes

extra money here and there, and the Congress puts in extra money

here and there. The President, to his credit, recognizing that this

is a Federal responsibility, has tended to put in a few million dollars every year.

This year’s budget, as I recall it, has no money whatsoever. This

is a dangerous situation, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about sewage that affects 20 million visitors who come to the Nation’s capital

every year in any kind of downpour that is a heavy rain. When we

are talking about overflowing, we are talking about overflowing, we

are talking about overflowing into everywhere in the District of Columbia that has an outlet.

What the District now does assiduously is to go around at the

gutters and clear out all of the leaves and try to mitigate the effect.

We are fixing it little by little, as there has been a few million dollars put in. Little by little, we fix that part of it.

I can only make a special plea before this Committee, not in the

name of the 650,000 people I represent, they are entitled to no

more than any other member is entitled to, but in the name of the

capital of the United States, in the name of a system that is more

than 100 years old, built entirely by the Corps of Engineers, as it

was built in those days, in the name of basic sanitation in the Nation’s capital, that more than the token response that we have been

receiving from the Federal Government is necessary.

We really do not want to wait until somebody gets terribly sick

and it is diagnosed as a result of stormwater overflow. I ask that

the Federal Government, our Committee, yes, and the Administration, do more to step up to this Federal responsibility. Thank you

very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Ms. Norton. Anybody else?

Mr. Mack.

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I didn’t

want to miss the opportunity to sing the praises of the Corps. And

I say that, it might have come across sarcastically, but you all have

been working through some very difficult issues in Florid with the

Everglades, the releases of the water from Lake Ocochobee, the

Caloosahatchee River. Both the Everglades and the Caloosahatchee

River are important to me and the people of my district.

I just want to tell you to keep up the work, keep on trying and

make sure that if there is one thing I can ask, it is that we do a

better job, myself included, in communicating the goals and how we

are going to get there with the different groups that are interested

in the water releases in the Everglades in my district. You have
14

the South Florida Water Management District, all the water management districts, and it is a very complicated and difficult issue.

The modified water project is extremely important to the health of

the Everglades and ultimately the health of the Caloosahatchee

River.

So I look forward to continuing to work with you on behalf of the

people of the 14th Congressional District in Florida and all of the

people of Florida, to make sure that we are keeping up our end of

the bargain. I think the State of Florida has done a tremendous job

in trying to move the projects forward. I want to make sure that

I do everything I can in Washington to help that process move forward.

You have been great in reaching out to our office and talking

with us. I just want to make sure we continue that dialogue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to commend the Corps for their great work. We

know the challenges you face monetarily and with so many of your

members deployed overseas. It has added to your burden.

Two very quick things. I have worked for some time on Section

214(d), which as you know authorizes the Corps to use money from

sponsoring organizations or entities in order to expedite the permitting process. That will expire, I believe, in another 30 days. Today

I introduced legislation, which I hope my colleagues on this Committee will support to extend that, should we not pass WRDA in

time.

At some point I would very much appreciate the Corps’ input on

the efficacy and usefulness of that. My understanding from my cities, ports, counties, et cetera, is clearly that if they do not have

that authority, it will cost us hundreds of thousands and in some

cases millions of dollars, because of permitting delays that we are

able to obviate through the use of this language. So I hope to gain

more on that when we have a chance to speak.

Secondly, I just want to thank you for the work your staff out

in the Northwest is doing on permitting issues. With the listing of

salmon on the ESA, it has been an extraordinary burden. General

Strock, you have been great as a leader on this. We met previously

on this. Your folks out there do a very good job. They are, however,

understaffed, as you know well, for the burden they face. That

understaffing, which we are responsible for, because we don’t give

you the funds, costs our taxpayers in the long run and our businesses and communities, because they can’t get their permits in

time and we can’t get the projects.

So at some point, I look forward to continuing work with you on

that. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

We are very pleased to have a distinguished panel with us today.

Three of the four witnesses have been with us before, some several

times. Leading off will be the Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr.,

the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Second will

be Lieutenant General Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers for the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Next will be the Honorable Bruce
15

I. Knight, who is the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation

Service. And finally, our new member here today, Mr. Craig H.

Middlebrook, who is the Deputy Administrator of the St. Lawrence

Seaway Development Corporation.

Gentlemen, it is an honor to have each of you here with us. Your

full statements will be placed in the record. We do ask that you try

to hold your opening statement to about five minutes. We will let

you run over that by about one minute. But in consideration of the

other witnesses, when you see me hold this up, try to bring it to

a close.

Secretary Woodley, you may begin.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR.,

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CIVIL WORKS, U.S.

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL

A. STROCK, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; BRUCE I. KNIGHT, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES

CONSERVATION SERVICE; CRAIG H. MIDDLEBROOK, DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is once again a

pleasure to appear before the Committee and to testify before so

many very distinguished members of whom I have had now for

three years the privilege of working as an advocate for water resource development projects across the Country.

I am delighted to be accompanied this afternoon by Lieutenant

General Carl Strock, a very distinguished soldier and our very distinguished 51st Chief of Engineers. It would be remiss of me not

to take this opportunity before the Committee to call the Committee’s attention to the challenges that faced the Corps of Engineers

during the calendar year of 2005 just passed, and to remind the

Committee that we have, as a Nation, every right to be very, very

proud of the performance that General Strock and his civilian, soldiers and civilians of the Corps of Engineers have done in the calendar year 2005 in the face of enormous adversity and unprecedented challenge.

Our fiscal year 2007 budget, Mr. Chairman, includes $4.7 billion

in Federal funding, which is a 5 percent increase from the President’s proposal for last year, budget for last year. This week, we

are providing a five year budget plan, along with the other budget

justification materials, which will include not only a budget-driven

scenario, but also a scenario with higher funding levels and one

with lower funding levels for comparison.

The budget includes an increase of about $280 million for construction projects, compared to the fiscal year 2006 budget. This

funding is allocated according to guidelines that emphasize economic returns, reduction of risk to human life and ecosystem restoration benefits.

The budget provides $173 million to the Corps’ regulatory program to protect wetlands and other waters of the United States.

This represents a $15 million increase compared to fiscal year 2006

appropriation and a 20 percent increase in budgeted funding for

the regulatory program over the last three years.
16

Every year, Mr. Chairman, that I have presented a budget before

the Congress, I have on behalf of the President requested substantial increases in the resources for the Corps’ regulatory program,

because I, like the President, recognize that this program has enormous benefits for the Nation and that resources devoted to this

purpose are well spent. I have had generally good success in having

that supported by the Congress. I ask for your support again

through the appropriation process for 2007. The budget reassigns about $340 million of work in existing

projects from the construction account to the operation and maintenance account. We believe this reassignment improves accountability and oversight, represents the full cost of operation and maintenance and supports an integrated funding strategy for existing

projects. You will see our operations and maintenance budget presentation has been revamped. It is presented by major river basin

and mission areas. We believe this lays the groundwork for improved management of appropriated funds and more strategic formulation of future budgets.

It also includes an increased funding for preparedness, response

and recovery activities related to flood and coastal storm emergencies. This budget does not include funding for recovery from last

year’s hurricanes, because supplemental appropriations have provided and will provide that funding.

In summary, the budget and the five year plan incorporate performance principles, allocate funding to activities with high returns

and advance important objectives. I will say, as I have said before,

Mr. Chairman, this budget does not fund all of the excellent things

that the Corps of Engineers is capable of doing. But it does make

important investments and moderate resource development that

will reap enormous benefits for the Nation in the future.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

General Strock.

General STROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished

members of the Committee. I am honored also to be testifying before you here today with Mr. Woodley, Mr. Knight and Mr. Middlebrook on the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget for the Army Civil

Works Program.

If I may, I will briefly summarize some of the key points of my

full statement and with your permission will include that statement in the record.

This budget is a performance based budget that reflects the realities of the national budget supporting the Nation’s recent natural

disasters and the global war on terror. This budget focuses construction funding on 63 projects that will provide the highest returns on the Nation’s investment, including 11 dam safety projects.

Funds will be used for critical water resources infrastructure that

improves the quality of our citizens’ lives and provides a foundation

for national economic growth and development.

The budget incorporates performance based metrics for continued

efficient operation of the Nation’s water-borne navigation, flood

protection and other water resource management infrastructure,

fair regulation of wetlands and restoration of important environmental resources. There are six national priority construction

projects funded in the construction program: the New York-New
17

Jersey harbor deepening project, the Oakland harbor deepening

project, construction of Olmstead Locks and Dam in Illinois and

Kentucky, the Florida Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration project, the side channels of the upper Mississippi River

system, and Simms Bayou in Houston, Texas.

There are also two others, the Missouri River restoration and the

Columbia River restoration, that are now funded in the operations

and maintenance account. The budget also improves the quality of

recreation services through much stronger partnerships and modernization. This budget provides approximately $65.3 million to

complete 14 projects, including one dam safety project by the end

of 2007.

As part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the construction

backlog, the 2007 budget funds projects that are the highest returns and are consistent with current policies. In all, 91 projects

are funded so that we can provide benefits to the Nation sooner. The fiscal year 2007 budget includes $2.258 billion for operations

and maintenance. I can assure you that I will continue to do all

that I can to make these programs as cost effective as possible.

Domestically, more than 8,000 USACE volunteers from around

the Nation have deployed to help citizens and communities along

the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and

Wilma. Even now, more than six months after Hurricane Katrina,

2,000 USACE volunteers continue to execute our FEMA-assigned

disaster recovery missions along the Gulf Coast and to accomplish

critical restoration of the New Orleans area levee system. Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers remains committed

to the monumental task of helping to rebuild the monumental task

of helping to rebuild the infrastructures and economies of Iraq and

Afghanistan.

More than 1,700 USACE volunteers have deployed to Iraq since

2003. I might point out that every one of them is a volunteer that

shares the same hardships and dangers alongside of our soldiers.

They continue to make progress toward this Nation’s goals of restoring the security and quality of life for all Iraqis and Afghanis

as they pursue democracy and freedom.

The Corps’ Gulf Regional Division has overseen the initiation of

nearly 3,000 reconstruction projects and the completion of more

than 2,100. These projects make a difference in the everyday lives

of the Iraqi people and are visible signs of progress and this Nation’s commitment.

Water resources management infrastructure has also improved

the quality of lives of our citizens and supported economic growth

and development in this Country. Our systems for navigation, flood

and storm damage projects and efforts to restore aquatic ecosystems contribute to our national welfare.

In closing, the Corps is committed to selflessly serving the Nation, and I truly appreciate your continued support to this end.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. That

concludes my statement.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, General Strock.

Mr. Knight.

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discus
18

the water resource program activities of the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service.

In my remarks today, I am pleased to describe our ongoing work

and to discuss our budget and priorities for fiscal year 2007 in basically four programs: watershed surveys and planning; watershed

and flood prevention operations; watershed rehabilitation; and finally, the emergency watershed program.

The NRCS water resource programs offer communities and land

owners site-specific technical expertise for watershed planning and

financial assistance for watershed projects. The programs are designed to help solve local natural resource problems, including flood

damage mitigation, water quality improvement, rural water supply,

water conservation, soil erosion and fish and wildlife habitat.

The water resource programs have given NRCS the authority to

complete work on 2,000 watershed projects nationwide. The flood

control dams and other water resource program measures implemented through these watershed projects provide than $1.5 billion

in local benefits each year.

The President’s proposed fiscal year 2007 budget eliminates

funding for most of NRCS’ watershed program to direct funds to

higher priority and more cost effective programs. Let me review

briefly the current watershed programs.

Under the Watershed Survey and Planning Program, NRCS assesses natural resources use and develops coordinated watershed

plans to conserve and utilize natural resources. These programs,

also known as PL-534 and PL-556 programs, authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to work cooperatively with the Federal Government, States, and most importantly, the local political subdivisions, to plan and install watershed improvement measures and to

foster conservation in these authorized watersheds.

The President’s budget for 2007 proposes to eliminate funds for

these programs and redirect them to higher priority programs.

Logically, then, with the elimination of the watershed and flood

prevention operations, continuation of the planning component

under the Watershed Surveys and Planning is also no longer necessary.

Mr. Chairman, while the NRCS water resource programs have

been successful over the past 50 years, we believe that sponsoring

organizations, as well as State and local governments, can now assume a more active leadership role in both the planning and that

high priority projects not yet completed will continue to receive

strong local support. Since 1948, over 11,000 flood control dams

have been built in the 2,000 watershed projects across America.

Many of these dams were designed for a 50 year life span, and now

are at or near that age.

Since enactment of the Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of

2000 and subsequent amendments in the 2002 Farm Bill, NRCS

has developed rehabilitation plans on 107 dams. Of these projects,

47 have been completed and 49 currently have implementation underway.

The President’s budget funding request for fiscal year 2007 includes $15.3 million for watershed rehabilitation activities involving these aging dams. NRCS will utilize the funding to focus on
19

critical dams where failure could pose a high risk to loss of life and

property.

The Emergency Watershed Program authorizes emergency measures to retard runoff and prevent soil erosion and to safeguard

lives and property from natural disasters. Typical work under this

program ranges from removing debris from clogged streams caused

by flooding to prevent soil erosion on hillsides after a fire or reshaping and replacing stream banks due to erosion caused by flooding. In response to urgent needs from communities across the Gulf

Coast region recovering from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, NRCS

has already completely near $23 million in recovery work under the

EWP program.

The fiscal year 2006 supplemental appropriation provide an addi- tional $300 million for EWP work from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,

Wilma and Dennis, which is currently being implemented. The

President recently requested $10 million of supplemental funding

for the Emergency Watershed Program to purchase easements on

flood plain lands in disaster areas affected by Hurricane Katrina

and other hurricanes of the 2005 season. Under this program, a

land owner voluntarily sells a permanent easement to NRCS in return for the payment of the agricultural value of the parcel, forgoes

future cropping and development of the land.

In summary, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has accomplished much through the water resource programs over the past

50 years. Economic, social and environmental benefits from these

programs have been significant for both agriculture and urban

communities. However, in the context of the budget request for fiscal year 2007, we must prioritize limited resources to address more

pressing challenges ahead and to meet our budget deficit reduction

targets.

I thank the Subcommittee and would be happy to respond to any

questions.

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

Mr. Middlebrook.

Mr. MIDDLEBROOK. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, Ranking

Member Johnson and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to be part of this distinguished panel and

to speak before you today.

Our written testimony has been submitted for the formal record.

Allow me to summarize that testimony here with a short oral statement.

The U.S. St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is a

wholly owned Government corporation and operating administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation. It operates and

maintains the two U.S. locks in the St. Lawrence River and promotes trade through the St. Lawrence Seaway with its Canadian

counterpart, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation.

The unique bi-national nature of the Seaway requires 24 hour,

year-round coordination on regulations, traffic management, safety

and security with our Canadian partners.

The St. Lawrence Seaway is a vital transportation corridor between the agricultural and industrial heartland of North American

and our trading partners throughout the world. Since the Seaway

opened in 1959, more than 2.4 billion metric tons of cargo have
20

passed through its locks and channels with an estimate cargo value

of over $400 billion.

During the 2005 navigation season, approximately 43.3 million

metric tons of cargo moved through the Seaway, with an estimated

cargo value of $7.1 billion. Commercial maritime commerce on the

Great Lakes Seaway System annually sustains over 150,000 U.S.

jobs and generates $4.3 billion in personal income, $3.4 billion in

business revenue and over $1 billion in Federal, State and local

taxes.

The President’s fiscal year 2007 proposed funding level of

$18,245,000 supports the Corporation’s mission to ensure a safe,

secure and reliable waterway by providing the resources necessary

to implement our priority projects and programs. The need to carry

out preventative maintenance on the two U.S. locks remains a high

priority for the Corporation as we enter our 48th year of continuous operation. This commitment has been the key to ensuring the

reliability of the Seaway infrastructure for almost half a century.

In that time, the U.S. Seaway locks have never experienced a

major shutdown due to lock equipment malfunctioning.

In fiscal year 2007, we are planning to start a four-year modernization project of the lock valve equipment, converting the existing electromechanical machinery to hydraulic components. During

the 2005 navigation season, the U.S. portions of the Seaway were

available 99.5 percent of the time, and while this exceeded our performance goal of 99 percent, we always aim to do better.

As was proposed last year, the fiscal year 2007 budget proposes

to reestablish U.S. Seaway commercial tolls as a self-funding mechanism for the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. The

Corporation was self-funded for the first 30 years of its existence,

from 1959 to 1987. This proposal would not diminish or change the

Corporation’s important mission, but merely return the Corporation to its original funding mechanism. The Administration supports efforts to improve service delivery to the public, and believes

this proposal would enable the Seaway Corporation to function

more like a private corporation.

The Seaway Corporation recognizes that a proactive approach to

maritime environmental issues is critical to the successful future of

the Great Lakes Seaway system. Within the limits of our mandate,

we are involved in efforts to combat the introduction and spread of

aquatic invasive species in the system. Moreover, we seek to promote the often overlooked environmental benefits of the marine

mode.

The St. Lawrence Seaway has proven its vital significance to

America’s economy for nearly half a century. I want to thank this

Subcommittee for your continued support of the Seaway’s mission

and close by assuring you that the Corporation’s excellent safety,

reliability and customer service record will remain strong.

I would be glad to respond to any questions that the Subcommittee may have.

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

Mr. Shuster, since you didn’t make an opening statement, would

you like to ask a question before you have to break for the vote?

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
21

In 2004, Hurricane Ivan caused considerable damage in Pennsylvania, western Pennsylvania. There is one such community there,

Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, which is in Somerset County, those

folks have been, as well as about 10 or 11 other projects, have been

working with the Corps to design and construct solutions to the

damaged areas, earthen levees are mainly what they are redesigning.

Unfortunately, those funds in the Pittsburgh district Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Account had to be redirected to

Katrina, which of course, we understand that. But there is great

concern in those 12 communities in western Pennsylvania and

eastern Ohio as to the funding. Is it going to be put back in? Do

you have a plan to restore that funding? Because again, western

Pennsylvania, I am sure across the Country. So a broader question

would be not only the 12 in western Pennsylvania and eastern

Ohio, but around the Nation.

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. I believe we are asking for funds to replenish the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Account. I will

get back to you on the particular details as to the communities that

you mentioned.

Mr. SHUSTER. We are entering into obviously the spring season

and flooding is going to be a problem, as well as going into the hurricane season as we go forward. So it is critical to these communities.

A second question that I am curious about is WRDA, the WRDA

bill. We have passed it probably in the last four years two or three

times out of the House. We are waiting on our counterparts in the

Senate. What is the Administration’s position on WRDA? Do they

believe that it should be a priority that needs to go forward?

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. We believe that there are numerous

projects that are included in the bill that are very high priority for

the Country. I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention there are

aspects of the bill that trouble the Administration to some degree.

But we are very anxious to work with Congress on having an authorization.

We concur in the Chairman’s earlier remarks about the time that

it has been since the last iteration of a Water Resource Development Act and feel it is a very, very important vehicle for the Nation to come together on what the priorities are for water resource

development, which is the primary mission that we undertake.

So we would very much like to see the houses of Congress get

together and work with us and the Administration through that

process and have the best WRDA bill that we can have.

Mr. DUNCAN. We have a lot more questions, but we only have six

minutes left on this vote. I have asked Mr. Boustany to come back

and chair while I go for the vote. So we are going to keep this recess to as brief as possible. But we will be in recess just very, very

briefly.

Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. BOUSTANY. [presiding] Well, we will resume the hearing.

Chairman Duncan will be back shortly, but we will start from here.

We welcome everybody back.
22

I have a couple of questions. General Strock, as you know, my

district in southwest Louisiana was hit pretty hard by Rita. While

New Orleans was devastated and certainly much of your attention

has been focused on the levee situation down there, and you guys

are doing a great job, I appreciate the work you are doing and I

want to say thank you on behalf of the State of Louisiana.

I am concerned about this issue of Rita fatigue or amnesia. It

was a serious hurricane that hit southwest Louisiana. I was able,

back in December, in the supplemental, to get $500,000 appropriated to look at a levee system along the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway and also to look at flood measures in southwest Louisiana. In

fact, on December 19th, I sent a letter requesting a detailed time

line for implementation of this survey. I have not, to my knowledge, talking to my staff earlier today, received any response yet.

So I was wondering if you have any information on this, or if not

at this time, if you could please get back with me on that. We have

not had any major flood measures taken in southwest Louisiana,

so this is a starting point. Clearly it is necessary to protect a lot

of key infrastructure and the energy industry, as well as farm land.

I don’t know if you have a response at this time.

General STROCK. Sir, I am aware of that requirement, but I do

not have the details in front of me. I would like to give you that

for the record, please.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. Also, in the immediate days after

Hurricane Rita, we had over 80 tows waiting to clear the Leland

Bowman Calcasieu lock reach of the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway.

This came at a significant cost to the economy of about $400,000

for each day. These were direct transportation penalties. I think we

all agree that this Calcasieu lock is a bottleneck that needs to be

fixed.

It is my understanding, I quickly reviewed the list, and I don’t

think I saw that as a request in the President’s budget. But correct

me if I am wrong, if it is not there. Also, how much money do you

think the Corps would need to complete that alternative replacement study? Is that information you would have now or is it something you could get to me?

General STROCK. Sir, again, I will have to answer that one for

the record. I do not have that information here.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Mr. Knight, I want to thank you also for the work you have done

in Louisiana. Just over two months ago, Congress appropriated an

additional $300 million for the Emergency Watershed Program,

which is certainly an essential tool in the recovery efforts in my

neck of the woods in southwest Louisiana. I am concerned about

the new cost share requirements imposed in the language of the

Appropriations Bill that may prohibit a number of communities

from accessing these dollars. Specifically I am talking about the

cost share. I think your ability to waive the cost share requirements or to alter them in some fashion. If you would please, could

you respond to that?

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes, Congressman. We had authority traditionally

under the Emergency Watershed Protection program where in

cases of exigency and potential loss of life where we needed to act

quickly that we could waive the traditional 25 percent cost share
23

match if a community were particularly devastated. We were able

to put about $23 million worth of funds out prior to the supplemental of which we were compelled to waive a portion of that. We are now in the implementation stage on that $300 million,

and in our preliminary checks in the State of Louisiana, it looks

like the 25 percent cost share match will be problematic for about

50 to 60 percent of the communities that we are needing to work

with. We are working on getting more accurate details in the other

Gulf Coast States. But the preliminary impacts look significant.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Right. I hope you will work with me on that, because a number of the small rural communities which were completely wiped out will be affected by this. We have a lot of marsh

land, small waterways and so forth that are critical for our farming

industry as well. So I hope that we can work with you to create

some flexibility here.

Mr. KNIGHT. We will be very pleased to work with you on that,

sir, and we share that same concern, in that with some of this improvement of the watershed so that it drains correctly and completely, it can all too easily be pushed aside on conflicting priorities

until later in the year when the flooding starts. So we are looking

for creative solutions that we can on this particular problem.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Again, I thank you for your work and the help

you have given Louisiana.

Now I am pleased to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. Woodley, in your testimony, you testified that the fiscal year

2007 budget addresses the construction backlog by focusing in on

the President’s priorities for funding. However, this budget requests funding for only 91 projects, leaving a list of 532 other construction projects that received funding in fiscal year 2006 that

would receive no funding should this budget be approved.

Of course, included in this is the Dallas Transit Floodway extension. I know you are very familiar with that. So I am asking, near

pleading, because this Committee is very frustrated, can we get

your assistance in determining what issues the Administration has

with enacting a Water Resources bill? And will you talk to the

White House officials, OMB officials or whoever it is that do not

seem to want a Water Resources bill and come back and report to

me on what steps Congress needs to take to move this process

along?

And then maybe you could ask the President to suggest what I

tell my constituents, that we are facing flooding of all downtown,

and yet on the construction, this has been zeroed out. I would like

to know some answers. Would you follow up on those three things?

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, ma’am. You are certainly entitled to full response to all of those concerns. I will get back to you as soon as

I possibly can.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I yield.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Gilchrest.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The four gentlemen at the table before us have two bosses: a direct boss and an indirect boss. I am not counting any relatives or

anything like that.
24

The direct boss is the President via OMB. The indirect boss is

us. So I am not going to ask you fellow for anything. But what I

am going to try to do, as my colleagues, is to get enough support

to direct the Corps to do certain things. And I think the Ranking

Member just actually laid out a collaborative, cooperative, mutually

beneficial process in which we can reach the same conclusion and

find the scarce resources to accomplish it.

I have some parochial issues with my district in the Chesapeake

Bay. The regulatory program has been increased over the 2006

budget by about, it looks like about $14 million, which is good.

What I would like to do is talk to you, Mr. Woodley and General

Strock, a little bit further about how we can replace the regulatory

people that have been lost in my district over the last few years

from retirement, transfers and so on. They did some extraordinary

jobs working with local communities to ensure the permitting process was expedited, the local communities understood the regulatory

arm of the Corps of Engineers, the Section 404 and those kinds of

things.

I don’t know if you have an answer for me right now. But I

would like to work with you and the Committee to see if we can

get a couple other agents out there to do that process.

The second question I have deals with another parochial issue.

It is a small, little community called Westview Shores. They are

right next to a dredge disposal site. That dredge disposal site has

been closed, but the leaching of the material from the dredge disposal site has rendered their wells in Westview Shores

undrinkable. So they have had to use bottled water at least for 10

years now.

So that is an issue that I will work with the Baltimore District

and the Philadelphia District, because that is right along the C&D

Canal. But I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

Another thing is, we had two biologists appointed or sent to the

Chesapeake Bay, mostly the 1st Congressional District, that dealt

with how to work with NRCS, local governments, the farm bureaus, the Corps of Engineers, on projects, to look at them from the

big picture perspective dealing with ecosystems. Those two fellow,

I can’t remember their last names, but their first names were

Steve, we called them the two Steves, they were sent off to Iraq

and Afghanistan. So we understand that. But that big picture view

of issues from an ecosystem perspective, and I just got through

reading a book about bogs, marshes and swamps, interlaced in that

book was an understanding of the ecology. The book was written

in 1966, so it is 40 years old. And the Chesapeake Bay program

is well adapted to this kind of a process.

I was going to say Bruce, but I guess in this formal setting, we

should say Mr. Knight. Your programs that you mentioned here

today dealing with flood mitigation, water quality, adequate water

supply, water conservation, soil erosion, fish and wildlife habitat

and so on, lends itself to this question and a request.

I could take, and maybe Mr. Middlebrook would like to come to

your St. Lawrence Seaway, but the Chesapeake Bay is a beautiful

place, I would like to take Mr. Woodley, General Strock, and Mr.

Knight on a short canoe ride-hike where we could look at all of

those issues in one small stretch, where soil erosion is an issue,
25

flood problems are issues, water quality problems are issues, habitat for fish are issues.

And in just a few hours, and I would supply the coffee, unless

you wanted something a little stronger, egg sandwiches if we did

it in the morning. But it would sort of lay out in this one small

section, it is called the Sassafras River, but it is very reflective of

the issues across the Chesapeake Bay, that we could go through

some of these issues, the regulatory questions we have, Westview

Shores, water quality, et cetera. So if before I leave, if I could get

your scheduler’s phone number, I will get my scheduler, and we

will get this thing pulled together.

I think my time has expired. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. I don’t

know if I have time to have some responses.

Mr. WOODLEY. I can tell you, Mr. Gilchrest, we were last together I think on Poplar Island. It was a very memorable occasion

for me, and I am very, very proud of the work that the Corps is

accomplishing in that context. I am always at your disposal for a

visit to the Eastern Shore.

You may recall that I was Secretary of Natural Resources for

Virginia, and had responsibility for Virginia’s part of the Eastern

Shore with the Accomack and those communities. So I have some

familiarity with it, but I am delighted to learn more.

Mr. GILCHREST. We call it the DelMarVa Peninsula. We should

be the 51st State, actually. We are a sandbar created by the quiet

movement of sediment down the Delaware and Susquehanna Rivers over about a million years, I guess. It would be a beautiful day,

we could start off in the morning and have some meetings of the

mind.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WOODLEY. Congressman, I could be there Saturday.

Mr. GILCHREST. Saturday? Saturday morning. Whatever time. I

will give you directions.

Mr. WOODLEY. We will get back to you, we will put that together.

Mr. GILCHREST. Saturday morning. Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Gilchrest, what about us?

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Everybody in this room is invited. And I will get

the canoes.

Mr. BOUSTANY. All right, thank you.

General STROCK. If I could also, Mr. Gilchrest, we will give you

complete details on your concerns over the presence of regulatory

personnel in the DelMarVa Peninsula. We did have one individual

who handled enforcement that retired. He is being covered, his absence is being covered by a person out of our Baltimore district.

But we do have a regulatory office that remains with two people

full time devoted to processing of permits. They are still there. So

it is being covered. And we will get back to you on the long term.

Mr. GILCHREST. You have an office in Easton with two men that

are there. We have known them for some time, we visited those

two people, the enforcement agent lives on the Western Shore,

must travel over.

General STROCK. That is right.
26

Mr. GILCHREST. I would like to sit down and discuss the difference between the way it is handled now and the way it was handled just a few years ago. Everybody that is working is fine, they’re

upstanding, they have a great deal of integrity and they work very

hard. But when we lost Alex Dolvus, it was like the Sioux Indians

losing Sitting Bull just before Custer showed up.

General STROCK. Sir, the budget proposal would allow us nationwide to hire about 50 more regulators. Certainly that will be distributed across, there may be some more resource that can be applied in that area.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, General.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. For the Indians’ sake, Crazy Horse did make it

there that day, much to General Custer’s chagrin, if I recall.

General Strock, thank you. I want to thank you personally for

your visit to south Mississippi in the immediate aftermath of the

storm. I know for the people of Bay St. Louis and Waveland, it

meant a lot for them to see you. I was very grateful for it.

I do want to commend the Corps overall. I think they have done

a very good job. There is nothing that human beings do that we

can’t do better. And one of the things I would pass on in the recommendations for next time, I found it strange, the process of actually moving the debris twice. Instead of having a final resting place

and just putting it in the truck one time, I think we ended up paying money unnecessarily both for the additional storage site but

also to truck it twice.

I know we had to do some things very quickly in the beginning,

when it was a true emergency. But something I hope that will

come of all of this as you look back on your plans for the next

storm, and I regret to say there will be a next storm, is to be able

to shift on the fly, so to speak, and make those changes. Somewhere about three weeks out, that should have just been going to

the final resting place.

The second thing is an ongoing problem that is coming to my attention. I realize this starts with FEMA, but you are FEMA’s agent

in at least two of the large counties on the Coast. FEMA is saying

that the removal of concrete is not a Katrina related issue. As one

of the many people who used to have a house and now has a slab,

I can assure you, those slabs are only there because the hurricane

took the house away.

And since another Governmental entity is telling all of us that

we have to raise our houses substantially, they are not going to get

rebuilt on a slab. So the slabs have to go. So I do think it is

Katrina related.

Now, where I am asking for your help, is that a lot of this concrete has been moved to the road’s edge and it is just sitting there.

It is not being picked up by the Corps. And I really believe it is

a resource that if used properly, we could be doing beneficial uses,

of building fishing reefs, building breakwaters, doing coastal erosion, solving that.

And since you are going be, eventually I think FEMA will agree

to moving that stuff, and since we are going to pay somebody $17

a yard just to throw it in a landfill, I would really hope in the little

bit of time that has been bought that the Corps could come up with
27

a plan to do some beneficial use for it. I know that we can identify,

each of our barrier islands is washing away. The State owns Deer

Island right off of Biloxi. It has washed away about a third in my

lifetime.

You have places like Bayou Caddy that are federally, they are on

the Federal books as far as being maintained by the Corps, where

I think if you had breakwaters on both sides, they would scour

themselves better and you wouldn’t do as much maintenance

dredging. So I would really encourage the Corps to try to make,

where we can, some lemonade out of the lemons we were dealt at

the end of August.

The other thing, I am sure you know from your geography that

if you go due north of the mouth of the Mississippi River, you are

just about back in the State of Mississippi. So I do pay very close

attention to Louisianan’s efforts for the coastal zone. I was curious,

as someone who is familiar with the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet,

if you could describe what you hope to accomplish by the gates. Because it is throwing me off a little bit, and I do not claim to be an

engineer. But I am familiar with the topography.

I don’t know what you accomplish by the gate when everything

around it is so low. It just seems to someone like myself that the

water ends up at that junction of the Industrial Canal and the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, whether there is a gate there or not, just

because it goes across the marsh.

I was hoping, as someone who is interested in this, that at least

one of the options you are looking at is letting the Mississippi River

Gulf Outlet just go back to being something like a barge canal and

let some of the fresh water diversion projects that have to date not

benefitted Mississippi very much could be coming off of the eastern,

what I call the eastern bank of the Mississippi River and replenishing the marshes due south of Mississippi, if you all have looked at

that as an option.

General STROCK. Sir, I can certainly answer the part on the closure structures that we are proposing. The actual closure structure

is not on the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. It is just to the west

of where the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway and the MRGO come together. There would be a closure there, and it is not a navigation

closure, it is a surge barrier that would only be closed during hurricanes. It would not permit navigation like a lock.

We would also propose one where the Inner Harbor Canal goes

up into Lake Pontchartrain. And the purpose of that with the existing lock on the Mississippi River, those three structures would isolate the inner harbor where we have had overtopping concerns and

we also have eyewalls in there that we are concerned about. So essentially what those do is close off the inner harbor, much like we

are going to do with the Dragon’s Canal, the 17th Street, Orleans

and London. That is the whole purpose of that. It would be impractical, as you say, to try to put some structure in MRGO based on

its length and geomorphology.

We are also proposing, the supplemental that is now before Congress, for about $100 million of wetlands restoration. Part of it is

for, we look at how we operate the Caernarvon Diversion for sediment as opposed to just saltwater and water transfer. And we are
28

also looking at using some of that to try to put in some protection

of the existing wetlands, to prevent further erosion in that area.

Mr. TAYLOR. Since I have your ear, one of the original diversions

was going to be at the Valud Canal, which is on the east bank

south of the city of New Orleans. It was actually scaled back because they felt like it was building, and again, this is from a Corps

report from a decade ago, but they felt like it was building wetlands too quickly. Well, I think we all know that that would not

be a problem today.

I would certainly encourage you to take a second look, since I

know how long the permitting process takes, and it has just been

my observation, it is a heck of a lot easier to grow a permit than

to start from scratch. I think if you are looking for some instantaneous change down there, that would be one way of doing it. And

quite frankly, it would be beneficial to the coastal area off of Mississippi.

But again, thank you, I do want to thank the Corps for the good

job you have done. I would encourage you to have some flexibility

in the contracting. It seems like, and we have spoken about this,

in the immediate aftermath of the storm, whoever had that contract had to show up with their own fuel, their own food, their own

showers, make their own electricity, fix their own equipment. And

you could see why the price was fairly high to begin.

But within a month, things were getting somewhat back to normal, where food and fuel and electricity could at least be purchased

locally. I would hope that in future, when this happens again, that

you could have a contract for the immediate aftermath and then go

to some sort of rebidding on the debris removal that would be more

advantageous for the local folks, more like the one month mark

rather than the five or six month mark like we have seen.

General STROCK. Sir, we are very sensitive to that, and that will

be a feature of how we operate in the future. I have a fact sheet

which details Mississippi’s subcontracting, small businesses and so

forth, to show we are actually transitioning in that direction right

now. I will share that with you after the hearing.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for

being here today, Mr. Secretary.

I represent the coast of South Carolina, from Kiawah on up to

Myrtle Beach. We have some particular concerns about some of the

items that are not funded in the request. One being the Intercoastal Waterway, which extends from somewhere around New

York down to Miami. We would like to have some idea about how

we are going to be able to continue to maintain that waterway.

I know that a lot of the criteria that you established is based on

commercial ton miles. I readily admit there is not much barge traffic on that particular waterway. But it is a vital part of the economy of my region and also I guess the other States that connect

that waterway.

So I would hope that when establishing the criteria for funding

that you would use models or some other form other than just the

commercial tons. Because tourism is a very important part of the

economy of South Carolina, particularly along the coast. I would
29

hope somehow that you would use that economic driver as part of

the formula.

The next question is the beach renourishment, which is a big

item for us along the coast. I noticed that we had about three or

four planned projects, and I noticed on the 532 items that were not

being addressed in this particular bill, that 4 of those are along

this stretch along South Carolina. I was just wondering about how

we were going to be able to go back and remedy our beaches.

I went to Mississippi and I saw what happened with the storm

surge there. A beach that is not nourished is going to certainly

have more interior damage than one that is nourished. So I would

just like to get some feel of how we plan to do the preventive maintenance in case there is a hurricane coming.

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. Brown, I think I should mention, in

regard to the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway and the other low-use

waterways and small harbors, that the first two budgets that I had

the privilege to submit to the Congress included a request of the

appropriations committees and the Congress as a whole for a specific fund or funds that would be used in the navigation program

to support the gathering of information necessary to prioritize and

to manage the small harbors.

I knew I was getting no support, within the Administration at

least, for anything outside of the major, the most major commercial

facilities. And I asked for it in the first year that I served, and I

was denied. And I am no less hard headed than anybody else in

this business, so I asked for it the second year, and I was denied.

And I was not so hard headed to ask for it the third year.

The second part of your question is certainly a matter that has

vexed the Congress and Administration for many years now. We

are perpetuating our suggestion that the initial construction of a

coastal storm surge barrier is a Federal responsibility that is costshared with the locality served, but that beyond that, the renourishment is a Federal responsibility only to the extent that renourishment is impacted and interrupted by a Federal channel,

which as you know is the case at Folly Beach. We have once again

proposed that.

I fully understand that the Congress has historically taken the

view, which is an entirely respectable view, that I have no real

quarrel with it, it is just you choose one and go with it. The concept

that we have is that that is not properly regarded as, the renourishment is not properly regarded as an operation and maintenance concept, but as part of the design of the facility itself, which

is, because of its nature as a sand berm, is a sacrificial structure.

I know that that is the way the structures are designed and the

way those projects are formulated. I understand that, and we are

not at all embarrassed when Congress establishes that policy and

funds it to execute that requirement, which is what we have been

doing. But as far as budgeting, right now, as of today, our budgetary policy and proposal is limited to those renourishments that

are impacted by Federal navigation.

Mr. BROWN. And that is an internal policy that’s established by

the Corps, or is that an act of Congress?
30

Mr. WOODLEY. No, sir, that is an Administration budgetary policy proposal that is embodied in the submission that we have made

to the Congress this year and in prior years.

Mr. BROWN. I notice, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. But

if I could just further comment on that, we have a major port at

Charleston, which is about a 45 foot depth port. And we have a 27

foot port in Georgetown. I know the Corps’ commitment to keeping

the Charleston harbor open is pretty evident.

But the Georgetown harbor, this year we had one ship that actually grounded at 27 feet. We were notified by the Coast Guard, and

no funds were available last year in order to continue the dredging

there. I just wonder if you could comment on that.

Mr. WOODLEY. On the specific port of Georgetown, I cannot. We

will have to take that for the record. In general, on maintenance

dredging, our maintenance dredging funds are extremely limited,

and we have been experiencing in the past couple of years increases in the bids that we received for maintenance dredging contracts. That is causing enormous management challenges for our

navigation districts, that they are working through as hard as they

can.

But I think that we will see challenges like the one you described

in all of our maintenance dredging operations. And we are committed, certainly, to manage it as closely as we can and to deal with

it. That is one of the reasons why we are presenting our maintenance budget on a regional basis rather than specific to each individual project this year, so that we could do our surveys, and if

Port A needs more work or spot work, we can do that with funding

that we find then is not necessarily needed at Port B without implementing a formal reprogramming of money from one project to

another, which the Congress has criticized as reflecting bad financial management.

Mr. BROWN. And I appreciate that, and I know that I am as

much a budget hawk as anybody else on this Committee. But I

know that we have certain infrastructure needs in this Country

that we have to satisfy. Sometimes the cost savings is going to be

more than the cost of the project. So we certainly want to support

you in whatever efforts we can do, as a member of this Committee,

to be absolutely sure that not all our infrastructure needs are met,

but at least some of the major projects are included.

General STROCK. Mr. Brown, I have just been handed a piece of

paper here that reminds us that in fact you did get $3.7 million for

Georgetown in the 2006 appropriation. The President has asked for

$3.6 million in fiscal year 2007. I don’t know where that fits in

terms of the requirement, but money is in the 2007 budget for this

project.

Mr. BROWN. That is correct, and the $3.7 million, we actually

had to compete in the appropriation process for that money, and

we really do appreciate your putting the $3.6 million in the 2007

budget. Because I think even the total is probably a $7 million, $8

million commitment. But we thank you for that.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Boozman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We appreciate our being here, Mr. Secretary and General Strock.

I apologize for not being here through the whole thing.
31

I just have a quick question. In fact, literally, I am meeting next

door with Colonel Walters. He does a great job keeping us informed

in the 3rd District of Arkansas about what is going on in the district, what is going on in the State. Again, we really do appreciate

working with the Corps.

We are going through a drought in that part of the Country right

now, a pretty significant drought. They have been very, very helpful in keeping the citizenry informed and being very helpful and

really allaying some of the fears that are going on.

The quick question I have is, has to do with the Clean Water Act

Section 404 permits as far as the average processing time now, and

then I guess in the budget there is $173 million for the regulatory

account. I guess my quick question would be, how do you feel like

that is going to affect the processing time, what is the processing

time now, and then how do you feel like it is going to affect it in

the future?

General STROCK. Sir, I will start out with some of the specifics

and then turn it over to the Secretary to complete the answer. I

mentioned earlier on before you arrived that we have about 900

project managers in our regulatory program across the Country.

The proposed increase will allow us to bring on around 50 more

regulators. So that kind of tells you it is about a 5 percent increase

in our capacity, our human capacity. That will not do a great deal

to eliminate the backlog.

Our current goal is that 75 percent of the permits, applications

we received will be finished in 120 days as long as they do not have

ESA implications. Right now the average processing time is about

190 days, so clearly we are not making our goal. And this will help

in some regard.

Some of the other things that help, though, as Mr. Baird mentioned earlier on, the application of Section 214 allows non-Federal

entities to come in and pay for essentially their own permit application processing. That takes pressure off the available funds we

have, and that is a help.

We are also, through the Army leadership, applying a business

transformation across everything we do, applying a process called

Lean Six Sigma. We think that that really does have some benefits

potentially in processes of regulatory permits. The Lean part talks

to increasing the speed of the process, and the Six Sigma talks

about the quality.

So there are a number of things we are going to work on. It is

not just a matter of buying more regulators. It is looking at our

process from top to bottom, so we are working real hard on that.

Mr. Secretary?

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you, General Strock.

Mr. Boozman, I thought I would have something to add to that

answer, but I scarcely do. I would only concur 100 percent, and say

that we know that there is not a member on this Committee that

would solve a problem just by throwing money at it. We feel a need

for a little more resources, and in every budget I have presented,

I have advocated for and gotten the President’s support for additional resources for this program.

But we see also the need to streamline, streamline is not exactly

the right word, but to transform our processes, to squeeze out the
32

waste, make them faster, make them better and improve our interface with other agencies, with the States, and improve our processes so that while we are adding resources on the one hand, we

are also getting more efficiency on the other.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. And again, I really do appreciate the Corps’ hard work.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Taylor, do you have additional questions?

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Secretary, I have noticed the kind of roller

coaster on the prices you pay for dredging and how much it has affected your ability to do maintenance dredging. I was curious if the

Corps maintains enough of their own dredges to where they can

have a pretty good baseline on what is a fair price to pay outside

of the Corps for dredging. Are you solely at the mercy of the private contractors?

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir, we do maintain a very substantial capability in the area of hopper dredges. I confess, I am not an engineer

and I don’t even play one on TV. I am just a lawyer trying to do

a job here.

But I have learned that there are numerous kinds of dredges. We

just presented a major report to the Congress on the hopper dredge

arena, and that essentially found that in the hopper dredge category that the private sector has over the last several years

stepped up to the plate, brought new equipment on board and is

capable of meeting a great deal of the need.

So we have on the other hand a very substantial capability within the Corps of Engineers. Right now we have in our Federal fleet

four major hopper dredges. I think our report suggests that one of

those could be phased out and the private sector could meet the

need.

As far as other kinds of dredges are concerned, our impression

is that we do have a strong industry and that we would not be

seeking additional organic capacity to compete with the private sector. Essentially, we feel we are getting a good level of competition,

but that the demand is increasing, and perhaps on a, what we

would hope would be a temporary basis, because of the need for

large amounts of work in the Gulf and Atlantic area associated

with damage to facilities from the extraordinary hurricane activity

in 2004, which was experienced again in 2005.

So we are hoping that that’s a high point and that 2006 will not

be so bad.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Secretary, I guess my question would be, these

are Congressionally mandated services that we provide for the citizens. When we say we are going to maintain a channel this wide

and this deep, it goes on the law books, it becomes our responsibility to fund it, your responsibility to get it done.

My question is, do you have a high level of confidence that you

are actually providing this Congressionally mandated service at the

lowest cost to the citizen by outsourcing it every time? Because my

fear is, I am hoping that you can allay those fears, that the lack

of a viable option within the Corps to do it yourself puts you at the

mercy of the private sector, which may not always be a good thing.

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir, it is a constant balancing act that we do.

Years ago, we had a very large fleet. I believe that it was the wisdom of Congress at that time, it was before my time, so I have to
33

hedge my testimony to some degree, there are probably members

here who recall it better than I would, but over time the idea grew

that that was something the private sector could take over from

the Government and that that would be a good thing in many

ways.

Although it never was that the private sector would take it over

entirely. And we have certainly maintained a good fleet of vessels

that we are very proud of. So I am, whether we have the right balance today is in doubt. It is constantly in doubt. I certainly would,

as I say, we have just been asked for a major study on the hopper

dredge arena, to examine that question. The other types of dredges

could also be studied, and the same question, whether we have the

right balance, could be determined. We have the balance that—

Mr. TAYLOR. For the record, obviously it is something you were

not expecting, so I can’t expect you to have an answer. But for the

record, I would like you to see if you have had any recent studies

as far as cost comparison on suction dredges.

The second thing is, if you could at some point update the Committee on, I know the Corps is one of the contractors that the Panamanians are speaking with on the possibility of a third set of

locks. If at some point, either verbally or in writing, if you could

inform the Committee where you stand on that.

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The District works closely with the Corps, even on matters that

do not relate entirely to water. The Corps is a major developer,

shall I say, or builder, for our schools. We are trying to wean away,

this is because the Corps’s GSA background or GSA type background would enable us to go through that process more quickly.

We are trying to get back to the point where the District does its

own schools, but I just want to say, I appreciate the kind of headache that it has been, and I know there has been a lot of controversy. But the Corps comes to see me every year, because there

are a number of other things involving at least the Nation’s capital

or the District.

I am not sure you are aware, and I would like to ask if you are

aware of the fact that this Committee did pass as a part of the

WRDA bill in July a section of my comprehensive Anacostia River

Act. You may be aware that that Act is sponsored by every, virtually every member of this region, Maryland, Virginia, Senate and

House. The Anacostia River of course is closely related to the issue

I spoke of in my opening statement, and that is the stormwater

overflow. It is going to be completely polluted until the stormwater

overflow is dealt with.

But the part of the WRDA bill that passed gives to the Corps a

special and important task. Because three jurisdictions are involved, because the water passes through these three States, it

asks that the Corps develop a comprehensive plan for revitalization

of the Anacostia River, that would of course take into account

stormwater overflow. That would involve the three jurisdictions

themselves and their responsibilities, getting them on board for
34

what it is they should be doing, along with of course our understanding as to how the Federal Government should contribute.

Even getting the three jurisdictions on the same page comprehensively would be a great and important step forward, because

each of these jurisdictions does contribute funds for the improvement of the Anacostia. And each has been quite willing to work

with the Corps and the Federal Government on this issue. We consider the Anacostia the kind of stepchild of the District of Columbia

rivers, because the Potomac was cleaned up, it must have been 30

years ago, and the Anacostia was left out there.

I am very anxious to work with you on this plan and the fact

that we have the entire region in a bipartisan way on the plan says

something about the importance that the region attaches to getting

to the Anacostia now. My side, which means the House of Representatives, has always paid good attention to WRDA. This is not

the first time we have gotten WRDA through and we are waiting

for Godot, which is to say, the Senate of the United States. They

are still twiddling, or perhaps they are busily at work. I just want

something to get out of here.

I simply want to know if you are aware of this duty that the

House has already approved that would place on you to bring every

part of it together on the Anacostia River. I would like your views

on the state of the river now. You have done some watershed work

in here in past years. So I would be most pleased to hear your responses to those questions.

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you, Ms. Norton. We not only are aware

of that, we would embrace that. You mentioned to Mr. Gilchrest a

moment ago that he would recall and you may also recall that I

came to this position from another position within the Department.

And before that, I was the Secretary of Natural Resources for Virginia. In my capacity, I worked on the Chesapeake Bay agreement

of 2000, in which the Anacostia was identified by the Chesapeake

Bay partners as one of the major areas of emphasis in the restoration within the watershed.

In that context, we would be very much in line with the Corps’

cooperation with the Chesapeake Bay partners that has borne a lot

of fruit in other areas, that we would be involved in the Anacostia.

You are aware of the Kingman Island restoration that is underway

as a continuing authority project within Baltimore District. We appreciate the support that that has received from the Committee in

the past.

The final thought I would leave of course is that as an element

of the Defense Department, you are also aware that there is almost

no element of the Defense Department that does not have a major

presence, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Army, on the Anacostia River. So as a representative of the Department in that context, I think we also bear a special responsibility to assisting the

jurisdictions to have a comprehensive plan for that cleanup. It is

something that the communities have come together on. I think

this is a very exciting time to be involved on the Anacostia.

Ms. NORTON. I thank you very much, Mr. Woodley. I look forward to getting that bill out. Of course, we would work with Lieutenant General Strock. Would you say something about the Anacostia River, any work that is going on as I speak? Kingman Island
35

was mentioned. Where are you on that, and where are we, as you

say, on Kingman Island?

And the other watersheds, when I came to Congress some time

ago, a few sessions after I came to Congress we began to work on

two or three wetlands. I know some of them are done and wonderfully done. Would you just give me a word on what you can remember that is going on now in the Anacostia and its wetlands?

General STROCK. Yes, ma’am. Certainly we are aware of the initiative in the WRDA and welcome an opportunity to act as an integrating function between the jurisdictions. In terms of the existing

project, we selected 13 sites initially. Ten of those are now complete. The local sponsor elected not to go with two sites in Prince

George’s County, and the remaining site is in Montgomery County.

Unfortunately, we have no funding, either in 2006 or proposed for

2007. But as soon as that funding might become available, then we

would proceed with the planning and construction of that 13th site

in Montgomery County.

Ms. NORTON. I understand—didn’t you do the site around

Langston Golf Course, another site around the electric plant, I am

trying to remember, there were at least three sites there were

funding for in the District of Columbia.

General STROCK. Yes, ma’am, we did do all the District of Columbia sites. The only ones we didn’t do are Prince George’s and one

in Montgomery. So those have been done. I can provide you details,

have the Baltimore District come in and provide an update on

where we are on those.

Ms. NORTON. Well, let me thank you for the work that was done

on our wetlands. We were thrilled that the funding did come

through for those wetlands some time ago and it has proceeded.

The wetlands of course is necessary to protect all the rest of it.

Those wetlands are right in the city and in those neighborhoods

that value the Anacostia River so much.

So I look forward to continuing to work with you, General Strock,

and of course to the rest of you, and to have among you an official

who knows this region well, and these terms and the value that the

entire region puts on trying to get the Anacostia in line with a

river that flows through, literally beats from the capital of the

United States and major facilities.

Again, thank you for your work and I look forward to working

with you. I want to thank the Committee once again that the Committee has included this ten year plan responsibility for the Corps

in our WRDA bill and may, God willing, it come out of the Senate

soon. Thank you very much.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Middlebrook, you have been sitting through

all this questioning very patiently. I have a question for you.

What impact will the tolls proposed in the budget request have

on the use of the Seaway, and do you expect a drop in traffic as

a result of this?

Mr. MIDDLEBROOK. We don’t, sir. Looking first of all historically

when tolls were taken off the Seaway back in 1987, there was the

anticipation that traffic would respond very positively and increase

at that time. In fact, it didn’t. Traffic began to decline somewhat

until the early 1990s, when it picked up.
36

What that is an indication of and why we don’t feel it will have

a dramatic impact is that the overall cost structure of a Seaway

voyage, looking at the total through costs from entering the system,

port charges, stevedoring costs, pilotage costs, when one looks at

that, the amount of tolls that would have to be charged to meet our

funding requirements probably is less than 5 percent. It is somewhere in the order of 2 to 5 percent. So it is not a significant

amount that is spread over those costs.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Gentlemen, that concludes all the questioning by the Committee.

We thank you for coming.

Mr. TAYLOR. Just a quick follow-up. Several of my harbors are

predominantly for oystermen and shrimpers. Because of the storm,

since almost all of the waterfront diesel sales have been curtailed

and all the waterfront ice distribution is at least temporarily gone,

since the oyster reefs were temporarily either destroyed or buried,

some of them are on the books, but that is the major cargo, it is

either shrimp or oysters.

So if someone were to do a snapshot BC study, all of them would

be out of business. What kind of reassurance can you give me that

that is not going to happen, that the Corps will be looking at the

long term and not just a snapshot since the last of August? Because it would very much affect the future of places like Bayou

Caddy, Pass Christian, the Gulfport shrimpers harbor, the inner

harbor at Biloxi which is used, you know, the outer harbor is used

for the coal barges, but the inner harbor is mostly for the

shrimpers. I am looking for a little reassurance here that that

won’t be the case.

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. When we do our analysis of cost benefit,

we will find a way to discount the areas, the losses due to storm

damage and to the inability of the resource to immediately rebound. We will find a way to deal with it based on historical data

and to allow them to compete fairly within our system, regardless

of the losses they suffered. I think that is only fair.

Mr. TAYLOR. General Strock, to your knowledge, and I realize

you can’t memorize, nor can anyone, every dollar in every bill, but

was there any money in the supplemental that passed as a part of

the Defense appropriations bill, Katrina related, was there any of

it geared towards getting those channels dredged? Or did they

come out of your O&M budgets?

Mr. WOODLEY. I am sure that it was our intention to include that

and I would have to look at the spreadsheet to see that it was included. But I—

Mr. TAYLOR. Could you answer that for the record?

General STROCK. We can answer that for the record, certainly,

sir. I know that in a number of the channels we did go in and the

supplemental provided the cost for that. If you are talking about

some of the smaller harbors that handle just oyster and shrimp

production, I do not know that any were specifically included in the

supplemental.

You know when we do our O&M allocations, we take rolling

averages to try to smooth out those curves that might be caused

by discrete events. This is a significant one, though, and your point

is very well taken. We need to really look at Katrina and the series
37

of storms that have surround her as extraordinary events and really understand the implications of that on our normal costing models for O&M.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay.

General STROCK. For the record, we will provide the details on

the other investments.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Gentlemen, that concludes all our questioning.

We thank you for your testimony and your answers to the questions. We do have some questions that we will submit in writing

to you, and we look forward to those answers.

That concludes this hearing. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104

Æ